Tuesday, March 31, 2009
When you find yourself
In some far off place
And it causes you to rethink some things
You start to sense that slowly
You're becoming someone else
And then you find yourself
When you make new friends in a brand new town
And you start to think about settlin' down
The things that would have been lost on you
Are now clear as a bell
And you find yourself
Yeah that's when you find yourself
Where you go through life
So sure of where you’re headin'
And you wind up lost and it's
The best thing that could have happened
‘Cause sometimes when you lose your way it's really just as well
Because you find yourself
Yeah that’s when you find yourself
When you meet the one
That you've been waitin' for
And she's everything that you want and more
You look at her and you finally start to live for some one else
And then you find yourself
That’s when you find yourself
When we go through life
So sure of where we're headin'
And we wind up lost and it's
The best thing that could have happened
‘Cause sometimes when you lose your way it's really just as well
Because you find yourself
Yeah that's when you find yourself
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
I expect that the "Noble savage" commentary was at least in part, directed towards me. This may come as a surprise, but I actually agree with you on that. I don't believe that First Nations were always "noble" or peaceful and living in harmony with each other and everything. Certainly, the Mohawks were not.
I believe in giving credit where it is due, and Saints Jean de Bréboeuf and Gabriel Lallement and the other martyrs deserve credit. As do the French for moving the Hurons to Loretteville (outside Québec City) to keep them from being decimated by the Iroquois.
Not all First Nations were the same, and some were certainly more peaceful than others. I read somewhere that the Iroquois/Mohawk believed that all the nations should be one. Which is why they attacked the others. Something like the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings, and Arabs. Within their own society, they were generally peaceful, civilized people. To those they conquered, or wished to conquer, they were not.
The greeks gave us great philosophers, but I would not have desired to be among the Hebrew people that were tortured and killed by Greek conquerors because they refused to give up adoring the one true God.
Many good things have come to the First Nations, as well as to those of us of European descent, because of the coming together of these cultures. I for one definitely appreciate Maple Syrup and snowshoes.
Mistakes have been made in the past, and there have been many misunderstandings because truly, the mind of the First Nations does not work like the mind of "whitemen".
Part of the problem of the Cree people may have come from well-intentioned people trying to give them an education but going about it the wrong way, but certainly, a good part of the problem comes also from themselves. Broken families, alcohol and drug abuse is certainly a big problem. Family is key. Those I grew up with who had strong families behind them are doing very well in life now.
Personally, I am at a point beyond caring. I say, let them try. Then those of us with a conscience can illegally seek medical care from illegal doctors. They can't force us to see legal doctors if we don't want to can they? It's our risk isn't it? Maybe that is what it'll take.
(...) the Obama Administration is now proposing to rescind the Freedom of Conscience laws that protect health care providers of faith. In other words, nurses, doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals will now be forced to offer abortion services or they could lose their ability to practice in their chosen profession.
We should all be very concerned. Just imagine if you or a family member had trouble finding adequate health care because those who practice medicine in your area had to leave their profession because of these regulations. This could be particularly devastating to rural areas or states with a high concentration of medical practitioners of faith. Both could be severely impacted because of the lack of health care available due to these new laws. Healthcare providers may resign from their professions. Hospitals will be shut down. And future doctors and nurses will choose another profession rather than be forced to participate in the destruction of life. (From UFI http://unitedfamilies.org/)
Real Mothers don't eat quiche;
They don't have time to make it.
Real Mothers know that their kitchen utensils
Are probably in the sandbox.
Real Mothers often have sticky floors,
Filthy ovens and happy kids.
Real Mothers know that dried play dough
Doesn't come out of carpets.
Real Mothers don't want to know what
The vacuum just sucked up.
Real Mothers sometimes ask 'Why me?'
And get their answer when a little
Voice says, 'Because I love you best..'
Real Mothers know that a child's growth
is not measured by height or years or grade...
It is marked by the progression of Mommy to Mom to Mother...
(Actually, I do eat quiche, sometimes, because when I make time to make it, I make a lot of them and freeze them away,... and they are not hard to make...
And my floors are very sticky at this very moment, but I am definitely taking care of that TOday!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
In light of the recent interview between Gilio Brunelli and Lifesite News, until such a time as you have put into place a pro-life policy, I can no longer support you monetarily. I have cancelled my Share Year-Round contribution, and I will not be participating in Share Lent.
I am deeply disappointed, as I was once an active member and representative of D&P in my Parish in Prince George BC, involved in the diocesan council, along with other very pro-life members. It is almost impossible to find socialist-leaning groups that do not support abortion.
It was an honour to be part of an organisation that does so much to help change the way people think about the poor and to help make things better, without supporting abortion too. So many groups, even "catholic" ones, who do similar work, also support abortion. I congratulate you on being one of the few that does not support abortion.
Unfortunately, not supporting or advocating for abortion oneself is not enough. I have the checked the links provided to some of your partners in Mexico myself. The second organisation listed in the Red Nacional de Organismos http://www.redtdt.org.mx/wwwf/mexicodf.php is this one : Católicas por el Derecho a Decidir.
Page 29 of this document http://www.redtdt.org.mx/wwwf/agenda/C_3.pdf from the same Network states the following:
Se necesita hacer operativo el derecho que tienen las mujeres que han quedado embarazadas por consecuencia de una violación sexual de interrumpir su embarazo.
("It is necessary to make operative the right that women have who have been impregnated as a consequence of rape to interrupt their pregnancy")
Noone is accusing D&P of advocating for, supporting, or performing abortions in any way. However, by supporting groups, networks and organisations that advocate for abortion, D&P is indirectly advocating for the right of women to abortion.
There are ways to get around this, by funding similar groups that do not advocate for abortion, by funding projects directly, instead of passing thrrough groups, or by sending your own personnel in to work with these groups on projects without actually giving them money, which frees up money for them to put into funding abortion rights.
For the moment, I will be happy to support your work through prayer, through political campaigns, by advocating for change, signing petitions, sending letters etc.
Once you have developed a pro-life policy I will be happy once again to support you financially.
What CCODP says:
What the Catholic Bishops say:
A Catholic law student helps us put it all together:
Personally, from what I see, I think I will be withdrawing monetary support to CCODP, until such a time as they implement a policy on abortion.
Monday, March 23, 2009
How to know a three-year-old is brain-damaged:
1. Everytime you go to the store, he says "I don't want to go in the stroller." You say, "but you have to go in the stroller, because you don't listen, and you run all over the place." He promises that he will listen this time and not run all over the place. Mostly you ignore his protestations and promises of good behaviour, because it is all for naught, but this time, you figure you are only going in a short time, so you give him another chance, and it takes not one minute for him to run off and not come back when you call.
2. He takes a pair of scizzors to the mosquito netting to let the cat in through the basement window, instead of letting her in through the door.
3. He breaks a toy because "he doesn't want it to turn red".
4. You go to the massotherapist, and while you are on the table, he steals your clothes and runs off with them.
I especially liked this part:
2. She is a Creationist. Progressives who are much smarter than you and not afraid to admit it know that all Christians believe that the universe was created in seven days and that the earth is 6000 years old. This belief is called Intelligent Design. They are much too smart to buy into the false notion that Intelligent Design is the teleological analysis of living things, primarily because they have never bothered to look up the word teleological. They have no need to because they know that if evidence of design is detected in living things, that implies a designer. They sensibly assume that if design was detected in living things, the public school system would collapse from the influx of Christian wackos who would, predictably, inundate the school system with preaching, hymn singing, and other unsavory practices. That certainly is not science. Science is the notion that the universe happened because it happened and there is no reason to inquire why it happened because it happened and we have sound evidence that it did. Governor Palin suggested that both Intelligent Design and Evolution be discussed in classrooms, certainly a dangerous thing to do. We cannot have students actually discussing and evaluating ideas in public schools. There mere thought of it ignites terror in the hearts of progressives who are much smarter than you and not afraid to admit it.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Le Quotidien/Opinion, 2009-03-18
Plus je m'informe et me renseigne sur le cours d'Éthique et Culture religieuse, plus cela soulève en moi des appréhensions. La ministre de l'Éducation, Michelle Courchesne, a présenté ce cours comme quelque chose de bon. Elle a dit : « Quand on sait, on accepte. Quand on ne sait pas, on se méfie ». Je crois que c'est plutôt le contraire ; plus j'en sais, plus je me méfie. Elle a rendu le cours obligatoire, donc, les parents ont perdu le droit d'exercer un choix fondamental pour l'éducation de leurs enfants. Que les mathématiques, le français ou la géographie soient obligatoires, ça ne dérange pas grand monde. Par contre, lorsqu'il s'agit de morale, d'éthique ou de religion, beaucoup de parents sont contre le fait que l'État enseigne des choses contraires aux valeurs et croyances qu'ils ont inculquées à leurs enfants.
On essaye de nous vendre ce cours en le présentant dans son habit du dimanche. Il est censé promouvoir des valeurs comme l'acceptation, l'ouverture et le dialogue, ce qui sous-entend que cela est un manque de la part des parents. D'ailleurs, pour ce qui est du dialogue, la ministre Courchesne a dit aux commissions scolaires que toute demande d'exemption devait être systématiquement refusée. Alors, merci pour le dialogue ! On pourrait dire la même chose pour l'ouverture et l'acceptation : son attitude intransigeante nous en dit beaucoup. Le gouvernement prétend que ce cours est neutre. Comment oser nous faire avaler ce mensonge, quand le responsable du cours au ministère de l'Éducation, M. Denis Watters, a déclaré, sur les ondes de Radio Canada, le 24 avril 2008 : « Ce n'est pas un programme neutre, je le dis haut et fort ; ce n'est pas un programme neutre ». Donc, si ce n'est pas neutre, c'est quoi ?
En gros, on fait la promotion subtile de deux idéologies ; le « relativisme » et le « pluralisme ». Le relativisme prétend que tout est relatif, qu'il n'y a rien d'absolu, que chacun a raison à sa manière. Le pluralisme est un peu comme son frère jumeau. Dans le pluralisme, on affirme que toutes les religions sont bonnes, que toutes les opinions sont bonnes, on tolère tout et n'importe quoi pour éviter des conflits. Affirmer que toutes les religions sont bonnes est un non-sens ; une religion enseigne que nous avons une seule vie à vivre, une autre enseigne la réincarnation et plusieurs vies à vivre. L'une des deux est forcément dans l'erreur. Le ministère de l'Éducation prétendait vouloir sortir la religion des écoles et, maintenant, il essaye d'en enseigner sept différentes à nos enfants. En réalité, il les enseigne mal et les banalise pour finir, en bout de piste, par enseigner une religion d'État qui est contraire aux choix de la majorité des parents. N'oublions pas que 80 % des parents se trouvaient confortables dans l'enseignement religieux catholique ou protestant avant cette manigance de cours d'Éthique et Culture religieuse.
Insulte aux croyants
Le philosophe Gérard Lévesque croit que ce cours « jette le discrédit sur les croyances ». Il dit, également : « Ce programme est davantage une injure à l'endroit du fait religieux comme tel et une insulte aux croyants de toutes les confessions ». Avis que je partage. Que penser d'une déclaration du concepteur de ce cours, M. Fernand Ouellet : « Dans le contexte actuel, il ne suffit pas d'éduquer à la reconnaissance et au respect de l'autre, il faut aussi apprendre à ébranler la suffisance identitaire. » Que ce cours serve à ébranler la suffisance identitaire d'enfants de 6-7-8 ans (et plus) me donne des frissons dans le dos. C'est déjà un défi pour la plupart des parents d'inculquer des valeurs à leurs enfants et l'État déclare ouvertement vouloir les détruire ; on croirait se réveiller d'un cauchemar, mais c'est la triste réalité. Ce cours devrait être aboli, car il va créer de la confusion dans l'esprit de jeunes enfants qui n'ont pas la maturité pour peser le pour et le contre de ce qui leur est imposé.
Jacques-André Fortin, Dolbeau-Mistassini
Thursday, March 19, 2009
How all business phones should be answered!The header for the e-mail was "OHHHHHH BOY DO I EVER AGREE !!!!!"
'GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO CANADA
Press '1' for English.
Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.
I promptly returned the e-mail with my comment:
I disagree, coming from both English and French backgrounds and having lived with Cree people in the North, where many of the elders spoke only Cree but within 2 generations, they are now struggling not to lose their language forever.The response was:
In order to maintain a semblence of unity, coherence, stability, strength & all the rest, a nation must have one predominant language to tie everything together.....it is commonsense...a Tower of Babel is too fragile & cannot withstand the forces of nature & aggressive armies arrayed against it...multi-culturalism, multi-linguism may be appealing to out-of-touch ivory tower academics, but in terms of realistic public policy, a strong one predominant language such as English (the number 1 language in the world) is absolutely necessary for the nation's unity & survival.That was a bit of a shock. So, he is proposing that Québec separate? Because that is what it sounds like to me, although most conservative types don't believe in the separation of Québec, which leaves only one other obvious option, the anglicisation of Québec. Ummm, that's not going to happen, and if government leaders in Ottawa started saying things like the above and then started implementing changes in order to achieve the above, you can be sure that Québec would not be long in having another referendum on sovereignty and this time it would win by a landslide. And I'd be most likely on the "yes" side.
I wrote back to him, trying to choose my words, because I do respect the guy and agree with him on many things, but it got a little long, so I sent this version instead:
With all due respect, if people want to make it work, I believe they can. If not, Québec will HAVE to separate, because they will never give up French as their predominant language.
Without getting into details, which I was going to do, but it got too long, let's just say that the eagerness of the English to make their language and customs dominant, among peoples, such as the Cree, has had a rather nefarious outcome.
I believe that the people who started and worked in residential schools probably had good intentions, and believed that they were doing "right", by teaching the little "savages" to become civilized. However, they were sadly mistaken. Young children need their families more than anything else. I believe you can agree with that. Taking them away from their families, punishing them for speaking their language or for practicing customs that were not "civilized", forcing your culture on them and your language, and then returning them to their communities to become lost sheep, as they once again struggle to re-adjust to a community that had not changed while they were away, and in which they no longer knew the social dos and don'ts was a very bad idea. I speak first hand, as I, as well as my fellow Cree school-mates suffered from a continuing cycle of criticism, of being jeered at if we wanted to better ourselves, or if we were proud of our accomplishments, or if we acted in ways or wanted things that were considered "white". I more than others, most likely, because I WAS white. The suicide rate in these communities is high. The son of one of my friends just commited suicide the other day. He was only 19. He left behind
a girlfriend and a baby.
I respect your opinion. I can even understand it. It makes sense for a country in which other languages are truly a minority. When I lived in BC, my children went to French school, we had a French Community centre, and we spoke French to each other, but outside of the French community, we did not expect to be served in French. But French is predominant in Québec. Here in Québec, my children go to English school, but when I go somewhere public, I expect to be served in French. That is how it should be.
French is not going to go away. And forcing a language on people, especially when they are the original inhabitants of a place, and cannot be told to "learn English or go back to where you came from", is obviously not a good idea either.
This is what I originally wrote but didn't send because it was getting long:
I also respectfully disagree with the thought that there cannot be unity without one predominant language. The US way of government is not a bad idea, with more power to the States, and less power to the Federal government. What you need is a common spirit, a common goal, a common desire. How each region, or in our case, how each people achieves that, and in which language, is their own business. Individual provinces don't have to be bilingual (unless there is good reason to become so, and in most cases there is not), as long as things are bilingual at the Federal level. If Québec only had a smattering of French communities, while the rest was English, then there would be no point in having an officially blilingual country. However, you have a WHOLE province, twice as big as some European countries, that is predominantly French-speaking, and not only that, but that also has a different culture, a different way of doing things, and a different way of expressing itself.
Funny that this would come up now, as yet another youth in the Cree community has committed suicide. I grew up with constant criticism and racism. To be white was the worst insult you could throw at a person. If you did something well, and were proud of yourself, you were jeered at. People didn't hand out compliments. I was told I was undesirable and that no guy would ever want to marry me. I thought it was just me, that it was just racism directed against me because I was the only white girl.
Others, Cree people themselves, many who have left our village and come back, to find that their own children are now going through the same things, are starting to speak out. Especially since the last suicide. It turns out I wasn't alone. It seems that anyone who wanted to educate themselves and succeed in life was jeered at for wanting to be "white". The whole community, and others near it have been going through these cycles of criticim and negativity towards what they perceive as being "white" and towards each other as well. Each generation passes it on to the next. One man recently wrote that he held grudges against other people only because he "was told to", and had no idea for what reason.
Why do they do this? Constantly belittle each other and put each other 'back in their places"?
Back in the 50's-60's, a lot of young children were taken away from their parents and their communities and brought to boarding schools, where they were forced to learn English, and punished if they spoke their native language. In some cases apparently, siblings were also punished if they showed affection for each other. I don't know what else went on in residential schools, because I wasn't there. But even if most people treated the native people "kindly" the fact remains that they still tore them away from their families and communities at an age when they needed them most, and they still punished them for things they should not have been punished for. I give the benefit of the doubt to the people who started these schools, as they probably honestly thought they were doing good, giving the little children a good education and making them all good christians. The goal was not a bad one, it was the method that was very wrong.
This is where you wonder why people do not pause to think for a minute about whether or not they would want done to them what they are about to do to others. It's quite simple, really. Would the same people have wanted Islamic Arabs to come into their villages, take away their children, and, no matter how kindly it was done, refuse to let them speak English, make them learn Arabic, teach them to be good muslims, and punish them if they did anything christian or European? You cannot force religion or culture on people, you can only share with them and if they decide of their own accord to convert or accept your culture, then they are doing it on their terms, without needless suffering.
Native children were given a "white" education and then were returned home to their communities. If going to residential school was not a rude enough culture shock for them, then certainly coming back to their communities, having lost much of their customs, being useless as hunters or gatherers, having to relearn the cultural dos and don'ts must have been.
Is it any wonder then, that people who learned through criticism, who were told that who they are was not "good enough", who were torn away from their families and everything they knew at a young age and thus psychologically damaged would not pass that attitude down to their children and so on and so forth? Is it any wonder that anybody who wanted what was perceived to be "white" was jeered at and put in their place? Is it any wonder that "whiteman" was the worst insult you could label a person with?
To this day, I have a hard time accepting compliments. I still catch myself ignoring them instead of smiling and saying thank you. Because the impulse to protect myself from the sneering of others as they put me in my place because I'm proud of something I accomplished, or proud of who I am is still there.
It affected my relationships with men too, because I would reject them or push them away before giving them the chance to reject me or laugh at me because I thought maybe I was good enough for them. I would panic when guys were attracted to me. I honestly didn't know what they wanted and expected the worst.
On the bright side, it has also made me who I am today. Someone not afraid of being counter-cultural. Someone who, despite being afraid of criticism, will still speak out for what she believes in. Someone who does not give up easily when she wants something. I thank my family for that.
If I did not have the family I had, I believe I too, would have seriously considered suicide. At times when I thought noone liked me, when I got beat up after school EVERY damn day, when kids put burdocks in my hair and stole my mits, spat on my desk, took my pens and sought me out on the playground to punch me, I knew my parents loved me, and I knew that God loved me, and I knew from various trips south to visit cousins, that elsewhere was different. I only had to get out of there, and things would be different.
I find it rather ironic that the whole residential school project backfired and ended up not only screwing up the Cree people, but a few white kids who grew up with them as well.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Azarias priait debout, au milieu de la fournaise : « Pour l'amour de ton nom, Seigneur, ne nous abandonne pas à jamais, ne répudie pas ton Alliance. Ne nous retire pas ta miséricorde, pour l'amour d'Abraham ton ami, d'Isaac ton serviteur, d'Israël ton élu. Tu leur as promis une descendance aussi nombreuse que les étoiles dans le ciel, et que le sable sur le rivage de la mer. Seigneur, nous sommes devenus le plus petit de tous les peuples, et aujourd'hui nous sommes humiliés sur toute la terre à cause de nos péchés. A présent, nous n'avons plus ni chef, ni prophète, ni prince, plus d'holocauste, de sacrifice, d'oblation, plus d'offrande de l'encens, nous n'avons plus de lieu pour t'offrir les prémices et trouver grâce auprès de toi. Accueille-nous cependant avec notre âme brisée et notre esprit humilié, comme si nous présentions un holocauste de béliers et de taureaux, un sacrifice de milliers d'agneaux gras. Que notre sacrifice de ce jour soit aujourd'hui devant toi, et qu'il obtienne ton pardon, car ceux qui espèrent en toi ne seront pas déçus. Et maintenant, de tout notre coeur nous te suivons, nous te craignons et nous recherchons ton visage. Ne nous laisse pas dans le déshonneur, agis envers nous selon ton indulgence et l'abondance de ta miséricorde. Délivre-nous en renouvelant tes merveilles, glorifie ton nom, Seigneur. »
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Sometimes I wonder why I bother. It would be so easy to just give in to the "dark side". No more worrying about finding a mass that fits into the schedule, no more convincing contrary kids to get ready, no more stress sitting in mass trying to keep boisterous kids quiet, and no more worrying about the lack of support. I could just leave it all and never set foot in a church again. And believe me, going without the kids is not an option, because if I am not taking my kids, there is no reason for me to be going either.
The truth of the matter is; errr... "Hello, my name is Jeanne and I'm a Eucharist-addict."
There are certainly worse things I could be addicted to.
Sex, for one, or money or power, or drugs, or alcohol, or more likely in my case, THINGS.
I like beautiful things. I like to decorate. I walk around stores and every season I drool over the beautiful new themes for decorations that have come out. If I were addicted to things, I would probably re-decorate the house every season, putting the old stuff in boxes, to be taken out again... um, never? Because there would always be something newer and more interesting. And the old things would collect dust until I threw them out or gave them away. And still, I would buy more stuff. I would have a designer home, if I had the money for it and no kids. I could totally see myself sitting with my husband and our one child in some designer home where everything matches everything else, and all the furniture is classy and expensive.
I would probably wear beautiful things too, and always be at the height of fashion. My wardrobe would also change every season, as would the wardrobe of my precious designer child.
Or, being naturally ego-centric, not being able to attain that kind of lifestyle, I could easily become disagreeable, crabby and resentful.
I could see myself getting addicted to sex. Once I'd had some, I'd want more, and then I'd want it to be more daring, and do it different ways, in different situations, getting more and more wild, in order to get that little thrill of excitement, changing partners, having more than one partner... But then I'd just feel empty inside, once it was all over, and want to go on to find the next big thrill.
I don't doubt that somewhere along the way, if I were not addicted to mass, I would become addicted to any one of these things, to varying degrees.
I also don't doubt that I would be a much more disagreeable, disloyal, self-centred unhappy, resentful, impatient, uncaring person.
I think, ironically, my husband can consider himself lucky that I do go to mass, and that I am addicted to it, and that I will keep going to mass. If I am not perfect now, imagine what I would be like if I had no mass!
That host that I receive every Sunday, is the only physical form of food for my soul that I receive. It doesn't matter if the priest gives a good homily, or if I have to roll my eyes a bit, or more likely in my case, that I don't even get to listen to the homily because I am busy shushing the kids. It doesn't matter if the priest is a hypocrite who says one thing but does another, or if he is a saint, hiding behind a meek manner. It doesn't matter if the people around me frown at my kids or smile indulgantly. It doesn't matter where the tabernacle is placed, to the side, to the middle, or if there are kneelers or not.
What matters in the end is that little round host. That is what I am there for. That is what I need to make it through my week. That is what I need to not break down and give up or melt down or go nuts or just do it my way or no way. The rest is secondary. I can read the readings and the gospel at home.
I need my eucharist. I need that life of God within me.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
But then there are also commentaries like this one:
Bush's wise words
By Catherine S. Nelson
National Post Published: Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Re: Death-Row Inmate Hopes For Transfer, March 7.
Although I am not usually one to quote George W. Bush, I think one of his statements from back when he was governor of Texas is worth recalling in the case of Ronald Smith.
It was at a time when a Canadian was on death row in Texas. As the usual "anti-death penalty" suspects gathered to wring their hands and lament such punishment for a perpetrator of a truly heinous crime, a reporter for CBC interviewed governor Bush. The reporter gave him a caustic tongue-lashing about the inhumanity of the death penalty, which ended with the question: "Mr. Bush, do you have anything you would like to tell the Canadian people?" To which the governor replied: "Why yes, I would like to tell the Canadian people not to come to Texas and murder anyone."
I don't get that. I am sure all the people on the mailing list are pro-life because it has a very pro-life perspective. Yet we condone the death penalty? Not only that, but those who don't are "anti-death penalty suspects"?
Does this make me a person to not be trusted just because I do not believe that the death penalty is the best way to treat people? Especially since more than one innocent person has been executed? You can't bring an innocent person back to life.
But that's beside the point. What about giving people a second chance? Punish them, yes. They must take responsibility for their actions. But should they not also be allowed to regret their actions and be given a chance to change their ways?
Most of the people on this list, including the one who sends it out, are christian. Do we not believe in repentance and forgiveness?
My godmother works in a soup kitchen. She had to wonder at the circumstances of people's lives that brought them to where they are today. She mentioned someone who does ministry in jails, who had said something about how in all the time he had done ministry in prisons, he had never once met one bad person.
Perhaps we need to think deeply about changing our society as well as rehabilitating prisoners. I have to say, most prisoners are probably victims of society. Perpetrators of heinous crimes weren't born heinous. They lose their way somewhere. A lot of things that society has decided to close their eyes over and not see, or things that society has come to accept as "okay as long as everyone is consenting and noone gets hurt", or things that society has deemed that we must have; money, sex, power, this is what makes people lose their way.
Gustavo Gutierrez wrote that these things are the idols of the Old Testament that demand blood. God does not demand that blood be spilled for him. Anything else we put before Him, the "idols" of money, power, greed, lust, convenience, these are the things that demand sacrifices. These are the things that want human blood at their "altars". When a society turns to these idols rather than God, is it no wonder then that blood is spilled and heinous crimes committed?
I do not believe that God asks for the blood of anyone in order to make up for their heinous crimes either. He sent His son in our place to do that.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
In a nutshell:
CBC’s reporter Paul Hunter misleads Canadians re EMBRYONIC stem cell researchGo here to let Obama know you are disappointed in his decision.
Written by Joel Johannesen
Read Comments/Make Comments (There's 0 so far)
Either he’s stupid or he’s purposely lying to Canadians. Sadly this is the choice at CBC today, and at any of the left-wing media, which seem to have an agenda. And it’s important that we consider the ramifications of a taxpayer-funded state-owned news media which employs stupid and/or deceitful reporters and staff who seem to be leading an agenda and swaying opinions. This is my opinion.
After live coverage on the CBC of President Obama signing an executive order allowing federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research, the socialism-reliant CBC’s reporter Paul Hunter repeatedly referred to it as funding for “stem cell research”, rather than “EMBRYONIC stem cell research”, the difference between which is precisely the point of this news item. (See the wording under his head on my screen capture). In fact it is the ONLY point of this news item. Federal funding has always been allowed for regular stem cell research—ADULT stem cell research. But Hunter purposely reported it as if that salient point didn’t exist. As if there is no difference between “EMBRYONIC stem cell research” and “stem cell research”. As if all or nearly all stem cell research generally had been all but banned under President Bush, but has now been freed by The Great Obama who, unlike George Bush, believes in science. This is a transparent effort to influence the thinking of Canadians, as I see it.
And it’s a lie.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful. Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Give and gifts will be given to you; a good measure, packed together, shaken down, and overflowing, will be poured into your lap. For the measure with which you measure will in return be measured out to you. Luke 6,36-38Easier said than done though. How does one go about doing this, without fearing being put off, brushed aside, ignored, laughed at, or disappointed? And how does one get past the tangled roots and branches of unsaid things, and misunderstandings and push through the pain of misconceived notions to reach out again?
It's so much easier to just wrap oneself in a cocoon to avoid being hurt.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
The legal ramifications of this concern me because I already have opposition to my bringing up my kids in the Catholic faith.
I think some of their "possible outcomes" are a tad far-fetched... but then who thought polygamy in Canada would ever even be considered and it is being seriously considered in BC courts at this very time...
Here is the e-mail I received from UFI:
Being a parent is one of the greatest joys we have in this world. Being able to guide, direct, encourage and support your child is what being a parent is all about. That could all come to an end for parents all over the world if the treaty named the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is ratified. Currently, only two countries have not ratified this treaty: the United States and Somalia. This treaty will substantially change the rights parents have to raise their children and will treat the government as an equal partner in the parenting process.
Today, as a parent, you can choose how to educate your child about your religion. You get to decide how to teach them about homosexuality, chastity, morality and abstinence. If you feel that your child needs discipline - you get to decide what that discipline will be and how it will be administered. These are the choices and responsibilities that come with being a parent.
However, the CRC treaty mandates that children will have the right to appeal any of these decisions made by their parents. Parents will not be given the right to teach their children about their religion or impart their moral standards and wisdom. Children can appeal any disciplinary actions that parents want to impose. Government would then decide whether that discipline was appropriate or not.
This should concern all parents! Senator Barbara Boxer, this past December, announced that the CRC would be ratified by the Senate within two years. President Obama announced that by ratifying this treaty we would once again "resume our global leadership in human rights".
During the next two weeks while United Families International is attending the Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, we will be focused on fighting the language contained in this treaty. You can monitor our progress at the CSW blog by clicking here! While we will be focused on issues like abortion and homosexual rights, we will also be working to stop this treaty from being incorporated into the document which will be signed by countries around the world. We will be working to protect the rights of parents to determine how their children will be raised. If protecting your rights is important to you, please consider making a $20, $50 or even $100 donation today to help us continue to protect your family.
PresidentUnited Families International
Children's Rights Create Confusion Over the Role of Parent
At every stage of life, there is no greater resource and refuge for a child than the love of a parent. Time and time again, studies have found and affirmed that the nurture and love of parents plays a crucial role in positively shaping the future of their children." - parentalrights.org
The rights of parents to raise and protect their children have been a long standing tradition around the world and in American history. That right is now being threatened! An international attitude of preferring the state over the parent is becoming more pervasive and alarming as more and more activists in the international community seek to transform parental rights into parental responsibilities and then assume it is the right of government to enforce those responsibilities over parent's wishes. This concept has manifested itself into an international treaty called the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC).
Regardless of how well intentioned government may be, it can never replace the love and nurture of a parent in the life of a child.
What Are Children's Rights?
Almost all jurisdictions recognize basic rights for children. Children have a right to have food, shelter, receive education, etc. Legal rights also include the right not to be physically, sexually or emotionally abused. These rights are afforded to all human beings regardless of age. And, no one would deny them. The concern arises when "moral theory" becomes binding law directed by an international treaty.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) was adopted at the UN in 1989. All but two member nations have ratified the treaty - one being the United States. The CRC is a treaty that mandates a broad range of rights to children, based on the right to have their "best interests" be "a primary consideration" in every aspect of life; the 'inherent right to life' (Article 6), and the right of a child "who is capable of forming his or her own views ... to express these views freely in all matters affecting the child" (Article 12) (United Nations 1989). What the treaty does not recognize is the difference between basic human rights of a child and the philosophical or moral duties of parents. Children do not have the cognitive skills to determine what is in their "best interest"; societies and governments have left that role to the family...until now.
The End of Parental Rights and National Sovereignty in the US?
In the U.S. the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, is one vote away from ratification. If the treaty is ratified, and all signs are it will be, the U.N., with the support of the Obama Administration and the liberal U.S. Congress, will turn the fundamental unit of society - the family, into government regulated child care.
U.N. treaties are overseen by appointed U.N. commissions that take precedence over national and state law. Imagine the U.S. being ruled by international law designed and implemented by non-elected foreign delegates with no possibility of redress!
Commission on the Status of Women: A Battle Against Families
Monday, the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women - 53rd session (CSW) began. For decades, anti-family forces have been at work trying to destroy the family and society as we know it, including motherhood, fatherhood and the family.
United Families is there and poised to monitor the status and suggest changes to the CSW "Agreed Outcome" Document as it makes it way through the process. So far, every indication leads us to believe that the 53rd CSW and the "Agreed Outcome" Document is a ruse for pushing the ratification of two treaties, abortion on demand, and homosexual rights. The CRC and CEDAW (The Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women) are highlighted throughout the Document as key to achieving human rights for women without regard to the rights of parents, nations, cultures and religious beliefs. The initial draft Document includes language that: "urges Governments, in cooperation with the United Nations system to take the following actions: ... b. Ratify without reservations, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the Optional Protocols thereto, and the concluding comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The Consequences of the CRC
Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College has been quoted as saying that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, will allow the government to review every major decision a parent makes to decide whether it is in the child's best interest. Of course, a "child's best interest" is in context of the individual child, not within the family unit.
The CRC treaty creates very specific rights for every child, including social, religious, cultural, economic, etc. Some of these rights are well-intentioned. For instance, the treaty calls on governments to protect the child from sexual abuse and child slavery. It recognizes that parents or legal guardians "have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child," but in the end parents' decisions can be trumped by government on behalf of "the child's best interest"; whatever that means. Possible Consequences to Ratification of the CRC include:
Every major decision regarding your child will be overseen by your local Child Protective Service Agency through government social workers.
Parents who require their child to go to church, do certain chores, eat certain foods, tend to younger siblings, etc. can be reported to government authorities by their rebellious children.
Children will choose what religion they will join and if and when they will attend services.
Family leisure activities and strictness of chores will be determined by government.
Nations will be required to spend more on child welfare than on national defense.
Religious schools and home schooling may be forced to close down.
Parents will be mandated to keep their children in all sex education classes.
Children will have the right to all reproductive health services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
The result of such a law has a real possibility of causing mass confusion on the part of families; children being raised without boundaries and parents will parent with fear of reprisal. Child abuse and neglect will no doubt escalate. Orphanages will re-emerge to meet the demand for child placements and children will be removed from their homes in record numbers. An already overburdened and failing child welfare system will create a generation of children with mental health problems and juvenile delinquency. Families are the foundation of society. We must not allow the integrity of the family and parents to be destroyed by senseless government intervention and international laws and norms.
What you Can Do to Stop CRC
Join United Families as we continue our fight to preserve a future for the family.
1. Call your Congressmen and Senators and tell them we do not want the CRC ratified.
2. Email the US representative to the UN Commission of the Status of Women and head of the US delegation(put in subject line attention: Meryl Frank) and tell her we do not want language in the outcome document that mandates the ratification of the CRC or CDAW. Do it today! Our children and the future of society depend on it.
FOLLOW UFI AT THE UN!
Check out the CSW blog for a unique look inside of the United Nations and for special insight as to why we should all be concerned with the happening of the UN! Click HERE to check it out!
Please donate $20, $50 or $100 to protect your parental rights. We cannot do it without you.
Please Forward This On To Others Concerned About The Family
UNITED FAMILIES INTERNATIONAL
PO Box 14908
Irvine, CA 92623
Phone: (877) 435-7834Fax: (480) 892-4417
Web site: http://www.unitedfamilies.org/
Of course these are exceptions. After all, insanity is normally the exception. Most people don't murder, most people don't rape, most people don't swindle huge sums of money. And when they do, if they get caught, they see justice.
The problem comes when the exceptions can get away with their insanity, completely endorsed by the government, and nothing can be done about it.
Something definitely needs to be done about this. When you are part of an oppressed group, and you fight for your rights or freedoms or whatever, and win them, does it make you a better person to then turn around and start oppressing anyone who is not a part of your group, regardless of their personal views, which may not even be opposed in any way to your group in the first place?