Clearly Nebulous

Prez: Done Apologizing to Afghanis? Write a Letter to Iran

It was the lead story on MSNBC's website today: Pres Obama sent a letter to the president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, apologizing for the inadvertent burning of Qurans at a NATO base in that country.

In the third day of rioting over an act the Afghani faithful consider highly blasphemous, two U.S. soldiers were killed, bringing the total dead to at least seven. 

MSNBC reports that Obama wrote: "The error was inadvertent; I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible."

But the killings of the Americans is anything but inadvertent, as the Taliban has called for the deaths of Westerners in retaliation. No word on exactly how many deaths are called for...

What are the odds that Karzai will apologize for the overreaction of these radicals and hold them responsible? Not bloody likely. Once again it will be about us turning the other cheek while they slaughter our citizens over the slightest offense. *sigh*

 

Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani has refused to renounce his Christian faith and is sentenced to be executed in Iran.

As long as PBO is in a letter-writing mood, why not pen a note to the Irani government about Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani who has been sentenced to die for converting to Christianity? Fox News is all over the story, too, and reported on their morning show how a final verdict came down yesterday.

While CNN reported on Nadarkhani's case in January, there was no mention of this latest development. (That was one story more than MSNBC, ABC and CBS who apparently find no interest in this tale of Christian persecution.)

If you want to remain apprised of this man's fate, you can sign up for alerts from "Tweet for Youcef" on Twitter.

Update: Wow, when I write the White House listens -- statements about this case were issued the day this post was written!

No MSM Baby Joseph Stories because it Shows All-Too-Real "Death Panel"?

I have not seen this story at all myself on any network other then FOXNews, and they are correct in calling it an "exclusive" today -- while I was able to find a few older stories (not any from the WashPost or MSNBC) no one but FOX is reporting the victory in this end-of-life case.

Could it be because this story shows exactly the types of decisions that are reached by government-controlled panels under national health care systems? Whereas, of course there should be a review of cases by professionals, when the conclusion reached denies a family the right to carry out their own wishes in how their child will be cared for in their final days, how can such a group be called anything but a "death panel"?

Baby Joseph has a rare disorder that Canadian doctors say will end his life very soon. They wanted to remove his respirator, leading to what would appear to be an immediate death. The family asked that instead, the doctors perform a prodedure that would allow Baby Joseph to be taken home to live out his last days.

 

Father Frank Pavone fought hard to allow Baby Joseph's dad to bring him to a facility that will listen to his family's wishes.

 

But the single story I found on ABC News (from 10 days ago) amazingly recounted that the Consent and Capacity Board, an independent body created by the government of Ontario, refused to allow this. In other words, a board knows better than parents how a child should die.

Supporters of the Canadian system would argue that the child's death is inevitable, so there is no sense in prolonging his life. This, of course, is the conclusion reached by doctors whose job it is to think about bottom lines.

Thankfully, as FOX reported today, through the efforts of Priests for Life and other anti-euthanasia groups (including Terri Schiavo's brother, Bobby) Baby Joseph was flown to SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in St. Louis, Missouri on a specially equipped air ambulance. The Center provides medical care for no cost to children in need.

It will be interesting indeed to find out what the doctors at this Center determine about Baby Joseph's condition.

It's no wonder the MSM has shied away from this story. Not only does it show what is essentially a "death panel" decision, but it shows the compassion of pro-life group's that are willing to care for a dying child to allow him to live out his natural life. And he will be cared for by those who are truly interested in his well-being -- not balancing a budget. This tale clearly reveals scenarios that would be all-too-real here in the U.S. unless we stop Obamacare.

The New Egyptian "Democracy": Women and Christians Need Not Apply?!

Buried on page 14 of the Washington Post today was a story that is a bad omen for women in post-revolutionary Egypt. A march of about 300 women in Tahrir Square on International Women's Day ended when men began attacking the women, shouting at them and sexually groping them. (Apprently Egypt is second only to South Africa in the sexual molestation of women.) 

The article stated: "Gone was the spirit of equality and cooperation between the sexes that marked most of the historic mass gatherings in the square." Although a chain of men had surrounded the women to protect them, they were overpowered by those who feel that women should not have a place at the table as Egypt forges a new constitution.

But at least this story made the pages of WashPo -- there was no mention of another clash between Muslims and Christians, who make up only about 10% of the Egyptian population, that killed one Christian man. (We'll see if a story on their website today about a clash that killed 13 Christians will be fit to print tomorrow.)

UPDATE: That story did make the front page and the article extensively reported on the struggles of women and Christians in the new era in Egypt. They listened to me!

 

On March 9, there was turmoil that left 13 Christians dead. It started from a feud involving a modern Romeo and Juliet -- animosity between the families of a Muslim and Christian who have fallen in love escalated and a Christian church was torched leading to further clashes.

 

While all media were saturated with front-page stories about the protests that led to the ousting of the old regime, tales of the growing pains of the nascent "democracy" (that conservative outlets forewarned would more than likely occur in the predominantly Muslim nation) are not worthy of prominence.

Is the mainstream media afraid it would be anti-Muslim to mention the oppression? Sure, go ahead and ignore the plight of Christians as usual -- why should that change? But to relegate stories about the blatant sexual harassment and domination of women to the back pages?

We have the opportunity to lead the rest of the world in setting high expectations for the new government. Let's not fail the women of Egypt -- and all the emerging newly-led nations.

O Little Charities of 2010: Sisters of Life

Well, if you recall, even Mother Teresa had her detractors -- ridiculous as this criticism was (from an atheist, albeit my "favorite" atheist) it showed that some people can really get it twisted and find fault even with the most saintly.

So it was a shame that another righteous charity came under attack from a dogmatic pro-abortion writer. Penning an article for a site that claims to present a "reality check" for "reproductive health," the author once again shows the true colors of those who claim to be for "choice." As usual, it is obvious that this crowd only supports one choice.

The Sisters' big crime? Offering alternative options for those who do not want to abort their pre-born children and offering non-judgmental support for those who suffer the aftermath of already having done so.

I mean, seriously, what is to be found objectionable in the belief that each and every one of us is "a unique, beautiful unrepeatable person" that is valued "not for what we can do but for who we are"?

 

The Sisters of Life are walking the walk in helping to offer real choices to pregnant women.

And what is so outrageous about this approach to an unplanned pregnancy? 

"...An unanticipated pregnancy can seem like your life is over.  Especially if it seems like no one but that little voice deep in your heart hopes there is any possibility for making this work.  Well, what if that little voice is right?  What if this pregnancy isn’t the worst thing possible?  What if everything will again be all right, and even better than all right?...

You have a lot of dreams yet to accomplish.  The powerlessness you feel now is not who you know yourself to be.  There are so many unanswered questions, so many seeming impossibilities.  But the passion that has already given shape to your hopes and ambitions in life is what reveals the strength you are capable of as a woman, even in the most confusing of circumstances.

YOU CAN DO THIS, AND YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

The Sisters are eager to listen to you, your hopes and your struggles.  We can help find real possibilities during a difficult time.  We want to walk with you and see you thrive.  Take that first step. Call us."

Well, we know what the pro-abortion mob dislikes -- that the pro-life feminist approach to the challenges of unplanned pregnancies is gaining traction. Women across this country are questioning what truly is "empowering" -- and it isn't having an abortion.

And the Sisters of Life are actually there for the majority of women who want to bring their child into the world. If you want to make a donation to this worthy cause this holiday season, click here to learn more...

 

The Paradox of Portland

Of course I'm glad that the people of Portland were kept safe by the valiant efforts of the FBI. The town's tree-lighting ceremony proceeded without incident. But I almost wish that the "alleged" terrorist had succeeded in carrying out his plot undetected -- and that the bomb had gone off prematurely, en route close to the site, killing no one but the terrorist himself.

Because maybe that's what would have woken up the citizens of this country, especially those like the people of Portland. Sadly, they still seem in denial.

 

The attendees of Portland's tree-lighting ceremony had no clue that the very efforts rejected by their town leaders saved their very lives that night. 

 

What is not being widely reported is that the city of Portland soundly rejected anti-terrorism efforts:

"In 2005, leaders in Portland, Oregon, angry at the Bush administration’s conduct of the war on terror, voted not to allow city law enforcement officers to participate in a key anti-terror initiative, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.  On Friday, that task force helped prevent what could have been a horrific terrorist attack in Portland.  Now city officials say they might re-think their participation in the task force — because Barack Obama is in the White House."

Might re-think it?! Now that Barack "Hmm-let's-overthink-this-before-we-take-action-oops-too-late" Obama is Prez?! Clearly, these people have no clue what is going on in the real world.

I read this observation about the reaction of one resident of the city. It related in part:

"We have a neighbor who was at the lighting and who today dismissed the significance of this incident, saying, 'So, he never really had a bomb. The FBI got him to do it.' Sure, the FBI framed him. Or maybe this Somali did it as revenge for Black Hawk Down. Or maybe it is because I have a banana in my freezer. Enough with the excuses, already. How many Americans must die before we as a people take seriously this Islamic terrorist threat?"

The FBI didn't make the Somali-born terrorist do anything. He expressed regret that the bomb was not going to kill more people. He didn't care that there would be many children present. He pressed the button of his own free will, and when it didn't work, they suggested he step out of the car and try it again. He did -- not hesitating for a moment.

This wasn't New York City. This wasn't Washington, D.C. This was Portland, Oregon. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. No one is safe. And the FBI can only do so much. Especially when towns refuse to cooperate.

Time to wake up, Portland -- and every city, every citizen across America that thinks we are not in peril. This is not about fear-mongering. This is about being aware. Not deflecting true threats as being created by those doing their dandiest to keep us from harm. There is a threat and we must stand up to it -- not stand in the way of those working hard to protect us. 

 

 

Help Save the Rifqas so There's No More Noors

Word came out today that Noor Almaleki died from the injuries she sustained when her father ran her down. The man was enraged that his daughter had become too "westernized." So he carried out what his kind (meaning those who think radically like him, and not everyone of his faith) call an "honor killing."

Where is the honor in destroying the life of someone you hold so dear simply because they don't think exactly like you do? Wouldn't the more honorable path be accepting our children, even if we fear the consequences of some of their choices? Sure, you must do the best you can to protect them from harm. But they are not your property. They are not you. They must live their own lives.

Noor Almaleki

Isn't it about time we stood up and strongly expressed that this is NOT acceptable? This happpens more often than we hear about in the US, and we are far behind Europe in dealing with it. What are we worried about? Appearing "culturally insensitive"? If we don't help the young women like Rifqa Bary in America, there will be more and more victims like Noor Almaleki.

A friend reassured me about Rifqa, telling me about this story by a court-appointed attorney -- a Christian who was also involved in the Terri Schindler (Schiavo) case.  We all know that teenagers can be melodramatic (believe me, I know) but I just think that extreme caution should be taken in this case. I heard that it had been definitively determined that she will first go into the care of the state of Ohio. That is a good step. The lawyer's observations hold out some reassurance, but I still fear for her.

Rifqa Bary

Why is it when a girl says that her dad will kill her if he finds out she's pregnant, most places go to the ends of the earth to protect her, but a girl says the same about becoming a Christian, and we march her back into the lion's den? I think it will be interesting to see if the people who know Noor's father say that they never thought he would do something like this. I'm sure folks who know Rifqa's dad say the same...

I do think we need to protect the rights of Muslim parents. I remember clearly a story years back about a brother and sister taken away from their parents bec the father was suspected of abuse, on very flimsy evidence. The foster family ignored the children's practices of faith -- it was totally wrong.

It is unwise to jump to immediate conclusions -- keep in mind the very type of scenarios that might affect Christians in a similar way, e. g. homeschoolers. There are many stories where children are taken away for the wrong reasons, or parents rights are usurped, and the wheels of justice turn slowly.

But I still fear for young Muslim women across our nation, and across the globe. Even low estimates say that these types of killings occur at least 5000 times a year worldwide. They should not be happening at all in our own backyard, and if they do, we should not shy from bringing the perpetrators to justice.

Is Shunning Halloween Ammunition for Quashing Christmas?

Does anyone know when it became taboo to celebrate Halloween in public schools? It seems it started in certain private Christian schools that didn't want to celebrate a pagan holiday that involves dressing up like devilish characters.

This was new to me with my Catholic up-bringing. Growing up, it was always considered good fun. In fact, I just learned that a Vatican-appointed exorcist in Rome has said, "...to dress up as witches and devils on one night of the year, that is not a problem. If it is just a game, there is no harm in that."

Now as practicing Protestants, my husband and I agree that it's ok, with a few limitations of course. We don't allow our kids to wear anything too "grown up" (i.e. sexy) or anything too scary or gruesome -- you know, like the boys dressed up as Jason and the Scream murderer at my daughter's kindergarten party a few years back.

=:0 !!!

Our jack-o'-lanterns for this year -- did I pull off the Bat Signal ok?

But somehow this religious belief became P.C. and now Halloween Parties across the nation at our public schools have become Harvest Parties. Which really leaves me scratching my head. Why would public schools acquiesce to the beliefs of conservative Christians?

I think I figured it out, and I think it goes beyond their usual "We are trying so desperately not to offend anyone at the expense of any thought" maneuvers.

Showing sensitivity to the misgivings about Halloween gives them every reason to then turn around come the Yuletide and declare that we have to comply with protests from those who don't celebrate Christmas. (And unfortunately this also can put the kibosh on Hanukkah, too.)

While thankfully some clever teachers have the sense to call celebrations in December a "Holiday Party" that involves many faiths, too often it is relegated to just a frosty fete with images of snowflakes and snowmen.

So while I respect the beliefs of those who steer clear of all things Halloween, they might want to think about whether or not the fuss they raise is fuel for the anti-Christmas fire.

Stand Up, Speak Out, Grab the Chalk... Whatever it Takes

We all know we should be wary of viral videos and forwarded emails or messages -- well, everyone except my dad, unfortunately. (Love you Dad, but you have to be more discerning!) It often turns out that the info imparted is not entirely accurate, if at all.

So here's the latest video that was passed on to me by a friend:

As someone who would have loved to have been that student, and fully believes we should never fear  standing up -- I have to report that according to Snopes (yes, I know they're left-leaning, but they're pretty reliable although the snarky comments were totally unnecessary) this story is fictitious and its origin is decades old.

But still, that doesn't make the story -- even if it is just a parable -- any less compelling.

There are professors out there who need to be challenged, and our young people need to stand up to them. I was happy to see this story on the news earlier today. Who knows for sure what impact these students will have, but they at least are standing up to unnecessary political commentary by their educators. It's a lesson that we should pass on to all students at every level.

As I watched this video, I wondered if I would have stood up to that professor. I like to think I would. I did stand up to a prominent professor during a lecture in a religion class once.

The subject of abortion came up and one of my classmates -- who I knew was a conservative Christian -- weakly brought up the notion that we should allow abortion in the case of rape. The prof responded, can we really expect a woman to continue such a pregnancy? I was stunned when no one spoke up.

So I said, "Are you being rhetorical, or do you really want a response?" he said that he was speaking rhetorically but if I had a response...

I said that the baby had just as much right to live as any other, and that -- as a victim of such a horrible crime -- the mother should be supported in any way she needed to get through the pregnancy and afterward. Financially, emotionally -- whatever she needs.

I don't know if I changed any minds -- but that day, I stood up. No one should fear doing so. If you have children -- no matter what age -- teach them well to respectfully disagree. Show them this video, give them the courage.

But I would add this to the parable -- There was another option: I wouldn't have stood by and let the chalk drop -- I would have marched up there and took it from his hand and declared "God made me do that. His will stopped it from dropping... Who's the fool?"

Sometimes it's not enough to step back and let God take care of everything -- sometimes just standing up isn't enough either. Sometimes, we need to be his instruments and take action.

So Miss California isn't perfect...

Being a fan of pageants sure isn't easy these days... 

So yeah, I'm a feminist who played with Barbies and watched pageants growing up, and now I let my daughters do the same. Never had a problem with body image, because my mother and other women in my life gave balance to the parade of near-impossible "perfection." Pageants are all in good fun. Until now.

It was bad enough when I had to fast-forward past Perez Hilton's question during the Miss USA broadcast last month. Now I have to be viligant in keeping little eyes and ears around here from catching wind of all the "controversy" surrounding Miss California.

Today a website released a photo of her that is somewhat risque. (I hate to give the site more traffic, but for the sake of the argument, I guess you have to see it. It's at  www.thedirty.com) I would definitely not want my girls to see this photo, but it does not fall outside the realm of usual underwear ad material these days. Seriously, you see much worse in any Abercrombie catalog.

I'm not thrilled that Miss California did this -- more from the feminist point of view than the "moral" one -- but I think I was more disappointed when I noticed during the broadcast that she obviously had a boob job. And then to find out that the Miss CA organization paid for it after she won the state crown... It's really disheartening to hear they feel it is so important to win that they disfigure themselves, and that the pageant doesn't simply tolerate it, but encourages it and even pays for it.

But the unwarranted onslaught against the poor girl continues to escalate. It wasn't enough for the site to simply post the picture (they say they are more, and have hinted they are worse, but my guess is they're less provocative and the site is milking it). It wasn't enough to say, judge for yourself. No the site had to proclaim Carrie Prejean "homophobic" and "a sinner." (I'm sure they thought the latter about other women who have posed like this before this instance.)

All this hate against Prejean is puzzling. And hate is what it is. Prejean simply stated her opinion -- and during the pageant broadcast she didn't even mention religion, just a belief -- and she was immediately the newest whipping girl for the gay marriage crowd. It goes without saying how intolerant this crowd is of a dissenting opinion -- unless of course it comes from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, etc, etc. who are all in favor of keeping traditional marriage. Maybe it's repressed feelings against those they have to adore that they save up to cast upon those they oppose.

But Prejean isn't the only one. The San Francisco Chronicle published a list of Prop 8 supporters and the witch hunt began in earnest. A woman who is a big supporter of the gay community in a S.F. neighborhood -- who even delivered meals to AIDS sufferers -- also happened to support traditional marriage. A crowd protested outside the restaurant she worked at, and she had to quit to keep the establishment from going out of business.

Maureen Mullarkey, an artist in New York, chronicled her experience -- the barrage of angry emails and unflattering news stories -- in an article for The Weekly Standard. Her account is mind-boggling. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C016%5C252zsbwa.asp?pg=2 There are many more tales like these.

I just don't get it. The left is all about not judging people and not hating and there is room at the table for everyone, and every opinion is valid, every lifestyle is valid. Unless it's one that disagrees with certain hot-button issues: traditional marriage, choosing life, and school choice most prominently. Suddenly -- simply because an opposing opinion may be based on a religious belief -- it's worthless and unreasoned.

Funny -- when religious organizations open soup kitchens and shelters for the homeless, or when they build homes for the poor -- it is based on a religious belief. Are those actions and thoughts invalid? Are they attacked by the left as "imposing morality"? Of course not. Because they agree with those positions.

Sure there are those who support traditional marriage who are guilty of their own hateful words -- attacking the homosexual community, instead of staying on point about this single subject. That is just as bad. And I know it's not every one who wants gay marriage who are perpetrating these attacks, but it seems to be more prevalent and has gone mainstream enough to the point that Hollywood stars are speaking out (and even making videos mocking their opponents) and cable news anchors are calling Prejean -- and others  like her -- very harsh names.

If marriage for all is so right, it will prevail. If itis not wanted, bullying those opposed will lead to a backlash by those on the fence. I'm starting to think I'm one of those who will come down in favor of traditional marriage -- because I'm really tired of gay marriage being forced upon those who don't believe in it by activist judges who are having their arms twisted by thugs.

What has happened to civil discourse? What has happened to true debate? What has happened to the democratic process? Sadly it seems it has been lost somewhere in the midst of a torch-bearing mob.

So Miss CA may have presented an excuse for her title to be stripped. And if that happens, the spiteful will dance with delight and spout that it's a comeuppance. But Carrie Prejean will remain the thoughtful woman who stood up for what she believed and will continue to inspire -- even with a few naughty photos and fake cleavage on her record.

It's ideals that matter -- not packages.

Sorry Perez -- Miss CA's Answer Improved her Chances

Perez Hilton, and Miss California Carrie Prejean herself, have said that her answer to his question cost her the crown. Though Carrie has said that she wouldn't change a thing and she would choose her faith over a title any day, I think she can rest assured that her response actually did not lead to a loss. In fact I think it moved her up in the standings to second place.

Let's look at the numbers. After the swimsuit and evening gown competitions, the standings were:

Miss North Carolina   18.668

Miss Arizona                18.381

Miss California            18.308

Miss Kentucky             18.010

Miss Utah                     17.700

Now, it's my understanding that the way that the final decision is made is that the judges assign a rank for the five finalists. The girl with the top ranking takes the crown.

The final question can make a real difference, as it did one year, back when the final three contestants were all asked the same question. (Abandoned because...? they got tired of the repetition? they didn't want to pay for the sound-proof booth anymore? who knows...) It was after Miss Universe had caused a stir for gaining weight. The Miss USA finalists were asked if she should have lost the weight.

The young woman who was far in the lead answered first and said she should have lost the weight. A non-answer from the second contestant was followed by a knock-out punch by Miss Hawaii who immediately started shaking her head and said that the woman was chosen for who she was and that was what was important. The audience roared. The first contestant went from top position to third, and Miss Hawaii was crowned the winner.

But for the most part, there is little change in the final results without a real stand-out answer like that, or a real clunker of a response. I think the judges look at their old scores and pretty much hold those positions. 

Let's see what each of the other contestants were asked this year:

Miss NC was asked about bailout money. She said that she didn't think companies should be getting so much... and not much else. Not really anything worth noting, and therefore no change in the judges opinion of her.

Miss AZ was asked about universal health care. What's interesting here, is that her answer was like what Hilton suggested for Miss CA. A non-answer where she didn't offend anyone. But I think the judges felt that Miss AZ should have said that yes, health care should be a right, and so her response hurt her.

Miss KY took a chance in saying that she would have spoken up about the Chris Brown-Rihanna situation. I think this hurt her, as she went against what celebrities believe -- you don't criticize or judge another celebrity. 

Miss UT said Hillary Clinton did the right thing in recommending millions for elections in Afghanistan. Like Miss NC, it was an innocuous answer that didn't hurt her.

Miss NC was so far ahead, I really don't think that she could have been caught by anyone, barring a lights-out let's-all-go-home answer. Miss AZ had a small lead over Miss CA, yet Carrie and her convictions leapt past Miss AZ and her politically-correct, offend-no-one answer. Similarly,  Miss UT (innocuous answer) passed Miss KY (unfavorable answer).

Hmmm. So Hilton thinks MIss CA's answer cost her the crown. I've heard one other judge who declared that she is in support of gay marriage and agreed. But the judges scores are secret, so we'll never know for sure -- but the proof is in the numbers: Miss CA moved up in the standings. Maybe Mr. Hilton is a bit wrong in assessing what those in Hollywood think about certain hot topics.

Bottom line -- I don't think a PC, non-offensive answer would have given Miss CA the crown. But she would have compromised her integrity. I think Carrie Prejean made the right choice and will be remembered -- and make more of an impact in the world -- than this year's winner, or any other prior Miss USA.

She stayed true to her faith and her principles. That's a winner in my book.

 

Examining the Marriage Argument

I received this comment on my post about how Sean Penn should not be preaching about shame. (I should first acknowledge that Penn did not make a reference to religion in that particular speech -- my bad.)

"One should be only ashamed of their religious beliefs if they use those beliefs to oppress others by taking away rights or denying them equality under the law. Marriage law is a secular matter and people who seek to impose their personal, narrow religious beliefs on others through secular law should be very ashamed that they used religion as an excuse to treat others in such a cruel and inhumane matter. Not only will history be unkind to such people, but they should be and are rightly severely judged today."

You've undoubtedly heard this kind of argument regarding the marriage debate. I'd like to examine it more closely. (After struggling for several minutes to concisely address this -- boy, is this hard, really sticking the neck out on this one, but here goes...)

Whatever basis one uses for oppression is wrong. Just because one bases a belief in their religion doesn't immediately mean it is oppressive, narrow or outside the secular realm. Religion is not an excuse for making decisions, it's what a large sector of people turn to to guide their choices. Doesn't matter if it's the Bible or the I Ching or a Magic 8 Ball. People are entitled to their beliefs however they reach them.

Or even if they reach decisions with an absence of "guidance." I'm sure you could find plenty of atheists out there who believe that our American tradition has been that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Would you say that they are using their lack of religion as an excuse to "impose" what they believe?

(Might I add, why doesn't the left think that they are "imposing" when what they believe prevails? And may I also ask why it's okay to judge "rightly" and "severely" those who uphold traditional marriage? As I said in the aforementioned post -- isn't being intolerant and judgmental of others' views a mortal sin in the eyes of the left? Why is that only a one-way street?  And I wish I had the all-knowing powers of the future that the person who left the comment has -- his declaration that history will be unkind is rhetoric of the highest degree.)

So I say, let's leave religion out of this debate.

What it boils down to is, are people being unduly oppressed here? Exactly what is "cruel" and "inhumane" about defining marriage as between one man and one woman of a certain age? It is unreasonable to equate the horrible crimes that have befallen too many because of their sexuality with every issue that the community believes relates to them. 

Are 8-year-olds oppressed because they cannot marry? Are they being treated cruelly and inhumanely because they don't fall within the definition that our society has decided?

Many benefits that married couples enjoy can already be obtained through legal means between any two persons -- for example, inheritance and medical decision powers can be conveyed to anyone. What rights are being denied? Advantages like insurance coverage and tax breaks? Fine, go ahead and fight for those. It wouldn't only be gay couples who could benefit from such arrangements, so I might be for it.

Being given equal opportunity does not mean being treated the same. There already is equal opportunity for some of the privileges of marriage, and you can fight for others. Those who oppose the traditional definition of marriage want gay marriage to be declared the same. And it just isn't the case in the eyes of the majority.

Maybe that tide will turn some day -- but it won't be done by bullying or declaring folks oppressive and narrow-minded.

One way those who are for gay marriage might start to win hearts and minds would be to acknowledge the rights of the most oppressed sector of our populace -- namely, the preborn. Hard for me to get worked up about the right to a wedding day when millions are denied a birth day. But that's another post, for another time...

Not so fast -- about those virginity pledges...

Maybe you saw it in your local paper. Here in D.C. this was the headline in the Washington Post: "Premarital Abstinence Pledges Ineffective."

Oh, the liberal press must have been salivating when they caught wind of the study that was published this month in Pediatrics magazine. Yeah, we'll show those conservative parents -- all that hooey about taking a pledge doesn't do any good. A promise to God doesn't mean a thing -- kids can't control themselves. Sex will happen, despite all your guilt trips and bible-thumping.

Yep, I just may as well chuck any notions of having my 14-year-old daughter take such a pledge. I should just run out and arrange a Bacchanalian orgy for her friends. If they're going to do it anyway, why not let 'em really live it up?

But of course, all the mainstream media got it wrong -- except for (small fanfare) U.S. News & World Report, my husband's employer. (I'm sure he didn't catch wind of it yet -- he's been too busy lately checking on the supervolcano in Yellowstone.)

It was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the NIH who is now their health editor, who pointed out that "virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general -- a fact that many media reports have missed cold."

For example, teens who take a virginity pledge:

-  generally have less risky sex (fewer sexual partners and within a serious relationship)

-  are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy (or to have friends who use drugs, too)

- have less premarital vaginal sex (the Post article did not make the distinction that "having sex"  included a wide range of intimate activities in the study)

- tend to lose their virginity at age 21 (as opposed to 17 for the average American teen)

And one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste -- somehow, despite all the media's "evidence" to the contrary about teenage sexual urges.

And, of course, despite the daily onslaught on tv, in movies (hope you didn't let your daughter see the second Traveling Pants movie), in just about everything around them that oversexualizes their environment outside the home or church community.

Don't be so quick to give up on the idea of a pledge -- for both your sons and daughters. Don't be so quick to offer to get them contraceptives.

The Jonas Brothers and Jordan Sparks will not be your only allies. This is going to catch on. Because while kids are impulsive, they also can be thoughtful and smart. Making a pledge and learning to respect themselves and to protect their future... It will take more than a short course at a youth group and a one-time ceremony, but we can guide our kids make the better choice.

 

NBC takes another shot at Palin (and pro-lifers and religion and...)

Well, so much for staying away from writing for awhile -- a simple viewing of my favorite detective show pulls me back in...

Apparently ratings are down for Law and Order: SVU, and last night's episode (11/11/08) seemed to be another desperate attempt to remain relevant. Which is a shame for a show that has often done great deeds in exposing the latest dangers that arise, especially for children.

In this episode, it turns out that four friends at a Catholic high school are pregnant -- one belonged to a chastity club with her boyfriend, but got pregnant with a fling, and then convinced her best friends to follow suit.

The show's detective, Olivia Benson, questions the girls in a montage, and one of the first comments is, "What's the big deal? That vice-president lady's daughter is gonna have a baby."

That's when the alarm went off in my brain and I could see where this circus was headed. (I'm only listing the half of it.)

Another teen lets loose with a barrage of disrespect hurled at the officer about her ticking biological clock (while the parents stand by mute). Olivia fires back:

"...You [should] be petrified about your future. Do you know the odds of a teen mom finishing high school? Forget college or any other dream you might have... If you see [your friends] it might be in line waiting for food stamps or all of you going to the doctor trying to get an appointment at the free clinic."

After a short protestation from the girl and her father (the mother, still mute) Olivia continues with a laundry list of health risks for babies born to teen moms. When the father tells Olivia not to blame his daughter, since she is only a child, Olivia replies:

"That's my point exactly."

Yes, they're not a child if they want contraception or an abortion, but...

Then there's the stereotypical white trash New York mom who at first throws a fit about the pregnancy, and lashes out at the friend who started it all and tries to drive her to commit suicide. But when she calms down and becomes the only parent who decides to happily welcome the new addition, she is portrayed as a dimwit who brags about becoming a "GILF."

And oh, that poor young girl is found dead -- but it turned out not to be suicide. The sole responsible young adult in this episode -- the boyfriend who kept his chastity promise -- choked her to death in a fit of rage.

"I ask for forgiveness every night, and God doesn't answer me. He says nothing," he tells the detective. "I'm the one who kept my promise. I'm not the bad one. Why won't He answer me?"

Ah, but at the very end, one of the grandfathers-to-be tells one of the girls that she won't have to go to foster care, and he will take care of her and his grandchild.

"It's not about the past," he tells her. "It's about right now."

There -- does that happy ending make up for this farce?

ARGH! So I probably don't have to explain to you all why I have such a problem with almost the entire show. But I'm sure NBC is clueless, so I penned this letter to them:

To the producers and writers of Law and Order: SVU --

The 11/11/08 episode of SVU offended me in so many ways, but I will try to limit myself to the most egregious.

Why do you find it necessary to take a serious topic that needs addressing -- the cavalier attitude of some teens toward sexuality and parenthood -- and turn it into a methodical bashing of the chastity movement, Catholicism, and pro-life advocates?

When I heard the dig at Gov. Sarah Palin's daughter, the writing on the wall was clear for this episode. But what should I expect from a network that has gone so far out of its way to disparage the governor, from Tina Fey's witless caricature to the daily rantings of your "journalists"?

You then have a character depict teen motherhood as a hopeless dead end to clueless young women, and also portray stereotypes of parents who are either obnoxious or apparently have next to nothing to say.

Do you see how irresponsible this is? Certainly, statistics for young women in this situation don't look good. But as long as society perpetuates the idea that there is no future for these teens, that is what society will give them.

Why not instead sincerely promote the caring option of adoption -- not just have the token pro-lifer spout off a couple off dispassionate phrases?

Or for those who choose to keep their babies, why not demonstrate the available support that they can have to pursue a better life for themselves and their children? Why must you play a part in condemning them to a lesser life?

Instead of positive messages, your show cannot resist the opportunity to scoff at chastity and religion, and turn the sole responsible teen into a murderer who seems to have a misplaced faith in God.

The happy little ending cannot make up for the gross onslaught and the disservice you performed for young women -- and young men -- who may find themselves in a serious situation.

I will monitor your show -- as it has often performed a great service in exposing new dangers -- but I will not patronize the sponsors of last night's episode.

 

If you feel so inclined, you may copy any or all of that letter, and send your own email to NBC. The site to send comments is found at http://www.nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us

The Invisible Woman

So I was on vacation for a couple of weeks, and days before and after were consumed by the trip as well. I know that dozens of people have been kept waiting, so let me jump back in...

 I visited the paradise of Hawaii, as well as La-La Land Los Angeles, and had a great time with my family (despite more missteps than I care to mention, which included a lost pair of special-order prescription glasses and an almost-lost wallet returned by an airport employee who drove out to the hangar after his shift was over to retrieve it for me!) – but nothing more than some burnt skin and one day of vomiting by one child makes me declare it a grand success!

I saw many wondrous sites that will stick with me forever. It has sparked my wanderlust, and I look forward to many more adventures with my family. I just hope I can keep my mouth shut.

Here’s my dilemma. Upon returning, I passed by a woman in the airport who was in a chador – a full Muslim garment with a veil that covered her face. Not quite a burqua, but all that was visible were her eyes and hands. It was all I could do not to say something... loudly.

You see, I have no problem with modesty. If a woman chooses to wear clothing that at least shows her whole face – well, I think it’s too much, but as long as she feels comfortable with it, I can respect that.

In fact, there was a guest on TOWS the other day who was a Muslim, and a physical trainer. She performs her job in clothing that reveals only her face and hands. She got married at 16 to a man she barely knew, but chose to marry after getting to know him at chaperoned social gatherings. She pointed out that the Muslim community does not have all the troubles that mainstream America has – teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, broken families. Who can argue with that?

But the woman in the airport may as well have been invisible. It was as if her existence were being denied to the world around her.

"I understand modesty," I wanted to say to her. "But why must you be invisible? You are a woman, not a shadow. Why should you hide your face from the world? Where is the shame in showing us your smile?"

I will travel the world, risking an international incident, unless I learn to keep it zipped – or unless the vast majority of the worldwide Muslim community steps up and decries the unnecessary restrictions imposed by those who misinterpret the Sharia law.

Anyone got a muzzle I can borrow?

Dr. Oz drinks the kool-aid

Right before I watched today's show, my 9-year-old told me a joke about how to meditate. Repeat after me, she said. Owah... taful... ameye. Do you get it, Mommy? she asked. Oh, what a fool am I? I said. Oh, you knew that one, she laughed, and scampered off.

Too bad O hasn't caught on. You would think that she would be the most skeptical woman on tv, after what she’s seen in years past. But you know O, she has an open mind. Yes, that is doubleplusgood.

"It doesn't require your belief to be real," she lectured her viewers about today’s topic.

What?!

Is this something from her latest book selection? Anybody could say that about anything! The tabloids could say that about the latest Elvis sighting.

What O is failing to recognize is that having an open mind doesn't mean that, after allowing yourself to consider all possibilities, you have to give credence to every hair-brained idea. You are allowed to then reject certain ideas. You gave them their chance. That's enough.

So today it was past life regression. Some Yalie named Brian Weiss tells his flippity-dippity story about a patient who, while under hypnosis, recounted facts about his father and his child who died at the tender age of 3 weeks. He did not believe there was any way the woman could have known these things, and therefore she must have been channeling their spirits. (Apparently he never considered the fact that con artists continually surprise us with the ways they find out things.)

Now, he did not relate if he then asked the woman questions that only he and his father and his (apparently verbal) newborn would know. Amazing that a Yale grad would not think to do so. He thought she must be telling the truth, and he therefore believed when she then said she had 86 past lives. (Now, there's a leap.)

Then a former guest of TOWS was hypnotized and led through Weiss's regression therapy. While under, the poor guy recounts a story of dying in a fighter plane and seeing his own sister raped. It is determined that these must be past lives. He is told that now that he has faced these images, he can shed the pain and move on. And he says that he truly has been feeling better about things that used to trouble him.

Hmmmm. Ya think? Come on. I'm not saying that this guy Weiss is necessarily a con artist like some folks O's had on the show before -- maybe he truly has convinced himself. I'm not a psychologist, but even I could come up with an alternative theory -- did O bother to get any experts to do so?

Oh, she presented vague arguments, and Weiss had a response for all of them. Not a valid response if you ask me, but O would nod and say -- hey, people, keep an open mind. (You don't want to be doubleplusbad.)

And then they showed Dr. Oz having a "session." He was put under and he felt he experienced encounters with other souls of people who had died. (He did not say he had envisioned a past life.) What he thought was a mere 10 minutes had taken over an hour. (Imagine that!) He said he went into it very skeptical, but now he's really thinking twice.

"A hundred years ago, we were much more open to the paranormal," Dr. Oz said. Oh, yes, we were so much more enlightened then. Do I have to list all the other ridiculous things society believed 100 years ago?

Here's a reasonable explanation: You were hypnotized. You were asked leading questions, and provided with answers at times. You were not awake. Time passes and you are unaware of it. The mind is a mysterious realm. With all that you've seen or heard in your life, you can envision almost anything. (Just think about some of the crazy dreams you've had.)

If told, while feeling totally safe and relaxed, that you can let go of some painful vision, of course you're going to wake up feeling good. Images that you see don't have to have an explanation for their origin. Envisioning a knight dying in battle doesn't mean that you are witnessing a past medieval life.

But O was buying Weiss's story. She only approached the religious aspect, as usual, with the vague question of, where does God fit into this?

"We are ice cubes... If you heat us with love energy, we melt into a spiritual sea... God is the steam, the organizing wisdom in every atom of our being," said Weiss.

Uhhhh-hunhhhh... This is where I would have stood up and said, okay the mothership is here for you now... but oh, how close-minded of me. (Bad blogger, bad!)

Keeping an open mind, I would say that it's possible that maybe there are spirits around us whose energy we can feel. It's possible that perhaps the dead can speak to us. I tend to believe that all those folks who have had a near-death experience did not simply have a physical response to hypoxia.

But past lives? A romantic notion, perhaps, but it flies in the face of traditional Christian teaching. You got one shot at this life, folks. Don't blow it thinking you'll get a do-over.

Click  on "Comments" below to see more about this topic.