Author Archives: admin

Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment (Video)

Ohioans stand up for Healthcare Freedom. Hear their reasons why. Vote Yes on Issue 3.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88NInjzUP58&w=420&h=345]

Shouldn’t Medicine Be More Than a Business?

The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity republished an article titled “Another Breech in Hippocratic Ethics: Shouldn’t Medicine Be More Than a Business?” In this article, the author show how the transformation of medicine from a covenantal model to one of corporate business serious threatens human dignity.

Here are several examples:

“Did you know that feeding tube placement in elderly demented persons does not prolong life, decrease infections or aspiration, and probably offers no advantages over hand feeding? Then why are more feeding tubes placed in this population at for-profit rather than not for-profit hospitals?”

“For-profit hospitals are 3 to 11% more costly than not for-profits.”

“During the 2001 recession, pharmaceutical companies increased profits (33%) while Fortune 500 companies experienced a decline (53%).”

“Eighty-five percent of dialysis centers in the U.S. are for-profit. Their death rates are 30% higher with 26% less referrals for transplant. Why are less people referred for transplant? If they undergo a successful transplant, they no longer require dialysis and that dialysis center loses reimbursement for their treatment. Again there are many more examples attesting to a pervasive corporate transformation (nursing homes fit the paradigm as well).”

Along with the multi-billion dollar abortion business, it seems human life and death has become merely a profitable commodity.

Setting the Record Straight: Michele Bachmann, Francis Schaeffer and the Christian Right

By John W. Whitehead

By its very nature, politics is inclined towards corruption, deception and the accumulation of power. Organized religion, in many regards, is no better. So I am particularly leery of those who strive to merge politics with religion and, in the process, turn presidential elections into a test of one’s religiosity, for good or ill.

I became even more apprehensive about this merger between religion and politics in the wake of George W. Bush’s reign, given the extent to which his administration cozied up to the Christian Right and vice versa. That uneasiness was not lessened one iota by Barack Obama’s ascension to the Oval Office, which was met with ecstasy by the Christian Left.

Since then, however, I have begun to notice a growing tendency on both the Left and the Right to demonize those with whom they disagree, either because they subscribe to politically incorrect beliefs or associate with individuals who might be the slightest bit controversial, no matter how fleeting the association. And when you add religion to the mix—Christianity, in particular—people who may otherwise be perfectly rational beings turn into highly intolerant conspiracy theorists.

Most recently, these McCarthyist scare tactics have been trotted out in an attempt to paint presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry as brainwashed puppets for a Christian Right bent on establishing a theocracy, a government in which God’s laws are supreme. While less hysterical in tone than many of his counterparts, Ryan Lizza’s recent piece for the New Yorker is no less prejudiced in its view of those with Christian leanings, hopscotching over Bachmann’s life story while dwelling on her Christian influences in such a way as to present her as a cautionary tale to prospective voters.

And this is where it all falls apart for Lizza, who is so bent on portraying Bachmann as a product of Dominionist dogma that he paints every Christian he encounters with the same extremist brush. In the process, he wrongly ascribes the Dominionist teachings of R. J. Rushdoony to Francis Schaeffer, a leading Christian theologian of the 20th century who called for Christians to be active in the world, including in politics and government, and whose impact on evangelical Christians like Bachmann was far-reaching and not necessarily a bad thing.

This distinction between Rushdoony and Schaeffer may seem like a minor point, but there is a world of difference between those who subscribe to Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionist views and those who fall more into Schaeffer’s camp. To his credit, professor Barry Hankins in the American Spectator delineates exactly where Schaeffer and Rushdoony differed and where all of these conspiracy-laden articles go wrong in their “macro-indictment of all things evangelical”:

Schaeffer had a brief flirtation with Rushdoony’s thought in the Sixties, but not with the Reconstructionist/Dominionist vision of Old Testament civil law. Rather, like some other evangelical figures, Schaeffer was enamored with Rushdoony’s analysis of where, when, and how western civilization allegedly abandoned the moral standards of the Judeo-Christian tradition. The link between Schaeffer and Rushdoony was John Whitehead—who was friends with both figures and who practically wrote Schaeffer’s immensely influential book A Christian Manifesto. Lizza cites Manifesto as arguing for the overthrow of the U.S. government if Roe v. Wade is not overturned. Schaeffer actually said that once Christians had worked through legal channels then practiced civil disobedience, he wasn’t sure what they should do next. He did not advocate violence… As for Lizza’s alleged link between Schaeffer and Rushdoony, Schaeffer insisted publicly and privately that there should never be a theocracy in America…

As Professor Hankins noted, I was present when the Christian Right in America was metastasizing into the political behemoth it is today. By the mid-1980s, because of the hypocrisy I had seen in the evangelical leadership, I recoiled from the movement. But I also witnessed first-hand how the teachings and writings of Schaeffer and Rushdoony were co-opted by leaders of the Christian socio-political movement.

By the early 1980s, the Christian Right had formed a voting bloc that burgeoned into a powerful movement. It effectively ushered Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush into the presidency. As the media empires of evangelical leaders and televangelists grew to encompass print, radio and television, so too did the reach and power of the Religious Right. It now boasts of representing some 30 million Christian voters, as its leaders are fond of reminding elected officials.

However, Christian involvement in politics has produced little in terms of definable positive results spiritually. And Christians who place their hope in a political answer to the world’s ills often become nothing more than another tool in the politician’s toolbox.

Francis Schaeffer understood this. As he advised in A Christian Manifesto, Christians must avoid joining forces with the government and arguing a theocratic position. “To say it another way,” notes Schaeffer, “‘We should not wrap Christianity in our national flag.’” As history makes clear, fusing Christianity with politics cheapens it, robs it of its spiritual vitality and thus destroys true Christianity. If Christians really want to follow Jesus, this will necessarily mean that they will often be forced to stand against the governmental and political establishment in speaking truth to power, as well.

This brings me back to the current hysteria over the possibility that the Christian Right is mobilizing to take over the country under the guise of electing Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry to office. No matter what the talking heads might say about Bachmann’s so-called Dominionist philosophies or Rick Perry’s right-wing leanings, we would all do well to remember that at the end of the day, they, like their opponents, are first and foremost politicians—answering to a higher call that ends at the ballot box. And as we have learned to our detriment, no matter which party takes the White House, the American people will be the ones to pay the price.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

Sleep, Religion and Politics

Kelly Bulkeley is a scholar who specializes in dream research. Some of his books include Dreaming in the Classroom, American Dreaming, and Dreaming in the World’s Religions. From his research, Bulkeley has discovered the following:

1. Conservatives are more likely to sleep well and report fewer dreams, and liberals are more likely to sleep worse and report more dreams.

2. The most religiously observant Americans (attend a worship service more than once a week) report better sleep and fewer dreams than the least religious Americans (never attend a worship service).

3. A surprisingly frequent type of dream among both conservatives and liberals is a nightmare about work.

It must be stated here that school students would do well not to dream in the classroom. They will get better grades and therefore parents will sleep better. As for religion and politics, I wonder if liberals give their conservative neighbors nightmares or cause them other forms sleep disturbances. Of course, if both regard each other as fascist or Nazis, it is likely that nightmares and sleep deprivations are mutual experiences.

Kelly Bulkeley’s website is http://kellybulkeley.com.

The Palestinians’ Imaginary State

by Steven J. Rosen

In a few weeks, an overwhelming majority in the United Nations General Assembly will likely vote for collective recognition of a Palestinian state. But which Palestinian state? Of the three Palestinian states the assembly could recognize, two are real and arguably could meet the requirements for statehood. But it is the third, purely imaginary one that the assembly will endorse, one that neither has a functioning government nor meets the requirements of international law.

According to the prevailing legal standard, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a “state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Both the Hamas-controlled Palestinian entity in Gaza and the rival Fatah-governed Palestinian entity in the West Bank can be said to meet all four of these criteria of the law of statehood. The one on which the United Nations will vote does not.

In Gaza, Hamas controls a permanent population in a defined territory (i.e., Gaza within the armistice lines of 1949). Gaza has a functioning, if odious, government. And Hamas-controlled Gaza already conducts international relations with a large number of states. From a narrowly legal point of view, the Hamas Gaza entity could become a state, another miserable addition to a very imperfect world.

Of course, a Hamas state in Gaza is not something most of the world wants to see. A Hamas state allied to Iran would be a severe blow to international peace and security, and it would not be a state deserving of recognition by any democracy. It would be a state arising from the military coup of June 2007, a state that engages in large-scale violations of treaty obligations and human rights. Nor does Hamas seek statehood for Gaza alone. Hamas wants eventually to rule the whole of mandatory Palestine, comprising not just the West Bank along with Gaza, but all of today’s Israel too. Gaza alone is too small a prize for so grand an ambition. So this possible state is not on the table.

The Fatah Palestinian entity in the West Bank also could meet the legal requirements for statehood, and it would have more international support. It has a functioning government in the Palestinian Authority (PA), a permanent population, and international relations with a very large number of states. It also controls a defined territory, which comprises what are called areas A and B as defined under the Oslo II agreement of September 1995, plus additional territory subsequently transferred by Israel in agreed further redeployments. (Area A is the zone of full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority, and Area B is a zone of Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.) The Fatah West Bank entity within these lines also could be recognized as a state under international law.

But Fatah, the PA, and the broader PLO do not seek statehood for this West Bank entity that arguably could meet the legal requirements. Their minimum demand is a state that includes Gaza along with the West Bank, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and all the other parts of mandatory Palestine that were under Jordanian and Egyptian control before 1967. Fatah, the PA, and the PLO are demanding title to lands and authority over populations they do not control, being as they are under the rule of Hamas and Israel.

Unlike the two Palestinian entities that already exist, either of which could be recognized as a Palestinian state because they seem to fulfill the legal requirements, the Palestinian entity that a General Assembly majority will recognize as a state this September does not actually exist on Earth. It is imaginary and aspirational, not real. And it does not meet the legal requirements.

First, it will have two rival presidents pursuing incompatible policies. Mahmoud Abbas is presenting himself as the president of the Palestine that is pressing the claim in the U.N. General Assembly, but he is not considered to be the president anymore by Hamas, the largest political party in the putative state. And Hamas has Palestine’s own laws on its side in this dispute. Abbas was elected in 2005 to serve until January 2009, so his term has expired. In 2009, he unilaterally extended his term for another year until January 2010 (an extension that also has expired), but that extension did not adhere to Article 65 of the Palestinian constitution, the Basic Law. Hamas, which controls a majority in the now defunct Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), opposed the extension. According to Article 65 of the Basic Law, the legally empowered president of Palestine, since January 2009, has been PLC Speaker Abdel Aziz Dweik, a deputy representing Hamas. Palestine’s ruling party, Hamas, considers Dweik, not Abbas, to be the legal president of Palestine, and it has a strong case.

Second, the Palestine that the General Assembly will recognize also will have two rival prime ministers pursuing incompatible policies. Hamas denies that Abbas has the authority to appoint Salam Fayyad as prime minister, because Abbas is not legally the president of Palestine under Article 65 and because Fayyad has not been empowered as prime minister by the Palestinian Legislative Council as required by Article 66 of the Basic Law. Neither his first appointment, on June 15, 2007, nor his reappointment on May 19, 2009, was confirmed by the PLC as required. Hamas, which controls the majority in the PLC, considers the legal prime minister of the Palestinian Authority to continue to be Ismail Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas. Haniyeh was empowered by the PLC to be prime minister of Palestine in February 2006. Abbas dismissed Haniyeh from the office on June 14, 2007, after the Gaza coup, but Haniyeh counters that this decree violated articles 45, 78, and 83 and that he continues to exercise prime ministerial authority under Article 83. The PLC also continues to recognize Haniyeh’s authority as prime minister. Here again, Hamas has the law on its side.

Third, this putative state of “Palestine” will also have a legislature that never meets. Elected on Jan. 25, 2006, for a term of four years, the PLC has enacted no laws, passed on no ministers, and conducted no meetings since 2007. Instead, Abbas says, “It is my right as a president to legislate laws and decisions that are called decrees. These decrees are legal, as long as the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) is not able to convene.”

It is common for Palestinian observers and their supporters in the West to attribute the PLC’s inaction to the fact that Israel arrested 21 of its more radical members in June 2006 after the abduction of Gilad Shalit, most of whom are still in detention. The Carter Center, for example, states, “With most of its representatives in Israeli prisons, the Palestinian Legislative Council never assembled the required quorum for meetings and hence was unable to carry out legislative functions designated to the PLC.” But the PLC has 132 members, of whom fewer than 20 are detained by Israel, and a quorum of the PLC requires only one more than half the members — 67 — to be present. So it is not Israel that is preventing a quorum.

In fact, neither faction contending to rule Palestine actually wants the PLC to meet, for different reasons. Hamas does not want it brought to session to enact new laws or amendments to existing laws when its majority has been diluted, especially because it fears unfavorable amendments to the election law. And Fatah is only too happy to see the Hamas members in jail, because it too does not want the PLC to meet, lest it enforce the Basic Law by replacing Abbas and Fayyad. PLC Speaker Dweik, whom Hamas considers to be the legally empowered president of Palestine, has said of his own arrest by Israel, “Any action that put an end to our activity in the parliament was welcomed by many, among them the Palestinian Authority.”

Fourth, this Palestine that the General Assembly will recognize will also lack the ability to hold presidential or legislative elections as required by Article 47 of its Basic Law — not because Israel will prevent them, but again because the rival Palestinian rulers will not allow them to happen. Abbas’s constitutionally defined term expired in January 2009, and the terms of the PLC representatives expired on Jan. 25, 2010, so new elections for both are overdue. The 2005 Palestinian Elections Law No. 9, Article 2, which Hamas recognizes as legally binding, and the replacement Elections Law unilaterally decreed by Abbas on Sept. 2, 2007, Articles 2 to 4, which Hamas considers an unlawful usurpation of power under the constitution, require elections by now, but no such elections are in sight. Neither of the rivals wants an election to be held under the electoral rules recognized as legally binding by the other, and neither will permit the other to compete freely on territories it controls as required by both sets of regulations.

So there you have it. The General Assembly will make a remarkable decision about all this in the next few weeks. Instead of recognizing either of the two state-like entities that already exist, each having many of the attributes of statehood required by international law, the General Assembly will create an imaginary state that has two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts. It is a resolution that plants the seeds for civil and international wars, not one that advances peace.

Steven J. Rosen served for 23 years as a senior official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He is now the director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum

The Palestinian Fiddle

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the Palestinian issue is not a primary Middle East concern.

Pro-Western oil-producing Persian Gulf leaders are traumatized by the lethal Iranian nuclear threat, by a raging Arab Street of their own and by a potential Iraqi “earthquake” in the aftermath of the US evacuation. The pro-Western Hashemite regime is threatened by intensified discontent among its Bedouin power base; the Muslim Brotherhood hosted an anti-Western Arab
conference in Cairo on July 24-25, 2011; Strategically-critical Turkey is becoming more-Islamic and less-western; the pro-Western Moroccan monarchy is imperiled by the ripple effects of the Tunisian, Libyan and Egyptian turmoil; Islamic terrorism is gaining ground; Russia, China and North Korea are expanding their penetration into the Middle East and the US posture of deterrence is eroding substantially.

However, while the Middle East is burning – irrespective of the Palestinian issue, of the Arab-Israeli conflict or Israel’s policies and existence – the American and the European foreign policy establishments are playing the Palestinian fiddle. Their track record features the support of Khomeini and the betrayal of the Shah, the embrace of Saddam as a constructive force, the crowning of Arafat as a messenger of peace, the hailing of Bashar Assad as a moderate leader, the legitimization of Qadaffi as a reformed ruler and the idolizing of Mubarak as an Egyptian Rock of Gibraltar. They are convinced that the Palestinian issue is a root cause of Middle East turbulence and the crown jewel of Arab policy-making. Therefore, they assume that the resolution of the Palestinian issue – by pressuring Israel to yield Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians – would moderate the Middle East, would subside anti-Western terrorism, would appease the Arabs, would enhance Western ties with Arab countries and would facilitate a Western-Arab coalition against Iran.

But, such foreign policy assumptions are invalidated by the real Middle East, which highlights the root causes of regional turbulence: inherent fragmentation, instability, unpredictability, volatility, violence, terrorism, hate education and tenuous policies, commitments and alliances. None of these 1,400 year old root causes is related to the less than 100 year old Palestinian issue.

Arab leaders have never considered the Palestinian issue their prime concern, but an intra-Arab tool and a pawn against Israel. They are aware of the subversive and treacherous history of the Arafat-Abu Mazen wing of the Palestinians, which was therefore expelled from Egypt in the late 1950s, from Syria in 1966, from Jordan in 1970, from Lebanon in 1982 and from Kuwait in 1991.

Thus, Arab leaders marshal their rhetoric, but not their resources, on behalf of Palestinians. For example, during the October 2010 Arab Summit in Libya, Arab leaders pledged $500MN to the Palestinian – only seven percent was ever delivered. More than $2 billion were pledged by the Arabs in support of the first and second Palestinian Intifada against Israel, but less than $500 million reached the Palestinians. During the 1980s, Arab financial support of the PLO was less than 10% of Arab financial support of the anti-Soviet Muslims in Afghanistan.

Arab regimes did not actively support the PLO during its 1982 war (in Lebanon) against Israeli and they did not flex a significant muscle on behalf of the Palestinians during the 2008 war in Gaza. In fact, this has been the Arab attitude toward the Palestinian issue since 1948, irrespective
of the identity of the Palestinian leader: Haj Amin al-Husseini, Shukeiri, Hammuda, Arafat, Abu Mazen or Haniyeh.

The Red Carpet, which welcomes Palestinian leaders in the West, is transformed into a shabby rug upon landing in Arab capitals. What do Arab regimes know about the Palestinian issue that Western policy makers do not know or understand?!

Is the Christian Right Getting Fooled Again?

By John W. Whitehead

The Christian Right, apparently having learned nothing from George W. Bush’s disastrous reign, seems determined to appoint yet another political savior, this time in the form of Rick Perry, the Republican governor from Texas. Perry recently made headlines after he hosted a prayer rally endorsed and attended by such notable members of the Christian Right as the American Family Association (which financed the event); James Dobson of Focus on the Family; David Barton of Wallbuilders; megachurch pastor John Hagee; and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. The rally was viewed by many as Perry’s attempt to test the presidential waters with conservative evangelicals, who represent a sizeable voting bloc.

At Perry’s urging, more than 33,000 individuals gathered on Saturday, August 6, in Houston’s Reliant stadium to fast and pray for the nation. The event, described as “part prayer service, part Christian rock concert, and part marathon pep rally for Jesus Christ,” was also broadcast live in 1,000 churches across the country. Despite the fact that Perry insisted the event was not political but rather aimed at rallying the nation to a Christian unity during difficult times, the event, as the Associated Press points out, “gave him an important platform as he weighs whether to run for president.”

This is particularly important when you consider that evangelical conservatives make up a critical part of the voting bloc for Republican contenders. More than 28.8 million Christian conservatives—32 percent of all voters (the highest recorded percentage of any election)—turned out for the 2010 elections, with 77% voting for Republicans. Truly, the electoral might of the Christian Right cannot be underestimated.

Thus, determined to use politics to advance their agendas, the leaders of the Christian Right have had no qualms about turning churches across the country into political headquarters. And, indeed, between the Texas governor who wears his faith on his sleeve and his fawning Christian Right contingency, it’s starting to feel like 1999 all over again.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with people gathering to pray for the nation. Nor is there anything wrong with the fact that Rick Perry, who is expected to throw his hat into the presidential race, is a Christian. The danger arises when Christians wrap their religion in the flag, so to speak. For the Christian, country and faith are never synonymous, and they are not two equal loyalties. As Christians in past regimes have found, identifying with the political establishment, as much of modern evangelicalism is doing, can present a grave danger—not only can the church become a useful tool for politicians, but the establishment can and often has become the church’s enemy.

Not only is identifying with the established powers perilous, but it also negates what it really means to be a Christian. Christians are not to identify with power but to speak truth to power—even at great costs. Martyrs, past and present, testify to this. Yet like moths flickering about a hot flame, the leaders of the Christian Right are eager to get close to political power. Unfortunately, as we saw during George W. Bush’s disastrous tenure, there is always a price to be paid for power and prestige. In the process of seeking policy outcomes and funding for faith-based initiatives, the Christian leadership was seduced by political power to such an extent that the true message of Jesus was being held hostage to a political agenda. Whereas Jesus was a homeless, itinerant preacher who taught charity, compassion, and love for one’s neighbor, today’s Christianity is more often equated with partisan politics, anti-homosexual rhetoric, materialism, affluent megachurches, and moralistic finger-pointing.

One person who understands all too well the danger of fusing religion and politics is David Kuo, who served as Special Assistant to President Bush from 2001-2003. In his book Tempting Faith, Kuo describes the way in which the Bush Administration manipulated Christians. According to Kuo, it wasn’t difficult to convince Christians that President Bush was on the right side of virtually any tactic. Thus, we get to the heart of the problem. Genuine religion never attempts to merge with politics. If it attempts to influence politics at all, it’s by speaking truth to power and acting as a moral compass for society. In fact, the Christian Right does Christianity a disservice by greatly misrepresenting its founder, Jesus, who rejected politics as the solution for what ails us. To Jesus, religion was all about helping the poor, showing mercy (even to your enemies) and being a peacemaker—not a warmaker. He did not bless the powerful. Rather, Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek.”

Neither did Jesus seek political favors or power. He was apolitical and anti-politics. In fact, Jesus had a tendency to attack and undermine political power. Jesus understood that the legitimate use of power does not include using it to impose one’s will upon others. From the Christian standpoint, the proper use of power is to seek justice for all.

Time and again, the Christian Right leaders have sacrificed their principles to the false idol of politics. In the process, they have sold their souls for a bowl of political porridge. Unlike many Christians today, Christ did not engage in politics, identify with the government, or attempt to push an agenda through government channels. In fact, for Christians to be stridently aligned with conservative politics is to miss the point of their religion. As Martin Luther King Jr. warned, “If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.”

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

International Youth Coalition Members Challenge United Nations Approach to Youth Sexuality

By Lauren Funk

NEW YORK (C-FAM) Members of the International Youth Coalition are voicing their disapproval of the rights-based approach to youth issues and the promotion of sexual license presented at the recent United Nations High Level Meeting on Youth.

“Just as we have laws prohibiting youth from using drugs, it would seem that we also have a responsibility to protect youth from engaging in sexual license, ” reflected IYc member Savanna Buckner. Buckner made her comments after attending a discussion hosted by UNFPA, which asserted that youth have the right to sexual education and to make their own autonomous decisions regarding their sexuality without consent of their parents.

“As a young person, it is extremely disturbing to witness …certain UN forces working to isolate youth from their families and particularly their parents. For its education policies to be just, the UN must accept that focusing on the family as the fundamental unit of society and on parents as primary educators is not outdated and does not overlook the individuality of each person,” Buckner told the Friday Fax.

Buckner also commented on the rejection of abstinence by the proponents of sexuality education. “By assuming abstinence is impractical, these organizations discourage youth from practicing self-restraint and effectively make contraceptives the only ‘choice.’”

Antoine Kazzi, a member of the IYc from Australia, challenged the prevalent misrepresentation of sexual and reproductive health matters as universal human rights. “Sovereign nations are being misled into thinking they have to recognize and protect sexual and reproductive health ‘rights’ in their territories… [and] that these ‘rights’ are already recognized as universal human rights; and organs of the UN are being used to perpetuate this lie,” Kazzi said.

Kazzi noted the conflict these sexual ‘rights’ have with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. “These ‘rights’ encompass the right to have an induced abortion, which is the deliberate ending of a child’s life. The ending of this vulnerable life offends the Universal Declaration of Human Rights… [including] the right to life.”

Maria Lizaur, another IYc member, recounted her frustration after presenting the merits of abstinence and family values programs in reducing HIV infections and unplanned pregnancies at one of the conference’s panel discussions. “Instead of [the panelists] encouraging dialogue about what is in fact good for the youth, and about what it is that the youth wants, we [who presented this information] were simply dismissed as “too young” to understand. It is tremendously sad that there were individuals and organizations at the conference who refused to listen to the voice of young individuals seeking to share ideas that expressed pro-life and pro-family solutions.”

Though voicing frustration with those at the United Nations Youth Meeting who supported autonomous freedom of sexual engagement for young people, the IYc members are hopeful that, through true dialogue, their peers and elders alike will heed their calls for support of the family and increased personal responsibility on the part of youth in matters of sexuality.

More observations by the members of the International Youth Coalition can be found at their blog, IYc Vox.

“Lauren Funk writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.

American Psychological Association Need Its Head Examined

It is common knowledge that psychologists often developed emotion and other psychological problems. For many, the problems are the result of continually dealing with the problems of others. Consequently, APA professionals loose grip on themselves and sometimes on reality as well. I learned this while taking a clinical counseling course in college.

When a group of behavioral professionals can no longer recognize harmful behavior, those professionals need to seek professional help. Pretending same-sex relations are somehow normal or beneficial is a tell-tale sign that they have lost their way. Unnatural realtions cannot be made good or legitimate because the APA says so.

Various religious and denominational nor federal and state stamp of approval cannot make it right, good or natural. Not even a consensus vote can change reality that made humanity male and female and that the future of humanity is the family tradition of men marrying women and reproducing after their own kind. Reason, nature, and their Creator have concurred for a long time.

That is why the American Psychological Association’s recent endorsement of same-sex marriage (see CitizenLink article) only proves the need for its professsionals to seek counseling from those not intimately involved in the unnatural behavior not approved by nature and its God.

Rights of Parents in America: Overruled? (video)

Find out more about the plundering of your parental rights and what you can do to preserve your role as the decision maker for your children; go to parentalrights.org.