Saturday, January 31, 2009

Let’s Show NBC What Life Means to Millions of Average Joes!

Super Bowl 2009
I HAVE A PLAN!
  Okay, so it’s probably not original, but it’s still a great plan. ;0)

Whether we are Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Constitutional Party, we can all appreciate a video that moves us and reminds us to recognize the amazing potential of life.  NBC, however, does not feel the same and has chosen to drop a powerful Pro-Life ad, falsely claiming that they do not "allow political issue or advocacy advertisements."  PETA also submitted an advocacy ad (filled with lingerie-clad women doing sensual things with vegetables and a text overlay claiming that vegetarians have better sex) and it was not rejected on those same grounds but rather because it "exceeded the level of sexuality" allowed on NBC.  They were given a list of things to do to make it more acceptable for resubmission.  No mention of advocacy.

Here's what I propose.  When you get up for the half-time break during your amazing Super Bowl party (TOMORROW!), gather your friends round the computer and watch Life: Imagine the Potential .  Let's show NBC just how much life matters to us.  Pass this post along in email, on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, blogs, etc. and let's get a Super Bowl movement for life going as viewers abandon the half-time show to take up a worthy cause on the Net.

This is one half-time show I think God will be watching.  Will you be in front of the TV absorbing humorous beer commercials or actively fighting for an infant's right to life in front of your computer?

You know where I'll be!  :)

~Pearl

 

 

Friday, January 30, 2009

NBC Sacks CatholicVote.org, Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

I got this in my email inbox today.  It’s very interesting.

Dear CatholicVote.org Member,CatholicVote.org

We broke this news yesterday, but wanted to make sure you have the full story - NBC has slammed the door on running our ad during the Super Bowl!

After several days of negotiations, a representative in Chicago told us that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving ‘political candidates or issues.’

We were in the midst of raising the money needed, and had confirmed interest from several very generous pro-life benefactors. Airing the ad would have been very expensive, and a 'Super' opportunity.

But NBC’s rejection is calling even more attention to the ad. We have been appearing on radio programs across the country for the past two days, and NBC’s New York affiliate (imagine the irony), is covering the controversy. Bill O’Reilly of the FOX News Channel featured the ad on his program Wednesday night calling it “brilliant” and “genius.” His show alone reached nearly 4 million people.

All of this is driving more traffic to the commercial online. We reached almost 1 million online views in less than two weeks!

So why did NBC reject the ad?

The network claims that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements during the Super Bowl, but that’s simply not true.

The network was willing to air an ad by PETA, which is definitely an advocacy group, if PETA would tone down their ad’s sexual suggestiveness.

Also, the first ad scheduled to run during the Super Bowl is a creative spot about Pedigree’s pet adoption drive. The ad ends with the line: “Help us help dogs.”

In recent years, some Super Bowl advertisements have caused controversy. But there’s nothing objectionable about our positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC’s parent company GE has done for years. We don’t attack Barack Obama, but focus on him becoming the first African-American President. We simply ask people to imagine the potential of each human life.

What now?

We’re not intimidated by NBC. We plan on getting this ad out so that many millions of Americans can imagine the potential of each human life. Here are some things you can do:

  1. We are preparing a virtual protest of NBC’s decision. We want other networks to know that hundreds of thousands of people want to see this ad aired, and we will not give up easily. Stay tuned for our plan on this in the next few days.
  2. The Catholic television station EWTN will be airing the commercial before, during and after the Super Bowl. Feel free to turn your channel to EWTN during halftime and watch our ad there.
  3. You can still share the commercial with friends and family. Tell them to go to CatholicVote.org and watch the ad NBC doesn’t want them to see! Heck, show it at your Super Bowl party!

We’ve been humbled by the donations we’ve received to help get this ad out. We are especially grateful to the group of very generous benefactors that agreed to help if we got air time for the Super Bowl.

We aren’t certain they will still help, but we will use any funds we receive from you and others to air the ad in the most prominent and cost-effective venues available.

Perhaps the ad should run during the Academy Awards or maybe American Idol, which is popular with the youth. Maybe we should run it following President Obama’s first State of the Union address?

If you have ideas, tell us what you think.

Brian Burch
CatholicVote.org

P.S. You may recall that this is the first ad in our new “Life: Imagine the Potential” campaign. We are having a huge impact with our campaign already! Our message is positive, life affirming, and hope-filled. And it is reaching audiences that normally don’t listen to us.

We are grateful for all your support and prayers.

Like I said, interesting.  So apparently NBC objects to life.  *Great*  And babies are not as deserving of advocacy as dogs.  *Fantastic*  So troops, here’s the plan while we’re waiting for the plan….Let’s all show NBC just what we think of their clear prejudice against life by contacting to let them know our disapproval of their censorship.

E-mail NBC Sports at nbcsports@nbcuni.com

Meanwhile, here’s the ad.  Show your friends, your family, your neighbors, and your dog that NBC favors over children.


~Pearl

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Homosexualizing History and Vilifying Religious Dissenters: Continued Exploration – through David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil” – of the Homosexual Agenda as Outlined in “After the Ball” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

Homosexualizing HistoryVilification of Religious Dissenters 

Alright folks, today’s topic of conversation revolves around the homosexualizing of history.  And, walking hand-in-hand with this tactic is the practice of vilifying detractors, namely, religious dissenters.  We’ve already talked about desensitization and we’ve already discussed jamming and conversion.  Now, David Kupelian, in his book entitled The Marketing of Evil, explores and explains the nature of this homosexualization of history technique as employed by Kirk and Madsen and promoted in their homosexual agenda After the Ball.

Says Kupelian, homosexualizing history is to “claim that famous historical figures - ‘from Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt, Tchaikovsky to Bessie Smith, Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, and Leonardo da Vinci to Walt Whitman” – were homosexual or bisexual.  Although the authors know these claims are unproven at best and often baseless (they refer to them as “suspected ‘inverts’”), that doesn’t stop them from advocating the tactic.”

The most recent historical figures to fall prey to this speculative tactic are, sadly, the venerated Abraham Lincoln and, in a shocking suggestion by homosexual Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, Jesus Christ.  Robinson quickly rescinded his comment, but at a Sacramento protest following the Proposition 8 vote, Margaret Cho unapologetically sang that “Jesus was probably gay.”

Kirk and Madsen explain the beneficial nature of this technique:

“Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us for two reasons: first, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel.  Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement.”

As a brief side note, I found it interesting when I discovered the other day that someone had happened upon my blog by searching the terms “Martin Luther children gay.”  There is definitely a push to justify and normalize homosexuality by appropriating famous historical figures in an effort to elevate the behavior to the same status as the individual alleged to have practiced it.

Now, as I said earlier, on even keel with the homosexualization of history is the vilification of dissenters or, as Kupelian explains, “The flip side of this ‘celebrity endorsement’ tactic consists of associating all detractors of the radical homosexual agenda with negative images of universally despised tyrants and lowlifes.”  This is clearly evident in the homosexual activists’ uproarious outrage over singer Giuseppe Povia’s song about Lucas Tolve’s conversion from homosexuality.  According to the European Parliament Deputy, the lyrics “constitute a violation of the rights of homosexuals.”  And remember “jamming” folks?  Here’s a clear cut case for you from the LifeSiteNews report, “Homosexual activists, enraged by Tolve's account and Povia's song, have accused Tolve of lying, and have begun a Facebook account to bring together those who wish to prevent Povia from singing at the Sanremo Festival.  The organization "Arcigay" has reportedly threatened to disrupt the event.”

After the Ball,” says Kupelian, “lists some of the negative images with which opponents should be associated – including “Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated,” “hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate,” “menacing punks, thugs and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have bashed,” and a “tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

Remember Paul Rondeau, our resident marketing expert at Regent University?  He goes on to explain the specific targeting of religion, “perhaps the most menacing focus of the campaign is the special treatment reserved for the religious dissenters.  The strategy is to ‘jam homohatred by linking it to Nazi horror.’”

Again we turn to Kirk and Madsen themselves who explain how this tasteless technique promotes the homosexual agenda and aids in normalizing the behavior by subtly converting dissidents:

“Most contemporary hate groups on the Religious Right will bitterly resent the implied connection between homohatred and Nazi fascism.  But since they can’t defend the latter, they’ll end up having to distance themselves by insisting that they would never go to such extremes.  Such declarations of civility toward gays, of course, set our worst detractors on the slippery slope toward recognition of fundamental gay rights.”

Interestingly, Kupelian points out that “according to William L. Shirer’s twelve-hundred-page The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, widely regarded as the definitive book on Nazi Germany, “many of the early Nazis” were homosexuals.”

Once again we are reminded of Kirk and Madsen’s bold declaration that “It makes no difference that the ads are lies.  Not to us….”  Kupelian echoes this confession:

“But this is not about truth.  It’s about manipulation.  In a sense, modern psychology-based marketers understand people better than people understand themselves.  They use emotional threads to tie their “product” (in this case, homosexuality) to preexisting positive attributes in the consumers’ mind.  And in a cultural-political campaign like this, they also successfully tie all who oppose their agenda to preexisting negatives, such as Nazis.”

Imagine that; comparing religious organizations to Nazis.  No, that would never happen, would it?

Catholic Church in Castro District Vandalized
So where is the press in all this?  Truly, why doesn’t the media report fairly on all these shady strategies?  Well, that’s coming up next.  Once again I encourage you to pick up your own copy of The Marketing of Evil.  David Kupelian is a giant among men; a valiant defender of truth willing to call black, black and evil, evil in a time when doing so is extremely unpopular.

Yours in Active Agenda Busting,
~Pearl

Related Links:
”Prop 8 - The Musical” – Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly
Italian Singer, Giuseppe Povia sings about Tolve’s conversion from homosexuality: gay activists are enraged.
Italian Singer Accused of Hate Crimes for Writing Song About a Gay Man Who Became Straight

Monday, January 26, 2009

Jamming and Conversion – David Kupelian’s “The Marketing of Evil” Explores the Final Two Steps in the Homosexual Marketing Campaign Outlined by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in “After the Ball.”

Whew!  I think that is the longest title I’ve ever employed on my blog.  I prefer short titles.  Oh well, let’s get crack-a-lackin’.  We’ve got an interesting topic today with our continued exploration of David Kupelian’s The Marketing of Evil.  While desensitization is a largely subliminal tactic, jamming and conversion are the final two, covert steps of the Kirk and Madsen “war goal,” as outlined in their book After the Ball.  These last two are strategies that we have actually witnessed time and again throughout this decades-long, subversive homosexual marketing campaign; witnessed…yet ignored, or denied, or just plain didn’t understand. In this post, we’ll explore how craftily jamming and conversion have been employed so as to avoid “tripping the alarm” and awakening the whole of society.

Jamming  
Jamming

Says marketing expert, Paul E. Rondeau of Regents University, “Jamming is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion.”  Kupelian offers this example:

“Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show.  Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program’s advertisers.  As a result, the new show was stillborn.”

Another example of this is the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman and homosexual, Matthew Shepard.  His brutal demise received massive media attention in which homosexual activists and the press teamed up to point a rigid finger at Christianity.  The supposed offender was a Christian ad campaign that “offered to help homosexuals change their orientation.”  NBC reporter David Gregory and Today’s Katic Couric were leaders in seeding the idea that religion was at the heart of the supposed discrimination toward homosexuals.  In a telling interview following the Shepard’s murder, Couric ridiculously asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer:

“Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation.  That prompts people to say, ‘If I meet someone who’s homosexual, I’m going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.’  Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?”

Right, if I see a homosexual, I will definitely try to forcibly make them change their sexual orientation...just because I saw a television ad that promotes the belief that they can.  Is the chain of thought logical?  No.  Did the interview create a few more sympathizers regardless of its unreasonable nature?  Absolutely.  And it painted Christians as psychopathic zealots roaming city streets and policing individuals based on their looks and mannerisms.  Jamming works.  He who cries loudest and is heard most often will gain ground the fastest. Why?  Because people will either turn away and ignore you for the illusion of peace and quiet or they will eventually truly believe you must be right because, well, you’re everywhere and you’re loud and there aren’t any other opinions coming through the loudspeaker, so they must not exist!

“Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen’s playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers.  In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals – in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.

As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn’t a factor in Shepard’s murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.”

We are no strangers to jamming today.  In fact, its latest epic and blatant resurfacing occurred immediately following the Proposition 8 victory when homosexual activists, frenzied in their disappointment, went straight for the Christian jugular, ripping and snapping at the LDS Church for its members’ contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign.  Once again, truth was lost in the noisy din and chaos of marches, protests, vandalism, terrorism, violence, intimidation, threats, and demands.  And when the sound died down and the crowds dispersed, many believed the close of the frightening emotional display heralded an end to the wild accusations.  Once again the public turned its back from the offensive outbursts and returned, instead, to complacent apathy.  The media, on the other hand, now taking a break from its abhorrent bias as was demonstrated during the presidential debates, simply ignores the anarchical reaction of homosexual activists, dropping one or two ridiculous and biased comments here and there (“What were seeing, quite honestly, is a lot of anger and a lot of hate ON BOTH SIDES” – ???), reporting half-heartedly about violent protests while dedicating much time and energy to following farcical leads on defamatory allegations toward the Mormon Church, the Yes on 8 campaign, marriage and family organizations and leaders, etc.

Jamming = Don’t let the opposition get a word in edgewise.  Defame, denigrate, out-scream, out-yell, but for goodness sake, don’t let them speak, don’t let them be heard!

Conversion
Conversion

According to Kirk and Madsen, conversion is defined as follows:

“We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.  We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not.”

Hm…”whether they like it or not.”  Now where have I heard that before?  Someone has been reading After the Ball.  The audacity of these two is simply breathtaking.  Converting America’s will, planning psychological attacks, feeding propaganda via the media, subverting the mechanism of prejudice, turning hatred into warm regard, and the last defiant straw that breaks my back - all this is carried out “whether you like it or not.”  Kirk and Madsen go on to explain this classic brainwashing:

“Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship.  Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement.”

In other words, in order to not lose our friends, if we see them accepting homosexuality, it is in our nature to accept it as well so as to preserve our primary relationships and align our emotions with those of our peers.  After all, if our peers are accepting it, it must be okay, right?  Asks David Kupelian, “Do the homosexual activists thus engaged really know they’re deceiving the public, or are they convinced they’re just telling the truth?”

“’It makes no difference that the ads are lies,’ write Kirk and Madsen, ‘not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.’”

“It makes no difference that the ads are lies….”  Welcome to Machiavellianism at its brashest.  The glorified ends justify the despicable means.  Sadly, this only works in an unprincipled culture.  What does this say about our ignorant society unwilling to look evil square in the face and call it what it is, with a refusal to embrace it as anything else?

Well Pearl People, that’s all for today’s discussion on jamming and conversion.  Next up from The Marketing of Evil will be the “homosexualizing” of history and the special association with tyrants that is reserved for adherents of religious, conservative philosophy.  Though I do pull a fair number of quotes from the text, there is infinitely more in this book that I do not cover because, well, I’d love for you all to get your own copies…and some for your best friend’s upcoming birthday, and your parents’ anniversary, and your spouse’s Valentine’s surprise. :0)

Yours in jamming-and-converting defiance,
~Pearl

Related Links:
Aggressive and Intolerant Gay Campaign Over Prop 8 Loss
Mormon is the New Black – A Thanksgiving Story
Martyr McGehee
eHarmony Crumples Under Discrimination Lawsuits
The “Right” to Win

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Sold on Homosexuality – The Marketing of Evil

Sold on Homosexuality - The Marketing of Evil
I am reading the most fascinating book right now.  Just the first chapter of The Marketing of Evil has been quite brilliantly informative as to revealing how America has been ‘sold on homosexuality.’  I am no marketing strategist, but the two men behind the new and improved gay liberation movement emerging out of the 1988 War Conference…well…they absolutely are/were*.  A far cry from the then usual screaming, ranting, protesting activists, author David Kupelian describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen as follows:

“Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air.  They were smart guys – very smart.  Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs.  Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.  Together they wrote After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.”

This book, The Marketing of Evil, by David Kupelian is chalk full of interesting facts about Kirk and Madsen’s self-proclaimed, three-step plan, outlined in After the Ball, for teaching America total and complete acceptance of homosexuality: desensitization, jamming, and conversion.

After the Ball
The main premise of the book, says Kupelian, which illustrates the audacity of its authors, is that “We can change what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations.”

“Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement “gay rights.” This accomplishes two major objectives: (1) Use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controversial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity – gay, which, after all, once meant “happy”’ and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over “rights” implies homosexuals are being denied the basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy.”

And just how did Kirk and Madsen plan to dismiss America’s knowledge of “those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices?  Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don’t.  Just don’t talk about it.  Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.”

“When you’re very different, and people hate you for it,” they explain, “this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one.  You hammer in the wedge narrow end first.  As the saying goes, allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.

In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other “peculiar” members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way.  Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.”

Okay, as I said, this book has so much information.  We’ve covered desensitization and tomorrow I’ll pick up with “jamming.”  But I want to part with a little, personal note.  As I’ve read this text, I’ve felt an uncomfortable grip of panic come over me, sending a chill up my spine.  I am appalled that a nation built upon a rich Judeo-Christian heritage has been absolutely duped by a couple of Harvard grads and come under the spell of their brilliant, scheming, homosexual agenda.  The most important knowledge for me, coming out of this discussion of desensitization tactics, is that the vocabulary we choose to use will either perpetuate the problem or re-sensitize a nation.  I will no longer be using the phrase “gay ‘rights’ activists” to describe the gay liberation movement leaders since the more accurate term is homosexual activists.  I will no longer refer to the unions sought and clamored for today as same-sex “marriage,” since marriage is and always has been used to describe one relationship and one relationship only – a union between one man and one woman.  I hope that all of us will make an effort to re-evaluate our language and make positive changes.  Just as abortion has been sold as an imperative allowance toward fostering choice…

“Multitudes of activists – with almost limitless time and energy to devote to advancing their agenda, largely unencumbered by any need to change diapers, pay for dental braces, or attend their children’s soccer games, as do most heterosexual married people – have succeeded in their goal of transforming society.  As public relations campaigns go, it’s been an unqualified success.”

Coming up tomorrow: jamming and conversion.  We’ll take a look at how, exactly, homosexual activists managed to become cultural heroes while those who oppose the glorification of homosexual sex have been relegated such glowing titles as homophobe, bigot, and tyrant.

Going forward with open eyes, it’s no wonder marriage advocates are so worried about the massive push toward organized, unified activism among homosexual activists.  We must match their determination or we’ve lost before the fight has even begun.  Please join the DNA.  Educate yourself.  I wish I could purchase The Marketing of Evil for every individual in America.  I guarantee that marriage and family would be quite safe if everyone was aware of the truth of this homosexual movement’s marketing and public relations brilliance that has bamboozled us all.

Yours in chilling enlightenment,
~Pearl

*I have been unable to find any information about whether Madsen is still among the living or has passed on.  Kirk died in 2005.

Related Links:
Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal?
Prop 8 UPDATE: Militant Homosexual Rights Movement Keeps the Pressure On
Marriage Boot Camp – Arming the New Media
The Pro-Gay Rights Mind

Friday, January 23, 2009

Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal? Respectful Discussion With a Pearl Passer-by

Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal
I just wrote a book…in my comments section. So, in my desire to move those gruesome murder pictures down the line a bit, I’ve decided to post my conversation with Sourabh that has been ongoing beneath my Martin Luther King, Jr, entry. I have really enjoyed this respectful debate surrounding the question, “Is Homosexual Sex Abnormal?” Sourabh has asked some interesting questions – “what right do we have to police others’ decisions?” – and made some interesting assertions – “gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry.” This discussion has inspired me to ponder thoroughly and flex and stretch my brain muscles in coherent defense of marriage and family. Thank you, Sourabh. My brain can always use the exercise. :0)

Sourabh Chakraborty said...

I find it difficult to digest the argument that only heterosexuals can procreate. And that being gay is against the law of nature.

Yes gays cannot give birth but there are 6 billion people in this world ... millions and millions of kids all around the world ... impoverished kids and hungry kids and parent less kids who could use loving fathers and mothers.

Are we then to argue that women who cannot give birth are nature's abomination? That they have lesser rights?

Yes, gay marriage is about removing stigma. It is about civil rights. It is about that fundamental belief that we cannot discriminate anybody on anything. And that includes your ability to procreate or not.

Sourabh

Pearl said...

Sourabh,

As difficult as it is for you to stomach this, the truth is that only heterosexuals can naturally procreate and homosexuality is abnormal in nature.

I agree that there are millions of children throughout the world who would benefit from a loving mother and father, but adopting and embracing homosexuality is not the brightest solution since it denies children the important presence of an opposite-sex parent by design. And research has proved, time and again, the importance of a child being raised by a married mother and father.

Women who are infertile are not nature's abomination and they do not have lesser rights. Frankly, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion based on this post. You are lumping Lesbians together with married infertile women and the glaring lack of the former is still found in the desire to deny a father.

"Yes, gay marriage is about removing stigma."

Ah, and here you've hit the nail on the head. We don't create laws and legislation to accommodate hurt feelings due to stigmas. If this is the case and this is your argument, then certainly the stigmatized polygamous culture should have their right to marry whomever they will? I trust you would also support pedophiles in their desire to marry children and siblings to marry each other? After all, you did say that "we cannot discriminate anybody on anything."

That is a dangerous path to walk.

Sourabh Chakraborty said...

Thank you Pearl for that wonderful comment. To have been challenged logically rather than predisposed prejudice on this issue is very refreshing.

I'm not sure homosexuality can be considered abnormal in nature while heterosexuality normal. Is this based on the understanding that the choices or lifestyles of the majority of the population decide what is normal and abnormal?

Is homosexuality abnormal just because they cannot procreate? So that means lesbians and transgendered people (who were women before their sex change surgery) are still normal while gay men aren't? Are we solely driven by the ability to procreate as the deciding factor for normality and abnormality?

If that is not the sole factor, then we sure have a lot of abnormality in our world. Children born with Down's syndrome ... or with rare blood diseases. The point I am trying to make is where do we draw the line on normality and abnormality. Who decides what is normal and abnormal? And I think no one should. But if somebody must, it must be applicable universally to everybody.

Now if you held procreation as the sole factor in deciding normality, there are so many infertile people all around the world. Wouldn't we have to push them into this realm of "abnormality" as well?
I hope you'll forgive my forthrightness in writing such a long reply as I wanted to tackle every piece of thought logically and with reason.

As for the research study, I am unwilling to accept that opposite sex parents can be better parents than same sex parents. I would rather argue that the current social stigma that surrounds same sex parents is so divisive, that puts children with same sex parents in a difficult situation. So its not because they can't be good at parenting but because of a social order that we aren't so accepting of them that makes their parenting job even more difficult.

As for "gay marriage is about removing stigma", I am not saying bring laws to accommodate hurt sentiments. I am saying you need laws if you are discriminating against somebody. Blacks in the United States did not get their basic rights fundamental to any human being until the laws were changed to give it to them.

Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry. Any of which a heterosexual man or woman can do. Now I am not talking about a disabled man who has lost both his legs demanding why he cannot still work as a heavy duty construction worker. I am talking of gays who are as capable in serving their nation, donating blood, adopting, raising kids and marrying like any other heterosexual. So why the discrimination?

When you say, "... then certainly the stigmatized polygamous culture should have their right to marry whoever they will? I trust you would also support pedophiles in their desire to marry children and siblings to marry each other?"

And I keep thinking what gives you or me or anybody the right to tell somebody what you're doing is totally wrong unless it infringes on my rights or somebody's rights by force.

The point is, then how willing we would be to accept when they would say ... hey, you know what ... we don't like it when you guys home school your kids or buy Christmas presents. If we have a right to tell these people that incest is wrong because we "believe" so, shouldn't these people have a right to dictate something similar to us of what they think is right to them?

My whole argument centers around the belief that we cannot be taskmasters and go policing around telling people what is right or wrong ... because using the same logic, then we must accept being policed around by somebody else with totally different ideas and views.

Telling gays you cannot marry is like telling a kid on a wheelchair you can't play basketball .. "son you might be able to play it okay, but not better than kids who have their legs" .. Gays can't procreate but we can be good parents .. just because we can't deliver an offspring (or rather don't want to have an offspring) doesn't in any way mean they cannot take care of them or they will be bad at it.

Sorry for the long post .. hope you haven't dozed off .. :(
Homosexuals Cannot Naturally Reproduce

Pearl said...
Sourabh,

Thank you for your thoughts. I, too, appreciate a good discussion. Now, let's see if I can expound upon my beliefs a bit.

"Is homosexuality abnormal just because they cannot procreate? So that means lesbians and transgendered people (who were women before their sex change surgery) are still normal while gay men aren't?"

I have to clarify that the abnormal homosexuality which I discuss is specifically the act of homosexual sex. The attractions and feelings could be normal for some people to experience based on a genetic inclination. I honestly don't know.

Saying that lesbianism is normal because they can procreate is misleading. True, they have the right equipment to procreate...if employed properly...with a man. But in their chosen lifestyle, with their chosen partner, they cannot naturally procreate. The same goes for transgendered people; they cannot naturally procreate with someone of the same sex, no matter if they have a uterus or not. Claiming you are a man when you were born a woman cannot give you semen, a scrotum, vas deferens, and a penis...all necessary for natural reproduction with a woman.

"Who decides what is normal and abnormal? And I think no one should. But if somebody must, it must be applicable universally to everybody."

Well, our own Creator and Heavenly Father is the best place to start. However, since so many have disdained His commandments and denied Him, the next best place to look for defining abnormality is science. Abnormalities are traits and characteristics, "things" if you will, which naturally fall outside the frequency-of-existence curve. Now, what follows is my opinion, I'll have you know, but in my own mind, it seems quite sound (of course). ;) We do not know how frequent the actual genetic tendency toward same-sex attraction is, but we do know that homosexuals make up a very, very small minority of the humanity on this earth, and that in many instances homosexuality is adopted through education and experimentation rather than inherent attractions. We now run into the issue of growth. Couldn't the fact that homosexual numbers are growing indicate a movement toward normalcy? Well, sure, homosexuals are growing in number, but since there is evidence that that growth may be as much a result of learned behavior as it is genetic inheritance, the question on many people's minds then is why should we embrace a clear abnormality so that its education and frequency can increase and compete with normalcy to the detriment of society?

"Now if you held procreation as the sole factor in deciding normality, there are so many infertile people all around the world. Wouldn't we have to push them into this realm of "abnormality" as well?"

No, we wouldn't, because they still have the very normal and natural impulse to be with someone of the opposite sex and while they may not be able to have children as a result of their intercourse, their "equipment" is still designed for such a purpose when united.

"As for the research study, I am unwilling to accept that opposite sex parents can be better parents than same sex parents."

And herein lies the problem. So many today are unwilling to rely on basic research anymore. If it disagrees with their beliefs, they are quick to dismiss it. And I wasn't even using research to claim that heterosexual parenting is better (though I will always maintain that it is), I was merely pointing out that this new homosexual parenting trend does not have enough "experience" to yield evidence of equivalency or superiority. Problems in relationships do not exist merely as a result of external beliefs aimed at that relationship. That is a transparent attempt to project responsibility away from oneself. If majority public opinion is to be blamed for every troubled relationship, then alcoholics could claim they are discriminated against and unfairly demonized, as could abusive husbands and angry mothers, "My children don't have a quality family home because people don't like my alcoholism." Or, as you said, "Its not because they can't be good at parenting but because of a social order that we aren't so accepting of them that makes their parenting job even more difficult." That is, to put it crassly, a cop out.

"I am saying you need laws if you are discriminating against somebody."

Yes, but it is only your opinion that government is discriminating against homosexuals when it does not, by the vote of the people, recognize same-sex unions as marriage. And in my mind, that is not discrimination; that is discernment. If it must be discrimination just because someone doesn't like it or doesn't feel it's fair, then we will be creating new anti-discrimination laws from now until forever. Our government of the people was not created to make people feel good, it was created to ensure the comfort, security, and survival of a healthy society.

"Gays in this country cannot serve their nation or donate blood or adopt or marry."

Well, that certainly is untrue. How does the inability to "marry" stop one from serving their country? If you are referring to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation, then please answer this: how does keeping bedroom politics and practices in the bedroom keep one from serving their country? Additionally, here in California homosexuals are afforded the same protections under domestic partnerships as heterosexuals. This includes being able to adopt children. And in Massachusetts, same-sex "marriage" has been legalized. Are you sure you have not mistaken the United States for another nation?

"I keep thinking what gives you or me or anybody the right to tell somebody what you're doing is totally wrong unless it infringes on my rights or somebody's rights by force."

I thank you for your honesty, but "infringing on somebody's rights" is not the only negative effect against which we should be fighting permissiveness. What about survival of a healthy society? What about the nurturing of unconfused children? Right and wrong does not only exist where so-called "choice" is being guided. Pedophilia is wrong. Polygamy is wrong. Neither promotes healthy society. Neither preserves the definition of marriage most necessary for the optimal nurture of children.

"If we have a right to tell these people that incest is wrong because we "believe" so, shouldn't these people have a right to dictate something similar to us of what they think is right to them?"

Um, no, because home schooling and buying Christmas presents doesn't hurt society. Neither does maintaining marriage solely between one man and one woman. What does hurt society is devaluing a sacred, imperative institution by redefining it over and over and over again which is sure to happen once a first, radical redefinition is successful. Pedophilia is not just wrong for pedophiles, it is wrong for everyone. Similarly, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman in California for everyone. Homosexuals are not being discriminated against because they still have the same right as everyone else to get married...to a member of the opposite sex.

"My whole argument centers around the belief that we cannot be taskmasters and go policing around telling people what is right or wrong ... because using the same logic, then we must accept being policed around by somebody else with totally different ideas and views."

Imagine that. Checks and balances are no longer okay, according to you. That's what our entire government is built upon! Yes, we teach correct principles and let people make decisions, but when their decisions begin to affect others (society) negatively, we put our foot down. I am policed, Sourabh! So are you. We are not allowed to murder or steal or abuse. These are things that we, as a collective society, have decided are wrong, are frowned upon. We are collective taskmasters and individual servants. We can be tolerant of "different ideas and views," but tolerance is not equivalent to acceptance. That is imprudent.

"Telling gays you cannot marry is like telling a kid on a wheelchair you can't play basketball .. "son you might be able to play it okay, but not better than kids who have their legs."

Well, you might not want to say it out loud, but it's still the truth. Do we deny the truth and risk negative societal repercussion just to spare the hurt feelings of a few? Just the fact that you compare homosexuals to a disabled child in a wheelchair says a lot about the pervasive victim mentality of the former. Besides, if you spoke the truth to that child with sincere love and concern, he would be hurt but a moment and then I guarantee he would set about finding ways around his inability. So, too, could homosexuals do, but instead they've chosen to focus all their energy on their perceived inabilities rather than seek other alternatives than the appropriation of "marriage" in their struggle and desire for societal acceptance.

"just because we can't deliver an offspring (or rather don't want to have an offspring) doesn't in any way mean they cannot take care of them or they will be bad at it."

Contrary to popular gay activist belief, love is NOT enough. Children need a mother and a father. Homosexual parenting denies that by design. Deprivation should not be justified or glorified in any form.

"Sorry for the long post .. hope you haven't dozed off .."

On the contrary, this has been quite stimulating. Thank you.


What are your thoughts, Pearl People?


Yours in respectful debate and marriage preservation,
~Pearl

Related Links:
Animals Are Not Gay
How the APA Dropped Homosexuality From its List of Disorders
Homosexual Behavior/Relationships and Health
Pope’s Christmas Greeting Says We Must “Protect the Human Being Against Self Destruction” of Sexual Aberrations
What About the Mutual Affection of Homosexuals? Isn’t That Enough for Marriage?
Big Labor for Big Love?
Traditional Marriage//The Gay/Liberal Agenda is Trying to Eliminate All Tradition
Shame on You, You Heterosexist!

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Changefest ‘09 – Obama’s Inaugural Speech

Okay, this is absolutely hilarious…and informative. So much for change. Obama’s inaugural speech was nothing more than borrowed rhetoric. Or, as my friend Ruby at The Pomegranate Apple so aptly states, “His words were full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Listen, people, what it comes down to is this: we are the master, government is the servant. So if something isn't working, we have only ourselves to blame. And boy do we have a lot to blame ourselves for lately...including electing a president who will only nurture chaos in his misguided attempts to unify.


Yours in enlightening humor,
~Pearl

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

The Obama-Nation Recovery Plan – A Curmudgeonly Translation of Obama’s Inaugural Speech

56543130
Progress, tradition, progress, tradition.  One convoluted paragraph after another marks this inflated Obama-nation recovery plan.  Today is a sobering day.  As a newly bona fide curmudgeon, I won’t pretend that I am thrilled with President Obama.  Yes, this was a historic occasion and, though significantly tainted by a historically cliché inaugural speech, I recognize the importance of this moment emerging from our nation’s oft-times bloody and prejudiced past.  But I do not idolize Obama and I fear his words have left me feeling despair rather than hope.  Do I hope he will succeed in devising solutions for rescuing our nation from economic failure?  Sure.  Do I hope he will succeed in unifying our citizens?  Of course.  But the fact is, he has other plans – plans to dismiss human life and subvert family and marriage - which will absolutely counter any benefit gained from economic success and unity.

In his deceptively appealing inauguration speech, Obama passionately states that “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.”  Though the speech is his own, someone more in tune with the keys to success of government and country might suggest that he insert a period after the 24th word so that it reads, more accurately, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families.”  Too often today, parental rights are being stripped by big brother government and families are being destroyed by the very entity which relies on their health and stability for success.  What does a job matter if fathers are being jailed for protecting their children against radical “forward” education in public school?  What does retirement matter if a child is no longer with her family due to separation resulting from wild and false abuse accusations as an infant?  Fostering unity and stability means protecting the very basic level of society, which is the family.  Today, however, activists emboldened by a like-minded president and wild in their quest for recognition of selfish desires feverishly seek to destroy family before it even has a chance to exist; they promote confusion and mayhem by redefining instead of healing.  What happens, my logical-thinking friends, when there is confusion and dissension in the basic unit of society?  Naturally, that confusion will hinder the workings of President Obama’s, or any other beautiful orator’s, grandiose plans being eagerly and prematurely canonized at the top of the ladder.  Support the family, preserve the family, save the family and the nation will be saved by association.  It’s simply really; simple, yet “unfashionable” by progressive standards.

Now, in the height of irony, Obama goes on to boldly assert that “As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”  I recognize that he was speaking of homeland security and American dreams, but this statement strikes me as utterly hypocritical in light of the recent advent of the Google eightmaps which target individuals and businesses who voted their ideals in a democratic manner and are now paying with their jeopardized safety.  In looking beyond our borders, Obama seems to have forgotten that right here in California, people are regularly being intimidated into making “the choice between [their] safety and [their] ideals.”  Perhaps if Obama applied some of his advice to the Muslim world toward our very own anarchist gay “rights” activists – perhaps if he defended our own nation’s constitution and inspired freedoms against overreaching subcultures – then our citizens could move forward and those feeling slighted could receive aid in properly and democratically resolving their complaints: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

Ideals seem to be the values and morals of heroes and civilizations past.  Today’s tested and proven ideals are cast aside and redefined to accommodate self-promotion and lust. Obama seems not to know his own mind regarding this.  In the following stirring sentence he relates the need to readopt the ideals of our founding fathers and ancestors, “they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”  Yet, in a “do as I say, not as I do” manner, Obama has sworn his rigid support to the unrestrained abortion industry and gay “rights” activists in one breath, while pandering to conservative egos in the next - trumpeting a return to age-old values of “humility and restraint.”  In the months following California’s Proposition 8 vote, gay “rights” activists obligingly revealed their shocking inability to exercise such “humility and restraint.”  And Planned Parenthood has very recently been exposed, by individuals undercover, as the pernicious and destructive business that it is – taking advantage of the emotional insecurity of violated young girls to further their business.  If our security is dependent upon the “justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint,” then we are, today, a very insecure nation indeed.

In words characteristic of Obama’s slogan-riddled campaigning, our new president has sealed his ascension to office with an empty speech replete with contradictory, flip-flopping promises and strategy.  Pretty words devoid of practical solutions leave many in the nation wondering, “What will America really be like during this ambiguous Obama’s reign?”

[Full transcript of the inaugural speech can be found here at CNN.com]

Yours in Perplexed President Protest,
~Pearl

Related Links:
-New White House Website Lays Out Obama Administration’s Radical Leftist Agenda: Plan Includes Commitment to “Support for the LGBT Community” and “Reproductive Choice”
-Supporters of Marriage Will Rally at Inauguration / Group Will Hand Out Buttons in Support of Traditional Marriage
-It is a Solemn Day

Monday, January 19, 2009

Martin Luther King Has a Dream - Gay “Marriage” is Not a Civil Right

Martin Luther King Has a Dream - Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right
Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream. A commendable dream; a dream that has not only been realized, but has radically changed the course of history in its fulfillment. And now, almost 46 years later, Martin Luther King, champion of civil rights, speaks to marriage defenders from the grave to reiterate that dream in a different context. Gay “marriage” is not a civil right. A country that makes special concessions for sexual attractions and orientations is a country consciously heading for troubled waters, not freedom and justice. Says Shelby Steele of the Wall Street Journal in his essay entitled, Selma to San Francisco?:

“Dressing gay marriage in a suit of civil rights has become the standard way of selling it to the broader public. Here is an extremely awkward issue having to do with the compatibility of homosexuality and the institution of marriage. But once this issue is buttoned into a suit of civil rights, neither homosexuality nor marriage need be discussed. Suddenly only equity and fairness matter. And this turns gay marriage into an ersatz civil rights struggle so that dissenters are seen as Neanderthals standing in the schoolhouse door, fighting off equality itself. Yet all this civil rights camouflage is, finally, a bait-and-switch: When you agree to support fairness, you end up supporting gay marriage.”

“But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof--a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.”

“The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none -- white supremacy, black inferiority -- for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly--not innocuously--different. Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.” [emphasis added]

[Read more…]

I HAVE A DREAM, 2009 Edition
by Martin Luther King, Jr.
special edits by Pearl Diver

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

[And I have a dream that one day the people of this nation will recognize that being created equal means that all men are indeed equal, not that all lifestyles merit equal recognition and concession.]

I have a dream that one day on the [green hills of California] the sons of [homosexuals] and the sons of [heterosexuals] will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood [rather than spew hateful “dreams” such as this one at their siblings].

I have a dream that one day even the state of [Massachusetts], a state sweltering with the heat of [injustice against religion], sweltering with the heat of [oppression of parental rights], will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by [their traditional sexual orientation] but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in [San Francisco], with its vicious [gay “rights” activists], with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of [recalcitrance] and [repeal]; one day right there in [San Francisco], little boys and girls will be able to join hands [and frolic in innocence and purity rather than ponder heavily on the fragile nature of their future society].

[I have a dream that this unity of the people will be based on their divine inheritance as children of God rather than their sexual preferences and attractions.]

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

[I have a dream that bedroom preferences and practices will return to the bedroom rather than demand and create public policy and legislation.]

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the [California] with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together [ahem, Prop 8], knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring."

[This will be the day when selfish sexual pursuits are set aside for the greater good of country, liberty, and freedom.]

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

[Yes, please!]

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, [note the very distinct absence of sexual orientation] will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"”

Wishing you a happy, healthy Martin Luther King day.

Yours in Freedom and Justice,
~Pearl

Related Links:
Five Levels of Identity
Same-Sex Marriage is Not a Civil Right
Is Same-Sex Marriage a Civil Rights Issue?
Same-Sex Marriage vs. Civil Rights
2009: ‘Gay’ Rights Over All
Is There a Natural Right to Same-Sex Marriage?

Friday, January 16, 2009

Tom Hanks Comments on Prop 8, Misrepresents Mormons

Tom Hanks Comments on Prop 8, Misrepresents Mormons
Though my mind yearns to slice through Hanks’ lame Prop 8 commentary, fraught with inaccuracies and gross misrepresentations of the Mormon Church, I haven’t the time.  Instead, I paste here a keen response from Support the Traditional Family.  My own feelings, in a nutshell, are those of disgust at Hollywood’s unprecedented abandonment of truth for popularity…not to mention the media’s eagerness to print and reprint these sensational fallacies.

It’s so un-American
by Emissary

I recently read the following quote from Tom Hanks about Prop. 8.

“...the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

Besides being wrong about his basic premise (Mormons actually gave money to protectmarriage.com, not their church), I thought it was interesting that he thought giving money for Prop. 8, and the fact that it passed, was un-American.

I actually have faith in the constitutional process -- that's why Californians decided to amend it. It's sneaking off to the court system when they don't like the amendment that irks me.

Anyway, so I was thinking about other things that are "un-American" (according to many "progressives"), and I thought others might have some ideas too. Here are 10 that I came up with.

It is un-American…

[Click here to read today’s top 10 un-American fables]

Thanks for a great write-up, Emissary.

Yours in Truth and Unpopularity,
~Pearl

Related Articles:
Tom Hanks| Prop 8 Big Hate, Big Ignorance
Tom Hanks labels Mormon Prop 8 supporters un-American
Tom Hanks’ Bigoted Tirade Against Mormons

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Spirituality, Not Religion, Makes Kids Happy

Spirituality, Not Religion, Makes Kids Happy Spirituality, Not Religion, Makes Happy Kids

Spirituality, Not Religion, Makes Kids Happy
LiveScience
FoxNews
The link between spirituality and happiness is pretty well-established for teens and adults. More spirituality brings more happiness.


Now a study has reached into the younger set, finding the same link in "tweens" and in kids in middle childhood.

Specifically, the study shows that children who feel that their lives have meaning and value and who develop deep, quality relationships — both measures of spirituality, the researchers claim — are happier.

Personal aspects of spirituality (meaning and value in one's own life) and communal aspects (quality and depth of inter-personal relationships) were both strong predictors of children's happiness, said study leader Mark Holder from the University of British Columbia in Canada and his colleagues Ben Coleman and Judi Wallace.

However, religious practices were found to have little effect on children's happiness, Holder said.

Religion is just one institutionalized venue for the practice of or experience of spirituality, and some people say they are spiritual but are less enthusiastic about the concept of God.
Other research has shown a connection between well-adjusted and well-behaved children and religion, but that is not the same, necessarily, as happiness.

[Read on…]
New study, same old story: embrace spirituality, give religion and God the boot. And, low and behold, guess what conspicuous aspects of existence are purported “measures of spirituality” as deemed so by researchers? The sentiment of a meaningful and valuable life and the development of deep, quality relationships. Basically, focus on yourself and other people, forget about God. What seems to elude these researchers (or they choose to ignore by design) is that by embracing God - and I do mean embracing Him, not just going through the motions of “attending church, praying and meditating” – children are developing the ultimate in “deep, quality relationships.” God is not just a “concept;” He is a living Being. And, for that matter, what is prayer if not the development of a “deep, quality relationship?”

One researcher goes on to suggest that “Strategies aimed at increasing personal meaning in children — such as expressing kindness towards others and recording these acts of kindness, as well as acts of altruism and volunteering — may help to make children happier.” Excuse me, Mr. Researcher, but don’t you think religion might cover this stuff better than any “Find Yourself” summer camp or trite homework assignment? (You don’t. I know.). I mean, come on now, Jesus was the ultimate servant and taught by example. My church regularly plans service projects for children from preschool age on up. We are constantly reminded to strive to become like Jesus, the very embodiment of altruism, kindness, and volunteer work. We are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves, for crying out loud. What could be more altruistic? Unless you don’t love yourself, of course. In which case, what could be more successful in “increasing personal meaning” than developing a relationship with our Savior and gaining a mature, tempered, long-term perspective by learning and understanding our divine nature? If you take God out of the equation, you sever our very intimate ties with divinity – our Heavenly Father.

I may not have scientific research to back me up in this assertion, but by golly I’ve got hundreds of devoutly religious friends who will attest to the fact that gaining a personal testimony of the life and ministry of our Lord and Savior will do more for the state of one’s happiness than jotting down “smiled at Billy” in a miniature spiral-bound journal.

Shoot, my own personal testimony – gained through prayer and scripture study, I might add – has done more for my level of happiness than any amount of “personal meaning,” soul-searching drivel. I know Jesus is my brother. I know God is my Heavenly Father. I know I have a divine heritage and a purpose here on earth. And this knowledge combined makes my soul absolutely sing with exuberance in a manner that three million notebooks full of “recorded acts of kindness” could never even come close to achieving. Assignments are good. Service is good. Developing meaningful relationships with the right people is good. But no amount of secular assertions and heavenly substitutes will convince me that abandoning my Creator, my Father, will bring my body, mind, and spirit, happiness.

I just pray that many, many others will see through this overt and ultimately counterproductive attempt to devalue God and religion.

Your Blissfully Happy Religious Freak,
~Pearl

Jesus Loves the Children5 Jesus Loves the Children4 Jesus Loves the Children2

Related Articles:
Conservatism – Down. Religiosity – Down. Liberalism – Up.
Religious Participation by Adolescents Promotes Positive Character Development and Self Control
Standing Together to Combat Relativism
The Problem with Atheists

Related Posts with Thumbnails