Nuclear Iran
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
ACDP response to conflict in Darfur
I came upon this today, written by Jo-Ann Downs, the Deputy President of the ACDP.
Her letter to the editor gives some insights into the problems in Sudan, especially in the Darfur region.
The title of the letter is, ACDP respond to the "Fourth Anniversary" of the Conflict in Darfur.
The slippery slope of the 'Pro-Choice' mantra
In the area of abortion, where people murder babies daily, it truly seems that pro-choicers are now completing their "evolution" to becoming zombies. They are now becoming the living dead! Living bodies without soul, without heart. The result of this zombification is a people who would murder their own children for any reason whatsoever! Or, for no reason at all!
Read Dr. Al Mohler's commentary on the abortion industry and the use of technology called Sliding Fast Down the Slippery Slope.
e.tv Prefers being offensive to Christians
e.tv, the free-to-air TV channel in South Africa, aired the film ,THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, on 7 May 2007 at about 23:00. I, and several people I know (and I am sure many others that I do not know) complained to e.tv and the BCCSA (Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa) before this date concerning the repulsive, objectionable and offensive nature of this film.
It turns out that the BCCSA has no teeth before any screening of any material whatsoever, and can only process complaints after such a screening. e.tv did send out a statement on the day of the screening to all those who complained about the airing of this film. Unfortunately I was in West Africa at the time on business and could not reply.
Well, I finally replied to them last night. Below, you can first read the statement from e.tv and then my reply to them.
e.tv STATEMENT ON THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST
e.tv takes serious account of the opinions of its viewers. While e.tv has no intention to offend any viewer in screening the Last Temptation of Christ, we believe that we have a responsibility as a television channel, to air different views and opinions.
e.tv subscribes to a Code of Conduct which requires us to provide adequate viewer information concerning programmes which may offend certain viewers. As we are conscious that some viewers may be offended by this film, we took a decision to schedule it well after 10pm accompanied by appropriate warnings.
The Last Temptation of Christ does not set out to offend. It is a serious film which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Director (Martin Scorsese) in 1989 and has received widespread critical acclaim.
In response to a complaint about the airing of the film on Canadian television, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council expressed the following views in 1996:
“It is the view of the Council that … the film was [not] in any way abusive or discriminatory toward Christians or Christianity. The quest of both the book and the film is inquiring, probing, and uncertain as to its conclusions. That it may not be the representation of the perspective or understanding of all or even many Christians regarding Christ is possible. That fact does not, however, make the perspective abusive, discriminatory or hateful. The Council considers that the film was intended primarily to explore the question of moral doubt and that it has accomplished this very effectively, even if it has not solved the religious mystery of the substance of Christ.”
The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council dismissed the complaint about the airing of the film.
Considering all the circumstances, e.tv believes that its decision to broadcast The Last Temptation of Christ late on a Monday night is consistent with its mandate as a free-to-air television broadcaster and with the South African Bill of Rights.
Statement issued by e.tv: 7 May 2007
Here is the reply I emailed them:
Thank you for the reply you sent concerning the screening of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST on 7 May 2007.
I acknowledge that e.tv has this standard viewpoint concerning movies, or any fair screened by e.tv. However, I disagree significantly from that standpoint.
I agree that you have a responsibility to air differing views and opinions. However, when those views and opinions have been debunked by all serious historians as utter, unsubstantiated rubbish, then it is no longer a view or opinion, but an agenda and propaganda. The life and times of Jesus Christ is well attested to in history, and the blatant lies of this film is not simply propaganda, but an attempt to alter history in the minds of its viewers. We all know that it is all in vogue these days to put a personal spin on historic events to suit those propagating their own propaganda, yet, it remains wrong and ethically deplorable to continue such propaganda, or to support the same!
As is the same with other TV channels in South Africa you subscribe to a Code of Conduct, but instead of following the "spirit" of this Code you simply follow the "letter" of the Code. If you wanted to avoid offending viewers, perhaps you have succeeded by airing the film so late at night. Yet, all you have achieved in such a scenario is not to offend the Christians of this country to their faces, but behind their backs! That is no accomplishment at all!
What you have accomplished, however, was to spread a bunch of lies late at night instead of earlier. Does the time of day really make a difference as to when you may become offensive? But, then of course, evil does hide in the dark! In any country with any sanity left at all, evil remains evil no matter what time of day it is! Murder remains murder whether it is 13:00 or 01:00. The same goes for rape. Why would it be any different when it comes to offending Christians?
The airing of this movie helped spreading damnable lies about Jesus Christ to people living in an age when historical facts no longer count and when people no longer verify what they see in books and on TV. As a result, the propagation of this material implanted people's minds with such lies parading as truth.
The statement by e.tv opines that this movie does not set out to offend. Really? It may not offend about 20% of the people of this country, those according to Statistics South Africa who are not Christians! However, it certainly is offensive to the other 80%!
The fact is, and I state it categorically, e.tv knew beforehand that this film would offend millions in this country, yet they went ahead and aired it anyhow. Yes, you have a responsibility as a TV channel, yet, you refuse to be accountable to those you so constantly offend!
Of course, another ploy used by TV channels such as yours is to use name dropping. Martin Scorcese, Academy Award, "widespread critical acclaim." Does that really make it right? Does good acting, good direction in a movie make right the evil committed by such a movie? It is like saying, "the devil made me do it!" It still does not make it right nor does it exonerate the movie from being called for its deplorable propagandistic lies! Apart from this, it is pure blasphemy!
It really amuses me that you fall back onto the "witness" of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). It is like one Mafioso calling another Mafioso as a character witness! Really amusing!
This movie is so obviously made to offend, no matter what the CBSC said or what types of acclaim the movie received. Being praised by the devil is no praise at all!
Although the Bill of Rights give freedom of views and opinions to all South Africans, I personally think it is time that the media in this country stop hiding behind that section of the Bill of Rights and rather start thinking about their responsibilities in this country.
Freedom of speech without accompanying responsibility and accountability simply leads to speech anarchy--speech without form or meaning!
I really hope that e.tv would change its stance concerning such films as THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST!
Perhaps this email will not change your mind. That would be a pity. Perhaps your advertisers would listen?
Regards,
Of course, my next step would be to lodge a complaint with the BCCSA.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Zuma an honourary pastor!
I sometimes wonder what people are thinking when they do what they do. Even more so in this case of Zuma being ordained as an "honourary" pastor!
In this case, Bishop Ben Mthethwa of the Independent Charismatic Churches, "ordained" Zuma a priest in his movement according to the IOL link above. According to the Sowetan, it was Pastor Vusi Khoza who conferred the honour.
I mean, get real! What was Mthethwa thinking?
How anybody in his right mind could even entertain the thought of "ordaining" Zuma as an honourary pastor/priest is completely beyond me. This is bestowing an honour on Zuma he is not deserving of! Zuma's lifestyle goes against almost everything Christianity stands for.
It seems to me that Mthethwa is looking for browny points with a man who may or may not be South Africa's next Prez! Of course, employing this shrewd move will obviously not escape the notice of all those ardent Zuma supporters.
In their abject ignorance they said, "We stick by our decision to honour Zuma. He will continue to carry the mandate of Jesus Christ for us." What mandate would that be? A mandate for adultery and corruption? Zuma is a man without a moral compass. Or, at least, if he has one, it has no "N" on it! It just seems to me that he is weak on morals. How then, can such a man be "ordained" an "honourary" pastor?
How can men like Mthethwa and Khoza be seen as men of God when they so easily violate the very Scriptures they claim to adhere to?
The Bible makes it very clear who may or may not be pastors in the church. Zuma does not do so well when graded against this criteria. Further, Zuma has shown no evidence of a life of following Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church!
If anyone wants to support Zuma politically, then do so politically. Do not commit sacrilege in the process by defiling an office of the church.
Lastly, I have made my thoughts about the ANC abundantly clear, and think that these pastors of the independent charismatic churches are in grave error on this subject!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
When big business see only $ signs!
Superstars can do what they like. They can even be obnoxiously arrogant, living depraved lives that are completely devoid of morals; they can be the biggest blot to humanity on this planet, yet, if it can bring in the $$$, then some corporations (big business) will go out of their way to promote such scandalous people!
They will go as far as sponsoring the evil perpetrated by such degenerate, decadent, immoral, barbaric people and their so-called shows that are driven by greed, illicit sex and the promotion of despicable acts on stage that can can only be described as a simulation of "rape!""Hip-hop superstar Akon is touring the U.S. with the help of major U.S. corporations, including a partnership with Verizon, despite being under investigation for a simulated rape of a 14-year-old preacher's daughter caught on video last month at a concert in Trinidad.
Read Big corporations help 'rape rapper' tour U.S. to conclude this story...
"Patrick Manning, prime minister of Trinidad, called for a formal investigation of the explicit April 12 performance at Trinidad's Club Zen, which has since been closed by authorities."
Friday, May 04, 2007
Greg Koukl on Christian political passivity
I have been involved in politics now for just over a year. The longer I am involved in politics, the more I realize that there are more Christians needed in politics. And, I do not mean just any Christian! My call is for Christians that have a solid grasp on historic Biblical orthodox theology.
A non-theological Christian (which is an impossibility, but I am sure you get my drift), will definitely not make a good Christian politician. Such Christians have the idea that a verse from the Bible on its own can say its own thing, without being connected to its context. False doctrine, even heresy, is born in such conditions. This is not what we want in politics.
Greg Koukl, wrote an article called "Political Passivity—Vice or Christian Virtue?" In it he writes:
"It’s not only the left that sounds the alarm when Christians “jeopardize the separation of church and state” by engaging in political action. Some Christians object, too. One evangelical leader offered this stern warning: “There should not be even a hint of anything political in our public discourse.”
Read more...
"This may sound spiritual in some circles, but it can be devastating to the public good. Without question the Gospel has supernatural power to change lives, and those changed lives can change the world. William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, and Mother Teresa come immediately to mind.
"Some Christians wrongly conclude, however, that political involvement is therefore a waste of time. This is a mistake. The Gospel is never communicated in a political or cultural vacuum."
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Blame the "racist" videographer!
Why is it that when our national government ministers and their provincial counterparts get caught breaking the law, they almost invariably blame the previous "racist" government or some other "racist?"
Bheki Cele, the Transport Minister for Kwazulu-Natal, instead of taking responsibility for his own actions, heaped blame on a "racist" motorist for filming the Transport Minister's speeding convoy.
Instead of travelling the legal speed on the road they were using, the convoy was speeding at 160Km/h (100mi/h) which is 40Km/h faster than our highest speed limit in South Africa.
Using smokescreens and mirrors, the minister pointed at the motorist who broke the law by using his cellphone in filming the speeding event while driving himself. Of course the motorist was breaking the law by "using" his cellphone (without a hands-free kit) while driving. However, this does not detract from the fact that the minister himself was speeding.
Cele claims that the National Road Traffic Act (No. 93 of 1996) exempts him from keeping the speed limit, since the law "exempts the police, traffic officers and defence-force members from speeding with blue lights." He continued to explain that this includes the police VIP protection unit while driving ministers around in the execution of their duties.
I decided to have a look at the National Road Traffic Act (No. 93 of 1996) myself to see what it has to say on this matter.
All I can say about this is that Bheki Cele read what he wanted to read in this law. It gives him as a minister no exemption concerning the law on speeding.
Section 60, which speaks to the issue of exemption from speeding laws has this to say:"60. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 59, the driver of a fire-fighting vehicle, a rescue vehicle or an ambulance who drives such vehicle in the carrying out of his or her duties, a traffic officer who drives a vehicle in the carrying out of his or her duties or any person driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection as contemplated in an ordinance made in terms of section 3 of the Civil Protection Act, 1977 (Act No. 67 of 1977), may exceed the applicable general speed limit: Provided that-
"(a) he or she shall drive the vehicle concerned with due regard to the safety of other traffic; and
"(b) in the case of any such fire-fighting vehicle, rescue vehicle, ambulance of vehicle driven by a person while he or she is so engaged in civil protection, such vehicle shall be fitted with a device capable of emitting a prescribed sound and with an identification lamp, as prescribed, and such device shall be so sounded and such lamp shall be in operation while the vehicle is driven in excess of the applicable general speed limit."
As can be clearly seen, only persons driving fire-fighting vehicles, rescue vehicles, ambulances, traffic vehicles or any person "driving a vehicle while engaged in civil protection" may exceed the speed limit.
Thus, the only reason a person may speed is "in the case of any such fire-fighting vehicle, rescue vehicle, ambulance of vehicle driven by a person while he or she is so engaged in civil protection."
Therefore, Bheki Cele is guilty as charged and should be given the same legal penalty that would be afforded to any other South African citizen! He, and his convoy broke the law and should be punished accordingly.
The fact is that he was not engaged in civil protection at the time of the speeding violation.
Will he be held accountable for this speeding violation? Don't hold your breath!
Piper on abortion
John Piper, classified as the king of Protestant social theology wrote an amazing review of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in upholding the ban on partial birth abortion.
Quoting from Piper's first paragraph, "Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court in upholding the ban on partial birth abortions on April 18, 2007. It is astonishing to read the opinion (PDF). The detail with which abortion is discussed exceeded my expectation. Kennedy’s own descriptions of the various forms of abortion are explicit and extensive. Descriptions of the procedure of partial birth abortion ('intact dilation and extraction') are given from both doctors’ and nurses’ perspectives."
Piper has said much more on the topic of abortion and can be read or listened to here.
HT: Centurion.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Harry Reid: Surrender, umm... capitulate!
Harry Reid of the Democratic Party in the U.S. loves giving great motivational speeches... of fear, surrender and capitulation!
Saw this on Michelle Malkin's blog.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Let your fingers do the tapping at the blogger's choice awards
Have a look at this and if you do not mind, please vote for me. Then, get all your buddies to vote for me too! When you are done voting for me, nominate someone else in one of the categories for best blog.
Ok! Go vote already!
Friday, April 20, 2007
Guess who will continue killing children after they are elected for U.S. President
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 18 April 2007, upholding the U.S. wide ban on partial-birth abortion (PBA) in a 5-4 vote, current presidential hopefuls weighed in with their comments.
As would be expected, the Democratic runners disagreed strongly.
Hillary Clinton:"This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings
that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
Barack "Obamanation" Obama:
"I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient. I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
John Edwards:
"I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women. This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election. Too much is at stake - starting with, as the Court made all too clear today, a woman's right to choose."
It is amazing how these presidential "hopefuls," God forbid that they be elected, can take one of the most gruesome methods of murder, and veil it in "choice" language!
Do these people really think people are that stupid to actually believe that PBA could save a woman's life? The fact is that the whole body of the baby is already born, when the baby is cruelly murdered by driving scissors into the bottom of the skull and the brains sucked out, while the head is still in the cervix! How could this prevent a woman's death?
It does not save a woman's life, but rather, it murders a baby that needs ONLY another 6 inches to go for a complete birth!
For more information read:
The Infanticide Procedure: Doctors Describe Performing Partial Birth Abortions
Partial-birth Abortion Isn't about Abortion
Partial-birth Abortion: Objections and Misunderstandings
Nothing Hidden in D&X
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Darfur continues its unspeakable acts of abuse
Darfur continues to be a part of this earth where human life is not even worthy of being called a commodity!
Whether it is a rebel group, the Sudanese armed forces or the Janjaweed (government backed Arab militias), it seems that ethics and the value of human life are inconsequential!
Simply put, they do not care, as long as they can reach their goals! Which is complete domination!
Children and women are enduring "unspeakable acts of violence and abuse" in 
the form of murder, rape, abduction, torture and child recruitment as fighters!
When will this stop? This, while politicians from all over sit and talk! How many talks haven't they had already. Yet, there is no evidence that their talking has made any difference!
When I think back of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, I am reminded that while organizations such as the U.N. (Useless Nations) were talking, almost a million people were slaughtered in a very short period of time.
This so-called civil war in Sudan has been going on for 21 years.
All I can say to all these "concerned" governments involved in the Darfur problem is, "keep talking, while the people keep dying!"
Talk is cheap!
Stopping these "unspeakable acts of violence and abuse" will take extraordinary acts by extraordinary brave people.
Who will these brave people be?
Have a look at the heartbreak caused in Darfur.
Do you care? You better! You may be next!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Virginia Tech killings
As with most responses to the Virginia Tech slayings, there are some knee-jerk reactions. Of course, the greatest knee-jerk reaction comes from the anti-gun lobby. It is almost like an involuntary impulse. Action: "bang!"... Reaction: "Ban guns!" You know, like the old dictum: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The shooter turns out to be Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old South Korean, a 
resident alien enrolled as a senior English major at Virginia Tech, who moved to the U.S. in 1992 with his parents.
My question would be, "How can a gunman get to kill so many people and then turn on himself? And, this with no one stopping him?"
This happened exactly because the anti-gun lobby shouted, "Ban guns!" The fact is, gun-free zones are only adhered to by law abiding citizens. So, as can be easily attested to, the gun-free zones at campuses created by the Virginia legislature, led to the death of 33 unarmed, defenceless people at Virginia Tech!
So, instead of gun bans being the solution, they are actually the problem!
Just last year, a bill was killed by the Virginia legislature that would have enabled those with permits for concealed weapons, to carry their guns with them on campus.
The problem with gun-free zones or societies, is that it becomes a free-for-all for the criminals while the victims remain defenceless against murderous attacks!
The fact is that one person with a gun could have stopped the spree as soon as it started! It is impossible to have the police everywhere.
Unarmed citizens become unarmed victims!
Monday, April 16, 2007
The 'Left' redefining Easter?
It seems that whenever a Christian holiday (read 'holy day') comes up, the 'Left' go nuts!
What is it with them? Maybe we should redefine some of the 'holy days' belonging to the 'Left!'
Of course, two of the most 'holy days' for the 'Left' are Evolution Day (Scopes Trial - 21 Jul 1925) and Abortion Day (22 Jan 1973).
Of course, we know that the "left" had already redefined the Scopes case in its grossly inaccurate film, Inherit the Wind. So, there is no redefinition necessary there, just the need for a redressing of the facts of the case.
Then of course, there is Abortion Day! Here, the 'Left' neatly packaged the lie of abortion as the right of 'choice.' Let's redefine it to speak the truth! It is murder! It is NOT about choice, but about immorality and selfishness. The immorality and selfishness of the parents or one of them. The one who should have the choice,
is never given the choice, but is rather eliminated: the unborn child!
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, decided to take it upon himself to redefine Easter!
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
Posts
