Gays sought to serve in the US military

Gays sought to serve in the US military : Click play to play, in the alternative right click link and select view in new window/tab to download

Article by Marc Aupiais



Note by Marc Aupiais

Barack Hussein Obama's Democrats with some Republican support have passed a bill reversing an ancient ban on homosexuals in the US military, through both houses of parliament, just before the Democrats lose their historic majority in historic Republican gains from an electorate angry with Obama policies including on abortion in re healthcare and secondarily the economy.

The US President, Barack Obama is due to sign the bill into law soon, having successfully pushed it through a lame duck session of the US parliament, before the newly elected politicians reach Washington. The move is expected to help get support for Obama from the far left in American politics, but has raised the specter of Societal Engineering, and of a military not based on what best serves a country, but rather based on ideology and a right to fight- for some but still not for women. The military will have 60 days to enact changes when the bill is signed, although there are already reports of intimidation of military chaplains to teach their individual religions more in line with government policy according to the Catholic News Agency service.

One in five American men who have sex with men have HIV/AIDS, 4.4 of ten of these don't know. The suspected wikileaks source was a homosexualist who openly served in the US military and released the documents after a clash with his male partner.

Women are still not allowed to serve the US military on the frontlines, and a large number of personelle in the largely conservative military have said they will cut their terms short or not re-enlist. Pastors and priests who believe homosexuality is immoral- that being the majority serving US troops, who quoting the bible called it an abomination- have been told to be silent on their beliefs or leave the military.

The move has also been reported to the Muslim world and in Africa, where American objectives are already failing.

The Catholic bishop to the US military in accordance with Vatican rules and the Catechism of the Catholic church opposed the move.

Ironically, or intentionally, instead of imposing silence on homosexuals in the US military- the Obama administration is now silencing Christians.

Statistically those who engage in a homosexual lifestyle are more prone to suicide or other anti-social behaviour, and have a very high prevalence of STDs, and promiscuity according to medical statistics. HIV prevention medication is often tested on this group- considered the canary on the mine when it comes to STD infections.

South Africa has both homosexual and HIV positive personelle allowed on the front lines. The military is considered ageing, under staffed and not fit for combat by experts.

America also passed a 750 billion military spending budget- the largest in history, even though experts across the world including American wikileak leaked cables state that America cannot win the war in Afghanistan, and has yet to stabilise Iraq according to experts on the ground and elsewhere.

South Africa: DA Leaders office denies any pro-civil-union discrimination

(Scripturelink Voters guide)

Article by Marc Aupiais

In response to a request for clarity on seeming insinuation of DA discrimination for Homosexual candidates, the DA, has responded to our concerns. Gavin Davis, the Chief of Staff of the Da's Office of The Leader, whom I have corresponded with in the past, has responded to our concerns on behalf of Christian voters. The following is an email reply we received from him today:

2009/3/10 Gavin Davis 

Dear Marc

Thank you for your email.

As I mentioned in previous correspondence, DA public representatives have a free vote on issues of conscience including civil unions. To my knowledge, Mr Ollis has never said that the DA is for civil unions. He has expressed his personal view, which he has every right to do. But it does not represent the view of the party.

As far as the DA’s lists are concerned, there is no discrimination either for or against people from any particular group, whether based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind regards
Gavin

We have asked that the DA monitor their facebook group better, and are pleased that their national policy seems the same. It does seem odd, that Ian Ollis, should make such a point, as he did, and that he seems to have insinuated certain things, which would make the DA a less acceptable party to vote for.

As it is, they maintain their status on our acceptable vote list. Due to the positions of their leadership. We do hope that the DA will look into the claims by Ian Ollis, involving the Gauteng list, and sexual orientation.

South Africa: DA's SA Christian voters lose say?

(Scripturelink Voters Guide)

Note: the DA's leader's office's head of staff replied to our request: http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/03/south-africa-da-leaders-office-denies.html

Article By Marc Aupiais

Recently, we came accross the following:

"

Post #1

Ian Ollis wroteon February 25, 2009 at 1:49pm

Ok, so huge numbers of people have been asking about the gay thing, so I decided we should start a discussion on the board! Currently, the DA has a large number of gay (LGBTI) people as public rep's either as MP's MPL's and Councillors around the country. Yes, I am one of them! On our election lists for the 2009 general elections, I was extremely happy to see the number of gay people that have been chosen on the lists for parliament and the various provinces as candidates. A case in point is the Gauteng Parliamentary Candidates list. I am currently one of 5(that I know of) gay or lesbian people in the top 16 positions on the list. That is a huge plus for the party and for our representivity. Show me one other party in SA that has that many? An many of us, like myself, Mike Waters, Paul Willemburg are very out about our sexuality. we are not a pink party however. We support equal rights for gay people, just as we support say, the equal rights of both genders, all races and each language group in the country. For those of you out there who are thinking of voting DA and for whom this is an issue, rest assured, the DA is the party that most represents the rights and views of gay people and not just in words. we have actions that support what we say! Viva Helen Viva!"

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2226300562&topic=7506

Ian Ollis, is the 11th member listed on the DA's GAUTENG NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LIST listing. I see no reason to discount that the person speaking is him.

 Last year, when asking the DA, whether or not they had altered their policy on gay marriage, their answer to our organization was no: they still had no policy. This was after a decision involving Internation Politics, which technically favored "Gay Marriage".

We have requested a reply from the Democratic alliance, on this issue, since, having seen this admittal by a potential MP.

This was posted on their facebook group.

The DA, has also refused to alter the constitution, so that abortion is clearly relegated to the criminal arena, as any South African, no matter their age, can legally request an abortion. The only restrictions in South Africa, seem to focus on protecting the mother's health. The Judiciary, largely seems to have a certain view of the Constitution, and some believe that if South Africa's abortion laws are overturned, they will overturn the nullification of ANC: African National Congress: policy. This trial has yet to occur however.

Such moves either mean nothing, or everything. The DA would not have succeeded in changing the constitution, and so their choice had no effect, but they seemed to say that the constitution was over in 1994.

If the DA values their Pro-life, pro-family, pro-catechism voters, I suggest that they clarify this issue: as one of their representatives seems to be saying that they have purposely placed a large portion of homosexual voters on their parliamentary list high up. Such would mean a pragmatic change in a possibly neutral vote on a pro-life issue: marriage.

Such calls into account: how does the DA stand on other issues of policy, such as abortion: another issue, of importance to Christians voting. If they are that sort of "liberals" now, leaving what I would have thought was the PFP behind, then: where else are they liberal. America's Democratic Party has jumped on both issues, so have many others. Such concern lies not in homosexual ideas, which generally may change from each to each: but what is considered liberalism in many nations.

Both support of "Gay Marriage", and support of abortionist policies, are issues which make a party very unlikely to be the best for Catholic voters. The question is whether or not the DA is still neutral on these issues, or if they simply are officially neutral, but have hidden practical policies.

I would like it if the DA were to reply to my request.

Can the DA say that it is still neutral on these morally concerning issues to Christian voters?

If the man above is not Ian Ollis, I request that the DA inform us, as it is, I suspect it is the DA potential Parliamentarian, and I hope that the DA, is not discriminating against heterosexuals in their representation in parliament.

(Traditionalism) TAC Anglicans to join Catholic church?

(Insider Confessions Analysis)

Article by Marc Aupiais

In objection to "Homosexual" priests and bishops being accepted, and women priests, and such things: the "Traditional Anglican Communion", seeking to keep with biblical traditions, since 2007: has been on the books: as possible converts to the Catholic faith. Opus Dei, is currently the only personal prelature in the Catholic church. Chances are: the SSPX, will also become one if negotiations succeed, traditional Anglicans, a large grouping of the Anglican church, are muted, to possibly get this status: they have already asked to become catholics: it is up to the church, the ball in the Vatican's court: on how or if this is to occur.

The Catholic Church in England: has consistently undermined Vatican Authority in the past, and has declined significantly in recent times. If this Anglican grouping can enter the church: it would be a great blow to those bishops apposing the Vatican, and to the Anglican communion's liberalist enforcement globally.

Many authentic sources: have seen, since the 30th, and perhaps before or after: a possible reunification between many Anglicans, and (what Butler calls) the Ancient Religion, on the cards.

Benedict XVI, has been famous in certain circles for years: for his "Ecumenical" abilities: and ecumenism: is aimed at reuniting the Ancient Religion, with offshoots, and creating and forming better relations between groupings. Even his controversial statements on Islam, have, in the long run: caused the two global religion groupings to come nearer to one another: closer, via diologue: because: both sides then began to speak more fully. The Church, and many Islamics: have been speaking since, especially scholars: in a vibrant manner.

Benedict XVI, may be more important; historically, than John XXIII: whose reforms, were useful, but often misunderstood. The misunderstanding of these reforms, and the influence of secularists on the Catholic church: with secularist values: has caused a marked decline in vocations: and fear and worries throughout the communion.

The Introduction of the Traditionalist Anglicans, and the Catholic Traditionalist Schism of SSPX, an order of priests: back into the Catholic church: may be partly aimed towards creating the warmth, and diversity, and orthodoxy, and clarification in the church, which John XXIII originally must have intended in introducing the Church to the modern age via Vatican II. Certainly, it is better that we re-entered the age: on the terms of Vatican II, than as many other communities do now: attempting to navigate the tides of secularist movements, throughout the world.

A source, believed we should hear whether or not the Anglicans will re-enter the church: by around easter.

This, Anglican move, as with the long term effects of the SSPX ecumenism, could create rapids around the would, and not simply ripples. This is a great symbol: it is the rejection of almost secularist policies emerging in the Anglican hierarchy, which may use the bible to justify policies, but which are based in the culture surrounding them, and not in the time, and mentality of the early Church Fathers, as history records their beliefs on issues of morals and doctrine. Modern Anglican moves, have also been contrary to their historic views, with bishops taking views, which once would have been called heresy by Anglicans.

Reunification, gradual, and intelligent reunification, with both groups: could certainly create a dynamism: which could rescue the church herself more fully from the whirlpool, of secularist influences: who so powerfully assault the church from all sides, and even from those who have crept into her hierarchy: these are all things that Benedict XVI will likely consider, as well as any dangers brought into the church with the million (+- 1 000 000), with a large percentage of priests among them, strong SSPX following, and four hundred thousand (+- 4 00 000) strong TAC following. He is likely to review each case separately, as he determines what to do about each grouping.

The hope might be: in order to restart the powerful heartbeat, the dynamism: which used to bring so many priests, and nuns into the hierarchy.

In coming days: both groups could be incorporated into the Divine structure, and become truly Catholic.

Response of the Office of Helen Zille (DA Leader) on concerns over homosexuality statements

(Scripturelink Voters guide)

Introduction by Marc Aupiais

The following is an Email Response, by the office of Helen Zille, leader of the DA (Democratic Alliance) in South Africa, and Mayor of Cape Town, to concerns raised, over a press release, in which the ANC were lambasted, for not supporting a document, which in addition to the noble cause of decriminalizing Homosexuality, legally: also promoted, and seemed to attempt to legislate "Gender theory": which would insinuate support of Homosexual civil unions: "Gay Marriage", something the church considers to be irreconcilable with Catholic morality, and society.

Date: 19 January 2009 16:06
Email: Leader < leader@da.org.za >
Title: Response from the office of Helen Zille
Respondent: Tammy Evans

Large sections of the Contents of Email Response:

"Dear Mr Aupiais



On behalf of Helen Zille, thank you for your e-mail.



As indicated in the press statement you refer to, the DA supports the decriminalisation of homosexuality in line with our Constitution.



The DA’s position on civil unions is the same as it always has been. Like all issues of conscience, the DA gives its members a free vote to vote in Parliament as they choose.



Giving our members a free vote on civil unions is compatible with the belief that homosexuality is not a crime.



I hope that this e-mail has served to clarify your concerns.



Please feel free to remain in touch with our office.



Sincerely



Tammy Evans



Political Assistant

Office of the Leader - Democratic Alliance

2nd floor, Marks Building, Parliament

Cape Town 8000"


This email (contact details somewhat excluded)

is in response to another by ourselves: to the DA:

"A DA objection, to not voting on a UN proposal by France has caught my attention. My objection, is not the protection of homosexual rights, but the same, as that given by the Vatican, when apposing such a proposal. The proposal promotes Gender theory, and therefore gay marriage. Yes, South Africa should have stated, they supported the principle of freedom from persecution, but support of that proposal means indirectly, seeming: support for Gay marriage (something that the SA populace does not in majority support): an issue that he DA has been neutral on previously. I would like a clarification from the DA: on their neutrality on this issue, as it will affect both my vote, and many others. This does affect moral issues, as the DA is in fact, willingly or not: making a stance on this issue!"
(to: leader@da.org.za;
date: 16 January 2009 15:39;
subject: Clarification needed, I represent a media initiative (3 days ago);
mailed-by gmail.com)

South Africa: DA (Democratic Alliance): in support of Homosexuality: addition to previous reviews

(Scripturelink Voters guide; c.f. IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009; c.f. Archive 03 / Dec / 2008; c.f. Archive 12 / Dec / 2008; c.f. 23 / Dec / 2009; DA Support, on their own website 11 January 2008 (see such))

(Note, while this is not to justify the stance they took on this issue, they have replied to our request for a response via email, we have recorded their response, from Helen Zille: in another post: in which they reaffirm party policy, to allow in the SA Parliament: Freedom of Conscience, on moral issues: Response of the Office of Helen Zille (DA Leader) on concerns over homosexuality statements: http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-of-office-of-helen-zille-da.html )

Article by Marc Aupiais

The DA, who have previously gained a relatively good rating from us, have done something, which calls into question their dignity. Tony Leon, their Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has asked, via questions submitted in parliament: the ANC's Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who is South Africa's foreign minister, why RSA ("The Republic of South Africa"); did not vote for a UN (United Nations) push, considered as anti-religious discrimination, by the Vatican: which affirmed "Gender Theory", and attacked religious: in a move, claimed to be aimed at legalizing homosexuality throughout the world.

Their stance, if with an understanding of the document: would seem to insinuate support for Gay marriage: a definite seeming change in policy on the issue.

This note is based on an article in IOL: stating that Tony Leon Stated:

""Our failure to translate our domestic constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world," Leon said."

9IOL (Independent; Secular; South African) 12 / Jan / 2009)

The DA's previous record on "claimed" neutrality on moral issues, seems somewhat broken in this recent escapade. The UN resolution, fronted by France, was apposed by 60 nations, via a direct, joint statement, and in a addition,in a statement, which also rejected calls by those 60 nations: linking homosexuality to child molesting: as incorrect, the Vatican also rejected such: saying that they rejected it: due to clauses which encouraged anti-religious persecution.

66 nations, including the EU: supported the initiative.


The wording of the resolution, was thought by the Vatican to contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in it's affirmation of Gender theory: in so far as the Vatican directly stated: that it would likely lead to persecution of natural, universally accepted marriage: and put pressure on nations to accept "Gay Marriage": something, which the church considers an objective evil. Attacks on marriage: which the church considers the union between one man and one woman, aimed at unity and childcare: are considered enough to disqualify a party: so far as voting is concerned: unless voting for such a party: consists of supporting the lesser of two evils; so as to prevent greater evil.

4 out of 5 (80%) of South Africans, consider homosexual acts to be always wrong. This according to the statutory body for statistics http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-39.phtml

We have sent an electronic communication to the DA's Guateng Representation, asking for comment on this issue, and informing them of the "Gender Theory" bias of the proposition, they seem to be raising issues about. We will hopefully have a response, or update on this issue soon.

We have also informed the Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference of this, we shall hopefully be able to keep you up to date on such things.

The ANC, which is seemingly, politically speaking: "radically" in support of the pro-abortion, and pro-gay marriage camps, as compared definite opposition in South Africa: and their choice to force these issues through (i.e. "radically" when nine out of ten South Africans (90%) appose abortion, and 4 out of 5 think homosexual acts are always wrong: they still chose to force MPs (Members of Parliament) to support such,something which makes them different in this issue, than South Africa's norm in demographics), responded, saying that they simply had not gotten around to signing it, but supported it. The South African ambassador to the UN (United Nations), Dumisani Kumalo, stated that it was not signed: so as not to offend other African nations: of which 6 alone sign it. 47 African Nations did not sign the December 18th proposal.

Abortion laws in South Africa: are considered in Catholic theology, to violate the right of conscientious objection, to participating in the killing of the yet to be born baby.

January 18th, is set forth as a day for the sanctity of Life, in the United States (Of America), under outgoing US (American) President George W Bush, who is doing so, in a stance by the White House against abortion. US (American) President Elect Barak Hussein Obama, has vowed to overturn laws requiring parental consent for abortions, and recently voted to allow a child which survived abortion, to be killed. His most clear promises, seem to be in this field: where he plans to get more funding to abortionists, and wherein, many appointees to vital positions in his administration: are ideologically pro-abortion, raising questions, as to his purpose in appointing these people to such positions.

His vowed legislation, is radical, and seems biased. Many American Catholic bishops, outright apposed him, including a senior Vatican aid. Vatican Representation, say that if legislation, he has promised to pass, passes, such would be seen as an act of war.

One the DA Issue, their own website states:

"TONY LEON, MP
DA SPOKESPERSON ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

On receipt of the news that South Africa refused to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day in December 2008 calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality I submitted on Friday 9 January 2009 the following questions to the Minister of Foreign Affairs:

1. Whether she can indicate why the South African government failed to support a declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on Human Rights Day, calling for the decriminalisation of homosexuality; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;

2. whether her Office has considered the ramifications of the South African government’s failure to support this declaration for the South African government’s reputation, both internationally and domestically, in terms of being committed to (a) upholding its Constitution and the values enshrined in it and (b) promoting the freedom of its people as well as the people of other countries; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Our failure to translate our domestic Constitution and legislation into international support for human rights is clearly motivated by a desire not to offend some of the most retrogressive and authoritarian countries in the world. This contradiction between what we practise at home and preach abroad is entirely and unhappily consistent with our role call of dismal votes on the United Nations Security Council during our ill-starred tenure there which ended in December 2008."


(DA (Seular; South African; Political party: Press Release 11 / 01 / 2009; no copyright listed)

Catholic Watchdog South Africa: US pro-abortion: "American Civil Liberties Union": sues federal government: for government funding apposing human traf

(Catholic Watchdog South Africa; c.f. Reuers (Secular; British Based; Independent; we don't endorse this article) 12 / 01 / 2009; c.f Creative Minority Report 17 / Jan / 2008; 17 / Jan / 2008; 06 / June / 2007; 07 / January / 2009; 13 / Jan / 2009; c.f. Archive: Philippines, Asia, Eurasia: Bishops draft own bill against contraception happy liberals! Recently after attempts to instill a 2 child limit on the nation 20 / 11 / 2008; Americas Abortion News- Insurance must pay up to help abortion, all restrictions to be lifted, state to fund genocide against unborn- This is the change Obama, who voted for allowing infanticide in failed abortions- Promised quite publicly 08 / NOV / 2008 ; BBC World News (Secular; British; Governmental) on what Genocide is 10 / Dec / 2001; UN on Genocide 12 / Jan / 1951)

Article By Marc Aupiais

Known for stances: that people having sex in public toilets: expect privacy, support for homosexuality, abortion, contraception, and polygamy: the ACLU ("American Civil Liberties Union"): has taken to attacking a US government contract, which employed the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops), to help protect the rights of those victim to human trafficking, via a court case against the US federal government. The employment, was allegedly, via US $ 6 000 000 (United States Dollars: Six Million), in grants: which where given between 2006, and 2008: towards the fighting of human trafficking, a field in which the church has been quite involved in: in fighting human trafficking that is.

The Pro-Abortion, ACLU: whose other cases involve, a push to redefine the word "couple", to refer to a group, instead of two: whose antics: have at times caught the ire of those really supporting human rights: claim that the fact that the Catholic Church, has stated that they won't fund abortions, and contraception for those involved in Human trafficking, is against the "rights" of those in human trafficking. Representation of the church: says that the Bishops Conference, is the best suited organization, in America, to deal with victims of human trafficking. It might also be noted, that abortion, defined as an intrinsic evil, in catholic dogma, and the ethics, of many: is a separate issue from Human Trafficking. Surely, supplying condoms to those escaping human trafficking: is not as effective, if effective at all, as getting them out of such: in fact, it seems to send the entirely wrong message, as with all condom campaigns: which are largely unsuccessful, as compared other programs: at curbing the spread of disease.

Recently, an American hospital, threw a woman's baby out, literally with the trash, by the time she'd returned, to claim it for a funeral: it was no longer available: having been dumped. The hospital is using as its defense that the child was allegedly "Stillborn"; the Mother contests that the baby was alive, they even brought a blanket for it. If the baby was stillborn, under the law of the State of New Jersey, the child is considered not a person, but an object: whereby the hospital would by law: get away with throwing the baby out (CMR 07 / January / 2009).

American President Elect, Barak Hussein Obama, known for his voting for euthanasia, in the case of failed abortions, plans to remove parental consent, and just about all restrictions on Abortion, in all American states, including forcing insurance companies to pay for abortive pills, and US taxpayers to foot abortion bills, this is part of a promise he made to American Abortionists, "Planned Parenthood", who were implicated, in a situation last year, where their international arm, along with the US Population Control department, and some UN representation: they attempted to enforce, via legislation: which could be defined as an article 2, section d, genocide (according to the UN definition of Genocide*), on the Philippines( c.f. Philippines, Asia, Eurasia: Bishops draft own bill against contraception happy liberals! Recently after attempts to instill a 2 child limit on the nation 20 / 11 / 2008) . Laws, looked into, and promoted by outgoing President Bush, which prevent doctors, from being forced to perform abortions, in the US, are some of the things, which US President Elect, Obama, will overturn, if his word is to be taken on the matter. The fact that many of Mr Obama's appointments to political office appear to be motivated, via their ideological beliefs: has concerned many people. Allot of his appointments, appear to be based on candidates pro-abortion stance: as he plans to front the biggest push for the abortion industry, ever to hit America. "Planned Parenthood", are among those who seem most overjoyed at the promises Obama gave them, "Planned Parenthood": who already teach sex education in schools, despite being the major American abortion firm, they are, are expected to get more legislative support: for their conquering of the Sex education system in America: despite statistics, showing that more students who are taught by their program: have teenage pregnancies, that those taught by other programs.

*

"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

(UN on Genocide 12 / Jan / 1951)

c.f.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Pope warns of threat of Gender Theory, as proven recently in Spanish Anti-Catholicism

(Social Justice South Africa; c.f. IOL (secular) 24/12/2008; CNN (Secular) 23/12/2008)

Article by Marc Aupiais

Gay groupings, and Anglican persons, have viciously attacked the Catholic Pontiff Benedict XVI, for statements by the Pope: that Gender theory is incorrect: and that movements promoting this, and dangerous sexual habits: are as much a danger to the planet as climate issues. The fact that the papacy did not even use a term for homosexuals, shows that his aim was not discrimination, but protection of Catholic doctrine.

Anglicanism directly apposes the biblical definition of Marriage: allowing both for divorce, and for homosexuality: condemned as a practice in the bible: for which one would be prevented from entering heaven. Also, Anglicans allow sexually active priests, and women priests: against both Jesus command: and some shall become Eunuchs for the sake of God, and against the standards by which a priest is to be chosen: as listed in the bible. Due to these, the Anglican church is sharply divided, with many members having fled to Orthodoxy or Catholicism over such alterations. Anglicanism, is also the first Protestant church which changed their doctrine to allow for "Artificial contraception".

One of the reasons for Pope Benedict's concerns may lie in the link between activists for homosexuality, and activists for abortion, and for the secularization of the world. A ruling, which banned a judge in Spain from office, because he deemed a lesbian couple unfit parents: is an example of the paranoia which accompanies gender theory, which the Vatican openly condemns.

While some protesters may be irrationally claiming that the statements reaffirming Catholic dogma: by Pope Benedict XVI: will increase violence against homosexuals:

media reports, which sensationalized the papacy's statements as anti-gay assults: within the secular media: are much more likely to cause violence: against gays, as well as Catholics: as they exclude the manner in which, and context of Pope Benedict's statements.

Madrid, Spain: Persecution of Science and Catholicism continues: Judge fined, and banned from public office

(Social Justice South Africa; c.f. News 24 (Secular) 24/12/2008)

Article by Marc Aupiais

Fernando Ferrin Calamita, was not allowed to take science, and experience into account, he was not allowed to take the disgusting effect that having no father figure, and being an oddity to friends: would have on a child: instead: the socialist, and radically anti-religious Spanish government: banned him from Public employment for 2 years, and fined him thousands of Euros: because he did his job, and refused a lesbian couple the "right" to adopt a child they desired to adopt.

Somehow, the issue had made it to his court: and Catholics, unlike others are not permitted to ignore the mountains of Psychological evidence which shows the incapacity of a lesbian couple to give a child a normal upbringing. Socialist Spain recently removed crucifixes from schools, refused a Christmas display in a government building (refusing pleas from the lawyers who made it: that Christmas is not just religious, but cultural), Spain's socialists have increasingly attacked Roman Catholicism in any public area, and have forced through highly questionable laws. Spain has entered controversy by new laws: including gay "marriage", and "rights", and other such regulations deemed by Catholicism to be false rights, condemned as false by at least 60 nations in the UN of late, and by the Vatican; like adoption laws which are deemed to harm children. While the Vatican apposes imprisoning, or killing those who practice homosexual acts, attraction to those of one's gender is not condemned: only endorsement of such, and homosexuality: as far is it is practiced and endorsed: which are condemned, but not purely as dangerous activities as health is concerned, and as such not advisable: but further: condemned in the Bible: as fornication: and an activity for which salvation is lost.


Note: Our definition of false rights: is based on definitions of when a law is applicable, and when it is oppression: in the Catechism of the Catholic church.

While protection of homosexuals from unjust discrimination is not considered a false law: gay marriage is considered by the church to promote dangerous activities: and therefor is classed as against the common good: and condemned as abuse of power by the Catholic church.

Vatican City: Church representative justifies choice to appose "decriminalization of "homosexuality""

(Social Justice South Africa ; c.f. News 24 (secular) 11/12/2008 )

Article by Marc Aupiais

A Vatican choice to strongly appose the encroachment of European might under France upon the world: via a charter to decriminalize homosexuality, is not discrimination, as was wrongly claimed by some gay activists, but a logical move to prevent discrimination against Catholic states, which appose Gay "marriage": something the document definitely, it seems; has aims at, or may have the very likely result of. This is source of the probable fears of the Vatican: who have seen increased fanaticism by anti-religious movements in Europe, and homosexual activists, attempting to attack it and any who believe, as they have the human right to do so: that gay "marriage" is not permissible.

The Vatican is one of the biggest voices on the Death penalty, and human rights: and is not discriminating against gays by not agreeing with such an affront to Catholic beliefs. According to the source quoted by News 24, whose position we have not verified: the Vatican does not wish to punish gay people as criminals, but likewise cannot go against the clear mandate on morality, which it is known by all obedient to the papacy: Jesus handed to the church.

Media Study South Africa- Disney's Camp Rock Reviewed

(Media Study South Africa)

Article by Marc Aupiais

In Catholic circles- Disney is a big no-no- we don't like to use their products, don't like what they do about our religion, and don't like their stances on abortion and homosexuality- or the way in which men in their movies often land up in dresses for some odd reason.

The Jonas Brothers ("Catholic Exchange 13/09/08"; 16/09/08)- who appear in this movie- are noted to the public as virgins- who wear purity rings- something that does not clink well with Disney's usual image- but something positive from "role Models", mind you, Miley Cyrus also apparently wears one, not that she isn't right in this- but that did not prevent the pictures in Vanity Fair of the slightly dressed self! The Jonas Brother's Father is a minister in a Christian church, and purity rings are a sign of a promise of chastity to God. The Jonas Brothers have been publicly slammed by some in their industry for this practice- but seem not to have stopped it.

Camp rock hasn't got such a bad theme- the main character lies to get popular- but eventually, losing much for the lie- turns to the truth, and love of family and more real people somewhat honorably- it is a cute romance movie which causes you to fall in love with the female lead before the end. Parents are portrayed positively in this movie- a big step forward for Disney- even as main characters continue to strike one as oddballs.

Even the bad guys in this movie turn around, and are empathized with.

Of course the idea of going on a camp and falling in love- is neither new, nor utterly healthy- but this movie is an improvement. To be honest- it is in some ways just another mass produced Disney corporate recipe, but however simply they manage to create a cliché plot- they are not entirely bad at this.

One might further note the "bitchy" high school banter between characters- which might be a negative- but once again a step up from some offerings up there from Disney.

This is an acceptable movie to watch in our opinion, however we should be careful that children do not become too attached to the Disney name.

Search on Disney's Camp Rock

Disney's Camp Rock

Vague reference to Camp Rock and the Jonas Brothers

Catholic Exchange
Vague reference to Camp Rock

Search on the "Jonas Brothers"

The Jonas Bothers