This may sound unbelievable, but it seems that people can now donate money to Planned Parenthood to specifically abort babies from minority groups.

A number of videos have been posted on Youtube containing recordings of calls to Planned Parenthood centers. In these videos, a donor asks if it is possible to donate money for an explicitly racist purpose (such as reducing the number of black children in a community). The Planned Parenthood employees inform the donors that this is definitely possible and gladly accept the donations.

Here are the links to some of these videos.

• Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation Part I: Idaho.
• Planned Parenthood Racism Investigation Part II: Oklahoma and New Mexico (In Part II there’s a clip of Barack Obama thanking Planned Parenthood!)

The videos were made by Live Action Films. Here’s a link to their channel on Youtube.

The videos, of course, sparked protests from outraged Americans. Here’s a link to some photos by the De-Fund Planned Parenthood Campaign.

Evidently, Planned Parenthood will take money from anyone for clearly racist purposes. Given the group’s history, that isn’t surprising. It’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a devoted rascist and openly promoted eugenics — the idea that human hereditary traits can be improved through direct intervention. The article, “The Truth About Margaret Sanger“, traces the groups roots:

At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the “black” and “yellow” peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.

Sanger’s other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy. Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as “scientific” and “humanitarian.” And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America’s human “breeding stock” and purging America’s “bad strains.” These “strains” included the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.”

Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as “unfit,” a plan she said would be the “salvation of American civilization.: And she also spike of those who were “irresponsible and reckless,” among whom she included those ” whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” She further contended that “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.” That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered “unfit” cannot be easily refuted.

How a group with such a sordid heritage could have gained mainstream status says a lot about the deceptive propaganda of the abortion and contraception camps. Not many people know about the racist and eugenicist nature of Planned Parenthood, just as they don’t know that eugenics was practiced by Nazi Germany. It is therefore important that this information reach as many responsible adults as possible.

The investigation videos are a step in that direction.

The latest “crisis” to hit the Philippines is the much talked-about rice “shortage”, and as expected, the advocates of the Culture of Death are once again blaming “overpopulation” as the culprit. Not only is this factually wrong, but it is also a despicable attempt to turn attention away from the real cause of the crisis: massive corruption and irresponsible, long-standing mismanagement of the economy.

Politics of Distraction

Research shows that the GMA administration is perceived to be one of the most corrupt in Philippine history. The Philippines scores way low, at 131 out of 180 nations, in Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index. A recent national survey found many Filipinos think that Gloria Arroyo is the country’s most corrupt leader, more so than former President-dictator Ferdinand Marcos, as reported in the December 12, 2007, Sun Star story “Survey says Arroyo most corrupt president“:

The nationwide survey by independent pollster Pulse Asia found that 42 percent of Filipinos believed Arroyo is the country’s most corrupt leader, compared to 35 percent for Marcos.

Lest anyone miss the point, massive corruption has serious effects on the economy and the delivery of government services. Funds that should be going into education, salaries and housing for our soldiers and civil servants, infrastructure, health, agricultural support, and social services ends up in the pockets of those who don’t deserve it. Is it any wonder then that we lack classrooms and texbooks, have underpaid soldiers and policemen, inadequate primary health care, and poor, underproductive farmers?

Another problem — which, to be fair, was allowed by previous administrations — was the insistence on debt servicing, including even the repayment of questionable loans. This has effectively emaciated government’s ability to make critical capital investments in the nation’s industries and infrastructure.

The Arroyo government insists on paying even for debts incurred for what are arguably illegitimate and harmful items. One recent example is the purchase of defective medical incinerators from Austria that emit unacceptable levels of pollutants (”Move to block debt payment suspension condemned“).

In a recent press release, “Philippines’ Outstanding External Debt now at US$54.9 Billion“, the Freedom from Debt Coalition reported the following:

According to the latest data approved and registered by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the country’s outstanding external debt stood at US$54.9 billion as of end-December 2007. This amount is 2.9 per cent higher than the US$53.4-billion figure registered in 2006.

Our external debt continues to grow and Flipinos continue to pay for things that do not benefit them. Is this what passes for proper management of the national economy?

The timing of the rice “shortage” is therefore interesting, coming on the heels of Jun Lozada’s expose and the rumblings of dissatisfaction from some Philippine bishops who have decried the Arroyo adminsitration’s shenanigans. What better way to shift attention than to have a crisis that hits everyone where it hurts: the stomach and the wallet?

GMA Plays the “Overpopulation” Card

To further consolidate her position, it seems that the Arroyo adminsitration is finally playing the “overpopulation” card to get back at the Catholic bishops — and hopefuly silence them.

Arroyo has long relied on the support of the Catholic bishops. She played the devout Catholic by supporting Natural Family Planning (NFP) in lieu of promoting artificial contraceptives and supported the removal of the death penalty. With one corruption scandal after another rocking her administration, however, that support has eroded, and some bishops have come out openly against her. So to keep the rest of the bishops in line, she apparently has resorted to hitting back, threatening some bishops with legal action, and now pretending that “overpopulation” is the cause of the food crisis and mulling over the promotion of artificial (so-called “modern”). methods of birth control.

Although the Catholic Church is not against population control per se, it is, of course, against such dangerous and anti-family methods. Quite a number of Catholics (including some bishops) have also questioned whether “overpopulation” really exists in the Philippines, correctly pointing out that poverty is actually caused by greed, injustice, economic mismanagement, and corruption — and not because there are “too many Filipinos”.

Say it like it is

The recurrent “overpopulation” mantra incessantly parroted by Rep. Lagman and now even the minions of the Arroyo administration should be seen for what it is: a blatant lie; and a smokescreen to cover up the misdeeds and incompetence of those in power.

When will the truth surface?

Resources

• Transparency Intenational,Global Corruption Report 2007: download page and PDF version.
• Philippine Debt Service Statistics page (Freedom from Debt Coalition)

February is ProLife month. So that means this post is a lot later than it should be. Still, I’ve put together some suggestions thatordinary people can do this month — or any time of the year — to promote a Culture of Life.

1. Expose the lie that contraception can lead to fewer abortions. The exact opposite is true. There is information on that issue in the ProLife Philippines website, LifeSiteNews, Human Life International, Population Research Institute, and many others. Download and pass this information around via e-mail, text messages, instant messaging, and if you can afford to, print them out as flyers and handouts.

2. Vote and speak out against the authors and supporters of the anti-life bills in the Senate and in Congress. These include Rep. Lagman, Rep. Remulla and Sen. Biazon (not sure if Biazon will run again though). Write to your local and national legislators and oppose the various “reproductive health” ordinances which are promoting the contraceptive mentality that eventually leads to abortion.

3. Make a small contribution to ProLife Philippines. You can also subscribe to their magazine, Love Life. Help them educate our people on the many issues involved. Education is key.

4. Most important, make a firm resolution to resist irresponsible behavior and be faithful to your Church and your spouse. No one is perfect, but we still have to try.

These suggestions are not national or global in scale, but can make a real difference when enough people carry them out.

General Objectives Related to a Culture fo Life

Here are some more general goals that are related to building a Culture of Life. I post hese in the hope others can come up with more specific suggestions to attain them.

Promote Education in Life Values. We first have to disabuse ourselves of the notion of an “unwanted” pregnancy. An unplanned one is not necessariy “unwanted” as a great many women have found out. I know several who thought their pregnances were “unwanted”, and later found them to be wonderful blessings in disguise. Again, education in the value of life and faith is key here. So we have to help support (or organize support if we are capable) for the organizations that engage in this kind of education.

The ProLife Philippines site has a number of initiatives towards this end. I also believe my earlier suggestions will also help in reducing irresponsible behavior in general and educating our people.

Promote Governance Reform. We must also realize that the hardships many people face in raising responsible children (who will eventually become parents) is closely related to the state of governance of our country. An immoral, massively corrupt administration impoverishes our people, resulting in poor education, lack of economic opportunities, poor public services, and contributes to a general atmosphere of greed and apathy. So reform in our political system is urgently needed. Ang Kapatiran, the political party, has made the initial step towards that goal. If they remain faithful to their ideals, that party deserves our support and our votes.

Promote A ProLife Mindset. This can be done by supporting the Church and its educational organizations and lay organizations, distribution of prolife educational materials, supporting prolife politicians, opposing anti-life bills and ordinances, inviting prolife speakers to various fora, etc.

Reject Foreign Contraception Requirements. USAID, IPPF, and other organizations continue promote an anti-life agenda both for their own imagined benefit and in order to attract contributions from various donors. Our government should reject their pro-contraception and pro-abortion demands outright. Other countries (like Nicaragua) have successfully resisted these groups. The Philippines can too. The Philippine government should also investigate the special favor being granted to the PLCPD, which has a lobbying office right at the House of Representatives, and is suspected of channelling foreign aid dollars to certain congressmen to make them more “agreeable” to its anti-life agenda.

Strengthen Prolife Support Mechanisms. The Catholic Church and other groups run many services to support women and parents who are having difficulties. These include pregnancy crisis centers, home for expecting mothers, orphanages, NFP seminars, catechists, etc. These facilities lack funding and are far more deserving of contributions than many of those who do get it (such as our pork barrel-hungry congessmen).

You can choose to stand up for life now. After all, the life you save may be that of your child or grandchild.

The culture of death has been relentless in its advocacy of the population control myth, contraception, and — eventually — abortion. Philippine Local Government Units (LGUs) have become successful targets for so-called “reproductive health” measures that are disingeniously crafted to appear as beneficial programs but are actually used to push abortifacient contraceptives and value-neutral sexuality among minors.

Such deadly measures have already crept nto the programs of some LGUs. These include Aurora Province, Paracelis and Sagada, Mountain Province, Lebak, Sultan Kudarat, Ubay, Bohol, Carmen, Ifugao, and Olongapo City.

Yet another assault on life and the family is taking place in Quezon City in the form of the Reproductive Health and Population Management Ordinance sponsored by District 1 Councilor Joseph Juico.

Fighting for Life

The fight for life, however, is being fought in many small battles by unsung heroes who are willing to take a stand — often at great personal risk — against the culture of death. This drama repeated itself late last year as ordinary citizens stood up to oppose the Juico ordinance.

The Committee on Laws of the Quezon City Council conducted its first public hearing on the proposal on the morning of December 18, 2007. Committee chairman, District 4 Councilor Jesus ‘Bong’ Suntay, presided over the hearing. Councilors Dorothy Delarmente (Dist. 1), Joseph Juico (Dist. 1), Jorge Banal, Jr. (Dist. 3), Antonio Inton, Jr. (Dist. 4), and Edcel Lagman, Jr. (Dist. 4) were also present.

Seven speakers each from the sides for and against the proposed ordinance were allowed ten minutes each to speak and present their views to the Committee. One such courageous person who stood up in defense of life and the family was Edgardo Sorreta, a member of Pro-Life Philippines. Reproduced below is his speech to the Committee (taken from a post the on Prolife Philippines website):

I am a father and represent many fathers who oppose the ordinance on Reproductive Health and Population Management proposed by Councilor Joseph Juico.The 1st point that comes to my mind is “Can you make a legislation prohibiting our brother Muslims from having a 2nd or 3rd wife? Or an ordinance forcing Iglesia ni Cristo members to join unions or rallies?” The obvious answer is no, you cannot, simply because it is their belief and faith which is a basic human right. It is for this reason that no piece of legislation of this sort has ever been debated on the national and local levels.

Yet here you are with this ordinance that forces Barangay health workers and officials, public and private schools to implement a program that goes against the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, fines and imprisonment await those who refuse to tow the line. I hope you realize you cannot do this, especially when more than 80% of your constituents are Catholic! This ordinance will result in a conflict between the state and the Church as it compels Catholics to go against the teachings of the Church. Where is the freedom of choice that Sec 2C of the ordinance provides? The Catholic Church is obliged to speak out the truth, and be clear on her teachings against the use contraceptives (for good moral and temporal reasons, I might add). But does she excommunicate the suppliers of contraceptives, or does she ask the faithful if they use contraceptives before giving them communion? She does not because she respects the basic freedom of every person to choose what is right or wrong. After all, at the end of the day, each one will be held accountable to God alone. And so, contrary to what one of your lawyer speakers said, the Church does not impose, rather it is this ordinance with its punitive action that does unjustly.

The 2nd point is something very close to my heart since it will affect my children, grandchildren and future generations of my family. Part of the definition of Reproductive Health in your ordinance means ‘the ability to have a safe and satisfying sex life’. This is a component of the sex education curriculum being proposed for grade 5 to 4th year HS students, including the use of contraceptives and condoms to avoid HIV infection. This kind of teaching simply is inconsistent, for how can you tell our children not to smoke, and yet on the other hand, teach them how to use filters just in case they do decide to smoke? Additionally, how can you tell our kids to avoid premarital sex, but at the same time, teach them the use of contraceptives and condoms just in case? Who among you, parents, especially our young councilors, would approve premarital sex for your teenagers?

In this regard, I wish to pose these question to our vice-mayor and councilors, especially to Councilor Juico: “Is this something you want the schools to teach your grade 5 to 4th year kids?” If your answer is ‘no’, then there is no need for this ordinance. However, if you honestly think this type of lessons will be good for your children, I have no problem with that. It is your right to bring up your children the best way you see fit. I would suggest though that you do it yourselves. Teach your own children. Or if you do not feel competent to do this, maybe you can organize a summer class for parents who think the same way you do, and they can enroll there, together with their kids. That would really be freedom of choice. But DON’T TEACH IT TO MY CHILDREN! As much as I respect your parental right over your children, so do I expect you to respect mine. I am a Catholic who adheres to the teachings of the Catholic Church, especially regarding contraceptives and I wish to pass these on to my children and their children. By making these lessons compulsory in all public and private schools, you are stepping into my parental responsibilities. UULITIN KO PO – RESPETUHAN LANG PO TAYO! Is that too much to ask? In the end, if my kids get into trouble, the government will not be around for them.

In conclusion, I, together with many parents, unequivocally state that we oppose this ordinance on Reproductive Health and Population Management. We pray that you will respect our basic human right to our religious beliefs and our primary responsibility as parents to our children.

We need more “ordinary” citizens like Mr. Sorreto. May his tribe increase!

Recent wrong-headed legislation allegedly designed to protect homosexuals from discrimination and to promote tolerance and equality, may actually oppress other groups. Christians, it seems, are becoming the targets of such “reverse” discrimination, inequality, and intolerance. This is truly tragic since homosexuals themselves are children of God and deserving of the compassion, justice, and mercy that the more militant pro-gay advocates are so willing to deny to those who disagree with them.

In what would appear to be a mad scramble to pander to the interests of homosexuals, laws are being passed — or implemented in such a manner — that effectively, place limits on freedom of religion and suppress dissent against the homosexual agenda. Father John Flynn, LC, notes this in the article, Imposing “Tolerance”: Christians Obliged to Approve Homosexuality:

ROME, OCT. 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- State laws on homosexuality are increasingly creating conflicts for Christians who wish to follow their conscience. In recent days, news came from England of a Christian couple who face being forced to give up their role as foster parents because they were not prepared to promote homosexuality, reported the Telegraph newspaper Oct. 24.

Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline are registered as foster parents in Somerset County. They are also ministers at the non-conformist South Chard Christian Church. They were recently informed by authorities that they must obey laws that require them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.

Discrimination Against Religious Belief

Secularists have long sought to remove religious belief from public life, seeing it as irrelevant or even counterproductive. But that in itself involves a value judgement, and assumes the superiority of a secular ideology over contrary ideas. It ultimately results in supression of religion and democratic freedoms. Fr. Flynn recognizes the same and quotes Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor who spoke out against such unjust treatment:

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor strongly criticized the ideology inspiring such laws shortly after their approval, during a lecture given March 28 at Westminster Cathedral Hall. In his address titled “The Kingdom of God and This World: the Church in Public Life,” he maintained that, “freedom of religion is much more than the freedom to worship; it is the freedom to act according to that belief in the service of others.”

He also warned against a model of a secular state that seeks to totally exclude religious principles. “The choice of the state to side with the secular is said to be neutrality; and it is usually justified by an appeal to equality,” Cardinal Murphy O’Connor explained.

“But this is in itself ideology, divorcing religion from the public realm on the pretext that religion is divisive,” he continued.

“If equality can only be promoted at the expense of the freedom to manifest our religion, we have reason to question the nature of that equality,” the cardinal observed. “It is not, surely, an equality which adequately recognizes the common dignity of all.”

Pro-Gay Intolerance

Unfortunately, this hostility to religion is also being used to turn homosexuals into a politically protected class, using laws that have real teeth against those who dissent. The consequences for Christians and others who disagree with the homosexual agenda can be dire, as pointed out in the article, Churches fear British hate crimes law could silence Christians:

LONDON, ENGLAND (CNA) - British churches have expressed concern that legislation punishing hate crimes based on sexual orientation could be used to silence Christian disapproval of certain sexual behaviors.

Both the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and the Church of England have issued a memorandum concerning an amendment to the Public Order Act of 1986 that would make incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation an offense punishable by law.

“Christians engaged in teaching or preaching and those seeking to act in accord with Christian convictions in their daily lives need to be assured that the expression of strong opinions on marriage or sexuality will not be illegal,” the memorandum says.

Update: Free Speech for Homosexuals Only?

Homosexuals and similar groups rightly demand that they be allowed to speak freely, The problem, is however, they often do not give the same respect to the rights of others. Take, example, a recent incident at an American college where lesbians forced Ryan Sorba to cut short his speech on what he calls the “Born-Gay Hoax”. Lifesite, in “Lesbian Break-in and Riot During College Speech on ‘Born-Gay Hoax’ Forces Cancellation”, reported as follows:

NORTHAMPTON, MA, May 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” cried a group of lesbians at Smith College Tuesday night in the midst of a riotous protest that met little resistance from on-looking police and security officials and forced scheduled speaker Ryan Sorba to prematurely end his “The Born-Gay Hoax” talk.

Shortly into his speech, the protesters tried to drown out Sorba’s words with loud chants and clanging of pots and pans. As Sorba strove to continue his lecture, protesters invaded from a back window, flooded the podium, and began noisily dancing and clapping in front the speaker.

The report also noted:

The conservative organization Mass Resistance decried the Tuesday night fiasco as an example of “how the homosexual movement views free speech and civil rights in their march to force their social and sexual agenda on others and intimidate and terrorize anyone who would criticize or disagree. Truth and freedom become subjected to the whims of thought police and rioters.”

It is ironic how those who so loudly demand tolerance and respect are so ready to deny it to others with whom they disagree.

Discriminatory Legislation in the Philippines

Closer to home, Senator Ramon Revilla Jr. has filed Senate Bill 11 (”An Act Prohibiting Discrimination On the Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Providing Penalities Therefor”), also known as the “Anti-Gender Discrimination Act”. The bill rightly prohibits the denial of human and civil rights purely on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. But as written, it actually does more than that.

Some of the seemingly innocuous — but possibly dangerous — provisions of the bill follow, along with some analysis and important questions that must be asked.

SEC. 4. Discriminatory Practices. - It shall he unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to:

…

(b) Include sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as the disclosure of sexual orientation, in the criteria for hiring, promotion and dismissal of workers, and in the determination of employee compensation, training, incentives, privileges, benefits or allowances, and other terms and conditions of employment.

This seems an admirable provision to eliminate injustice in the workplace, as homosexuals must also earn a living and receive equal and fair treatment in the workplace. But what if a person’s sexual orientation and practices — in this case, homosexual practices — precisely contradict the fundamental principles of an organization? Will that not undermine the goals of said organization? The above provision is a blanket prohibition. The text contains no exceptions for such cases.

One example of this, of course, is the priesthood and other forms of work in religious institutions. How can the Church’s valid teachings against homosexual acts be credible if those who preach, teach, and support the same are themselves engaging in practices that contradict such teachings? Clearly, one’s sexual orientation does affect the successful performance of such work. And yet the bill has no provision recognizing this fact.

(d) Refuse or revoke the accreditation, formal recognition, andlor registration of any organization, group, institution or establishment, in educational institutions, workplaces, communities, and similar settings, solely on the basis of the sexual orientation or gender identity of their numbers and leaders or oftheir target constituencies.

Again, what if an organization or group promotes or advocates things that are contrary to the fundamental principles of an institution? Will the Church be forced to accredit and support homosexual groups — whose advocacies may be in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching — in Catholic schools? The bill makes no provision to prevent such outrageous contradictions.

(g) Deny a person access to or the use of establishment, facilities, utilities or service, including housing, open to the general public on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. There is a denial when a person is given inferior accommodations or service than what is normal.

Will religious institutions (Catholic or otherwise) be forced to make their facilities available to homosexual groups to carry out activities that oppose the teachings of the Church? The bill can easily be interpreted in such a manner.

(h) Deny an application for a license, clearance, certification or any other document issued by government authorities or other entities, on the basis of the applicant’s sexual orientation or gender identity, as provided by existing laws.

Can this provision be used to compel the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

These are all valid concerns,. They involve the basic right of all persons (not just Catholics) to practice and promote their beliefs. They also involve our right to dissent, to disagree with what may be politically correct or fashionable at the moment.

In other words, if the rights of homosexuals to clamor for certain principles and to promote their “lifestyle” is to be protected, then others should be free to disagree and challenge their opinions — and be likewise protected while doing so.

Media Discrimination, Homosexual Hypocrisy

Sadly, this is often not the case. It is not only governments that have taken to discriminating against those who disagree with the homosexual agenda. Even the media in some countries have taken a decidedly pro-homosexual stance, at least in practice if not in stated principle.

Witness, for example, the sensationalism surrounding stories of discrimination against homosexuals in contrast to the sparse coverage given to pro-homosexual discrimination and crime. One case in point: the disgusting assault, rape, and murder of Mary Stachowicz by a homosexual teen. This was covered by Catholic World News in the article Prosecutor traces brutal murder of Mary Stachowicz:

Oct. 27, 2006 (CWNews.com) - An Illinois prosecutor told a Chicago court that Mary Stachowicz, a 51-year-old mother of 4 children– was raped, beaten, and strangled before she was finally stabbed to death in November 2002 by a homosexual man who resented her efforts to convince him that he should curb his promiscuous sexual behavior.

“There is a monster in the courtroom today,” said prosecutor Jim McKay. He was referring to Nicholas Gutierrez, the man accused of killing Stachowicz. The prosecutor gave jurors a graphic description of the brutal crime, in which the devout Catholic woman was stabbed so often that the blade of the assailant’s hunting knife was damaged. The killer then wrapped his victim’s body in plastic and hid it under the floor of his apartment. Gutierrez later confessed to the crime.

The Concerned Women for America (CWA) , however, in the story “‘Gay’ Reaction to Mrs. Stachowicz’s Murder: Silence to Applause“, noted that:

In the three weeks since Mary Stachowicz was murdered by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez in Chicago, some pro-homosexualists have reacted with much more sympathy for the ‘gay’ killer than for his Christian victim. In fact, several even have gone as far as saying that Mrs. Stachowicz deserved to die for questioning the man’s lifestyle.

Predictably, the mainstream media and homosexual advocacy organizations have reacted to Mary Stachowicz’s murder the same way they did to 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising’s torture-murder at the hands of two homosexual men in 1999: by avoiding it. As of December 4, no formal condemnations of Mrs. Stachowicz’s murder have been issued by leading groups such as the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, or the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

Anti-religious Intolerance

The horror doesn’t end there. It’s one thing to ignore an outrage, but another to actually be happy about it. The same CWA story also carried angry quotes posted on various online fora vicously attacking the victim and religion in general:

“Iris” wrote to the ACLU Online Forum: “I am in no way condoning this man’s behavior. Murder is murder. He should receive life or the death penalty for his actions. But one fact remains … if she would have been minding her own [expletive] business instead of attempting to ram her religion where it didn’t belong, none of this would have ever happened. I really don’t feel sorry for her. She paid a very steep price for being an arrogant religious fascist. Too bad for her.”

“Silence Dogood” agreed: “I won’t go so far as to say that she deserved what she got, no one deserves to die, but I won’t exactly be shedding any tears for her. Quite frankly, if anyone in this case was being ‘persecuted’ it was Mr. Gutierrez. Unfortunately for the victim this was a lesson that she learned too hard and too late. Maybe this will give pause to other people who similarly try to ‘help’ homosexuals.”

…

Perhaps the cruelest comment of all was this from a San Francisco man on Yahoo: “The b—- had it coming to her. I’m glad he killed her. Too bad he’ll probably spend the rest of his life in prison getting his little butt pounded, but still, I’m glad he killed her. The b—- deserved to die.”

Personal Experience

I too have experienced intolerance from militant homosexuals. An earlier post in this blog (The Absurdity of Same-Sex Marriage) generated a wave of hostile text messages from one lesbian friend who read it. All of a sudden, I was “closed-minded” and someone from whom her friends had to be “protected” simply because I do not agree with the legalization or promotion of same-sex marriage. And yet this same person yearns for tolerance and acceptance of her views!

A careful reading of my article will reveal that I stated rational reasons for my opposition to same-sex marriage. Although the arguments were sometimes couched in religious terms, the fact is that they could stand as purely secular arguments as well that sought to prevent the erosion of the meaning of marriage (since other groups, such as pedophiles, could use the same arguments as those used by homosexuals to demand accommodation for their sexual orientation). But my lesbian friend refused to see that and instead chose to engage in strawman and ad hominem arguments.

Still, the bottom line for me was that we could simply agree to disagree. I have no problem with disagreement. After all, I had never criticized her, and I kept my misgivings about her advocacy to myself for the sake of our friendship. But that was not to be. She absolutely refused to tolerate any disagreement and after a short exchange of messages online, she chose to end our friendship.

That was sad. But what is sadder still is the fact that this person — who ought to understand the value of respect for others and tolerance for contrary beliefs — had totally closed her mind to any meaningful dialogue with those who disagreed with her political agenda. Apparently, only those who agree with her are “worthy” to be her friends.

I have chosen not to do the same. I still consider her to be a dear friend, intolerant as she is. And I will still pray for her. That is because the answer to discrimination from a pro-gay “Taliban” isn’t more discrimination. The answer is to try to stand up for the truth and try to love even if it hurts.

Easier said than done… but being a Christian was never easy.

The link below shows one of the preferred methods for murdering an unborn baby. The method is called “suction and curettage”.

What you will see is mostly a set of drawings, but knowing that a little baby is being painfully torn apart can bring tears to your eyes. The diagram is copyrighted so I cannot post it on this site, but you can simply follow the link to see it.

URL: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

There are those that want to legalize this horror in the Philippines. Vacuum machines used in abortions were imported a few years ago. Abortifacient “birth control” drugs are already being sold.

Will we allow this madness to continue?

The Victims

Below are images of more victims of abortion.

Baby killed at 7 weeks:

Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/07week/aborted07-02.jpg

Baby killed at 8 weeks:

Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/aborted01-08.jpg

Baby killed at 22 weeks:

Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/aborted01-22.jpg

Baby killed at 24 weeks:

Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/aborted01-24.jpg

Baby bodies found in Cebu, Philippines

“Humanity is rushing towards the future. But where are we headed?”

If you can’t view the video from here, here’s the link: The Human Race

The Population Research Institute (PRI) is looking at new ways to reach out to the online generation. Other videos by the organization can be found at this YouTube Channel: Colinpri1

Here is a video about PRI, the group that produced the previous video:

(Static link to the above video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykQVxWQpZzA)

Help save the human race before it murders more of itself. Blog about these videos on your Multiply and Facebook sites. Tell your friends about them.

The principle of separation of church and state is often cited by many persons in all sorts of situations. From traditional politicians trying to surreptitiously push a morally questionable population control program, to anti-clerics who want to monopolize debate in important issues, the principle of separation is employed whenever the Catholic Church, or any other religion, speaks out and steps on a few toes.

The separation of church and state is sometimes thought of as a “wall” separating the affairs of the two. Those who follow this thinking usually claim that religion should have nothing to do with the affairs of men. They would probably also say that religious belief should not influence the crafting of laws, affect the actions of public officials, or even be part of public debate. Instead, government should be neutral towards all religions and be totally secular in nature. Such secularism can therefore be seen as an embodiment of the separation principle.

Carlos Palad, in his essay, “Secularism: A Hidden Danger“, explains it thus:

Secularism is an attitude that takes away the public sphere from the rightful influence of religious belief. Secularism is an outlook, sometimes rising (as in contemporary France) to the level of a state-sponsored ideology, that insists on considering all public matters from a vantage point characterized by a reliance on human reason, and free of any reference to the sacred. This is because the individual conscience must be defended and freedom of discourse allowed, and (so secularists believe) this can be done only by allowing for common ground characterized by a “reasonableness” uninfluenced by “sectarian” considerations. For this reason, the secularist mentality insists on excluding religious views from the public square, often under the plea that Church and State must be considered separate.

Secularism does not necessarily judge religious beliefs to be “wrong” or even “irrational”; it simply considers them to be purely a matter of private judgment or opinion, that should be left at the doorsteps of any public institution. Secularists often profess respect for religious belief, as long as it is kept precisely that: a mere belief without bearing on public affairs. Behind this attitude towards religion is the presupposition that religion is a dangerous element once brought into the public sphere; religion is seen as productive (better word is product) of intolerance and bigotry, and as precluding all “common ground” between the various combatants in the sphere of public discourse. Classic examples of this indifference towards the importance of religious belief in public life are at present supplied by the so-called “Catholics” of the Democratic Party (John Kerry, Edward Kennedy) who say that they are “personally opposed” to abortion but that they are in favor of its continued legalization because “they don’t want to impose their private beliefs” on other people.

But is this “secularism”, this interpretation of the separation of church and state right? Does it have any legal basis?

The Philippines is currently governed by the 1987 Constitution, which states in Article II, Section 6:

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

In Article III, Section 5, the Constitution also states:

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

The Philippine Constitution therefore has some similarities to the U.S. Constitution in that it specifies two points governing the relationship between the state and religion. First there is an “estrablishment” provision which prohibits the establishment of an offical state religion or a state-favored religion. Then there is the guarantee of protection of the free exercise of religion.

There is no mention, however, of a “wall” separating religion and government. More importantly, there is nothing that mandates that religious belief cannot be a consideration in the crafting of laws and public policy, or that it be kept out of public debate, or that public officals must abandon religious beliefs in the performance of their duties. It can be argued then that the idea of a “wall” separating church and state really has has no constitutional basis.

The American Experience

It might be of interest to note that the U.S. Constitution says this, and only this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .

That is the only constitutional provision on the matter. There is no mention of a “wall” separating religion from public debate, or keeping religious belief out of government. The idea of a “wall” of separation dioes appear in other writings, for example in Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists (dated Jan. 1, 1802), wherein he writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

That “wall” in Jefferson’s letter, however, seems to be protecting religion from state interference, not keeping religion out of public life.

Another interpretation of the “separation” was in the the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, adopted in 1786. This was also written by Thomas Jefferson and pushed by James Madison, and guaranteed that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination. It reads, in part:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

The document itself speaks of keeping the state from adopting any religion or imposing the same through any coercive means. It does not, however, state that religion can have no role in public life.

The thinking of British philosopher John Locke, which deeply influenced the drafting of the U.S. Constitution, made use of the principle of a “social contract”. In the Wikipedia entry on Separation of Church and State, we find this:

According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain inviolable by any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became influential in the American colonies.

Locke’s view is again totally different from the preposterous idea that the “church should not interfere in the affairs of men”. If anything, it expressed an opposite view: that the state should not interfere in matters of conscience.

Even the US Supreme Court has begun to turn away from the position espoused by those who want to silence the Church using the “separation of church and state” argument. The same Wikipedia article notes this as follows:

The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. Since that time, the Court has distanced itself from the metaphor, often suggesting the metaphor conveys hostility to religion in contrast to Jefferson’s original eaning “… in behalf of the rights of [religious] conscience.” In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that he establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference — a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.

Again, we see here that the purpose of separation of church and state is to defend religion from federal interference, not the other way around.

Public office

Some have even gone so far as to claim that separation of church and state means that religious leaders — including priests and ministers — cannot run for public office. This is plain religious discrimination and has no legal basis in the Philippines (or for that matter, in the U.S.).

The Catholic Church itself discourages priests from participating in partisan politics since such participation may divide the flock; but this is not a constitutional or legal prohibition, and the Church can also allow it in some cases. As far as the law goes, there is simply no provision whatsoever in either the U.S. or Philippine Constitutions that prohibits priests and ministers from holding public office.

Silencing the Church

The bottom line is that the principle of separation of church and state is to guarantee religious freedom by preventing oppression by the government. Yet it seems that there are those who would rather use it as a means to keep the Church from pointing out errors and exposing wrongdoing.

The dangers posed by such attempts to shut out religion are quite real and should concern us all, as Carlos Palad also pointed out:

Just as indifference towards religion often masks a latent hostility towards it, so the secularist mentality often ends up in outright persecution of religius belief. There is no way this slide can be averted, for if religious belief is something that is too dangerous to be displayed in public, then perhaps it is something that should eventually be extirpated for the public good. In our time, this creeping hostility often combines with a tendency to consider abortion, homosexuality and various forms of immorality to be “rights” against which no one should even speak out. This is the reason why Cardinal Ratzinger has spoken of an “intolerant” secularism that begins by excluding religion from the public sphere and ends up so extending that public sphere that the individual conscience is left with no room for religious belief.

. . .

The case against secularization can be summed up as follows: secularism is itself a dogma, a form of sectarianism that by definition should not be allowed to rule the public sphere to the detriment of other viewpoints. Secularism, far from guaranteeing freedom of conscience, endangers conscience because it progressively disallows religious consciences from speaking out, while non-religious or anti-religious people do not labor under any similar disability. Secularism implicitly denies any real importance to religious matters, turning it entirely into a private matter or a matter of mere opinion. The Church supports a genuine freedom of conscience that gives ample space in the public sphere for the expression of different beliefs; however, religious beliefs must also have this right to free expression, and in predominantly Christian countries this Christian character must be respected by the state as the basis of the spiritual life of the nation, and as the default viewpoint from which legislative matters are considered.

Christ Himself expressed His faith at all times. He didn’t hide behind any sentimental notions of “keeping one’s faith a private matter” or political correctness. We should not do any less.

More Catholics are parting ways with human rights group Amnesty International because of its new policy on abortion. Amnesty International abandoned its neutral stance, and is now committed to promoting access to abortion in some cases. In response, just last week, Catholic school groups in Scotland were thinking about withdrawing their support for Amnesty International, joining others who have done the same — many of whom have been loyal supporters for years.

This is not surprising. Amnesty International is supposed to defend human rights — everyone’s rights. Well, unborn children have rights too, and the most essential right is the right to life. Without it, other rights cannot be enjoyed. The fact that Amnesty International has betrayed its commitment to defending the rights of the most defenseless persons in the world (the unborn) should cause Catholics — indeed everyone — to pause and examine where our loyalties lie and to whom we give our support. We ought to examine those groups with which we are affiliated and make sure we are not unwittingly compromising our faith and principles.

Sadly, there are those who would pretend that unborn children are not human beings. To answer that notion quickly, let me quote Peter Kreeft, a philosopher who presents a convincing, purely logical argument for believing that the unborn are human beings. This is taken from the article, “The Apple Argument Against Abortion“:

So, there are four possibilities:

• The fetus is a person, and we know that;
• The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that;
• The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that;
• The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that.

What is abortion in each of these four cases?

In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.

In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don’t know that, abortion is manslaughter. It’s like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you’re not sure is fully evacuated. You’re not sure there is a person there, but you’re not sure there isn’t either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn’t know there was a person there, but you didn’t know there wasn’t either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe ["Roe vs. Wade", the U.S. Supreme Court case which legalized abortion throughout the U.S. -- Manny] allowed.

In Case 3, the fetus isn’t a person, but you don’t know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren’t. But you didn’t care; you didn’t take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.

Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate.

This undercuts even our weakest, least honest escape: to pretend that we don’t even know what an apple is, just so we have an excuse for pleading that we don’t know what an abortion is.

It is clear, therefore, that Amnesty International has betrayed its calling, and with it, the weakest of the weak.

The reaction from Catholics to this treachery is growing. Here is a sampling of related articles from ZENIT, a Catholic, non-profit international news agency, detailing how Catholics have dealt with Amnesty International’s decision:

• Another Reproach for Amnesty International [2007-09-18]
  Italian Bishops Join Protest of Pro-Abortion Policy
• Amnesty International Loses Support Down Under [2007-09-11]
  Australian Bishop Urges Change to Abortion Policy
• I’m Out, Scottish Cardinal Tells Amnesty [2007-08-28]
  Says Decision Is Matter of Conscience
• U.S. Bishops on Amnesty International [2007-08-27]
• U.S. Bishops Decry Amnesty’s Pro-Abortion Stance [2007-08-24]
  Prelates Say Rights Work Must Favor Life
• Cardinal Bertone Decries Amnesty’s Abortion Policy [2007-08-20]
• British Bishop Leaves Amnesty International [2007-08-19]
  Says It Is “Very Difficult” for Catholics to Remain Members
• Abortion Causes Rift at Amnesty International [2007-08-17]
  Irish Office Opts Out of Controversial Policy
• Bishops: Amnesty International Losing Identity [2007-07-03]
  Urge Restoring Neutral Position on Abortion
• Cardinal: Amnesty International’s Identity Lost [2007-06-13]
  Says Catholics Should No Longer Support Group
• U.S. Bishops Press Amnesty International [2006-11-22]
• Amnesty International Urged to Reject Abortion Plan [2006-09-18]
  U.S. Prelate Says Proposal Could Split Human Rights Advocates
• Amnesty International Urged to Protect All Life [2006-08-18]
  Bishops of England and Wales Send Appeal
• Cardinal Wary of Amnesty International’s Move [2006-06-22]

As Christians we are called to be responsible. It’s time we all take a long, honest, and objective look at our commitments and advocacies. Some “humanitarian” groups may not be as upstanding as we think they are.

As it does periodically, the claim that a high abortion rate can be reduced through even more vigorous population control using artificial contraceptives has resurfaced lately. This time it came in the form of statements within a news report on the number of abortions every year in the Philippines. The report put the annual abortion rater at around 400,000!

That number is truly scandalous in a country that is supposed to be predominantly Catholic. It is, as one Filipino writer penned in “The Monumental Modern-day Filipino Holocaust“, a “mockery of Christ’s teachings”.

But granted that we are against abortion, is contraception the way to prevent it?

The Big Lie

While it may at first seem obvious that preventing so-called “unwanted” pregnancies should lessen the number of abortions, the opposite is in fact true. The contraceptive and “safe sex” mindset leads to increased promiscuity and a false confidence that contraceptives are truly effective. This, of course leads to more contraceptive failures since the total number of sexual encounters increases. And this, in turn, leads to more people resorting to abortion as a backup method to contraception.

This deadly dynamic is outlined in more detail by Rev. Thomas J Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, in the video “Does Contraception Prevent Abortion?” If you can’t view the video, a transcript of part of Fr. Euteneuer’s message is below:

Let’s first consider one basic fact: Abortion is a multi-billion dollar business, and no business wants to reduce its bottom line. While you and I work towards eliminating abortion, the abortion industry has a vested interest in increasing those numbers. More abortions simply mean more profit. Granted, some embrace abortion for other reasons, but profit is the bottom line of the abortion business. In 2004 Planned Parenthood made about $90 million in revenues just selling abortion to American women.

And, their clients: women with unexpected and unwanted pregnancies.

Given this client base, there are three main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception:

The first is that the increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture. Contraception severs the link between sexual union and childbearing. No longer is sexual activity the exclusive domain of marriage but can be treated as a recreational activity supposedly without the responsibility of children. The so-called unwanted pregnancies that result from a promiscuous contraceptive culture are what drive the demand for abortion. Remember — the more promiscuity, the more unwanted pregnancies there are, and the more unwanted pregnancies, the more abortions there will be.

Secondly, all methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse. People have been so indoctrinated with the “safe sex” message that the potential for contraceptive failure is never even considered — until it happens of course — and then, faced with a crisis, people turn to
quick fix solutions to escape the problem that was created by contraception in the first place. According to the Guttmacher Association, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, close to 60% of all women going into abortion mills do so because their contraception has failed. In other words, they are using abortion as a back-up to failed contraception.

Finally, contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion. Medical science informs us that all hormonal methods of contraception may actually cause abortions at the earliest stages of pregnancy due to their chemical assault on the lining of the uterus which forbids the implantation of a newly-conceived baby a certain percentage of the time. That’s chemical abortion, and in the end we have the same result as surgical abortion: the death of an innocent human being.

Even studies from groups that are hostile to the pro-life movement seem to back up the claim that contraceptive use results in greater promiscuity. For example, in the study Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954-2003, by Lawrence Finer, Director of Domestic Research at The Guttmacher Institute, it was noted that the increase in premarital sex in a group of teens turning 15 during the years 1964-1973 “may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy.”

Combined with known contraceptive failure rates, you have more “unwanted” pregnancies. Below is one online rendition of these failure rates copied from “Contraceptive Failure Rates - Pregnancy and Disease Prevention“:

Table 1. Corrected and standardized method failure rates, by method and duration.

Method	Failure Rate, 1st Six months	Failure Rate, 1st 12 months	Increase of failure between six and 12 months
Implant	0.10%	1.40%	1.30%
Injectable	1.00%	2.60%	1.60%
Pill	4.30%	8.10%	3.80%
Diaphragm/Cervical cap	8.60%	15.90%	7.30%
Male Condom	8.80%	14.70%	5.90%
Spermicides	17.10%	29.00%	11.90%
Withdrawal	16.30%	27.10%	10.80%
Periodic abstinence*	17.50%	25.30%	7.80%
* Does not reflect NFP failure rates which, are equal to the Pill. Periodic abstinence reflects the old “rhythm” method, occassional sex, etc. (author’s notes)

(Source: Family Planning Perspectives, Table 1, p 60, Vol 31, Number 2, March / April 1999)

The United States is one huge case study that totally demolishes the claim that increased contraception reduces abortion. This sad situation has been repeated in many other countries such as Russia.

A Generation In Denial

It is truly amazing that there are still Filipinos that continue to hide their heads in the sand and ignore this obvious and demonstrable reality. They simply refuse to accept the link between contraception usage and abortion — except maybe to claim (erroneously) that contraception is needed to prevent abortion.

Apparently the “overpopulation” myth and its attendant call for ever more contraception is so deeply ingrained in their minds that they are no longer open to contrary ideas. In the many online debates in which I engage on Internet mailing lists, I am often met with outright hostility and a steadfast refusal to consider the hard evidence that I present. Some even go so far as to denigrate the usefulness of scientific data, prefering their unsupported pet theories and personal opinions instead!

There is an entire generation of Filipinos that have been brainwashed with the population explosion scare, a bogey that dates back to 1960s. Unfortunately, members of that generation are now in positions of influence and even power where they can continue to perpetrate the overpopulation/contraception myths.

We must reach out to those who are deceived by the culture of death. Although we have the facts and the numbers on our side, so many brainwashed people are simply immune to rational arguments. To make things even harder, we are also weak and imperfect, lacking in wisdom and eloquence.

In our weakness, however, we can — and must — turn to Christ in prayer and hope. This is a fight we cannot win on our own. I believe, however, that in Him it is a fight that was won even before it started.

Related Posts:

• Does Population Growth Really Exacerbate Poverty?
• Murder Method 1