Gentle Fudge
religion, politics, current events, and other fashionable dinner conversation.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Can We Handle the Proof?
Controversy surrounding the photographic evidence from 'alleged' abuse of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners of war are now pushed to the forefront of our minds and demanding to be dealt with in this new presidency. What has been repeated over and over in proverb have again prophetically rose from the ashes: Deeds men do in darkness and shadow will be shown in the light of day for what they truly are.

But dare we publish these disturbing images? Could we actually suggest that there are those in our own ranks that have sunk to the basest of things and taken on nothing more than animalistic behavior, nothing more than something befitting of a sociopath seen in a WWII movie or horror flick? Surely not in our own military. Not one of ours. They're the Good Guys. Only those who side with The Terrorists would use such tactics as raping an innocent woman or torturing a man beyond his capacity for pain. Yet somehow there is evidence of this. Or alleged evidence. But it could be misplaced. Or taken out of context. Or perhaps that person could have asked for such abuse, if information was being withheld. Always the victim's fault. (S)He asked for it.

And of course, if these images were to get out, then all of our own troops would be in danger. Eye for an eye. That's the way that side of the world works. So it would be best to keep this information behind closed doors and let our military keep to itself and discipline itself. Just as it disciplines the men who rape or abuse the women in our own ranks. Don't ask, don't tell, right?

So yes, we should just cover it up. After all, I'm sure we all would have been better off without the pictures of Auswitz and the gas chambers and East Germany with the Berlin Wall and Russia during the Cold War. Life is far better with repression and false memories of the Golden Years. After all, we never do anything wrong.

And we should never apologize because the U.S. never makes mistakes.

See also: Pro Liberate: "Again, May God Forgive Us"
Additional information from The Rutherford Institute can be read in their report here.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Sara @ 11:08 AM   0 comments
Friday, August 22, 2008
It's There If You Look For It
Being raised with exposure to the Chinese culture while growing up in the Midwest is hard to explain to the average American. You don't really fit in either world. Especially when none of your family is Chinese. Except your cousins. Your half-Chinese cousins. While everyone else is either all Finnish or an American mix.
Try to buy fake Olympic merchandise... ?
"The police say it will destroy the reputation of the Olympics," said one vendor.
So the Beijing Olympics were a mix for me. The culture was as I remember from my childhood, visiting my grandparents. The respect, the culture toward foreigners, the 'strange' food. Giggling while watching anchors and reporters attempting to eat with chopsticks. And all the red. Everyone was talking about how polite the Chinese were. Of course. That's how you act. You respect your elders. You put others first. And -- if I dare say -- the government can and will make play nice to your visitors. They spent billions of dollars putting on this show. They have the people power to pull this off. If you do not follow along, you are expendable. Do not protest. Do not talk poorly about the government. Remember that. You are only one of a billion people. Remember that. After the earthquake, the government dished out paperwork to grieving parents, making them sign so the parents wouldn't investigate if there was shoddy workmanship in the schools that had collapsed. They also reminded parents that they could have another child, as the only one that they had had died. Their flesh and blood was, yes, replaceable, just like that.

I saw subtle (and not-so-subtle) propaganda in the imagery. There were posters around Tienanmen Square that got very little face time. I was able to see them a bit longer in design magazines that I subscribe to. It would take a little longer to explain to those unfamiliar to Chinese culture, where image, color, and tone all have meaning. But if you are familiar with Communism, you can pick up on some of the nuances. One article I would recommend is Party Games from Print Magazine, which describes Beijing's carefully calculated iconography, incorporating both ancient meaning with governmental propaganda. The main icon, the Dancing Beijing logo, is one such icon. It is taken from the second Chinese character for the city, jing (below left), which is often used shorthand for 'capital'. Beijing itself means literally 'North Capital' (bei = North, jing = Capital). The Dancing Beijing logo is made to look like a chop, or block, which is a seal. Governments use them to stamp official documents. I personally own one that my grandmother used to sign her paintings. Every artist had a chop made specially to signify his or her work and to prevent counterfeits. They are highly prized and not duplicated. They are still used today, from business to government work.

Also, religion is still not tolerated in this 'progressive,' modernizing city. Churches are driven underground. Tibetan monks are imprisoned and tortured. Buddhists practice... hesitantly. To a degree. And all without question of the infallible government. Big Brother knows best.

You can buy anything you want in China, especially on the black market. Even the police and government officials. Corruption is everywhere. There is question about the age of the Chinese girl gymnasts, which government workers could have can easily altered certificates and official papers. But if try to buy fake Olympic merchandise? Nope. "The police say it will destroy the reputation of the Olympics," said one vendor from the Print article.

The good side to the Olympics were the athletes. Pure, unadulterated sport. No background or superimposed banners for Nike or Adidas or Budweiser. Yeah, you still have to sit through commercials. And the opening ceremonies were done in the spectacle and grandeur that I expected (constantly interrupted by the freeking commercials). Artistry, imagery, music, ancient instrumentation, illuminating light, technology never seen before, everything incorporating all senses. Plus the elements of wind, water, fire, wood, metal... Holistic, that everything is interconnected. And reminding the world -- and the Chinese -- of the power of the human. The sheer mass. The largeness. One of many -- so very many --and yet, just one of many. And more subtle propaganda woven in here and there. You wouldn't see it if you weren't familiar with the history or culture of China. Proud history. Thousands of years. Luxurious costuming and fantastic attention to detail -- jewels, posture, makeup, facial expression. Then we incorporate the new with old, strength with weakness, power with control, chaos with order, balancing opposites without clashing. Americans have a terrible time of doing this. We tend to forget our past or forget to set time aside, remembering that the dishes can wait for tomorrow -- we want to leave it behind and just live in the future. We forget about today. China accepts its past and brings it forward, incorporating it into today.

Now if it would let its people forward instead of letting the few rule the many under an iron fist.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Sara @ 8:17 AM   2 comments
Monday, April 07, 2008
Don't Ask Don't Tell
I will rarely post anything personal on this site because everything online is a public forum -- how quickly we forget that. Teens post their innermost thoughts and whine when parents discover a crush's name, not respecting 'privacy'. Employees are fired when opinions are posted about the competition or those at the workplace.

This is not an online diary. It is meant to be informative and opinionated -- and self-therapeutic-- and from time to time I will drift into the realm of the current state of the Church at large.

My opinion is made known, usually by the slant of my writing or articles chosen. Example from an OutofUr blog. I pulled the article and a few choice comments from both sides of the fence as well as my own. Understandably, the discussion was a little heated as this is a big red button in mainline xtianity.

There have been many "changes" in the faith and this is one of those things that I'm sure you can disagree with me on and still go to heaven. That's not the point. The point is to Love the LRD your GD with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. If you can't do that, then you have made yourself G-D and are committing idolatry. And last I checked, there weren't two different G-ds for each half of the Bible.

But that's another sermon for another time. I just live what I believe. Conversion by concussion doesn't work. It only leaves others with bad pain.

February 27, 2008

A Big Can of Worms

David Swanson reports on opening events from the National Pastors Convention.

David Swanson agreed to leave frozen Chicagoland to labor in sunny San Diego at this year's National Pastors Convention. He'll be sending us updates throughout the week of the goings on there. This is his first post.

I arrived at the National Pastors Convention in California a day early to catch one of the pre-conference seminars: Emerging Critical Issues Facing the Church. (For this Midwesterner, the sunny blue skies of San Diego were another reason to come early.) The seminar featured four panelists—Scot McKnight, Phyllis Tickle, Andy Crouch, and Tony Jones—addressing four critical issues: the role of Scripture, the church and politics, homosexuality, and religious pluralism.

These issues are as controversial as they are critical. This was clear from the spirited conversation between the panelists, the passionate questions and comments from the audience, and our moderator’s repeated requests for civil interaction. Allow me to summarize two of these conversations.

Scot McKnight introduced the section on the role of Scripture. “Since high school, I’ve been perplexed about how we [Christians] read the Bible,” he began. Specifically, Scot was puzzled by how we decide what parts of the Bible were for “then” and what is for “now.” He went on to define four ways Christians make these decisions. The “return to restore” method believes we can return to a New Testament form of Christianity in order to restore the Biblical texts to their original meanings. A less idealistic version of this is the “return and retrieve” method, through which the reader approaches the text in order to decide what can be retrieved for our lives today. The panelists agreed that every Bible reader does this to some degree. The question, of course, is how we decide what to retrieve and what to leave behind. Still others approach the Scriptures through his or her “sacred tradition,” allowing their particular tradition to shape their understanding of the text. Finally, Scot described the “primacy of Scripture” method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition. Scot believes this is the most helpful way of reading the Bible, for it allows the church to be constantly reforming.

If Scot is right that we read the Bible in these different ways, and if he’s correct that reading with tradition is the ideal, then how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology?

Reading from an article he wrote in 2003, Andy Crouch introduced the third critical issue facing the church: homosexuality. According to Andy, “Humankind is not divided into homosexual or heterosexual categories. We are all sexual beings who tend towards self-satisfaction.” Additionally, many churches rally around these categories, “which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us.”

While the panelists disagreed on whether or not homosexual practice is sinful, they were clear that the church must do a better job of pastoring those who are gay. Phyllis counseled the pastors in the room to “remember the human side—these are people, not theories, we are talking about.” Scot added, “The challenges for those pastors who are more traditional is how to create a safe environment for those who are gay to worship.” The evangelical church, he said, “has mostly failed in this area.”

Tony stated that the critical question for most churches is not whether to care for those who are gay. The question many in church leadership are wrestling with is, “Can a gay person can serve in leadership? And at what level?”

Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers? And regarding Tony’s question, should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?

David Swanson is pastor of missional ministries at Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Posted by UrL on February 27, 2008

Comments

Sounds like some good questions to me! Especially as a seminary trained gay Christian!

Posted by: PomoProphet at February 27, 2008


"Should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership".

I guess I am totally misunderstanding the question here. And I think I've misunderstood this in churches for a little while now. I'm not understanding the use of the word "gay" or "homosexual". Is the question asking if someone is allowed into leadership who struggles with the temptation of homosexuality but doesn't actually commit an act of homosexuality? Or are we assuming that the words "gay" and "homosexual" are people who are actively practicing this behavior?

If someone struggles with the temptation but does not give in, then allow them to lead and show the rest of us how to have that strength in our own lives as well. But if it means people who are actively participating in a homosexuality then I wouldn't say that they should have any level of leadership.

Now this doesn't mean I don't want them to come to my church. I've known many decent, good people who are practicing homosexuals. But I know I would not ask them to teach, preach, or give any sort of spiritual direction.

But why do churches always make things into a "gay" vs. "straight" issue? The places of our worship should be safe for anyone with any issues to come and feel free to connect to God. It doesn't matter whether you struggle with homosexuality or pride or jealousy. Do we all agree that people sin?

But while I write this down, I know there is someone who will disagree with me on the issue of struggling with homosexuality. Thank you for reading my comment. I look forward to what other have to say.

Posted by: Thadd Sparrow at February 27, 2008


"Should gay members of your congrgation be allowed some opportunity of leadership?"

You have gay members? That is a problem in itself. Gay attenders, no problem. Membership should not be offered to anyone engaged in flaunting a sin, whether they be homosexuals, straight adulterers, or something else abhorrent to God.

Posted by: Richard Dennis Miller at February 28, 2008


Why is homosexuality the ultimate test of deciding who can be in leadership and who can not? What about a person in leadership who is exposed as being addicted to pornography? What about an adulterer?

In the latter two cases many times pastors or leadership are allowed to stay provided that they work on restoration. (of course this varies some) Why not work the same way with homosexuality?

Homosexuality is a sin, we know that. We know that ultimately we are to work at loving the sinner and helping them be restored to being more like Christ.

The question really being asked here is "will the church be mute about homosexuality, or will they look at it the same as any other sin?"

What Tony Jones and the others in the Emergent movement are articulating is (at least I think) a position of love and acceptance to the homosexual who feels they would never fit in a church. Ultimately them being allowed into leadership is a church by church decision. Only the local body will know the character of the person, where they are with God, how they are working on the sins in their life etcetera.

Posted by: Carl Holmes at February 28, 2008


Why do we want churches to be safe places to worship?

Light and truth and mercy are risky and dangerous and threatening.

Posted by: Nate at February 28, 2008


"should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?"

this sounds like "should we allow the children to ride elephants during the sermon?"

there is a lot of don't-ask-don't-tell going on in churches. we have become so afraid of being honest with each other and being real that no one will let any one in any more. one reason I like my church is because the music group I play in is full of "real" people. I hate defining them as that. but there are too many churches full of the usual self-perfecting congregations who believe you have to clean up before you can get through the doors. this is why my generation is leaving in droves.

homosexuality is a hot-button and it shouldn't be. it is becoming less and less of an issue with my generation and the next one coming up.

cue: you can begin warming up your Bibles to start quoting from Paul and Leviticus now.

south africa condoned apartheid for decades, citing the biblical stories of Cain and Noah as the "mark" placed by G-d and by the curse from Noah, thus creating the black race. slavery was condoned for years because of verses in the Bible. women and their places in leadership (or lack of places in leadership), inability to own property, keeping quiet in church, and being a physically and mentally weaker sex because of verses in the Bible. financial prosperity is condoned by numerous preachers due to a select few verses in the Bible and woe to those who do not believe because it is their lack of faith. And then there is 'biblical' marketing...

we often read what we wish to read. I have not read anything regarding homosexuality from Christ, for or against. really, he spoke more on the Kingdom of Heaven and money more than anything. I think these were far more important, so I've focused more on showing Christ to those who need him than focusing on someone's sexuality.

I have seen many circumstances and issues "change" due to culture and time. we no longer stone non-virgins, grow our beards long, or call ourselves 'people of the way'. we even adorn our places of worship with one of the ghastliest ornaments of torture known in history. homosexuality may be one of those things that is changing. I accept my homosexual brethren and sisters because I am told that I am to love my neighbors as myself. I cannot judge them because this is a gray area for me and because I have a hard time seeing G-d as some angry Zeus character.

let the casting of stones begin.

Posted by: Sara at March 4, 2008



In responce to Sara, your generation is not leaving the church in droves in fact the Evangelical Church is thriving because they teach truth concerning scripture. And they are not saying get your act together before you come to God we all come to him sin and all, but upon coming we confess our sin and repent of them.
Your sarcasm concerning Lev. and Paul is surprising coming from one who claims to be a believer. Do we throw those scriptures out because our culture has "evolved" beyond them? God forbid, let me cling to his words all of them rather than the winds of cultural change. You mention treatment of blacks, but true believers could not condone the slavery of blacks in this country, it was scripture twisted to fit what sin people wanted to justify. The beards and calling ourselves people of the way, outwardly , surface things, not the things of the heart God is looking for. Take away the scriptures about Homosexuality and view Gods creation on its own and you'll see Homosexuality is unnatural, our bodies were not made for it, any Doctor can tell you that. Lets stop making God in our image, he is a God of love but also a jealous God, a Just God, a Holy God and a God of Wrath among countless other attributes.

Posted by: Rich at March 5, 2008


Sara,

I also love my church because people are not afraid to be real and don't have to be perfect. As someone who works with sexually broken people, I can say that I believe sexuality is deeply important to who we are as humans. Jesus showed great compassion for sexually broken people.

We can talk about whether homosexuals are sexually broken (I happen to think they are); but if God is indeed calling people out of homosexuality, then it isn't because he is angry, but because he is compassionate.

All this being said, I really agree with where you are starting: God calls us to love our neighbors. And we love because he first loved us, not because he threatens us into submission. I hope I can love in the same way you aspire to.

Posted by: Nate at March 5, 2008


Rich:
We are not called to be perfect and holy and blameless. We are called to love others and to come as we are, without judging others that we don't know. It is then that we receive grace and forgiveness. We judge and rebuke others that we DO know -- Christians -- because we are to hold each other accountable. If you find my method a little rough, that is your perception. And Christians CAN use sarcasm and satire to make a point, especially those who "claim" to be believers. Seems I tweaked a nerve with you, sweetie. But be very careful how you go about ministering to others lest you lose out meeting some fascinating souls. Don't forget that we are all eternal beings (C.S. Lewis).

Until then, see you on the other side. I'm sure you'll find many surprises.
S

Deut. 6:4,5; Lev. 19:18; Mt. 12:29-31
" 'Hear, O Israel, The LRD our GD, the LRD is one. Love the LRD your GD with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength... Love your neighbor as yourself' There is no commandment greater than these."

Matthew 21:31-32
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him."

Posted by: Sara at April 1, 2008


Labels: , , ,

posted by Sara @ 12:15 PM   1 comments
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
China and the AIDS Crisis
I was glad to see that "The Blood of Yingzhou District" won Best Documentary Short Subject at the 79th Academy Awards.

I don't want to shortchange the epidemic sweeping across Africa. Yes, AIDS is a pandemic. The misconceptions and rumors floating around in Africa are terrible. But in order to make a change, we have got to stop treating kids as trendy fashion accessories and taking them away from their homes. If we want kids to grow up and change the world as adults, we have to help them grow into adults in the world they know. Change must take place locally, in countries and neighborhoods worldwide. We have got to start acting locally. That means where local begins, not bringing it to a more convenient and safe location that is familiar to us. Ok, stepping off my soapbox now...

The government in China is doing all they
can to shush their own people. It must be terrifying, not knowing how many are living with this disease, not knowing how you got it, not knowing if your transfusion has been tainted or if you have passed it on to your children. And knowing your own government does not care. A billion live your country and you are just another number, another cog. Expendable. Makes me shiver.

Below is a column written by Wendy McElroy:

By Wendy McElroy

"What can they do to an old woman like me?"

That’s how 80-year-old Gao Yaojie responds to threats from the Chinese government. In 1996, the now-retired doctor became instrumental in exposing an AIDS scandal involving China's blood banks that officials still want to quash. But the powerful Communist bureaucracy that rules a nation of 1.3 billion people cannot silence one old lady who is a crusade.

The silence, however, is cracking wide open. Part of the reason is that China will be hosting the 2008 Olympics, which demands China embrace greater openness to international media. On Jan. 1, for example, new rules went into effect by which some journalists can travel into the provinces without prior government approval.

However, another reason the silence surrounding China's dismal record on AIDS is fading is because Gao has been recognized by the international community as a champion of AIDS patients who are victims of both bureaucracy and disease.

In a scramble for damage control, Chinese officials are simultaneously punishing and praising the grandmotherly dissident.

For example, last week policemen placed Gao under de facto house arrest, presumably to prevent her from making arrangements to accept an award in New York City next month. Yet, on Feb. 12, a high-ranking Communist official visited her home to grab a photo-op with Gao who was then lauded in the party’s newspaper.

What are officials so eager to cover up?

It began in April 1996 when a female patient with “no-name fever” entered the hospital in China’s central Henan province where Gao worked. The woman pleaded, "I don't want to die! My husband and my child can't live without me."

She died 10 days later. For over a week, the woman’s husband slept by her grave in an act of contrition: He had approved a blood transfusion years before through which Gao determined that the woman had contracted AIDS.

“I was astonished to find that the contaminated blood had come from a blood bank," Gao stated. "If a blood bank has been contaminated with HIV, there certainly must be more than just one victim!”

She was correct.

In the 1990s, "unofficial" blood banks flourished and Chinese peasants were encouraged to sell their blood in order to harvest the plasma. The "clinics," sometimes run by local politicians or the military, had to overcome the reluctance of many peasants to give blood. Thus, it became commonplace to re-infuse donors with plasma-stripped blood that was drawn from a general pool. That blood was not tested for AIDS.

No one knows how widespread the resulting problem is.

According to The Economist, “The United Nations estimates that at the end of 2005 there were 55,000 commercial blood and plasma donors infected with HIV in China….One Chinese AIDS expert, Zhang Ke, reported in 2004 that the figure for Henan province…could be more than 170,000. Dr Zhang estimated that a further 130,000 in Henan got the virus from transfusions in hospitals.”

Estimates on how many people have been infected through other vectors of disease (e.g. unprotected sex) do not seem to exist. One thing is clear, however. Although policies on blood donation and transfusions have been tightened, the spread of AIDS in China has taken on a life or death of its own.

The government seems more interested in preventing information than preventing the disease. Gao, who continues to print and circulate educational brochures at her own expense, is a source of chronic embarrassment for the government. She is also exposing the corruption of officials who misappropriate money and resources intended for the AIDS victims.

The accusations of corruption are accumulating.

For example, in 2005, the powerful Party member Wen Jiabao took a much-publicized inspection tour of AIDS prevention work. At Wenlou village, he promised patients that they would each receive 10 yuan (a Chinese dollar) or a total of 8,830 yuan in all. The allocated money vanished as did subsequent shipments of food to the area.

Gao tirelessly raises funds for AIDS victims but she has appealed for people not to donate money to the effort in Wenlou. "[G]o and tell your friends and readers not to donate money or material to Wenlou village," she has said. "This is just a PR project to deceive the public….This is a 'black hole'…There are quite a few more 'black holes' in Henan like this one."

No wonder the government wants to silence Gao… along with the growing ranks of anti-AIDS activists whom she has emboldened.

It is too late to quiet her now; the world is paying attention. Consider Li Xige, who was infected during a blood transfusion in childbirth and passed AIDS on to her now-deceased daughter. Last July, she traveled to petition the Beijing Municipal Health Bureau for assistance. Instead, she was arrested on the charge of "assembling crowds to attack state institutions."

Human rights organizations and the media immediately advocated on Li Xige’s behalf. According to Amnesty International: “Following her release on 10 August, she was placed under tight police surveillance and warned not to travel outside her home county…or talk to foreign media.”

Chinese attempts to cover up the AIDS epidemic and scandals have been so clumsy that they have merely created more interest.

Last November, I toured China in the company of various guides who clearly follow the official Communist line on political matters. On separate occasions, three different guides assured me that the AIDS situation was firmly under the government’s control. The interesting thing: I hadn’t asked them anything about AIDS. But, since they brought the subject up, I pursued it.

The path led directly to where they did not wish me to go: GaoYaojie.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

Respond to the Writer

Labels: , ,

posted by Sara @ 2:38 PM   0 comments
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Rape Victim is Criminal
A Saudi woman is kidnapped, raped, and photographed. She is now facing 90 lashes for her crime. The U.S. is at war with Iraq over human rights and one of its best bedfellows is notoriously mistreating half its population.

Saudi Kidnap, Rape Victim Faces Lashing for 'Crime' of Being Alone With Man Not Related to Her

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

A 19-year-old Saudi woman who was kidnapped, beaten and gang raped by seven men who then took photos of their victim and threatened to kill her, was sentenced under the country's Islamic-based law to 90 lashes for the "crime" of being alone with a man not related to her.

The woman is appealing to Saudi King Abdullah to intervene in the controversial case.

"I ask the king to consider me as one of his own daughters and have mercy on me and set me free from the 90 lashes," the woman said in an emotional interview published Monday in the Saudi Gazette.

"I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn't believe my ears. Ninety lashes! Ninety lashes!" the woman, identified only as "G," told the English-language newspaper.

Five months after the harsh judgment, her sentence has yet to be carried out, "G" said she waits in fear every day for the phone call telling her to submit to authorities to carry out her punishment.

Lashes are usually spread over several days. About 50 lashes are given at a time.

The woman's ordeal began a year ago when she was blackmailed into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the desert kingdom, according to a report in The Scotsman newspaper.

She met the man at a shopping mall and, after driving off together, the blackmailer's car was stopped by two other cars bearing men wielding knives and meat cleavers.

During the next three hours, the woman was raped 14 times by her seven captors.

One of the men took pictures of her naked with his mobile phone and threatened to blackmail her with them.

Back at home in a town near the eastern city of Qatif, the young woman did not tell her family of her ordeal. Nor did she inform the authorities, fearing the rapist would circulate the pictures of her naked. She also attempted suicide.

Five of the rapists were arrested and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years. The prosecutor had asked for the death penalty for the men.

The Saudi justice ministry, however, said rape could not be proved because there were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation.

The judges, basing their decision on Islamic law, also decided to sentence the woman and her original blackmailer to lashes for being alone together in his car.

The Saudi Gazette and The Scotsman contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256980,00.html

Labels: , ,

posted by Sara @ 2:04 PM   0 comments
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Organ Harvesting in China
Gives the phrase "Made in China" new meaning. Article below:

Chinese army 'harvesting body parts'
From correspondents in Ottawa, CA

February 01, 2007 08:27am

CHINA'S military is harvesting organs from unwilling live prison inmates, mostly Falungong practitioners, for transplants on a large scale - including to foreign recipients- according to a study.

The report's authors - Canada's former secretary of state for the Asia Pacific region David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas - implicated dozens of hospitals and jails throughout China in July, after a two-month investigation.

Chinese officials denied those allegations.

Mr. Matas and Mr. Kilgour's second report, released today, includes interviews with organ recipients in 30 countries and Canadian hospital staff who cared for more than 100 patients who had undergone suspicious transplant surgeries in China.

"The involvement of the People's Liberation Army in these transplants is widespread,'' Mr. Kilgour said at a press conference.

Like many civilian hospitals in rural China, military hospitals turned to selling organs to make up for government funding cuts in the 1980s, the report said.

But military personnel could operate with much more secrecy, it said.

"Recipients often tell us that even when they receive transplants at civilian hospitals, those conducting the operation are military personnel,'' the report said.

Hospitals in Canada's biggest cities - Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto - confirmed "a substantial number'' of Canadians had travelled to China for dubious organ transplants, Mr. Kilgour said.

"We're in the three digits, up over 100 (from Canada each year), and the trend is accelerating,'' Mr. Matas said.

To curb what they called a "disgusting form of evil", the pair asked pharmaceutical firms to stop selling organ anti-rejection drugs to China.

They also asked countries to post travel advisories warning about China's alleged organ harvest, asked states to cease offering follow-up care for patients who had dubious organ transplants in China and asked foreign doctors to cut ties with their Chinese counterparts suspected of such practices.

The authors said states should enact legislation to ban citizens from traveling to China for organ transplants from unwilling donors, although they admitted that such cases would be difficult to prosecute.

Labels: ,

posted by Sara @ 4:18 PM   0 comments
The Least of These
There has been a lot of debate over who is better suited to raise children following the news that Mary Cheney and her 15-year partner, Heather Poe, are expecting. I'm very glad Ms. Cheney gave a public statement denouncing the pregnancy as a political statement: “This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child.” I agree. Children should never be used as salve to save a marriage or as bartering chips in a disintegrating relationship, to prove to overbearing parents that you're reallyreally an adult now (stomp foot for effect), to provide undying love and affection for a lonely adult when a housepet is far more appropriate, to be molded into a miniature clone for reliving unfulfilled dreams or correcting mistakes, toted as a trendy fashion accessory or because all your friends have one, or groomed as a poster child for a cause.

It's not hard to have children. Paris Hilton is proof. It is, however, hard to raise them. You see evidence of this day after day. Super Nanny and Nanny 911 show the results of parents who won't be parents, who refuse to discipline or set proper boundaries and rules because the child might not like them or may think they're *gasp* uncool. The horror! We hear heartbreaking stories of children who are abused or neglected because the kid is interfering with a previously thriving social or lovelife. In a Russian hospital, orphaned infants were found gagged with tape or plaster because their cries were too loud and distracted the nurses from their "important" duties.

Many feel that a child thrives when raised by a stable, loving family; the controversy lies with what sexes comprise that family life. Focus on the Family has been openly critical of Ms. Cheney's pregnancy due to her unmarried status. (Ok, so let her get married, then. No, wait, you don't want that either...) During a CNN interview, Wolf Blitzer took a cheap-shot at Vice President Dick Cheney, asking if he cared to respond to the criticism. Mr. Cheney rightly refused to comment on the personal matter:

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a couple of issues I want to raise with you. Your daughter, Mary. She's pregnant. All of us are happy. She's going to have a baby, you're going to have another grandchild. Some of the -- some critics, though, are suggesting -- for example, a statement from someone representing Focus on the Family, "Mary Cheney's pregnancy raises the question of what's best for children. Just because it's possible to conceive a child outside of the relationship of a married mother and father doesn't mean it's best for the child." Do you want to respond to that?

CHENEY: No, I don't.

BLITZER: She's, obviously, a good daughter...

CHENEY: I'm delighted -- I'm delighted I'm about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf. And obviously I think the world of both my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you're out of line with that question.

BLITZER: I think all of us appreciate...

CHENEY: I think you're out of line.

BLITZER: ...your daughters. No, we like your daughters. Believe me, I'm very, very
sympathetic to Liz and to Mary. I like them both. That was just a question that's come up, and it's a responsible, fair question.

CHENEY: I just fundamentally disagree with you.

BLITZER: I want to congratulate you on having another grandchild.

Quick editorial: If Mr. Blitzer wanted to merely congratulate Mr. Cheney on having another grandchild, why didn't he just say those nine words without implying this was controversial? Many conservative groups and blogs latched onto this political teat, crying that if the VP felt so strongly about gay rights that he needed to blast his own party instead of attacking poor journalists. I found it rather humorous since most right-wingers shun liberal media as evil, biased filth -- especially CNN. Also, numerous authors and researchers cited in Mr. Dobson's letter and other writings demanded that he refrain from quoting their research as much was taken out of context and selectively eliminated findings on gay parenthood.

So what is best for the child, then? Ask any adult who survived childhood and let him educate you:
  • Children need to know they are loved no matter what.
  • Children need to know that there are rules and consequences.
  • Children need consistency and trust.
  • Children need basic physical, emotional, and spiritual needs met.
  • Children need safety and security.
  • Children need encouragement to pursue ambitions.
  • Children need guidance during disappointments and trials.
  • Children need to receive and learn patience.
  • Children need ears to listen when it feels like they are the only one in the world who has experienced pain or loss.
  • Children need to know that everyone (including parents) makes mistakes.
  • Children need to learn "please," "thank you," and "I'm sorry."
  • Children need to know that it's never too late to start over.
  • Children (like adults) need to learn that the world does not revolve around them and that helping others is the best thing they can contribute.
Just because someone does not have a child of his or her own due to infertility, physical problems, personal choice, or sexual orientation, does not mean that (s)he is suddenly rendered incapable from becoming a healthy, loving parent to a biological, foster, or adopted child. Raising a child becomes a conscious decision instead of scrambling to line up "Plan C."

There are no perfect parents and we all will screw it up massively at least once. We just have to brush ourselves off, keep going, and keep our ego at the back of the line. We have been entrusted with a weighty responsibility -- someone else's life. It won't matter if Jenny has a mommy and a daddy, two mommies, or none that are even related.

Labels: , ,

posted by Sara @ 12:35 PM   0 comments
Monday, November 13, 2006
Acceptance, Forgiveness, and Hypocrisy
It’s been a busy few weeks. I’ve wanted to chew on this one for a while as the stones were distributed and the mobs gathered in Colorado, Virginia, New Jersey, and other localities. Several states put a twist in the mid-term elections by examining the meaning of “traditional” marriage, spawning skewed political ads that neglected to examine the real and basic purpose of state constitutions versus statutory laws. My own church stumped for approving the amendment, tacked to the end of a sermon that encouraged us to listen to the Holy Spirit in our everyday lives. Honestly, I was embarrassed.The scandal erupted soon after in Colorado Springs as accusations circulated against the former president of the National Evangelical Association, Reverend Ted Haggard. Mike Jones, a gay escort, stated that he provided massages and methamphetamine to Reverend Haggard, who called himself “Art” during their encounters. After recognizing who his client was, a man who railed against gay rights and gay marriage, Jones’ conscience got the better of him and he couldn’t keep his silence.

One man, with his reputation on the line, decided to reveal the hypocrisy in this large church. He wasn’t important. He had everything to lose. He is a prostitute. And gay, which is an even bigger sin in many eyes. But his conscience got the better of him. Not because he felt his lifestyle was wrong or he was in need of forgiveness, but he couldn't sit silent while one of his customers publicly spewed hate and disdain for the very behavior he enjoyed after the pastoral garb was hung up in the closet. Allegedly.

Everyone loves to see the mighty fall. There is a certain deliciousness to find out that our pious and perfect relics and icons struggle like we do – except there often is a denial that sin continues to control. That’s the rub. Many, including our tottering “leaders,” subscribe to the Christian myth of “once converted, fully converted”. Our testimonies end after the Gratuitous Gutter Conversion. We are saved! All our struggles and desires have been fulfilled or extinguished and banished back into the Sinful World through the elusive ambrosia of Christ’s Blood. It is finished! Allegedly.

So when our old addictions begin to creep back in, we secretly begin to doubt the Good News. We pray harder, we confess more, we wonder what else we can do to finally kill the ravenous beast that is threatening to steal our salvation. And we can’t confess our struggles to each other. After all, they have it together. Right? So we resign ourselves to live hollow lives of religious showmanship. This is where our biggest failing is. Not in the daily struggle against what we know is right and what we actually practice, but failing to realize that We Can Do Nothing. We cheapen the grace given [daily] to us by trying to prove our salvation—to earn it, to keep it—to ourselves and to G-d.

Which brings me back to the topic at hand. I admire the Xtians who are willing to forgive Haggard’s behavior. We’ve got to stop shooting our wounded. But what gets me is his denial of wrongdoing. As the world turned, he changed his story and admitted to buying one of the most addictive and easily accessible drugs of the day, but “I did not have sex with that gentleman.” Oh, and he only looked at the meth. So that's okay.

So drug use (or purchase) is more acceptable for evangelicals than [gay] sex? Did I miss something? I know that the mere mention of sexuality causes the repressed masses to salivate, wanting to know the juicy details only to pat ourselves on our backs. We check off our list – we may drink too much, eat too much, work too much, break promises too often, talk about others too much, but we would never cheat or go to bat for the other team. After all, we mutter to ourselves, I’m not that bad. But what would have happened at the NEA if Haggard had admitted that, in a moment of weakness, he engaged in actions that they consider deplorable? Would we be reading the same story or would there be a moving van and a journey in the soggy tea leaves?

This is the hot topic of the day and my goal is not to convince you to view it one way or another. But consider the company Christ kept. He befriended prostitutes, corrupt corporate executives, the immoral, and the poor who could only take without the hope of repayment. He touched the homeless, the sick, the disfigured, the mentally ill. He opened his arms to those outside his religion and creed, the opposite sex and children who were considered worth less than property. His heart broke for those who killed him. Tell me how this “sanctified” exclusion will fulfill his kingdom or vision.

Whether or not Haggard engaged in homosexual acts, I don’t care. Whether or not he actually used the meth, I don’t care. All I ask of him is honesty and to grow in the spirit of Christ. The elite in Boulder need to be just as forgiving and accepting to Haggard if he does confess to infidelity – even if it is with another man. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9)

God loves us all and Mike Jones is welcome at the banquet table at the feast of the Lamb.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Sara @ 12:55 AM   2 comments
Friday, September 08, 2006
Human Rights Violations
Ok, so I lied. We'll be taking a brief sabbatical from the previously mentioned topic of church and marketing -- and this is everywhere, so feel free to research -- and move our focus on China.

Now, I grew up with a mixed heritage: an American with Finnish grandparents who met in China, spoke Manderin along with several other languages, and raised their children in Taiwan before moving to the States in the 60s... Confused? Anyway, I learned about the finer points of tea, to always share take-out, and mastered chopsticks. My grandparents were missionaries in China before the communist revolution and forced them out. There are stories I have yet to hear of my grandmother jumping onto a moving train, afraid for her life, because she had a heart for the Chinese people and wanted to tell them of God and Jesus. But I digress. Anyhow, China has always held a piece of my heart and hearing of the atrocities that are [still] committed over there makes my soul weep.

So when I read of the Chinese government "disciplining" a film director... it kinda upsets me. The director of Summer Palace, Ye Lou, apparently did not submit his film to the government for approval, and so he has been banned from making films for the next 5 years. His producer was also banned from making films for 5 years. The film, which I've heard is excellent, is a love story that takes place during the pro-democracy demonstrations that lead up to the 1989 massacre at Tienanmen Square. Lou states that there are autobiographical moments in the movie that he wanted to share with the rest of the world. I'm sure that Lou didn't submit his film because the censors wouldn't have allowed it to be shown at the festival. This is not a proud moment in Chinese history and one that they would like forgotten; the protests are remembered as "counterrevolutionary riots." I still remember watching TV, seeing a student confront a tank, watching the staredown. My memory quits after that moment. It was surreal.

One more incident that makes my stomach turn is the Chinese government shutting down a website that reported the killing of a villager who was trying to stop the demolition of his home. From the link above: "The Web site contained reports from overseas sites and also people's comments on the death of the villager reported to have been beaten to death by thugs after resisting government efforts to tear down his home." The government has eminent domain and can seize land at any time from anyone for any purpose. Sound familiar?


In one country alone people are denied the right to make a living or even a right to live in their own home because The Powers That Be deem they are not human enough; they aren't worth enough monetarily. It is cheaper to look after Their business than save one insignificant life. This is so very very wrong. And this does not end with China alone. This happens in the States, too.

So what do we do about it? Why are we not outraged? Why are all the talk show hosts hatefully spewing about the ills of That Other Party instead of linking up and taking on what is truly evil in the world?

Labels: , ,

posted by Sara @ 4:02 PM   0 comments
About Me

Name: Sara
Home: gypsy wanderer, United States
About Me: Those who know me find me stubborn, opinionated, open-minded, strong-willed, of some intelligence, and yet they still hang around.
See my complete profile
Previous Post
Archives
Shoutbox

Love God. Love all. Serve both.

There is wisdom in turning as often as possible from the familiar to the unfamiliar: it keeps the mind nimble, it kills prejudice, and it fosters humor. -George Santayana, philosopher (1863-1952)

Links
Powered by

Free Blogger Templates

BLOGGER