Thursday, December 31, 2009

The Two Most Avoided Things that are Costly

Suffering and Sacrifice. There two avoided hardships are sent our way repeatedly to help us grow in our love and faith in Christ, then, in the end, blessing and satisfaction replace the grievous things--greatness, nobleness, and heaven only come by way of toil and sacrifice. So face your trials in faith and all joy, knowing what a wonderful reward awaits. God bless.

Inspiring Quotes!

"What am I to do? I expect to pass through this world but once. Any good work, therefore, only kindness, or any service I can render to any soul of man or animal, let me do it now. Let me not neglect or defer it, for I shall not pass this way again." --An Old Quaker Saying

"Do not pray for easy lives! Pray to be stronger men. Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers. Pray for powers equal to your tasks. Then the doing of your work shall be no miracle, but you shall be a miracle." Phillips Brooks

Commiting ALL to HIM

I read from a book simply the phrase, "You can trust the man that died for you."
Many go through their lives worried, irritated, afraid, nervous, disappointed, and scarcely think how, or why they are if they have committed themselves to god and the Lord to take care of all their sin, but hardly pondered yielding the heavy pack of troubles and concerns for Him to organize, and be guided by HIM to lead them into the best path-ways in this world.
"He guided them by the skillfulness of his hands." Psalm 78:72
We must (if I may take liberty with the pronouns) "surrender ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead." Romans 6:13. In every situation we are put in, we must ask Him His will and direction in all our courses of life.
"The Lord is righteous in ALL his ways, and holy in ALL his works.
The Lord is nigh unto them that call upon him, to ALL that call upon him in truth." Psalm 145: 17&18.
We can always trust him to hear us, but "what is man that THOU shouldest magnify him? and that THOU shouldest set Thine heart upon him?" Job 7:17. God's love for us sets us apart from creatures and things in His, attention, and care in our lives so that He is always attentive to our hurts and worries.
We can always trust Him to lead us in the correct path for us, if we just trust and obey.

Friday, December 25, 2009

Swedish Government Seizes Child from Home Schooling Family

GOTLAND, Sweden, December 23, 2009
— A Christian home schooling family could permanently lose custody of their only child simply because they home-school. Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) are joining forces as legal advisors to the family in order to persuade the Swedish government to return the seven-year-old child to his parents.
“Parents have the right and authority to make decisions regarding their children’s education without government interference,” said ADF Legal Counsel Roger Kiska, who is based in Europe. “This is about a socialist government trying to create a cookie-cutter child in its own image. Without help, the parents in these cases are really powerless since the system is so one sided.”
Swedish authorities forcibly removed Dominic Johansson from his parents, Christer and Annie Johansson, in June of last year from a plane they had boarded to move to Annie’s home country of India. The officials did not have a warrant nor have they charged the Johanssons with any crime. The officials seized the child because they believe home schooling is an inappropriate way to raise a child and insist the government should raise Dominic instead.
“It’s one of the most disgraceful abuses of power we have ever witnessed,” said HSLDA attorney Mike Donnelly. “The Swedish government says it is exercising its authority under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child in their unnecessary break up of this family. In addition, the Swedish Parliament is considering an essential ban on home schooling. We have heard that other home-schooling families in Sweden are having more difficulty with local officials. We fear that all home-schooling families in that country are at risk.”
Swedish social services initially limited visitation to the child to two hours per week but now have curtailed that to one hour every fifth week and no visit at all for Christmas because the social workers will be on vacation.
On Dec. 17, a Swedish court ruled in Johansson v. Gotland Social Services that the government was within its rights to seize the child. They cited the fact that Dominic had not been vaccinated as a reason to remove him permanently from his parents and also claimed that home-schoolers do not perform well academically and are not well socialized. The ordeal has left the child and his parents traumatized.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Duggar's 19th Child Born Prematurely

By James Tillman
LITTLE ROCK, AR, December 15, 2009
Michelle Duggar, of TLC's "18 Kids and Counting" reality show, delivered her 19th baby prematurely by emergency c-section on Thursday, December 10th. Josie Brooklyn was at 25 weeks gestation when the decision to deliver her was made due to the fact that Michelle had preeclampsia, which can cause serious complications for both the baby and mother.
"The obstetrical and neonatal teams reached the collaborative decision that Mrs. Duggar needed an emergency c-section to ensure the blood pressure problem would not be detrimental to her or the baby," said Dr. Paul Wendel, director of the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS).
Michelle Duggar had been admitted to a hospital over the previous weekend due to gallbladder issues; while there, it was discovered that she had preeclampsia, a condition characterized by high blood pressure in relation to pregnancy. It is a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death, and is cured only upon delivery of the baby.
Josie is currently in stable condition in UAMS' Neonatal Intensive Care Unit; she weighs 1 pound and 6 ounces. Babies born at 25 weeks have a 4 out of 5 chance of survival.
Over three thousand comments have been left on the Duggar blog entry announcing the birth; the vast majority of them are supportive and offer prayers and well wishes for Josie, Michelle, and the whole Duggar family. TLC has said that they will pass well wishes in comments on to the Duggars.
The Duggars have written a book about their experiences, including their decision to stop using birth control; in addition to their reality TV show they have been featured on numerous occasions in the media. Through such media they have spread their belief that "children are a heritage of the Lord," as their website proclaims.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Far From the Meddling Crowd


This is the January 2010 reading for a book club I've joined, called Kindred Spirits Book Club, click the link to join us in reading this wonderful British book. http://kindredspiritsbookclub.blogspot.com

Fear depopulation, not overpopulation

Canada and most European countries now have birth rates below the 2.1 replacement rate
By Maurice Vellacott
Diane Francis authored a very disturbing and 40-years-outdated column on Tuesday ("The real inconvenient truth: The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy," Dec. 8). Such rhetoric about overpopulation flies in the face of the depopulation dynamics that are striking fear into many politicians and economists around the world.
But just as disturbing is Ms. Francis' sanitized view of China's one-child policy, which she recommends. This policy has been thoroughly documented as being a forced abortion policy, with all the outrageous abuses against women that one might expect from such a policy. China is facing a serious gender imbalance because of its massive slaughter of unborn girls, due to parents' preference for boys.
If the Chinese hadn't been limited to only one child, they wouldn't have felt the need to make this deadly choice. This one-child policy also led to a number of high-profile refugee situations as a few brave women, threatened with the killing of their children, sought to flee China. And some are trying to fight the brutality from within the country. Ms. Francis should do more research before she conjures the image of China's one-child policy as a worthwhile depopulation strategy.
Furthermore, depopulation - not overpopulation - has already been thoroughly exposed as today's problem, not a solution. A cross-section of professionals, including economists, demographers and social scientists, have recently produced two documentaries on this problem: Demographic Winter and Demographic Bomb.
Canada and most, if not all, European countries now have birth rates below the replacement rate of 2.1. The documentaries are must-viewing for anyone serious about addressing the challenges of population today. As the producers of Demographic Winter note: "Worldwide, birthrates have declined by more than 50% in the past 30 years (since 1979). There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world's population, with below-replacement fertility. Sometime in this century, the world's population will begin to decline. (The United Nations Population Division says that, worldwide, we could achieve below-replacement fertility by 2030.) At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach what demographers call population free fall in our lifetimes. Russia is losing 750,000 people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050."
By 2015, the number of deaths in Europe will have outstripped the number of births. By 2060, the ratio of people of working age to those over age 65 will be two to one. The growth momentum of Europe's 27 member states will continue to carry it until 2035; after this the population will begin to decline drastically from a predicted 521 million to 506 million by 2060. These conclusions come from a report released last summer by Eurostat, the European Union's statistical service.
Economists have been lamenting for years a looming crisis with social welfare programs as the proportion of elderly people to workers in many Western countries declines. Nations with social welfare systems also need children to survive. A burgeoning elderly population combined with a shrinking work force will lead to a train wreck for state pension systems.
Ms. Francis pretends that economies can flourish with depopulation. On the contrary, the past century has seen the largest population growth in global history, yet simultaneously, the standard of living has risen and life expectancies have increased across the globe. People typically reduce spending as they age and children move away from home, so as the older age cohort increases relative to a nation's population, the country's economic health can be expected to decline.
An article published in The Globe and Mail in January of this year (Baby Boom best bet to cure China's ills, Jan. 28), presented evidence that even China was in urgent need of population growth: "Population is at the heart of long-term economic expansion," writes China scholar Derek Scissors in a paper for the Heritage Foundation, a U.S. think tank. "China is soon to leave what has been an extended demographic pattern supporting economic growth and enter a very different pattern entailing difficult policy choices."
In summary, I was shocked to read Ms. Francis' advocacy for depopulation, especially drawing on the imagery of China's ruthless one-child forced abortion policy. Hopefully Ms. Francis will have further opportunity to examine this significant topic and explore the current relevant studies.
Maurice Vellacott is a Conservative Member of Parliament for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Is the Jewish race the Chosen People of God? More

NO! NO! NO! A thousand times NO!The Jews were provisionally chosen by God to bring Christ into the world because of God's promises to Abraham that he would be a father of many nations and that in his Seed, all nations would be blessed (Gen. 17:5, 16; 22:18; cf. Gal. 3:8). If you'll notice, after the flood the world was divided into the nations and languages that now fill the earth. That is in Gen. 10 & 11. Then, in Genesis 12, we are introduced to Abraham. The point here is that God was going to use Abraham and make him into a great nation so that Christ could come into the world through him. The laws and institutions of national Israel, were given by God to show the world's need of a Savior. The temple service was a grand object lesson showing the need for blood sacrifice and a chosen mediator to take away sin. The blood of bulls and goats, of course, could not save or take aways sin, but merely pointed to Christ (Heb. 10:1, 4). Just as the temple service was not "everlasting" but had a specific purpose pointing to Christ, so the nation of Israel had a provisional and temporary purpose. Once the purpose was fulfilled, the "election" of the Jews as God's bride concluded. The "bridal" imagery of Israel's national election is important, because it is based upon a covenant. Which covenant? The old covenant, of course! See Jeremiah 3 & Ezekiel 16. But Jeremiah said there would be a NEW COVENANT! And that new covenant is based upon the gospel and faith in Christ. The Jews covenant has ended and is gone; the ONLY way to be the bride of Christ today is through the only existing covenant there is, the gospel!The Jews' possession of Palestine was also provisional and conditional. God put the nation in Palestine (versus some other place) because it was the cross road of the ancient world, between Egypt and Ethiopia in the south, Assyria and Babylon in the East, Greece in the North, and Rome in the West. By placing the Jewish nation where he did, God made certain that every race and language of men would be exposed to the laws and institutions he gave the Jews, and so be prepared to receive Christ when he came. There are many passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy showing that the Jews' possession of the land was conditional upon obedience. If they obeyed and were faithful, they could remain in the land. But if they sinned and rebelled, God would cast them out of the land. The scripture show that they were not faithful, so God destroyed the nation, first by the hand of the Assyrians and Babylonians, then finally by Rome for the murder of Christ and rejection of the gospel. Read Matthew 23 & 24 where Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the nation by Rome for rejecting him and persecuting his church.Are the Jews God's chosen people today. NO! All men come to grace through Christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
Paul is talking about whether men need to obey the law; whether men need to be circumcised (become Jews) in order to find grace in Christ. Paul answers NO. Through faith, repentance, and baptism we receive the adoption of sonship, are made the seed of Abraham, and become heirs of God and eternal life (See Gal. 3:29). Paul says there is neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free in God's eyes anymore. All men come to grace exactly the same way - through faith - and one's lineal descent is irrelevant. In Philippians, Paul said he counted his lineal descent from Abraham as "dung" for the surpassing greatness of being justified in Christ (Phil. 3:1-8). Thus, Paul's Jewish ancestry was a big zero under the New Testament. Jews have no advantage any more. The gospel went into all the world so all men can be saved. There is only one Covenant today - the gospel of Christ. Anyone preaching that the Jews are still God's people is preaching a reversion to Judaism and the Old Law. The Jews are not God's chosen people today, unless he has rejected the church and gone back under the Old Covenant.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The Still, Small Voice

"And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice." I Kings 19:12
Going through the daily rush of our lives when things are under pressure and you are tested, we need to pause and listen to that still small voice.
God is that voice, and unless we give heed to that hint in our minds that stops our conscience, and asks us to listen to the little restraints and prohibition he gives us that help us advance in our understanding and conversation in the Lord.
We need to simply trust and obey God, and "know that all thins work together for good..." (Romans 8:28)--he will sometimes seem to be making no sense of the situation, but he WILL care for you, and know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven..." (Ecc. 3:1) and it is all apart of his glorious plan for our lives.

Trust And Obey Hymn
When we walk with the Lord in the light of His Word,
What a glory He sheds on our way!
While we do His good will,
He abides with us still,
And with all who will trust and obey.
Refrain
Trust and obey, for there’s no other way
To be happy in Jesus, but to trust and obey.
Not a shadow can rise, not a cloud in the skies,
But His smile quickly drives it away;
Not a doubt or a fear, not a sigh or a tear,
Can abide while we trust and obey.
Refrain
Not a burden we bear, not a sorrow we share,
But our toil He doth richly repay;
Not a grief or a loss, not a frown or a cross,
But is blessed if we trust and obey.
Refrain
But we never can prove the delights of His love
Until all on the altar we lay;
For the favor He shows, for the joy He bestows,
Are for them who will trust and obey.
Refrain
Then in fellowship sweet we will sit at His feet.
Or we’ll walk by His side in the way.
What He says we will do, where He sends we will go;
Never fear, only trust and obey.
Refrain

Monday, December 7, 2009

No More

By a Homeschool Mom

When we first started homeschooling, I was so excited to give my children the opportunity to experience every learning situation available. My schedule included lofty ideas of weekly field trips and my children's involvement in any sport, music, or church activity they wanted to attend. After all, we wanted to make sure no one accused us of isolating our children. However, after homeschooling three to four months, I realized my sanity was at stake if I continued to run my four children out the door to each of their daily activities. The half-completed projects and academic assignments that were left behind added additional proof we had a problem. That's when I decided: no more.

New changes were made at our house, and we began to reevaluate what was important to our children's education. Even worthwhile activities within our church and homeschool group had to be analyzed and prayed over. We simply did not have enough time to participate in everything that was available. "Simplify" became my theme, and I rediscovered the joy of homeschooling our children again.

Moses was a great leader in the Bible, but even he had to learn how to simplify his life. After leading God's people out of Egypt, Moses had the awesome responsibility of making this mass of people get along with each other. Imagine dealing with the issues created by millions of people living together out in the wilderness. Moses was burning out fast trying to keep ahead of all the demands. Fortunately, Jethro, his father-in-law, noticed what was happening and gave him some practical ideas to get his life back (Exodus 18:17-27).

What about your family? Are you running from activity to activity and missing the whole point of homeschooling — you know, the schooling you're supposed to be doing at home? Life already has enough demands on us to hurry and miss the joy of loving relationships. Don't let the world pull you off the track God has given you in homeschooling. Guard your time together and pray before you say "yes" to one more thing. Remember, we're not isolating. We're equipping our children to grow in their walk with Christ, and that simply takes time. "See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil. Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is" (Ephesians 5:15-17).

Lord, our family is on overload, and we need Your help. Programs and activities have replaced people and relationships, and we need Your discernment to rediscover why we are homeschooling. Bring us back to our first loves — You and each other. In Jesus' name, Amen.

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Are the Jews still God's Chosen People?

This was written when I was questioned on my post on "Our opinions Concerneing Israel."
This is the reply:
The nation of Israel was chosen to bring the Savior into the world. Jesus had to be born somewhere in some nation, so it only made sense that God would create a nation whose laws and traditions would serve to prepare the world for Christ. It would make no sense for the Savior of the world to be born into a pagan home that worshipped false gods, would it? So, God chose Abraham and made his seed into a nation. National election of the Jews was merely PROVISIONAL - it was a temporary arrangement so Christ could be born to Abraham's seed as promised. But, being a servant of God was NEVER based upon ethnicity. Men are not acceptible based upon race or physical descent. What makes anybody acceptible to God is the obedience of faith. Thus, Paul says "For he is NOT a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).So, here Paul expressly states that being a Jew does not mean one can trace physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but a "Jew" is an obedient, servant of God based upon faith. He repeats this in Romans 9:7, 8, saying, "Neither, becaue they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall they seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Here, Paul says lineal descent from Abraham does not make a person Abraham's seed or a child of God. Only in Christ are we the seed and do we obtain the status of being children and heirs of God and eternal life.The verses you cite showing the Jews were God's people, were all from the Old Testament. The Old Testament has been annulled by the cross of Christ. Today, all men are viewed equally by God and all must come to grace exactly the same way. God does not have two covenants, one for the Jews and another for the rest of mankind. The promise of salvation was made to Adam and Eve before there were any Jews and the promise was for all men.Yes, any unbeliever who denies Christ is an antichrist, regardless of race or nation. My only point in saying the Jews were antichrist was to dispell the fallacy that they are somewhow God's chosen people today after rejecting God, murdering his son, and persecuting his church and gospel. The Jews rejected God and he rejected them and destroyed Jerusalem in AD 70 in vengeance and wrath. What God has done, let not man undo! We should not support any nation, Jew or Muslim, that is an enemy of Christ.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Does God want us to be "happy" or holy?

Posted by Caspian.
December 3, 2009 at 11:00pm

.This question has supporters on both sides, more so on the "Happy" or "Both" side I believe.

But what does the word of God tell us about this? After all that is what truly matters. So where does the Bible give us an example of this, or insite into to subject.

Well, let us go back to the beginning(literally!); the first two humans, Adam, and Eve. But you may be thinking, "What do they have to do with it? People refer to them bringing sin into the world not holiness or happiness! But what else can we pull from this oft told story?

First, lets get some back ground shall we? God created a perfect world and plopped Adam and Eve into it. But not just any random place, they were in the garden of eden! They walked with God, talked with him, and even had their pick of fruit! WOW~ They had everything they need to be "happy"! And they were I believe...for a time. But what happened to them? Why can't the story just say and God let them eat of every tree in the garden and they were Joyful?

I would not be out of line here I believe to interject the reason the story doesn't read, and Adam and Eve ate of every tree and lived happily ever after, was because God valued their holiness he told them NOT to eat of the tree "Of the knowledge of God and evil", not because he didn't want them to have the happiness of eating of every tree, but because he valued their holiness higher. It took priority, as they would no longer be holy after eating of the tree.

Now some may say "Dude, that was TOTALLY a "far out" example. Come on, its Adam and Eve we are talking about, things were different back then." Or perhaps even "That example had nothing to do with your lame point, joy killer!"

*chuckles*

Of course I disagree(why would I have posted otherwise!) but sure, why don't we look at a different situation. Once again old Testament(but don't worry, I didn't chose Cain and Able THOUGH! I could have ;))
Lets' look at the life of a prophet of God, they should be a good example one way or the other right? Right! Jonah is a man we don't know much about, but we do know he had a temper, and was not always into seeing people go unpunished. : But what else do we learn from his story? Well once again lets start at the beginning what was the surrounding info? To start with, he was a prophet ( I already said that once), so he went about giving people God's messages, mostly warnings I believe as that was a prophets typical message. So with that little tid bit of background lets plunge in:)

God commanded Jonah to go to the Ninevites(a sinful people very hated and despised). This was NOT something that would be a "happy" thing to do, nor would it give Jonah physical gain, I believe he possibly feared for his life in going there. People often aren't "to big" on someone coming up to them and saying "Repent sinners, or the Lord God's judgment will wipe you out!".At least last time I checked ;). Now imagine doing that to thirty thousand people~ You get the picture Jonah had going through his mind :C

Now for one, at face value, would that make you feel happy? NO! I'd be terrified of the people and resistant to God. So what did Jonah do stuck with a tricky situation, between the proverbial "rock" and God! Not exactly the most comfortable circumstance. So he....Fled! He ran for his life!

But~ Lets look a little deeper at the key reason why he fled. Was he going to be happy going to Nineveh? NO. Would he be happier/ more comfortable going and relaxing on the sand somewhere? Yes! Away from those sinful people, and the followers of God asking what God wanted them to do(that would be very akward). Now you might say I over simplified this but I would ask you to bear with me.

So back on Jonah's tale, he fled to Tarshish in his thinking, away from God's command and perhaps he was also looking forward to being away from the people(I would be!) Now we all know what happened, God caused a storm to rise up, and long story short Jonah ended up in a "large aquatic animal":P. But why? If God wanted him to be happy, wouldn't it have been better to let Jonah go? I don't think God was like "Darn that Jonah, now he's gonna pay, Him V ME. We'll see he cries uncle first! I get this giant animal to get him! HA! That'll show him."

NoNo!,
I don't think this was what was happening at all! God cared about Jonah, and that is why he chose what he did. He valued Jonah's holiness/obedience(I think they go hand in hand) higher than Jonah's sinful "happiness" so he brought the fish in to discipline him, and hopefully teach him a lesson. Why? Because rather than having Jonah live his life "Hunky Dorry" he was calling him to holiness, as I believe God calls us all. God cares that you are holy and following after him, rather than you being happy. I hope this has shown you good reasons why I believe this to be true.

Challenge to Ireland's Pro-Life Laws Goes to European Court of Human Rights

By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
December 3, 2009 (C-FAM) - Irish abortion laws and sovereignty stand in the dock next week when the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears a challenge to Ireland's constitutional protection of life "from conception."
Three petitioners in the case A, B & C v. Ireland allege that they were forced to travel overseas to obtain abortions, undergoing unnecessary expenses and hardship due to the nation's pro-life laws. They claim violations of various rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Third-party interveners Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the European Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defense Fund (on behalf of Family Research Council), contend that it is "Ireland's sovereign right to determine when life begins" and what rights attach to pre-natal life. They also claim that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that therefore the ECHR lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ireland's constitution "acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The country's recent approval of the Lisbon Treaty after receiving guarantees that its pro-life constitution would remain unaffected has raised the stakes of the Court's decision.
Skeptics of the ECHR's ability to be impartial where "abortion rights" are implicated point to the court's 2007 ruling Tysiac v. Poland, which held that Poland had violated the European Convention by denying a woman a "therapeutic" abortion that allegedly would have saved her eyesight. The woman there had obtained a certificate from a general practitioner as a prerequisite to obtaining an abortion allowable under Polish law, which remains among Europe's most protective of the unborn. Five medical experts overruled the general practitioner, determining that the ongoing deterioration in eyesight was unrelated to her pregnancy – a finding seconded post-delivery by a review panel of three additional experts. Despite this, as the dissent pointed out, the ECHR credited the one generalist's opinion over that of eight experts to reach the desired result.
Jakob Cornides, a European legal commentator who has criticized the Tysiac decision, distinguished that case from the present one, noting that, "rightly or wrongly, Tysiac was premised upon the notion that Ms. Tysiac's contemplated abortion would have been legal under Polish law, and if lawful, it should have been available. In Ireland, however, the constitution protects unborn life and legislation indisputably prohibits abortion."
Cornides further points out that "the Court so far has avoided taking a position on whether abortion should be legal or not, leaving this question to national legislators. It would indeed be inconceivable that countries like Ireland or Poland, to name just two, would have signed up to the Convention if they foresaw an explicit or implicit 'right to abortion.'"
Irish voters overwhelmingly approved Ireland's pro-life constitutional provision in a 1983 referendum. Pro-lifers further note that Ireland has the world's lowest rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, as confirmed in a recent report by the World Economic Forum.

Cambridge Study Says 5-year-olds Too Young To Start School

By Thaddeus M. Bakllinski

LONDON, October 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study of primary education by Cambridge University recommends that formal schooling of children should begin at the age of six, a year later than the present norm in the UK.

The 608-page Cambridge Primary Review, which was based on 28 surveys and 1,052 written submissions by 14 authors, 66 research consultants and an advisory committee, said there was no evidence suggesting formal teaching environments benefited young children, and that introducing children at the age of five into the structure and discipline of a classroom could even be harmful.

Dame Gillian Pugh, chairwoman of the review, said: "Four and five-year-olds tended to be at a stage where they were just 'tuning in' to learning and that they could be 'turned off' if they were made to follow too formal a curriculum, too early on."

"If you introduce a child to too formal a curriculum before they are ready for it," she continued, "then you are not taking into account where children are in terms of their learning and their capacity to develop.

"If they are already failing by the age of four-and-a-half or five it's going to be quite difficult to get them back into the system again. They are not going to learn to read, write and add up if you have alienated them," Pugh said.

The report recommends that children up to the age of six should instead continue the more informal, play-based education typically found in nurseries.

In Finland, as in Germany and Sweden, children begin school in the year they turn seven. In France, children begin formal education at six. Finland is regarded as having Europe's best education system, with the country's students regularly achieving top marks for reading literacy and science in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).

England's custom of starting school at five, shared in Europe only by Wales, Scotland and the Netherlands, dates from the requirements of Victorian factory owners, the report states, and warns of the "Stalinist overtones of a 'state theory of learning'" enforced by the "machinery of surveillance and accountability."

The government dismissed the review as "disappointing" and out of date.

Schools Minister Vernon Coaker said the recommendations would actually disadvantage British school children.

"It's disappointing that a review which purports to be so comprehensive is simply not up to speed on many major changes in primaries," he said.

"The world has moved on since this review was started. We want to make sure children are playing and learning from an early age and to give parents the choice for their child to start in the September following their fourth birthday."

Teachers' unions, however, endorsed the review and criticized the government's response.

"It is absolutely extraordinary that the government has decided to ignore the Cambridge Review recommendations," said Christine Blower, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.

"Any government worth its salt, particularly in front of an impending general election, would have embraced this immensely rich report as a source of policy ideas."

A previous study, released in 2007 by Durham University's Curriculum, Evaluation and Management (CEM) Centre and presented at the European Association for Learning and Instruction (EARLI) conference, is substantiated by the Cambridge University report.

The Durham study found that, although there have been massive changes in early years education in the last decade in the UK, children's development and skills at the start of school are no different now than they were before the introduction of the early childhood curriculum.

"Our aim with this study is to provide a single perspective on the changing profiles of children starting school in England during a time of rapid change," said Dr. Christine Merrell of Durham University.

"One would have expected that the major government programmes would have resulted in some measurable changes in our sample of almost 35,000 children," though no benefit was evident.

Other studies have found marked negative effects from the introduction of 3 to 5 year olds to formal schooling, including brain chemistry damage, aggression, negative social and emotional development, and illness.

Thursday, December 3, 2009

A Resipe!

French Apple Pie





You will need these things:

1 Pie crust


1 cup sugar


1/4 cup cornstarch


1/2 tsp. nutmeg


1/4 tsp ground cinnamon


pinch of salt


6 cups of thinly sliced baking apples, (approx. 6 med. apples)


1 cup flour


1/2 cup butter or margarine


1/2 cup brown sugar

Now you'll have to preheat your oven to 350 F.
Mix sugar, cornstarch, nutmeg, cinnamon, and salt into a bowl
Stir in the Apples
Pour the ingredients into the pie pan
Mix in the flour with the butter, NOT melted--in a bowl
Mix in the brown sugar until crumbly--save a little to sprinkle on the top.
Put in the pie pan
Bake for an hour and 30 minutes--cover the pie with aluminum foil for the final 10 minutes of baking.
Enjoy!

More Muslim Ladies--Pics
















































Najaf Sultana, 16, poses for a photograph at her home in Lahore, Pakistan on Wednesday, July 9, 2008. At the age of five Najaf was burned by her father while she was sleeping, apparently because he didn't want to have another girl in the family. As a result of the burning Najaf became blind and after being abandoned by both her parents she now lives with relatives. She has undergone plastic surgery around 15 times to try to recover from her scars.



Shehnaz Usman, 36, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Shehnaz was burned with acid by a relative due to a familial dispute five years ago. Shehnaz has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars.


Shahnaz Bibi, 35, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Ten years ago Shahnaz was burned with acid by a relative due to a familial dispute. She has never undergone plastic surgery.





Kanwal Kayum, 26, adjusts her veil as she poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Kanwal was burned with acid one year ago by a boy whom she rejected for marriage. She has never undergone plastic surgery.


Munira Asef, 23, poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Sunday, Oct. 26, 2008. Munira was burned with acid five years ago by a boy whom she rejected for marriage. She has undergone plastic surgery 7 times to try to recover from her scars.



Bushra Shari, 39, adjusts her veil as she poses for a photograph in Lahore, Pakistan, Friday, July. 11, 2008. Bushra was burned with acid thrown by her husband five years ago because she was trying to divorce him. She has undergone plastic surgery 25 times to try to recover from her scars.



Memuna Khan, 21, poses for a photograph in Karachi, Pakistan, Friday, Dec. 19, 2008. Menuna was burned by a group of boys who threw acid on her to settle a dispute between their family and Menuna's. She has undergone plastic surgery 21 times to try to recover from her scars.



Zainab Bibi, 17, adjusts her veil as she poses for a photograph in Islamabad, Pakistan,



Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2008.. Zainab was burned on her face with acid thrown by a boy whom she rejected for marriage five years ago. She has undergone plastic surgery several times to try to recover from her scars.



Naila Farhat, 19, poses for a photograph in Islamabad, Pakistan, Wednesday, Dec. 24, 2008. Naila was burned on her face with acid thrown by a boy whom she rejected for marriage five years ago. She has undergone plastic surgery several times to try to recover from her scars.


Saira Liaqat, 26, poses for the camera as she holds a portrait of herself before being burned, at her home in Lahore, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 9, 2008. When she was fifteen, Saira was married to a relative who would later attack her with acid after insistently demanding her to live with him, although the families had agreed she wouldn't join him until she finished school. Saira has undergone plastic surgery 9 times to try to recover from her scars.

THOSE NICE PEACEFUL MUSLIMS, I WANT TO PUKE !


Irum Saeed (the left), 30, poses for a photograph at her office at the Urdu University of Islamabad, Pakistan, Thursday, July 24, 2008. Irum was burned on her face, back and shoulders twelve years ago when a boy whom she rejected for marriage threw acid on her in the middle of the street. She has undergone plastic surgery 25 times to try to recover from her scars.
Shameem Akhter(top), 18, poses for a photograph at her home in Jhang, Pakistan, Wednesday, July 10, 2008. Shameem was raped by three boys who then threw acid on her three years ago. Shameem has undergone plastic surgery 10 times to try to recover from her scars.

Terrorism that's personal
(12 images) GRAPHIC CONTENTTerrorism that's personal (12 images)EDITOR'S NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT
Text by Jim Verhulst, Times' Perspective editorPhotos by Emilio Morenatti, Associated Press
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/opinion/30kristof.html

We typically think of terrorism as a political act.
But sometimes it’s very personal. It wasn’t a government or a guerrilla insurgency that threw acid on this woman’s face in Pakistan. It was a young man whom she had rejected for marriage. As the United States ponders what to do in Afghanistan — and for that matter, in Pakistan — it is wise to understand both the political and the personal, that the very ignorance and illiteracy and misogyny that create the climate for these acid attacks can and does bleed over into the political realm. Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who traveled to Pakistan last year to write about acid attacks, put it this way in an essay at the time: “I’ve been investigating such acid attacks, which are commonly used to terrorize and subjugate women and girls in a swath of Asia from Afghanistan through Cambodia (men are almost never attacked with acid). Because women usually don’t matter in this part of the world, their attackers are rarely prosecuted and acid sales are usually not controlled. It’s a kind of terrorism that becomes accepted as part of the background noise in the region. ...
“Bangladesh has imposed controls on acid sales to curb such attacks, but otherwise it is fairly easy in Asia to walk into a shop and buy sulfuric or hydrochloric acid suitable for destroying a human face. Acid attacks and wife burnings are common in parts of Asia because the victims are the most voiceless in these societies: They are poor and female. The first step is simply for the world to take note, to give voice to these women.” Since 1994, a Pakistani activist who founded the Progressive Women’s Association (http://www.pwaisbd.org/) to help such women “has documented 7,800 cases of women who were deliberately burned, scalded or subjected to acid attacks, just in the Islamabad area. In only 2 percent of those cases was anyone convicted.”
The geopolitical question is already hard enough: Should the United States commit more troops to Afghanistan and for what specific purpose? As American policymakers mull the options, here is a frame of reference that puts the tough choices in even starker relief: Are acid attacks a sign of just how little the United States can do to solve intractable problems there — therefore, we should pull out? Or having declared war on terrorism, must the United States stay out of moral duty, to try to protect women such as these — and the schoolgirls whom the Taliban in Afghanistan sprayed with acid simply for going to class — who have suffered a very personal terrorist attack? We offer a reading file of two smart essays that come to differing conclusions.
• In August, Perspective published a New York Times Magazine piece that followed up the story of Afghan sisters Shamsia and Atifa Husseini, who were attacked with acid simply for attending school. If you wish to refresh your memory, you may read the original article here.
• Two very smart, informed observers come to opposite conclusions on the proper U.S. course of action in Afghanistan. Here are excerpts from arguments that each of them has recently made:
Here are excerpts from Steve Coll’s “Think Tank” blog at NewYorker.com, in which he argues why we can’t leave — “What If We Fail In Afghanistan?” (Read it in full here.)
In an essay entitled “The War We Can’t Win” in Commonweal (also reprinted this month by Harper’s), Andrew J. Bacevich makes the case that we are overstating the importance of Afghanistan to U.S. interests. Bacevich is a professor of international relations at Boston University and the author, most recently, of The Limits of Power. A retired Army lieutenant colonel, he served from 1969 to 1992, in Vietnam and the first Persian Gulf War.. He was a conservative critic of the Iraq war. Several of his essays have run before in Perspective. To read this one in full, go here.
• See the Sunday November 22, 2009 Perspective section in the St. Petersburg Times But be forewarned: Those photos are even harder to look at than these ones.
More pics will be posted.

Our Opinions Concerning Israel

We feel that the favoritism the U.S. has shown the Jews/Israel has injured our relationship with the Arab world and has caused them to hate us. We
owe Israel no special friendship or allegiance. The Jews are antichrist.
An Antichrist is anyone who denies the Son. (I Jn. 2:22 & 23 who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledge the Son hath the Father also. ). The only way to the Father is through the Son. The Jews deny Jesus and therefore are Antichrist, and have not the Father. The Bible says that those who deny Christ are at enmity (hatred) with God (Rom. 8:7, 8) If the Jews are at enmity (enemies) of God, why should Christian befriend them (except to lead them to Christ, of course)?

The Jews were provisionally chosen as a nation to accomplish God's purpose to bring Jesus into the world; they were “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” which God bore with much longsuffering and patience (Rom. 10:22, 23). The Jews had the chance and refused the gospel. You also say, Emily, that the Jews did not kill Jesus; yet they rejected him and cause the Son of God to be crucifed when Pilate was determined to let him go (Acts 2:23)! The moral blame was squarely placed on them. (Matt. 27:1 when the morning was come, the chief priests and elders took counsel against Jesus to put him to death). You also say that He gave Himself up willingly, that is true. He did it for us, but that doesn’t change the fact that they sought to murder Him. (Also look at Matt. 27:20) That is why their city and nation was destroyed by Rome in AD 70 (see Matt. 23 & 24). Jesus said "your house is left to you desolate" - that is, they abandoned God and so he abandoned them to be destroyed. Emily, now you said that God sees all men equally, you are right. That means all men find grace the same way – through Jesus. Jews must obey the gospel the same as Gentiles. There is no preferential treatment. The ground before the cross is plane. Unless the
Jews repent and accept Christ, they are condemned as every other man or
woman. As a "Christian" we have no business taking sides with a nation
that denies Christ. That makes us a party to their sins. So, while we certainly do not favor the Muslim, neither should we favor the Jews. Both deny Christ and are enemies of the gospel. That is the plain and simple truth.

The Simmons Family

The Simmons Family