The most shocking 4-minute abortion debate you will ever see

From here:

CBR’s shocking, graphic video juxtaposed a soothing video produced by the Northland Family Planning Centers, a late-term abortion chain of 3 mills in Michigan, with the reality of abortion.

CBR’s video got such a huge initial response, CEO Gregg Cunningham decided to take some time to remaster it to grotesque perfection. CBR is calling this video “the most shocking 4-minute abortion debate you will ever see.” CBR may be right…

[flv:https://anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/videos/abortionvideo.flv 700 500]

The Elton John cover-up

From here:

A US chain store deemed a magazine cover featuring Elton John’s family so offensive, it was covered to “protect” young shoppers.

The manager of the Harps store in Mountain Home, Arkansas, placed a “modesty shield” over the issue of US Weekly, despite John, his civil partner David Furnish and baby Zachary all being fully clothed.

Local resident Jennifer Huddleston took a picture of the shield and posted it on Twitter.

“This was taken at my local grocery store,’ she wrote on the social networking site. “I was shocked and horrified.”

“They are saying they need to keep children from seeing it, because it is a gay family.”

Harps said at first that they had no opinion on the matter but company president Kim Eskew later said the shield had been removed.

“In this case our store manager received some complaints and, as has been our custom, placed the shield over the cover of the magazine,” she said.

“When we began receiving complaints at our corporate office, we reviewed the magazine in question, removed the shield and are selling the magazine in all our locations today without any shield.

“Our true intention is not to offend anyone in our stores and this incident happened at just one of our 65 locations, which when brought to our attention we reversed.”

The fact is, today you can barely do anything without offending someone; so you might just as well concentrate on doing a thorough job of offending someone you thoroughly disagree with.

Rowan Williams’ differing reactions to persecution

Rowan Williams condemned the murder of David Kato in Kampala. He went on to urge the British government to provide asylum for other homosexuals who might be in danger in Uganda.

All very proper, of course; except I don’t remember him pressuring the UK government to accept Iranian homosexual refugees – who, after all, are in considerably more danger than those in Uganda.

Rowan seems to enjoy impossible balancing acts: not satisfied with trying to indaba together the two incompatible religions represented by liberal and conservative Anglicanism, he is now trying to denounce anti-homosexual factions in other nations without implicating the most enthusiastically systematic abusers of homosexuals now extant – Muslims.

From here:

The archbishop of Canterbury has urged the government to offer protection to gay and lesbian people seeking asylum in the UK after the “profoundly shocking” killing of a Ugandan gay rights activist this week.

Williams said: “Whatever the precise circumstances of his death, which have yet to be determined, we know that David Kato Kisule lived under the threat of violence and death.

“No one should have to live in such fear because of the bigotry of others. This event also makes it all the more urgent for the British government to secure the safety of LGBT asylum seekers in the UK. This is a moment to take very serious stock and to address those attitudes of mind which endanger the lives of men and women belonging to sexual minorities.”

Meanwhile, the Archbishop is “powerless to help” Christians who are being routinely murdered, tortured and raped in Islamic nations, but trusts they will be encouraged because they “have not been forgotten” – at least, not completely.

From here:

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams will say Christians who are suffering because of their beliefs would be helped through the knowledge they have not been forgotten.

“We may feel powerless to help; yet we should also know that people in such circumstances are strengthened simply by knowing they have not been forgotten,” Williams will say, according to extracts of the address released in advance.

“And if we find we have time to spare for joining in letter-writing campaigns for all prisoners of conscience, [rights groups] Amnesty International and Christian Solidarity worldwide will have plenty of opportunities for us to make use of.”

Delivering the sermon at the cathedral in Canterbury, he will cite a number of countries where Christians are suffering, including Iraq and Zimbabwe………..

Williams, the spiritual leader of more than 70 million Anglicans worldwide, mentions the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian mother-of-five in Pakistan sentenced to death for defaming the Prophet Mohammed.

“Our prayers continue for [Asia Bibi] in Pakistan and others from minority groups who suffer from the abuse of the law by certain groups there.”

Richard Dawkins claims doing good to strangers is a “misfiring”

Starting at around 10:00 in this interview, Dawkins illuminates the CBC interviewer on the subject of right behaviour by claiming that to help a homeless person is the misfiring of a Darwinian impulse.

From Dawkins’ perspective this is a logical, if bleak, conclusion. He rather lets his side down, though, by backpedalling: he reassures the interviewer that this does in no way belittle attempts to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

Rubbish. According to Dawkins’ Darwinian lights, “belittle” is a moral evaluation and has no meaning in the context of pitiless, indifferent evolution.

Take me back to the '60s

Last night I sank into a nostalgic haze while listening to some music that appealed to me when I was growing up:  These Were Our Songs: The Early Add an Image60’s.

The lyrics seem preposterously naive by today’s standards, of course. For example:

You come on like a dream, peaches and cream,
lips like strawberry wine:
you’re sixteen, you’re beautiful and you’re mine.

You’re all ribbons and curls, ooh what a girl,
eyes that sparkle and shine:
you’re sixteen, you’re beautiful and you’re mine.

But, as a callow youth, listening to this did manage to sum up what seemed at the time to be the profound attachment I felt towards my fifteen year-old girlfriend. Alas, it turned out not to be true love, so my romantic gushing was soon to be transferred to her replacement.

Unfortunately, for the last 20 years or so, popular music has laboured mightily to dispel the sentimentality of its progenitor: romantic pretension has been expunged by a crass unrelenting assault on the sensibilities:

Your bark was loud, but your bite wasn’t vicious,
And them rhymes you were kickin were quite bootylicious,
You get with Doggy Dogg oh is he crazy?
With ya mama and your daddy hollin’ Bay-Bee,
So won’t they let you know,
That is you fuck with dre nigga you’re fuckin wit Death Row,
And I ain’t even slangin them thangs,
I’m hollin one-eight-seven with my dick in yo mouth, beotch

Which, I have on good authority, could be roughly translated into the slightly less obtuse, but no less revolting:

You talk a lot but you can’t back it up,
You can’t rap well,
You must be crazy to try and mess with me,
I will kill you. Your mum and dad will be crying at your funeral,
If you mess with Dr. Dre you are messing with every rapper on our record label.
I don’t sell drugs, I will yell murder as you perform oral sex on me. Bitch.

If that wasn’t bad enough, here is Me So Horny from 2 Live Crew:

It’s true, you were a virgin until you met me
I was the first to make you hot and wetty­wetty
You tell your parents that we’re goin’ out
Never to the movies, just straight to my house
You said it yourself, you like it like I do
Put your lips on my dick, and suck my asshole too
I’m a freak in heat, a dog without warning
My appetite is sex, ’cause me so horny.

Romantic illusions have been replaced with pornographic illusions.
Take me back to the ’60s.

A nudist tests his constitutional right to public nudity in the courts

Although some seem to think this is a nudist blog, it isn’t, so I’ve closed the post for further comments.

Brian Coldin is a nudist – a Christian nudist, apparently. I’m not sure what part Christianity plays in his nudist exploits, but I imagine he could easily find an Anglican church willing to offer a generous pastoral response affirming him in his chilly calling.

He is about to assert his constitutional right to public nudity in the courts. This should dispel any lingering illusion that Canadian judges and lawyers engaged on constitutional issues are busy doing much of anything that is other than frivolous; particularly if Coldin makes his court appearance in his preferred state – as he should since he is obviously serious about his vocation.

From here:

Prominent defence lawyer Clayton Ruby was expected to argue current laws in Canada prohibiting nudity in public places, or on private property exposed to public view, are overly broad — thus they should be struck down and the laws under the Criminal Code updated.

According to the Federation of Canadian Nudists, these laws are archaic because they define nudity as generally “indecent” and intended to cause “harm” to those who witness it.

The challenge is being launched on behalf of Ruby’s client, Brian Coldin, a nudist resort operator in Bracebridge, Ont., a small cottage country town about two hours north of Toronto. Coldin, who has been arrested numerous times over the years for public nudity, was charged last year with five counts related to incidents between April 2008 and May 2009 near his resort and at drive-thus at both Tim Horton’s and A&W restaurants.

The criminal trial, which began last fall, heard testimony from one of the workers at the fast-food burger restaurant who cried on the stand when she described how Coldin and two others drove up to the pickup window completely nude. She testified Coldin and the driver of the vehicle both pretended to reach for their imaginary wallets to pay for their orders, causing their genitals to sway back and forth.

What further evidence of causing harm to others could possibly be required: fast food is hard enough to digest without being subjected to the uninvited spectacle of  spontaneously swaying genitals.

Neither Brian Coldin, nor the courts would care, but C. S. Lewis, in The Four Loves, makes the interesting point that nudity is not the natural state of man:

“Are we not our true selves when naked? In a sense, no. The word naked was originally a past participle; the naked man was the man who had undergone a process of naking, that is, of stripping or peeling (you used the verb of nuts and fruit). Time out of mind the naked man has seemed to our ancestors not the natural but the abnormal man; not the man who has abstained from dressing but the man who has been for some reason undressed. And it is a simple fact-anyone can observe it at a men’s bathing place-that nudity emphasises common humanity and soft-pedals what is individual. In that way we are “more ourselves” when clothed. By nudity the lovers cease to be solely John and Mary; the universal He and She are emphasised. You could almost say they put on nakedness as a ceremonial robe-or as the costume for a charade.

Muslim runs over his daughter with a Jeep because she had become Westernised

From here:

A Muslim father ran over and killed his 20-year-old daughter because he was enraged by her failure to obey him and her increasingly Westernised values, a prosecutor has claimed.

Faleh Almaleki allegedly accelerated his Jeep in a car park in Phoenix, Arizona, hitting Noor as well as her boyfriend’s mother, before fleeing the scene – and the country.

The mother survived but Noor died after two weeks in a coma.

One presumes that the irony of Mr. Almaleki’s use of a Jeep – a staple of Western military and civilian motoring since 1943 – to kill his daughter for being too Westernised  entirely escaped him.