Albino girl, 11, killed and beheaded in Swaziland ’for witchcraft’

Telegraph ^ | 8/20/10 | Aislinn Laing

[metmom]

IBTZ!

Looks like we got a live one.

Enjoy your short stay newb.

[little jeremiah]

You never answer direct questions.

If you think anyone is going to take the time to read the ranting of a nutcase, you are wrong.

Perhaps your mind would clear if you (a) stopped smoking dope and (b) decided you want to know the truth and admit that you might not know it.

[little jeremiah]

TrueRightWing /not! has left the building:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2576603/posts?page=69

[trisham]

Murder is murder, whether in Kentucky, Rhode Island, Montana or California. It’s that simple.

[little jeremiah]

Or whether the victim is a 6’2” 225 pound trained SEAL or a helpless unborn child.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Little jeremiah, we may be in substantial agreement in practice. I'm not quite convinced it's prudent for the govt. to adopt criminal legislation that can be enforced only by the abolition of private life; but at the same time, if sodomy were in all cases "officially" illegal --- even if that's acknowledged as not enforceable--- that might make it easier to incorporate an explicit anti-sodomy message into public health messages: for instance public employees employees (including the teachers, medical and counnseling staffs at publicly-funded high schools, colleges and universities) should take a strong and evidence-based stand against sodomy. And whether that's heterosexual or homosexual sodomy is irrelevant: anal penetration, whether of a male or a female, is a major vector for every kind of micro-zooey madness.

At this point, "safer-sodomy" is taught at freshman orientation at state universities. This is moral corruption; also a blatant offense against best practices in epidemiology.

[trisham]

Exactly right.

[little jeremiah]

Excellent points. Currently, at least in my state, sexual molestation or rape carries extra penalties if sodomy is involved. Probably that might drop if sodomy is considered just another “regular” way to get sexual gratification.

And consider this - if two men sodomize each other in a bathroom stall or the bushes, it is still “private” if no one else is around (or they claim no one else is around).

Making sodomy illegal is the only way to keep it out of public life, IMO. If something is legal, then it is tacitly acceptable. If it is acceptable, why not teach kids how to do it “safely”? Why not have people mimic it (or more than mimic) during “Gay Pride” parades and Folsom Street Fairs?

When Clinton and Monica became public news, oral sex became “normalized”. Now the same thing is happening with anal sodomy. There are all kinds of people even on FR claiming that many husbands and wives practice anal sodomy. First of all, I doubt that many do; second, if they do, it is because of the normalization - which is connected with legalization - of such sodomy.

Anyway, we are usually in great agreement - just a couple of fine points here. And since sodomy has historically been illegal, I think it should be the standard.

[little jeremiah]

And just to clarify my position, I am most assuredly not saying that virtue police should kick in doors and see what people are doing in the privacy of their own homes!

Which was never done to my knowledge even when sodomy was illegal in most or many states.

The TX/Lawrence arrest for sodomy was a conscious set-up, had been tried IIRC twice before trying to get a cop to “catch them in the act” to arrest them. They just wanted a case to come to court. A fake domestic violence call was made to get the cops to enter the dwelling, while two men went at the sodomy with the door open.

It was theater. (I’m sure you know all this, just making sure everyone reading this does too.)

[trisham]

You make some good points, and it is clear that we have been moving in the wrong direction regarding this issue.

[little jeremiah]

In fact, TX vs Lawrence was the dam buster as far as “gay” rights. “It’s now LEGAL so everything else will be too!”

Morphing into - mandatory... As in against the will of the voters, against the will of the vast majority of the military, in public schools, etc.

[little jeremiah]

Well well well, I’m just pinging this one out (finished the rice pudding, started on cake, need a teeny sitdown with FR):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2576722/posts?page=1

Marines don’t want to share rooms with gays: general

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The overwhelming majority of Marines oppose sharing sleeping quarters with openly serving gays and lesbians, an obstacle if Congress lifts the ban on gays in the U.S. military, the top Marine said on Tuesday.

Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway, a vocal opponent of ending the military’s 17-year-old ban on openly serving homosexuals, told Pentagon reporters of the standing policy: “We’d just as soon not see it change.”

[trisham]

Indeed. From Wikipedia:

Lambda Legal, which brought the case, hailed the decision as "a legal victory so decisive that it would change the entire landscape for the LGBT community."[16] Jay Alan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice has referred to the decision as having "changed the status of homosexual acts and changed a previous ruling of the Supreme Court... this was a drastic rewrite."[17] The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's lead attorney in the case, Ruth Harlow stated in an interview after the ruling that "the court admitted its mistake in 1986, admitted it had been wrong then...and emphasized today that gay Americans, like all Americans, are entitled to full respect and equal claim to [all] constitutional rights."[18]

These reactions reflect widespread opinion that Lawrence v. Texas may ultimately be one of the Supreme Court's more influential decisions.[citation needed] Prof. Laurence Tribe has written that Lawrence "may well be remembered as the Brown v. Board of gay and lesbian America."[19] Broader implications of this decision have been speculated, including the following:

Even though not decided upon equal protection grounds, sexual liberty supporters still hope that the majority decision will call into question other legal limitations on same-sex sexuality, including the right to state recognition of same-sex marriages, and the right to serve openly in the military. The latter appears highly unlikely in light of the Supreme Court's recognition that "the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society."[20] The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the last court of appeals for Courts-Martial before the Supreme Court, has upheld that Lawrence applies to Article 125 of the UCMJ, the article banning Sodomy. However, the court has twice upheld prosecutions under Article 125 (the article prohibiting sodomy), in United States v. Marcum and United States v. Stirewalt, finding that the article was "constitutional as applied to Appellant"[21][22] and when applied as necessary to preserve good order and discipline in the armed forces. Although no court has interpreted the U.S. Constitution to require states to allow same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts required that same-sex couples be given full marriage rights, and similar decisions have occurred in California, Connecticut, and Iowa which embrace the reasoning used in Lawrence v. Texas in reaching decisions under their own respective state constitutions. Moreover, several federal district and circuit courts that have considered the extent of Lawrence have held that it is a narrow holding (See Wilson v. Ake, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1298 (M.D. Fla. 2005); Lofton v. Sec. of Dep’t of Children & Family Services, 358 F.3d 804 (11th. Cir. 2004); Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama, 378 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2004).) The Supreme Court has not yet accepted any cases that present an opportunity to further define the implications of Lawrence.

[little jeremiah]

Yes indeed. Camel’s nose and all that.

[TigersEye]

That quite a load of apologetic sophistry for evil.

[BykrBayb]

I’ve been busy, busy, busy. I’ve been shopping for a cheese cake. It takes time. I must sample them, don’t you know. I still haven’t found just the right one, but I have gained about 50 pounds.

[wagglebee]

Typically I ignore excretion such as what you posted without attribution. To say it is factually incorrect wouldn't begin to address how wrong it actually is. Where did you get it?

Here is just one example of how inaccurate it is:

A hundred years ago, abortion, as a medical procedure akin to many other kinds of minor operations, was unknown.

Abortion was unknown a hundred years ago? How does that account for these statements?:

I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.
-- Hippocratic Oath (ca. 400 BC)

____________________________________________________________

How are they dead unless they were first alive? But still in the womb an infant by necessary cruelty is killed when lying twisted at the womb's mouth he prevents birth and is a matricide unless he dies. Therefore there is among the arms of physicians an instrument by which with a rotary movement the genital parts are first opened, then with a cervical instrument the interior members are slaughtered with careful judgment by a blunt barb, so that the whole criminal deed is extracted with a violent delivery. There is also the bronze needle by which the throat - cutting is carried out by a robbery in the dark; this instrument is called and embryo knife from its function of infanticide, as it is deadly for the living infant.

This Hippocrates taught, and Asclepiades, and Erasistratus and Herophilus, the dissector of adults, and the milder Soranos himself, - all of them certain that a living being had been conceived and so deploring the most unhappy infancy of one of this kind who had first to be killed lest a live woman be rent apart. Of this necessity of crime, Hicesius, I believe did not doubt, as he added souls to those being born from blows of cold air, because the word itself for "soul" among the Greek relates to such a cooling.
-- Tertullian, De Anima 25.5-6 (ca. 210 AD)

____________________________________________________________

Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother's womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.

And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man's power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that time it is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death may overtake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead.
-- St. Augustine, Enchiridion, Chapter 23 (ca. 420 AD)

[trisham]

LOL! Sounds like you’re making some progress, then.

[trisham]

Well done.

[trisham]

Are you the author of this post, which is also found here and attributed to a Reginald Firehammer?

http://theautonomist.com/atnmst/jrnl_ii.php?art=64