I suppose one doesn’t really appreciate their freedom of speech etc. until it is limited or gone completely. The following is ‘Reprinted by permission of FamilyVoice Australia, 4th floor, 68 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000.’
Body
All posts tagged Body
Unbelievable, or is it!?
‘Paris, April 4, 2017. Sarah Halimi, a 66-year-old Jewish woman, is thrown from her third-floor balcony or window. Her body lands in the building’s courtyard. Her murderer first had tortured her. Neighbors had heard screams and called the police. Nine officers came, but when they heard through the door a man shouting “Allahu Akbar”, they ran downstairs to wait for reinforcements. When Kobili Traoré finally surrendered, he said, “I killed the sheitan” (Arabic for “Satan”). While torturing his victim, he said, he had recited verses from the Qur’an, and the Qur’an had “ordered him to kill a Jew”. He said he had spent the previous day in a nearby mosque. He was placed in a mental institution, where he told the psychiatrist who examined him that he smoked marijuana.
The murder was not mentioned in the newspapers. A French Jewish organizations spoke of a “distressing anti-Semitic crime” and organized a silent demonstration in front of Halimi’s building. It was only then that a few articles were written. The French presidential election was about to take place, and journalists from the mainstream media apparently did not want to speak about an anti-Semitic murder committed by a Muslim.
The judge assigned to the case, Anne Ihuellou, at first refused to acknowledge that the murder had been a hate crime. It took the Halimi family’s lawyers more than six months to get her finally to concede, on February 27, 2018, that the motive for the murder had in fact been anti-Semitic.
The judge also refused to organize a review of the events of the case, and agreed to question Traoré only briefly. She called in a psychiatric expert, Daniel Zagury, who said that at the time of the act, the murderer had been in a state of “acute delirium” due to the consumption of cannabis, but fully “accessible to a penal sanction.” Seemingly dissatisfied with Dr. Zagury’s conclusions, Judge Ihuellou asked for two more opinions by experts — both of whom, contradicting Dr. Zagury’s conclusions, said that the Traoré was unfit to stand trial.
On July 12, 2019, the judge dismissed Dr. Zagury’s report, declared that there are “plausible reasons for concluding that the murderer is not criminally responsible” and stated that the attack had not been anti-Semitic.
Realizing that Traoré could soon be released without trial, the Halimi family’s lawyers requested that the case immediately be transferred to a court of appeals.
That court, issuing its decision on December 19, declared that Kobili Traoré had “voluntarily killed” Sarah Halimi and had thereby committed a murder. The court also acknowledged the “aggravating circumstance of anti-Semitism,” but added that due to a “temporary abolition of discernment,” the murderer was “criminally irresponsible,” could not be tried, and therefore had to be released.’ https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15448/france-jews-murder
The following is from an Australian Senator bringing her constituents up to date concerning the Religious Freedom Bill. This will not turn out good for those who have religious beliefs based on the Christian Scriptures. As Paul wrote in Romans 1:18, 24, 26, 27 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Here is what the Senator wrote; ‘Australians of family and faith want to be able to live their lives in accordance with their faith and their convictions. The growing body of cases in Australia of people facing harassment, intimidation and persecution because of their religious beliefs and actions highlights the need for positive religious freedom laws. Some are even losing their livelihoods.
Indeed, since the 2017 same-sex marriage campaign and postal survey, people who hold and practice traditional values of marriage and family have been intimidated and harassed.
When freedom of speech, thought, conscience and belief is framed only as an “exemption” to other rights, they are “read down” against positive rights, rendering them subordinate to those other rights. A regime of positive rights in the form of religious freedom legislation would give greater effect to the right to manifest one’s freedom of thought, conscience and belief as outlined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Consequently, in June 2019, I launched a petition in the Australian Senate calling for the enactment of a Religious Freedoms Act to protect the right to freedom of speech, thought, conscience and religion.
To date more than 30,000 original hardcopy signatures have been tabled in the Senate and I thank you to those of you who have signed my petition. My petition is ongoing and more signatures will be tabled this year.
I have continued to regularly speak in the Senate and in other forums on the need for protection of religious freedom as well as working with faith leaders and their communities toward this end.
On 29 August 2019, the Federal Government released its first exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills. Following almost 6,000 submissions and strong pressure from religious leaders, experts and stakeholders from across the faith spectrum, on 10 December 2019, the Federal Government released its second exposure draft of the Religious Discrimination Bills.
The second exposure draft Bills are available at: http://ag.gov.au/Consultations/Pages/religious-freedom-bills-second-exposure-drafts.aspx
Whilst the Second Draft did address some changes, there are still major issues of concern including:
- The current draft bills DO NOT include or define religious bodies as being involved in “commercial activities”. Therefore, no full legal protection is provided to aged care facilities, retirement villages, residential colleges, school boarding houses, camps, conference facilities or marriage counselling organisations being operated by religious organisations. Protections should extend to all bodies which are conducted in accordance with, or in furtherance of, the doctrines, tenets and beliefs of a religion. That a religious body pursuing a religious purpose could cease to be a religious body because of “commercial activities” is deeply problematic. The solution is to ensure the commercial activities test MUST be removed.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal protections from discrimination to religious corporate bodies and unincorporated associations. The definition of “persons” should not just include corporate bodies, but there needs to be a mechanism by which a religious belief can be attributed to a corporate body in light of judicial rulings that a corporate body cannot have a belief. The solution is to ensure religious corporate bodies and religious unincorporated associations MUST be protected.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide full legal protections to religious bodies to preference the employment of staff that support the religious ethos of the organisation as well as to religious bodies to preference people of faith in the use of their facilities. This should include any consequential amendments to the Fair Work Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The proposal that faith-based aged care, retirement villages and hospitals only be permitted to discriminate in respect of employment, but not services, will seriously compromise their ability to act consistently with their religious ethos. The solution is to ensure religious bodies MUST be afforded full legal protections to preference the employment of staff that support their religious ethos as well as preference people of faith in the use of their facilities
- The current draft bills DO NOT extend to State vilification laws. “Vilify” needs to be defined to remove the implication that “causing harm” amounts to vilification. The interaction between the protection of statements of belief and the protections to employees against indirect religious discrimination needs greater clarity. The “reasonableness test” (clause 8) leaves open the prospect that an employer may dismiss an employee, or a professional may have their accreditation removed, even though their statement of belief is protected under clause 42. The solution is for the protection for statements of belief MUST NOT be removed or watered down but extended to include State vilification laws.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections for employees to make statements of faith at their workplace or private time without fear of retribution from their employer (no freedom of speech or religion). It will not protect you from being the next Israel Folau! Concerns remain with the $50M threshold, the principle of “unjustifiable financial hardship”, and the fact that the current drafting may in fact incentivise secondary boycotts and third-party activism. They should also apply to persons irrespective of the turnover of their employer and whether they are engaged by government. Also, reasonable statements of belief should be protected from adverse discriminatory action by qualifying bodies and others (not just employers). In order to provide adequate protection, the protections to employees and professionals should extend to reasonable statements of belief made inside and outside the workplace or in the course of their profession. The solution is to ensure genuine statements of belief MUST be protected across the board inside and outside work.
- The current draft bills DO NOT override State laws, which gives too much power to State Governments that may be hostile to religion to pass laws prohibiting certain activities. The definition of “religious activity” should exclude “criminal” rather than “unlawful” activity. “Criminal activity” means activity that constitutes a criminal offence under the laws of the Commonwealth or any State or Territory. Whilst the Second Draft excludes council by-laws from lawful religious activity, it otherwise allows State or Territory laws to override the Bill. For example, the Victorian and Queensland Governments have recently proposed to ban conversion therapy (which is so broadly defined that it includes traditional religious teaching on sexuality and prayer and pastoral care based on that teaching). Such core traditional religious practices may be made unlawful by State laws and the Bill would provide no protection to religious bodies or individuals from discrimination. Further, courts have taken restrictive views of what comprises ‘religious activity’, confining that notion to prayer, worship or the observance of religious rituals or customs. This interpretation has the potential to exclude religious statements on matters such as marriage, gender or the family from the Bill’s protections, or to exclude religiously motivated acts, or to exclude refusals to perform ‘secular’ acts that are contrary to religious teaching. In light of this jurisprudence, such activities should be clearly included within the protected notion of ‘religious activity’. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST exclude only activities that are considered criminal offences.
- The current draft bill contains a “reasonableness test” that TOO BROADLY permits “reasonable” policies and conditions that discriminate against religious people and organisations. This leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable”. The “reasonableness test” for indirect discrimination and the “comparator test” for direct discrimination is too broad and leaves too much discretion to tribunals and courts to decide what is “reasonable” and is therefore inconsistent with the strict grounds for limiting religious manifestation in Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Both tests will weaken the protections to religious believers. The solution is to ensure draft bills MUST be strictly interpreted to international standards Australia has ratified as under Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide legal and financial protections to Charitable organisations. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Freedom of Religion) Bill 2019 proposes an amendment to the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) that will clarify that a charity may advocate for a traditional view of marriage and not fail the requirement that it conform to public policy. This needs to be extended to ensure that a charity will not breach the public interest test and will not lose its tax-exempt status due to its traditional view of marriage. The solution is for Charitable organisations espousing traditional views of family and faith MUST retain their charitable status without any qualifications, exemptions or exceptions.
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide protections to individuals who may hold genuine beliefs (minority) that are not the view of a religious denomination (majority). For example, an alternative point of view from a person in that particular denomination could be used to declare that individual’s belief as wrong. The protections in the Bill to religious bodies and persons should not turn on whether ‘a person of the same religion … could reasonably consider [the conduct] to be in accordance’ with the beliefs. The focus should remain on the sincerity of the belief, consistent with the approach taken amongst leading Anglophone Courts across the world, including the High Court in the Scientology Case. The requirement that religious bodies and persons must act in ‘good faith’ may also allow the imposition of secular notions of reasonableness. The solution is to ensure an individual’s genuinely held beliefs MUST be protected (a major hallmark of a mature and plural society).
- The current draft bills DO NOT provide maximum protection to health practitioners who seek to exercise conscientious objections and they DO NOT provide protections to faith-based health institutions. Conscientious protection offered to a limited number of health practitioners is insufficient. The solution is to ensure health practitioners and faith-based health institutions MUST be protected to exercise conscientious objections’ https://mailchi.mp/1f1752e00177/religious-discrimination-2nd-draft-exposure-bill-more-work-needed?e=63ff15b667
‘Racial literacies vs white supremacy – educating and researching together against racial silencing, racial violence and racial capitalism’ https://acrawsa.org.au/2019/10/27/racial-literacies-vs-white-supremacy-educating-and-researching-together-against-racial-silencing-racial-violence-and-racial-capitalism/
The following is an old but very relevant article from the Front Page Magazine August, 2016.
‘When a pair of black separatists recently murdered five police officers in Dallas and three others in Baton Rouge, they were aiming, by their own proclamation, to carry out righteous retribution against an American society which they deplored because of its deep-seated “white skin privilege,” a concept first popularized by Bill Ayers and his fellow Weatherman radicals who, in the early ‘70s, aimed to foment a violent race war against a supposedly Klan-like “Amerikkka.” Although their terrorist tactics and aspirations made the Weathermen a fringe group, their views on race proved, over time, to have legs. The notion of white skin privilege became an article of faith among progressives, accounting for everything that was racially wrong in America, beginning with its constitutional framework.
Even those liberals who initially resisted the concept of white skin privilege as a slander against a noble country that had just gone through an unprecedented civil-rights revolution, eventually embraced it to explain why racial disparities persisted even as overt racists vanished from public life and institutional barriers were toppled. Civil-rights professionals, meanwhile, were faced with yet another problem: how to remain relevant and prominent in an era when white racism was being dismantled and delegitimized in a manner never before seen in human history.
The common solution to these dilemmas was to depict the nebulous concept of “white skin privilege” as a thread woven so deeply into the fabric of American culture, that it could never be fully extracted; to claim that whites, no matter how earnest or well-intentioned, would never be able to truly shed the racism that infected their hearts. In other words, to claim that real racial healing could never occur, even in a thousand years, because whites, by definition and DNA, would remain racists, even if unwittingly, until the end of time.
Out of this mindset grew the academic field of Whiteness Studies—a.k.a. Critical Whiteness Studies—which first made its way onto college campuses in the early 1990s. And from its inception, this discipline bore no resemblance whatsoever to other group-identity-based curricula like Black Studies, Chicano Studies, and Women’s Studies. Whereas those fields steadfastly celebrated their respective groups and emphasized their status as innocent victims of societal oppression, Whiteness Studies depicted whites uniformly as malevolent oppressors of people with darker complexions. They weren’t Italians, or Brits, or Poles, or Germans—they were just depraved white miscreants, best known for their many crimes against humanity. As Jeff Hitchcock, the co-founder and executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture, said in 1998 at the Third National Conference on Whiteness: “There is plenty to blame whiteness for. There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color. There is no crime that we have not committed even against ourselves…. We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today that deny the rights of those outside of whiteness and which damage and pervert the humanity of those of us within it.”
And absolutely nothing has changed in the field of Whiteness Studies in the years since then. Last fall, for instance, University of Colorado associate professor Amy Wilkins candidly explained that her Whiteness Studies class was in essence “an advanced course on racial inequality.”
The_ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education_ describes Whiteness Studies as “a growing body of scholarship whose aim is to reveal the invisible structures that produce and reproduce white supremacy and privilege.” Central to this definition is the notion that the average white person is largely unaware of his own racism, and that he must be helped to overcome the dreaded “ignorance of one’s ignorance” which prevents him from even recognizing “racism as a system of privilege” that benefits him at the expense of others.
The writings of feminist Peggy McIntosh are renowned in the field of Whiteness Studies, where professors and course readings often make reference to her famous metaphor of white skin privilege as an “invisible knapsack of unearned assets which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious.”
Whiteness Studies professor Lee Bebout of Arizona State University, for his part, says that “white supremacy makes it so that white people can’t see the world they have created.”
Not long ago, the University of Wisconsin–Superior sponsored an “Unfair Campaign” whose slogan—“It’s hard to see racism when you’re White”—was promoted aggressively via billboards, online videos, and posters. One poster showed a group of white students with the words “Is white skin really a fair skin?” written on their faces.
University of Wisconsin English professor Dr. Gregory Jay informs us that “Whiteness Studies is an attempt to think critically about how white skin preference has operated systematically, structurally, and sometimes unconsciously as a dominant force in American—and indeed in global—society and culture.” Moreover, he contends that telling white people that they’re racists whether or not they realize it, will ultimately foster interracial harmony: “I believe that Whiteness Studies must be part of the general effort to eradicate prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, and racism.”
With similar detachment from reality, Portland Community College claims that its annual “White History Month” initiative condemning the many evils of “whiteness” will help to “change our campus climate” for the better.
At Scripps College in Claremont, California, all incoming students receive a “survival guide” designed to alert the newcomers to the racism lurking quietly in the dark corners of white people’s hearts. One entry in this manual, titled “Dear White Students,” declares that “we as white students, must identify the ways that we are engaging in the perpetuation of white supremacy and work to unlearn our racism”; that racism is often manifested in “subtle ways through language” and “the perpetuation of white supremacist values like perfectionism [and] individualism”; that “reverse racism does not exist because there are no institutions that were founded with the intention of discriminating against white people on the basis of their skin”; that the “anger” of nonwhites “is a legitimate response to oppression, as is … a general distaste or hatred of white people”; that “we [whites] do not get to dictate how people of color respond to racism, nor do we get to delegitimize reactions that make us uncomfortable”; and that “our comfort is not more important than the safety of our peers of color.”
In other words, white students are advised to metaphorically lie down, belly-up, in contrite supplication, and to hold that pose for the remainder of their lives.
The common themes that run through all of the aforementioned programs and courses are Universal White Guilt on the one hand, and Universal Black Innocence on the other—flip sides of the same racialist coin. More than that, they are the twin centerpieces of the leftist mindset which aims to pit various groups of people against one another by dividing them neatly into oppressors and oppressed, victimizers and victims, evil and good. This tribal mentality, which sees human beings as members of mutually hostile groups rather than as individuals, is as contrary to the American ideal of individual rights and liberty as any mentality that has ever existed.
Moreover, it’s precisely this same tribalism which is promoted endlessly by the grievance mongers who constitute the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement that inspired the gunmen who recently murdered those eight police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. And the college classroom—the very place where young people are routinely indoctrinated with the type of racist rhetoric that pervades the field of Whiteness Studies (as well as Black Studies, for that matter)—is where this tribalism is most likely to find minds that are receptive to it. As the _Washington Post_ puts it, BLM’s “strongest foothold may now be … the American university.” Given these sobering facts, a legitimate case can be made for the idea that much of the trillion-plus dollars in student-loan debt that young people have racked up, has been money that was entirely wasted.’ https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/ugly-racism-whiteness-studies-programs-john-perazzo/
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Revelation 16:8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
Man is in rebellion against his Maker and the climate change lie is the New World Religion. In their rebellion against the Creator they think they can not only change the climate but the gender in which they were born! Poor dupes!
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
However, there is hope and that is ‘if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved’ Romans 10:9.
‘Even so, come, Lord Jesus.’
You won’t read this in the mainline news for it doesn’t fit their narrative. Here it is; ‘This month the first person to obtain a legal “non-binary” sex designation has successfully petitioned the court originally responsible for his “non-binary” status to order that the sex on his birth certificate be restored to “male.” In documents exclusively provided to PJ Media, James Shupe’s petition described his “non-binary” designation as a 
“psychologically harmful legal fiction.” He told PJ Media he hopes this decision will prevent a woman currently seeking “non-binary” recognition from following the same lies.
“The charade of not being male, the legal fiction, it’s over,” James Shupe told PJ Media on Tuesday. “The lies behind my fictitious sex changes, something I shamefully participated in, first to female, and then to non-binary, have been forever exposed. A truthful accounting of events has replaced the deceit that allowed me to become America’s first legally non-binary person.”
“The legal record has now been corrected and LGBT advocates are no longer able to use my historic non-binary court order to advance their toxic agenda,” he added. “I am and have always been male. That is my biological truth, the only thing capable of grounding me to reality.”
While he became a hero for the transgender movement, Shupe now aims to dispel the lies of gender identity and reverse the harm caused by the precedent of his “non-binary” legal designation.
He referenced the case of Jones David Hollister, a woman who identifies as non-binary and is currently fighting to change her legal designation to non-binary. Hollister’s brief to the Oregon Court of Appeals cites Shupe’s case.
“I hope that Hollister and all the others are denied the right to change their sex to non-binary because it’s fraud and legal fiction based on pseudoscience,” Shupe said. “I was indoctrinated to believe that I had this thing called a gender identity and that suppressing it was causing my mental health problems. It was all a lie.”‘
‘Shupe went public about his detransition in an interview with PJ Media’s Bruce Bawer earlier this year after he asked for his official Florida documents to restore his legal sex to male.’ The whole article may be read at https://pjmedia.com/trending/ex-trans-man-reverses-non-binary-sex-designation-in-blow-to-lgbt-movement/
Psalm 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
The climate scammers have entered almost every area of our lives including what we eat! For instance,
- ‘Hormel, Kellogg’s, and Kroger are among the large companies now planning to offer “fake meat” products at grocery stores.
- Experts say the trend toward plant-based meats coincides with consumers’ desires to eat less meat.
- However, experts urge consumers to closely check package labels as a product isn’t necessarily healthy just because it’s described as plant-based.
In grocery stores and fast-food outlets around the U.S., a revolution is taking place.’
‘Traditional competitors are taking note.
Tyson Foods, well known for its chicken products, has introduced a new range of plant-based nuggets. Earlier this month, it also announced a new venture to create plant-based shellfish. The company hopes to create a plant-based alternative to shrimp by 2020.
This fall, Kroger will be launching its own line of plant-based meats to appear alongside regular meats in stores.
Morningstar Farms, owned by Kellogg’s, is also introducing a range of realistic plant-based meats under the name “Incogmeato.”
Last week, Hormel Foods, famous for its Spam products, introduced a line of meat substitutes called Happy Little Plants.’ https://www.ecowatch.com/hormel-kelloggs-plant-based-meat-business-2640365173.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
These companies are going Woke so don’t be surprised if they go BROKE! Now, all this seeking to change the climate is anti-God and anti-Bible. In Acts 11:5-9 we read that Peter …was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me: 6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat. 8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth. 9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
This doesn’t mean one has to eat meat but God doesn’t prohibit us from eating meat. That’s the point. Enjoy your steak and veggies. 
Genesis 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded
Are we living in the days of Noah and Lot? I believe we are and born again believers ought to be vigil in witnessing and looking for that blessed Hope! Now, why am I saying this? Well, you would have to be a monk cloistered away in some monastery or just plain non-discerning not to see what the world and Satan are doing. Here are just two examples.
For instance in the UK the BBC has a page where young people are confronted with the subject matter of such things as;
- Body image
- Puberty
- Respect
- Sexual health
- Online safety
- Healthy relationships
- Understanding gender identities
Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, we strongly advise teacher viewing before watching with your pupils.’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/class-clips-video/pshe-ks2-the-big-talk/zn8f7nb
Now, I could not view the clips due to my location so the Lord protected me from that thankfully. But, what about the children who are exposed to this new gospel? How do you think those who put these clips together explain sexual health, body image or gender identities?
Creation Ministries International has an excellent article on this Satanic push for our children and grandchildren. For instance under body image “Children ask, what is ‘body image’? Leo explains she was born female, but now lives as a ‘man’ (presumably, after sex reassignment surgery). The discussion, oddly, is focussed on freedom to wear make-up. Growing up as a woman, Leo confessed to “really enjoying wearing make-up”. When Leo came out as a ‘trans-man’ it concerned Leo that “wearing make-up wasn’t something that boys do”. Leo says, “but then I realized, boys can do whatever they want—so I’m gonna wear make-up!” It appears that, on the day of filming, Leo appeared masculine, sporting a moustache, black t-shirt, jeans and trainers. The children listening to Leo nod approvingly. The normalization of transgenderism is not something to be celebrated with children.
Within the same video, the conversation then switches, insidiously, from make-up to plastic surgery. Children ask, “Do some people want to get plastic surgery to have body parts bigger or smaller?” Teacher Kirsty explains that, if someone is not “comfortable with their body as they start to grow up … when they are older they … might decide to get some things changed … [after a] lot of consideration”. This is dangerously irresponsible advice to give to a minor, showing complete disregard to children’s physical and emotional welfare. Head teacher Billy offers all-embracing sentiments that to be “truly happy” is to accept “who you are” and that someone who “really loves you, loves you for the person you are, rather than for the outside appearance.” But surely, love should warn and reprove; to encourage children to accept harmful behaviour without question is not loving.
Teacher discussion notes involve class activities, including an art exhibition, “celebrating the beauty of diversity in all its forms (could be focused on body image).” Thus, the children would be required to celebrate all kinds of unbiblical and ungodly practices, regardless of their conscience, family or religious backgrounds.” This article is a MUST read! https://creation.com/more-than-100-genders?utm_campaign=infobytes_au&utm_content=Teaching+children+there+are+%22more+than+100+genders%22+is+not+helpful&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mailing.creation.com&utm_term=Fortnightly+Digest+-+2019.11.15
Secondly, is an ad. Yes, an ad for men’s underwear. I learned of this ad via an email from Family Voice Australia.https://familyvoice.org.au/index.php?option=com_civicrm&task=civicrm/mailing/view&reset=1&id=461 Now how in the world is this being used to push a ‘woke’ agenda? Here is the edited Bonds men’s underwear Christmas ad. Now what in the world do two sodomites having breakfast in their underwear have to do with Christmas? Really, nothing but it is getting a message out there to all who see it that two men in a ‘loving relationship’ is good.
Bonds is now owned by Hanes in the good ole USA. For those of my readers in Australia here is the web address to make your objection to this Bonds ad known. https://www.hanesaustralasia.com/contact-us/customer-service-enquiry/
Born again Christians need to be more vocal against sin while looking for His return. Remember, Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.
Psalm 94:9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
Creation Moments said ‘It’s easy to see why the human eye made it hard for Charles Darwin to sleep at night. Its design is light-years beyond anything that evolution could ever produce! Find out more about our amazing eyes by watching our “Micro Marvels of the Human Eye” video.’
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
I was born white, I live my life as a white person and I suppose I will die white. Does, that make me a white supremacist? Well, here in the Land Down Under; ‘White Australian nurses must now apologize to minority patients for their white privilege before treatment! I would vigorously refuse to do so, so does that prove I’m a racist or a white supremacist?
Does pride in being white make me a white supremacist and if so, is a black person a black supremacist if he is proud of being black? If not, why not?
Being a white Christian does not reflect badly on those who don’t fit that description, just as my love and preference for my wife does no harm and is no criticism of those who disagree. Just because you think your wife is more beautiful than mine and your children and grandchildren are the brightest and most loveable does not make you a bigot. You are simply wrong, since mine are! (I have the test scores and photos to prove it!)
That is called being “normal.” http://donboys.cstnews.com/what-is-proof-of-being-a-white-supremacist
There are those in Australia who say there is no requirement for white nurses to apologise. They say “The codes do not require nurses or midwives to declare or apologise for white privilege.”
YET, ‘The CEO of the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives, Janine Mohamed, says cultural safety involves people learning about their own unconscious biases and how they affect the health care they deliver.’
NOTE the name ‘Mohamed’ and the word ‘biases’! The entire article for the other (unbiased?) side may be read at https://www.nswnma.asn.au/no-need-to-apologise/
If only people would believe God and His Word for it tells us God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation Acts 17:24,26.
