lulapilgrim lulapilgrim

OBAMANATION, the new Democrat religion

OBAMANATION, the new Democrat religion

Hark! The arrival of the cultus of Personality

You know what? Ever since Obama made all kinds of outrageous promises of hope, really hype, the Liberals are in adoration and his flock of sheople have been blind with delight.

Obama is a god in the cult of Personality! A friend recently sent me an article from the Remnant newspaper that has something I'd like to share with you for your consideration.  

The new ten commandments of Obamanation are:

1  I am Barack thy Obama, thou shalt not cling bitterly to the Lord thy God.

2  Thou shalt not take the name of Barack in vain.

3  Remember keep holy the Inauguration Day.

4  Honor thy mother and her partner and honor thy father and his partner.

5  Thou shalt kill (the unborn).

6  Thou shalt not commit chastity.

7  Thou shalt steal from the rich.

8  Thou shalt not bear firearms against the wildlife.

9  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's quota.

10  Thy shalt covet thy neighbor's wealth.

 

 

185,038 views 364 replies
Reply #127 Top

If they could create life they would have by now in a lab and they cannot. Heck they can't even save every embryo they implant in the IVF process.
End of quote

So they haven't been able to successfully recreate the womb, it doesn't mean they won't be able to at some point in the future.

Those who are pro-abortion protest war.
End of quote

Just for the record, I am NOT pro-abortion, I am pro-choice.  I would like nothing more than for abortion to not be necessary.  I am also indifferent towards war, there are times when it is justified (ie US invasion of afghanistan) and times when I feel that it isn't justified (ie US invasion of Iraq).

war is a neccessary evil because of this as well. War is for protection and defense of the citizens.
End of quote

Defensive wars are a necessary evil, offensive wars are rarely necessary.  Offensive wars are generally started to increase territory or force the spread of a culture on those unwilling to accept the culture peacefully.

 

But the consequences are very steep.
End of quote

Ok, but who are you to tell someone that they don't have the opportunity to make those choices for themselves?  Why not merely council someone that maybe abortion isn't the answer but if they still want to do it, let them in a safe and legal manner then they have to live with whatever consequences come in this life or the next (if there is a next life).

But the word of God stands forever.
End of quote

And that's fine for you, but what about all the people out there who don't believe in God?  Shouldn't they still be allowed to make choices for their own lives just like you make for yours?  Again if there are consequences after this life is over fine we will all have to live with the consequences of our own actions.  I just don't see why your choices should be more important than anyone elses especially when you believe in a God that gave us free will so that we could make our own choices.

Promoting the good things of life are commendable but will not get you into heaven.
End of quote

Just fyi, telling someone who doesn't believe in a heaven or hell that they won't get into heaven doesn't really mean much.  I know every time I hear that I am going to hell for any aspect of how I live my life it doesn't phase me because I don't believe in hell.  Now if I happen to be wrong after I die so be it, but that doesn't change the fact that bringing things like this up to someone who doesn't believe in heaven doesn't mean much.

 

Reply #128 Top

The light in v3 is not the sun which wasn't created until the 4th day, but some fixed light source outside the earth most likely having something to do with the Glory of God. The light source of the first day was replaced by the sun and moon. Their purposes were to distinguish day and night to be signs to mark off the seasons and to give light to the earth.

If you go to the last book you'll see that in the new replaced earth there will be no sun nor moon for light. So I'm guessing we're going back to that first light source that we saw in v3.

"and the city had no need of the sun neither of the moon to shine in it for the glory of God did lighten it; and the lamb is the light thereof." Rev 21:23

If you read the book of John you'd read repeatedly especially there that Jesus is called the Light of the World.
End of quote

 

Ehh, I'm still skeptical. I just cannot buy that a light source being replaced by the sun and moon.If there was a sound, logical, scientific way to explain it, then maybe I could accept it.

Promoting the good things of life are commendable but will not get you into heaven. You'd better do your HW and make sure you're right on this. I've spent many years researching all this stuff and I'm telling ya, nothing makes sense outside of Christ. But it's your journey and all I'm saying is don't quit checking things out. It's worth it.
End of quote

 

Like I said earlier, I appreciate your concern for my well being. I really do, it's something that few and far between in the world we live in. Still, I am at peace with what I believe in and plan to continue being open minded to things, skeptical and critical, but open.

 

Who told you it's a mindless faith? That's a fallacy. See that's what I mean by listening to others. All you have to do is pick up the book to see it's not about a mindless faith at all. It takes alot of brain and thought and study to make sense of this book. It's a lifetime of study. God gave us a brain and he does expect us to use it. He told us to love him with our whole MINDS, hearts and souls. He never said to check your brain at the door. So now that I've told you that.......well?

We take alot of things on faith without even thinking about it. I sit in a chair and I have faith it's going to hold me. I buy a can of corn and I have faith corn will be in that can when I get it home. I go out to my car and I just take it for granted it's going to get me where I have to go. Heck, I've even driven "mindlessly" sometimes by rote without even thinking lost in a daydream. Many times we do put faith in mere mortals.....why not a big creator God?
End of quote

Far too often I see people who are religious (regardless of their religion) not put serious thought into things. They just seemingly toss things into the wind and hope it is their God's will. They are also not willing to acknowledge the physical things in front of them that are proven time and time again. They also tend to accept things without basis, but will not accept things with basis. (Example: The misconception on evolution) Sorry, but I would rather use what I have with me/on me first - before I  just give to a higher being. Maybe it is just due to my negative experiences with religion and religious people. :shrugs:

 

That being said - I tend to rely on myself only and get things done.

 

no, not even close. There's some sort of protector barrier that's stopping this from happening. It's one thing to clone animals but I doubt we'll ever see this done in humans.
End of quote

#1 - I read an article in either Scientific American, Science Journal (think that's the one), or one of the big Medical journals and they talked about a groupe getting pretty darn close to it. There are also accounts of it successfully happening.In fact, according to the Huntington Reproductive Center, over 15% of people in the US will have children artificially (i.e. through IVF or other means)

#2 - Technically they have created "artificial life," because there is in vitro fertilization. In fact the Jones Institute for reproductive medicine has (from 28 Dec 1981  to 31 Aug 2008 ) successfully - for lack of a better term - birthed 3,550 babies.

 

( Source )

( Source 2 )

 

 

#3 - I'm curious as to your opinion on the following. All life has to have a soul correct? (Not including animals according to Christianity, right?) And all life is created by the will of God. So life that was not created by God as you say - i.e. in a lab, a la IVF - then does that mean that those babies do not have a soul? Also, who are you to say that God did not have a hand in the IVF and does not have a hand in the other wet alife processes? 

 

good because I do like to have good conversations with sound intelligent people. Around here it seems for every 10 Jusers we have 12 opinions and not all of them are of sound mind and intellect IMHO
End of quote

Perhaps. Still though, sometimes people may be of sound mind/intellect, and they may even have reached their result with sound rationale, but still others view themas nuts. A decent example is you and I. You've put sound thought into your acceptance of your God as your higher being; however, I don't see the sense or logic in it. Likewise, vice versa.

 

Anyways, I do my best. :grin:

 

 

Reply #129 Top

Your dissembling is indeed playing devil's advocate! There is no inalienable, natural or moral or legal right to abortion. Period.
End of quote

 

:rofl:

 

No disprespect, but in my opinion you take things far too serious lula. Like with KFC, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers!

 

~Alderic }:)

 

 

Reply #130 Top

Like I said earlier, I appreciate your concern for my well being. I really do, it's something that few and far between in the world we live in. Still, I am at peace with what I believe in and plan to continue being open minded to things, skeptical and critical, but open.
End of quote

I am concerned about eternity for all those I come into contact with, but know that it's ultimately between them and their maker.  It was never really about me and them anyway.  But you say this:

I believe in and plan to continue being open minded to things, skeptical and critical, but open.
End of quote

after you said this in #122:

I think that will be the norm between us here on JU. I don't seem to be able to convince you and I don't plan on changing my mind drastically either.

so which is it?  You just contradicted yourself. Do you really have an open mind or is it really closed to whatever I have to say? 

You've put sound thought into your acceptance of your God as your higher being; however, I don't see the sense or logic in it. Likewise, vice versa.
End of quote

and to be honest....you can't.  Only God himself can make sense and show you the logic behind all this.  It's not up to me.  I'm not God.  I've been where you are now.  Not one person could talk me into the whole God thing.  It took God himself to open my dull vision and deaf ears.  He made himself very real to me.  If you're really searching (as in genuinely) he'll do the same for you.  Doesn't matter what I say or do really. 

So life that was not created by God as you say - i.e. in a lab, a la IVF - then does that mean that those babies do not have a soul? Also, who are you to say that God did not have a hand in the IVF and does not have a hand in the other wet alife processes?

End of quote

Good question.  I don't know the answer to the first part of your question.  I know that we are made up of soul, body and spirit.  I would imagine but can't say for sure that everyone has a soul.  Though it seems today there are some out there that seemingly don't have a soul on account of their actions.  I've heard a prison official say one time there are some out there that when you look into their eyes it's as though they have no soul.  You know the eyes are the window of the soul they say. 

I believe God allows things to happen regardless if he's ok with it or not.  I can give you countless examples.  As a parent I would watch my children make a decision I was not ok with but wanting them to figure things out on their own.  God is saying to us with his "thou shall nots" don't hurt yourself.   When we do it anyway we figure out that we were in fact harmed in some way.  We have a tendency not to listen to good advice. 

 

 

Reply #131 Top

There is no inalienable, natural or moral or legal right to abortion. Period.



No disprespect, but in my opinion you take things far too serious lula. Like with KFC, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Cheers!
End of quote

One can never be too serious when it comes to defending life. ;)

Reply #132 Top

Good question. I don't know the answer to the first part of your question. I know that we are made up of soul, body and spirit. I would imagine but can't say for sure that everyone has a soul. Though it seems today there are some out there that seemingly don't have a soul on account of their actions. I've heard a prison official say one time there are some out there that when you look into their eyes it's as though they have no soul. You know the eyes are the window of the soul they say.
End of quote

 

My belief is that they would, but are just in a learning process. (For the record, my beliefs tend to come from Buddhism)

 

I believe God allows things to happen regardless if he's ok with it or not. I can give you countless examples. As a parent I would watch my children make a decision I was not ok with but wanting them to figure things out on their own. God is saying to us with his "thou shall nots" don't hurt yourself. When we do it anyway we figure out that we were in fact harmed in some way. We have a tendency not to listen to good advice
End of quote

Hmm, perhaps.

and to be honest....you can't. Only God himself can make sense and show you the logic behind all this. It's not up to me. I'm not God. I've been where you are now. Not one person could talk me into the whole God thing. It took God himself to open my dull vision and deaf ears. He made himself very real to me. If you're really searching (as in genuinely) he'll do the same for you. Doesn't matter what I say or do really.
End of quote

Perhaps, we will see. Right now though, my plan is to just continue on in life, starting with getting my college education.

 

after you said this in #122:

I think that will be the norm between us here on JU. I don't seem to be able to convince you and I don't plan on changing my mind drastically either.

so which is it? You just contradicted yourself. Do you really have an open mind or is it really closed to whatever I have to say?
End of quote

Like I said, I do not "plan" on changing my mind; however, that does not mean that down the road months or even years from now that my opinion will be the same. That is not to say that I plan every little aspect of my life, although schedules are a life saver, but I tend to let things kind of flow and keep the future in mind while dealigng with the hear and now.Life is a never ending lesson and maturation process. Who knows, 7 years down the road I might have found your God, or he may have found me.

 

I am concerned about eternity for all those I come into contact with, but know that it's ultimately between them and their maker. It was never really about me and them anyway.
End of quote

True, and that concern is noble.

Reply #133 Top

There is no inalienable, natural or moral or legal right to abortion. Period.
End of quote




No disprespect, but in my opinion you take things far too serious lula. Like with KFC, we will just have to agree to disagree.
Cheers!
End of quote


One can never be too serious when it comes to defending life.
End of quote

 

Yes and no; I have always felt that strength, not force is the best with defending anything. What I mean is that when you defend something you have an inner strength regarding whatever it is, whereas the outer strength comes into play as well, though I tend to see that more as when you protect a child or family/friends. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

 

~Alderic

Reply #134 Top

lula posts:

we are seeing that the "safer sex" education is a total failure and disaster for our children.
End of quote

KINGBEE POSTS # 100

loathe as i am to cite fox news, within the past week fox reported:

At least 24 states and the District of Columbia are moving from abstinence instruction to a more comprehensive approach that includes lessons about STD prevention and contraception, a massive shift away from the wait-until-marriage method pushed heavily by the Bush administration.


Many states adopted abstinence-only education in return for federal funding, but 13 years after Congress designed the programs in 1996, teen pregnancy rates are on the rise and critics say kids are simply not listening to the abstinence-only message.

End of quote

Obama and the radical Democrat Left are in charge now and he/they are paying back the radical feminist and homosexual crowd by helping advance their respective agendas. So, in keeping the 4th, 5th and 6th commandments of Obamanation, it's no surprise that states will moving away from teaching sexual abstinence to teaching kids to manage sexual behavior using condoms and contraceptives.

Obama plans to alter HIV/AIDS funding to favor comprehensive sex ed HIV programs which translated means support for teaching kids that abortion, promsicuity and homosexuality are acceptable options.

 

Reply #135 Top

Obama and the radical Democrat Left are in charge now and he/they are paying back the radical feminist and homosexual crowd by helping advance their respective agendas
End of quote

Teaching kids to "use a condom" does not advance homosexuality. As a hetrosexual satan never tried to "tempt" me with cock.

There is absolutely NO link between promiscuity and homosexuality. Your argument was shady when it was "sex ed leads to promiscuity", saying that promiscuity leads to homosexuality just makes you seem like a loon.

Reply #136 Top

lula posts:

One can never be too serious when it comes to defending life.

ALDERIC posts:

Yes and no; I have always felt that strength, not force is the best with defending anything. What I mean is that when you defend something you have an inner strength regarding whatever it is, whereas the outer strength comes into play as well, though I tend to see that more as when you protect a child or family/friends. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

~Alderic

End of quote

Yes, I can see your point, but at the same time, we must always remember that every life is precious and defending it is a serious matter.

 

 

 

Reply #137 Top

Yes, I can see your point, but at the same time, we must always remember that every life is precious and defending it is a serious matter.
End of quote

I can agree with you on that in general; life is indeed precious.

 

~Alderic

Reply #138 Top

Obama and the radical Democrat Left are in charge now and he/they are paying back the radical feminist and homosexual crowd by helping advance their respective agendas

Taltimer posts:

Teaching kids to "use a condom" does not advance homosexuality.

End of quote

Yes it does if the teaching is done via Obama's new HIV/AIDS comprehensive sex education.

Obama is following the precedent he set as Senator from Illinois. He supported a bill that prohibited any negative information about homosexuality, cross dressing, etc be taught in comprehensive sex ed programs.

 

Reply #139 Top

Obama is following the precedent he set as Senator from Illinois. He supported a bill that prohibited any negative information about homosexuality, cross dressing, etc be taught in comprehensive sex ed programs.
End of quote

Define "negative information".

Reply #140 Top

Yes it does if the teaching is done via Obama's new HIV/AIDS comprehensive sex education.

Obama is following the precedent he set as Senator from Illinois. He supported a bill that prohibited any negative information about homosexuality, cross dressing, etc be taught in comprehensive sex ed programs.
End of quote

Honestly, I would rather have my children aware than ignorant, and I would be willing to have a state certified instructor explain it all so long as i could talk with them beforehand.

 

~Alderic

Reply #141 Top

Define "negative information".
End of quote

Negative information would be that, proportionately speaking, homosexuality results in higher rates of violence, disease, severe depression and suicide, etc.  GRID, "gay related immune disorder" became AIDS, the only politically protected disease.

 

Reply #142 Top

Negative information would be that, proportionately speaking, homosexuality results in higher rates of violence, disease, severe depression and suicide, etc. GRID, "gay related immune disorder" became AIDS, the only politically protected disease.
End of quote

 

Uh, actually over time (mid/late 80s) people realized it was not a gay disease because drug addicts, women, children, hemophiliacs, etc... all ended up with AIDS. Guess what - they were not gay.

See:

This is a myth that refuses to die. Misinformation, fear, ignorance and media sensationalism continue to fuel this myth in America. For every one person like me trying to tell the truth about HIV transmission, there seems to be a dozen shrieking, simpleminded, natural-born dullards with a staggering inability to grasp reality.

HIV is not a gay disease. Nope. All of us are at risk in getting HIV from unsafe sex or other modes of blood to blood contact, like sharing needles. Television talk shows and all those fundamentalist/conservative/family values groups are chock full of flaky, clueless lightweights who made up their minds twenty years ago that HIV is a product of the so-called "gay lifestyle" and it's God's wrath on homosexuals. These poor creatures are so invested in this myth that they are incapable of hearing the truth. They continue to spew their self-righteous, delusional feculence to the detriment of all humanity. They are, in fact, shameless, insidious prevaricators driven solely by their irrational loathing and fear of homosexuality.

The truth is that 16,000 people worldwide are infected with HIV every single day (World Health Organization). They are not all gay. In the United States, HIV infection rates have held steady at 40,000 per year, but recent preliminary data suggests those rates are on the rise. They are not all gay. African-American and Hispanic women together represent less than one-fourth of all U.S. women, but account for more than three-fourths (76%) of AIDS cases among women in this country (CDC Update, 6/98). Women now account for 43% of all HIV infected people over the age of 15 (New York Times, 11/98). In just over a decade, the proportion of all AIDS cases reported among adult and adolescent women tripled, from 7% in 1985 to 22% in 1997 (CDC Update, 6/98).

( Source )

So your so called understanding of AIDS is utterly flawed and shows your ignorance on the matter.

In fact, here:

 

HIV is spread primarily through unprotected sex, the exchange of HIV-contaminated needles, or cross-contamination of the drug solution and infected blood during intravenous drug use. Because these behaviors show a gender skew—Western men are more likely to take illegal drugs intravenously than Western women, and men are more likely to report higher levels of the riskiest sexual behaviors, such as unprotected anal intercourse—it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men

 

You see, that is the reason why it is misattributed as being a "gay disease."

Reply #143 Top

Yes it does if the teaching is done via Obama's new HIV/AIDS comprehensive sex education.

Obama is following the precedent he set as Senator from Illinois. He supported a bill that prohibited any negative information about homosexuality, cross dressing, etc be taught in comprehensive sex ed programs.

Alderic posts:

Honestly, I would rather have my children aware than ignorant, and I would be willing to have a state certified instructor explain it all so long as i could talk with them beforehand.

End of quote

And that is certainly within your rights as a parent...but guess what? That's not the way it's going down out there in the (waste)land of public classroom sex ed instruction.

 

Reply #144 Top

And that is certainly within your rights as a parent...but guess what? That's not the way it's going down out there in the (waste)land of public classroom sex ed instruction.
End of quote

Well then maybe parents need to play a more active and aware role in their childrens lives, hmm? I do not see that much though, which is unfortunate.

 

~Alderic

Reply #145 Top

Uh, actually over time (mid/late 80s) people realized it was not a gay disease because drug addicts, women, children, hemophiliacs, etc... all ended up with AIDS. Guess what - they were not gay.
End of quote

Let's go back to the beginning,...20 years into the catastrophic, sexual liberation culture, the early 80's, the medical literature revealed there was a startling increase among men (and only men) who were showing up in doctor's offices with purplish spots and rare infections which turned out to be a fatal condition. GRID, "gay related immune disorder", had spread amongst the homosexual communities all over the country. Well now, one would think grave danger to the health and lives of men would have led to an abandonment of the lifestyle that was causing it, but just the opposite occurred....instead the homosexuals organized to make sure that GRID was not publically perceived as related to their lifestyle.

From that time forward, homosexualists made their priority protecting a lie....that homosexuality is acceptable, normal, and asafe way of life.  Their first move was to rename GRID to AIDS, "acquired immune deficiency syndrome".     

Many homosexuals are bisexual and women have acquired HIV/AIDS becasue of homosexual promiscuity and prostitution.

The plague of HIV/AIDS was, as I said, politically protected from the very start and from what I can tell, you've bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

And tragically, many unwary school kids have as well with many to follow if Obama's change to sex education programs all across this land are funded and implemented.

 

  

 

Reply #146 Top

Let's go back to the beginning,...20 years into the catastrophic, sexual liberation culture, the early 80's, the medical literature revealed there was a startling increase among men (and only men) who were showing up in doctor's offices with purplish spots and rare infections which turned out to be a fatal condition. GRID, "gay related immune disorder", had spread amongst the homosexual communities all over the country. Well now, one would think grave danger to the health and lives of men would have led to an abandonment of the lifestyle that was causing it, but just the opposite occurred....instead the homosexuals organized to make sure that GRID was not publically perceived as related to their lifestyle.

From that time forward, homosexualists made their priority protecting a lie....that homosexuality is acceptable, normal, and asafe way of life. Their first move was to rename GRID to AIDS, "acquired immune deficiency syndrome".

Many homosexuals are bisexual and women have acquired HIV/AIDS becasue of homosexual promiscuity and prostitution.

The plague of HIV/AIDS was, as I said, politically protected from the very start and from what I can tell, you've bought into it, hook, line and sinker.

And tragically, many unwary school kids have as well with many to follow if Obama's change to sex education programs all across this land are funded and implemented.
End of quote

 

>_>

Right....you know, I'm not going to bother challenging such an outrageous and irrational assertion because you are obviously not going to accept the facts. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

~Alderic

Reply #147 Top

Negative information would be that, proportionately speaking, homosexuality results in higher rates of violence, disease, severe depression and suicide, etc. GRID, "gay related immune disorder" became AIDS, the only politically protected disease.
End of quote

Right....you know, I'm not going to bother challenging such an outrageous and irrational assertion because you are obviously not going to accept the facts. So we will just have to agree to disagree.

End of quote

Here's a news story from 2 days ago which supports my assertion...


HIV/AIDS Rate in D.C. Hits 3%
Considered a 'Severe' Epidemic, Every Mode of Transmission Is Increasing, City Study Finds

By Jose Antonio Vargas and Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 15, 2009; A01

At least 3 percent of District residents have HIV or AIDS, a total that far surpasses the 1 percent threshold that constitutes a "generalized and severe" epidemic, according to a report scheduled to be released by health officials tomorrow.

That translates into 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12 -- or 15,120 -- according to the 2008 epidemiology report by the District's HIV/AIDS office.

"Our rates are higher than West Africa," said Shannon L. Hader, director of the District's HIV/AIDS Administration, who once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe. "They're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya."

"We have every mode of transmission" -- men having sex with men, heterosexual and injected drug use -- "going up, all on the rise, and we have to deal with them," Hader said.

In addition to the epidemiology report, the city is also releasing a study on heterosexual behavior tomorrow. That report, funded by the CDC, was conducted by the George Washington University School of Health and Health Services.

Among its findings: Almost half of those who had connections to the parts of the city with the highest AIDS prevalence and poverty rates said they had overlapping sexual partners within the past 12 months, three in five said they were aware of their own HIV status, and three in 10 said they had used a condom the last time they had sex.

Together, the reports offer a sobering assessment in a city that for years has stumbled in combating HIV and AIDS and is just beginning to regain its footing. A more accurate accounting of the crisis offers a chance to contain what is largely a preventable disease.

So urgent is the concern that the HIV/AIDS Administration took the relatively rare step of couching the city's infections in a percentage, harkening to 1992, when San Francisco, around the height of its epidemic, announced that 4 percent of its population was HIV positive. But the report also cautions that "we know that the true number of residents currently infected and living with HIV is certainly higher."

The District's report found a 22 percent increase in HIV and AIDS cases from the 12,428 reported at the end of 2006, touching every race and sex across population and neighborhoods, with an epidemic level in all but one of the eight wards. Black men, with an infection rate of nearly 7 percent, carry the weight of the disease, according to the report, which also underscores that the District's HIV and AIDS population is aging. Almost 1 in 10 residents between the ages of 40 and 49 has the virus.

The report notes that "this growing population will have significant implications on the District's health care system" as residents face chronic medical problems associated with aging and fighting a disease that compromises the immune system.

Men having sex with men has remained the disease's leading mode of transmission. Heterosexual transmission and injection drug use closely follow, the report says. Three percent of black women carry the virus, partly a result of the increase in heterosexual transmissions.

"This is very, very depressing news, especially considering HIV's profound impact on minority communities," said Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Health's program on infectious diseases. "And remember: The city's numbers are just based on people who've gotten tested."

Ron Simmons, who is black, gay and HIV positive, said he's not shocked by the study's findings. "You have a high incidence of HIV among African Americans, and a lot of African Americans live in the city," said Simmons, who is a member of a black gay support group. "D.C. also has a high number of gay men, and HIV is high among gay black men."

Charlene Cotton, a D.C. resident who got an HIV positive diagnosis five years ago, said breaking the taboo on discussing HIV is the key to moving forward. "You need to start at home and talk about it," Cotton said. "It's so hush-hush."

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) said he is aware that some advocates have called on elected officials and others to more aggressively and publicly address the crisis. He praised the city's recent efforts, however, and expressed his frustration about the struggle ahead.

"In order to solve an issue as complex as HIV and AIDS, you have to step up," he said. "It's the mayor and certainly other elected officials. But it's also the community. You have this problem affecting us, and you tell people how serious it is and it literally goes in one ear and out the other."

David Catania (I-At Large), chairman of the D.C. Council's health committee, said that although the District's testing and monitoring have improved in the past two years, the AIDS office is still playing catch-up. The city was in the forefront of the crisis when it created the office in 1986, but it fell far behind. Hader took control in 2007. She is its 12th director and the third in five years.

"Frankly, there can be no excuse for the state of the HIV/AIDS Administration that I found in 2005," Catania said. "I cannot speak to why it was not a priority previously. For years prior to 2005, mayors and previous individuals allowed things to exist in an unacceptable way. And I do blame this government for part of the epidemic we're confronting."

Until recently, the District's AIDS office lacked a fully staffed surveillance unit to collect, analyze and distribute data. Inevitably, the office lost credibility, and although it has received millions in federal and local funds -- $95 million this year -- some care providers questioned whether resources were being properly allocated.

Critics also say congressional control over the District had restricted the AIDS office's ability to combat the virus among drug injection users by banning the use of local tax dollars for a needle exchange program. After almost a decade, the ban was lifted last year.

The study is the most precise count to date, according to the authors. The document is an update of a breakthrough 2007 report, which brought into clearer focus a picture of a city in the grip of a complex and "modern epidemic" that had traveled from a mostly gay population to the general one and disproportionately hit blacks.

For years, District HIV/AIDS workers depended on estimates that put the rate at 1 of 20 living with HIV and 1 of 50 living with AIDS.

The current study notes that its tracking occurred as the city made a switch from a code-based counting system to a name-based one. The surveillance unit interviewed medical providers to find unreported cases, pressed providers who did not consistently report to the administration and searched databases for unreported cases.

More than 4 percent of blacks in the city are known to have HIV, along with almost 2 percent of Latinos and 1.4 percent of whites. More than three-quarters -- 76 percent -- of the HIV infected are black, 70 percent are men and 70 percent are age 40 and older.

Heterosexual sex was the principal mode of transmission for blacks with the disease, 33 percent. Men having sex with men was the chief mode of transmission for white residents, 78 percent; and Latinos, 49 percent. Black women represent more than a quarter of HIV cases in the District, and most, about 58 percent, were infected through heterosexual sex. About a quarter of black women were infected through drug use.

The companion study, "Heterosexual Relationships and HIV in Washington, D.C.," is a detailed look at those whose social networks include individuals at high risk of infection and aims to analyze people's choices and actions before they set foot in a clinic or get HIV.

The 750-participant study targeted four areas in wards 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 with both high rates of AIDS and poverty. Salaries of a majority of participants -- 60 percent -- were under $10,000 yearly; a similar percentage had never been married; and 43 percent were unemployed.

The survey's methodology -- interviewing those with connections to high-risk networks rather than those who exhibit high-risk behavior themselves -- highlights a shift in the direction by the CDC, which developed the survey protocol.

There is good news in the AIDS office's report: More people are getting HIV diagnoses early, while they are still healthy, as a result of a policy of routine testing implemented by the city in mid-2006. Publicly supported HIV testing expanded by 70 percent.

Walter Smith, executive director of the DC Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, praised the study but also lamented that it did not offer more current data on new infections. The report said that detailed information on new HIV cases is not included because the transition from the code-based tracking system to a name-based one takes five years to be mature, according to the CDC.

"I'm not criticizing them for that," he said. "But we've had more testing, more needle exchange programs. We don't have, at this moment, any understanding about what impact the new programs have had."

Staff writers Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031402176.html?hpid%3Dmoreheadlines&sub=new

 

Reply #148 Top

By asking the question, evidently you still don't understand public school sex education!
End of quote

by citing the following and claiming elsewhere that the majority of public school sex education programs do not seriously present abstinence-only as an alternative or at all, it's fairly evident you don't have much respect for facts or reality when it contradicts your position.

first of all, let's look at this:

Studies Show Abstinence Education Works: Heritage Foundation Report
End of quote

The Heritage Foundation report, authored by Christin C. Kim and Robert Rector, however, disagrees, and demonstrates that a majority of abstinence programs have reported a statistically significant decrease in levels of sexual activity for students who participate in them.

Of 15 sex-ed programs that primarily taught abstinence, 11 reported positive findings, while of 6 "virginity pledge" programs, 5 reported positive findings.

One abstinence program, Reasons of the Heart, reported that only 9.2 percent of virgins who went through the program were sexually active a year later, compared with 16.4 percent of those virginal teens who didn't go through the program.

Another program, called Heritage Keepers, reported, "One year after the program, 14.5 percent of Heritage Keepers students had become sexually active compared with 26.5 percent of the comparison group," making students from the abstinence program about half as likely to become sexually active as those not in the program.
End of quote

are we supposed to accept any conclusion from a study consisting of 15--that's right folks, count em FIFTEEN--programs, one of which appears to have some connection with the foundation doing a study supporting its own advocacy issue?

based on that, we should just discard a much broader study concluding just the opposite reported by an organization that is clearly no friend of the obama presidency?

your response to my mention of the study mentioned in my reply (a broader, much more reliable poll)?

Obama and the radical Democrat Left are in charge now and he/they are paying back the radical feminist and homosexual crowd by helping advance their respective agendas. So, in keeping the 4th, 5th and 6th commandments of Obaman
End of quote

after having earlier claimed:

Most of the sex ed curriculum uses materials, videos, activities and services provided by advocacy organizations like Planned Parenthood or its spawn, SIECUS who have a common political, ideological agenda and is financially vested in providing sex education programs.
End of quote

in fact, for 5 years--between 1996 and 2001--EVERY state but california complied with title v which mandated:

specific requirements for grant recipients. Under this law, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:

  1. Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
  2. Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
  3. Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
  4. Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;
  5. Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
  6. Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society;
  7. Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and
  8. Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

Title V-funded programs were not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates

subsequent studies--real ones based on statistically significant data--led those 24 states mentioned in the fox report to determine abstinence-only sex educations was not effective.

let me also remind you about the dirty little secret of abstinence-only programs and virginity oaths: a disturbing number of participants remained technical virgins by avoiding vaginal penetration while engaging in high-risk sexual behavior such as anal sex without having benefit of information to help them protect themselves.

claiming to value life while putting lives in danger seems contradictory and hypocritical at best.

Reply #149 Top

on another thread i asked a question that was pretty much pointedly ignored.

if personhood--with all the rights that entails--begins at moment of conception, why does citizenship depend upon location of birth.  shouldn't the government certify place and time of conception instead of birth? 

here's a couple follow-ups:

what rites does the catholic or any other christian church make available or conduct on an individual basis for persons who expire for any reason during the first two months of life following conception?

what civil laws or religious provisions govern the recording, investigation and laying to rest of such persons?

Reply #150 Top

what rites does the catholic or any other christian church make available or conduct on an individual basis for persons who expire for any reason during the first two months of life following conception?
End of quote

 

And what Catholic or other Christian parents ask for one?  There's the real question, because it reveals their TRUE thoughts about the state of the unborn.