Friday, March 9, 2012

We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed, says BBC boss

Once upon a time..... English held a stronghold for intellectuals.... no longer... and since when did 'ethnicity' provide a shield for deplorable behaviour such as murder of homosexuals, child mutilation, ignoring the poor, murder for dissidents, murder of other religions and ethnicity, genital mutilation ... and the list never ends.

The head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, has admitted that the broadcaster would never mock Mohammed like it mocks Jesus.
He justified the astonishing admission of religious bias by suggesting that mocking Mohammed might have the “emotional force” of “grotesque child pornography”.
But Jesus is fair game because, he said, Christianity has broad shoulders and fewer ties to ethnicity.

Mr Thompson says the BBC would never have broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera – a controversial musical that mocked Jesus – if its target had been Mohammed.
He made the remarks in an interview for a research project at the University of Oxford.
Mr Thompson said: “The point is that for a Muslim, a depiction, particularly a comic or demeaning depiction, of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.”


A BBC spokesman was unavailable for comment.
Last year former BBC news anchor Peter Sissons said Christians are “fair game” for insults at the corporation, whilst Muslims must not be offended.
Mr Sissons, whose memoirs were serialised in the Daily Mail, said: “Islam must not be offended at any price, although Christians are fair game because they do nothing about it if they are offended.”
The former presenter also said that staff damage their careers if they don’t follow the BBC’s mindset.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Should we become like UK and it's national health care???

NOT what I'd want to wake up to..... but it certainly is where the current administration is leading, esp. regarding forcing those who are totally opposed to birth control and abortive medications to provide them no matter what.  (they ARE available from plenty of other sources)  And who would be the ones to decide (and yes, there are 'death panels' in the current 'health care' bill) who would live or who would get life-saving medical treatment.... treatment that might be 'expensive' and therefore to be denied or weighed as to the value of a life. 

This IS where we are headed and this is what makes THIS election so important and well might be our last one if we allow this road to continue

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.