UFI

Archive for February, 2010|Monthly archive page

Fighting for Families: UFI and the United Nations

In The Family, UN, Uncategorized on February 26, 2010 at 1:41 pm

Next week, the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women will begin. What happens there will impact families the world over. Documents created by the United Nations create a lawmaking precedent that affect almost every country in the world. United Families International will have a team there, representing the family, for the entire 12 day event.

Our team will be posting daily on this blog, as well as our blog specifically designed to document UFI’s time at CSW called FightingForFamilies. Daily posts will include writings, videos and audio clips that will show:

  • The United Nation’s law making process
  • The work and importance of UFI’s representatives at the UN
  • Anti-family organizations, their agendas and their strategies

For the next two weeks, New York will be an ideological battle ground. We hope you’ll join us on the front lines. Click here to visit our CSW Blog.

Science and Experience Agree: Pornography is Harmful

In Uncategorized on February 25, 2010 at 10:44 am

Pornography is still a widely debated topic, but science is starting to take a side. Join us today on “Voice of the Nation” as Patrick Trueman, founder of pornharms.com, shares insights from his 34 years of experience in sex crime court cases and some of the scientific discoveries that are re-proving pornography’s terrible toll.

Click here to listen in.

Pornography Addiction: The New Drug

In Child Development, Education, Families, Media, Pornography on February 19, 2010 at 4:26 pm

As media has become more accessible to us, the $57 billion world wide pornography industry has crept into our homes through TV, magazines and especially the Internet.

Pornography addiction has become an ever increasing problem throughout the world. Over 40 million adults in the US regularly visit pornography sites.

However the largest consumers of Internet pornography are the 12-17 age groups, mostly while doing homework. 90% of teens have viewed pornography online, which illustrates the importance of education for parents and teens on how to tread cautiously online.

Launched this month, the PornHarms website is dedicated to “providing the most accurate peer-reviewed research on the harm from pornography, along with relevant news and opinion.” The idea for the site was created when unable to find accurate research about the troubles of pornography.

“Since the advent of the internet, pornography has flooded homes, businesses, public libraries and even schools. The results have been devastating to the social and family fabric of America,” site creator Patrick Trueman stated.

PornHarms is not the only website fighting against pornography. A non-profit group based in Utah Fight the New Drug has recently launched an international campaign for pornography addiction awareness. They compare pornography addiction to the use of hard drugs such as heroine and crystal meth.

Pornography addiction is an ever growing problem that we all need to be educated about.

Tiger’s Apology

In Families, Marriage, The Family, Uncategorized on February 19, 2010 at 3:46 pm

Tiger Woods spoke publicly today for the first time since the open revelation of his affairs. Tiger’s delivery was rather stoic and I’m sure many will doubt his motives or mock his words, but I’m grateful that he’s willing to apologize.

He gave voice to the family and it’s importance today. Whether or not he’s stood by those principles of commitment or not, he did give them voice.

I haven’t heard a celebrity of any kind reaffirm the importance of the family in a long time.

Today I was reading an article about all the celebrities that have openly adopted untraditional views on marriage.  The article included Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, and many more. They were all verbal about their lifestyles.

The fact that ANY celebrities have used a national stage to promote traditional marriage is a good thing. Even if Tiger struggles to live by what he said today, at least he’s made it clear that committed, loving marriages are the ideal.

Marriages can be difficult to maintain, but they’re worth it. Thanks for being strong enough to speak the truth Tiger, now we’re all hoping you (and the rest of us) can live by it.

THREE Pro-Family Super Bowl Commercials

In Abortion, Child Development, Families, Family Planning, Marriage, Media, Parenting, Uncategorized on February 11, 2010 at 1:35 pm

The Super Bowl commercials are generally known for their slapstick comedy, sexual content and talking animals.  2010 was different because amid all this, there were not one, but three commercials that promoted pro-life and pro-family messages.


Of course there was the Tim Tebow commercial, which was surprisingly tame on the pro-life message so many pro-abortion groups feared.

The ad featured Tebow playfully tackling his mother. NOW President Terri O’Neill said the ad is a “celebration of violence against women.” Mainly because they made such a big fuss before the Super Bowl, they had to find something wrong with the ad.  From an advertising standpoint, Focus on the Family gets an A+. They received millions of dollars of free advertising on what would have been a good, but not controversial commercial.

Google’s ad showed the progress of a relationship from first contact to marriage to having a baby. The love and pro-family overtones while using search results typed into Google was one of the most simple, yet most effective ads shown. The super bowl ad is also ranked number two with the most Internet buzz.

Dove’s commercial celebrates being a man. To be a man you have certain life experiences, but a huge part of that is marriage and having a family. The majority of the commercial was focused on what he does is family related.

The first few seconds of the commercial shows the beginning of the man’s life at conception. However in the UK version of the ad those two seconds are cut out completely. Cutting those seconds changes their definition of the beginning of life.

Defending Religious Freedom, the Two Main Battle Fronts

In Free Speech, Religious Freedom on February 11, 2010 at 10:48 am

Religious freedom is one of the most essential rights that a human being could be granted. It is the right to believe in what you choose to, to see the world the way you want to, without imposing it upon or harming those around you.

All across the world, freedom of religion is under assault. Whether it’s in the “enlightened” West or the “barbaric” East, no nation is being spared; they just face a different opponent.

“Equality” in the West

The UK is facing the vote on a bill that could force religious communities to hire openly homosexual people, no matter the beliefs of the church. The so-called “equality bill” is removing religious freedom in the name of ‘equality.’

In Canada, religious institutions are routinely being silenced.

Since the legalization of same-sex marriage, many religious institutions have been sent to court. Litigation often comes because they deny their services to homosexual people on religious grounds. No matter who wins in court, these non-profit, religious institutions are often left bankrupt—burdened by astronomical law fees.

If these organizations do lose the litigation, the law silences them, and precedence is set for future cases, slowly eliminating religious freedom.

Religious Oppression in the East

Religious oppression in the East is not so uncommon.

In a small village in Laos, 48 Christians have recently been forced out of their homes at gunpoint. With no tools and skimpy supplies they have been relegated to an open field nearby.

The day of the exile the Christians had guns put to their heads with the demand to deny their faith.

They didn’t.

But now they’re homeless and helpless.

This isn’t the first time the village officials have pressed the Christians to renounce their faith. Previously all 80 of the Christians in the village were locked in a school compound without food until they signed written agreements to deny their faith. 10 of the 17 families eventually agreed to sign the papers, after suffering from extreme fatigue and hunger. The other seven families settled on an open field nearby where they survived on whatever food they could find.

Other Christians in the village have been killed; others have had their most prized possessions and food taken away.

Stories like this are all too common in similar parts of the world.

Religious Freedom is Something Worth Fighting For

No matter where you live, religious freedom is being assaulted nearby. UFI understands the threats and is fighting to give everyone the chance to think and peacefully act according to the dictates of their own conscience. Whether it is internationally or locally, UFI is in the trenches.

This March, UFI will defend religious rights at the UN conference in New York. Please, help us fight this crucial battle.

Government To Decide Who Lives And Who Dies

In Canada, Euthanasia, Health Care, Parental Rights, Physician Assisted Suicide, Sanctity of Life on February 10, 2010 at 8:22 am

The worst nightmare for any parent is the thought of losing a child.  For Isaac and Rebecca May this nightmare has become a reality.  After complications with their son, Isaiah’s, birth the May family has experienced one trial after another.  For Isaiah’s grandmother and grandfather, Kathy and Bob Griffis, this nightmare began when Kathy received a phone call from her crying son who told her, “Mom, there are about ten doctors around his bed.  I don’t think he’s going to make it.”

Isaiah was born with his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck which depleted his oxygen supply long enough to cause serious brain damage.  The day after Isaiah’s traumatic entrance into the world, Kathy stood with her children as the doctors at the University of Alberta Hospital informed them that their son’s brain damage was severe.  Their diagnosis was that little Isaiah would never move or grow; that he was brain dead and would not survive.

All Isaiah’s family was looking for was hope.  The first sign of hope came when Isaac saw his son move for the first time, raising both his arms a few inches above his bed and extending his fingers.  Isaiah didn’t stop there. As time progressed, he continued to defy the odds, moving constantly.  His pupils began to dilate. He is growing measurably, responding to sounds, opening his eyelids, making occasional sounds, and even sporadically breathing over his intubation.  After all this progress, it was obviously a shock for the Mays when they received a letter from the hospital stating that because they did not believe Isaiah would survive, it was unethical to continue to keep him on life support.

After receiving a court injunction, the Mays have been given time by a judge to present medical experts who can testify to the progress Isaiah has made and his potential for continued progress.

United Families’ Stance

For the Mays, the main issue is to save the life of their little boy.  But this case now appears to have the potential to set a precedent which could affect millions of lives all over the world.  If the power to choose whether or not to remove baby Isaiah from life support is taken away from his parents and given to the government, the precedent would be set, granting government the ability to decide who should live and who should die.  In a legal context, the government is placing a monetary value on the life of a child and replacing the parent’s rights and responsibilities to care for and nurture him.  Government’s rationale for making these decisions would be vastly different from a set of caring parents. Costs of care, essentially placing a monetary value on life, become the ultimate interest of the bureaucracy.

Euthanasia is the act of denying treatment to, or putting someone to death through medical means.  Targeting the weak, infirm, and disabled, those with a limited ability to fight for their own lives, the practice of euthanasia is only legal in two countries worldwide – Belgium and the Netherlands.  But while advocates for the practice will argue that it is merciful, the truth shows us otherwise.

The practice of euthanasia distorts the relationship between doctors and patients.  It allocates too much power to doctors who cannot accurately diagnose when a patient will die, but still have the power to choose to end life-saving care, or even directly end a patient’s life.  In countries with socialized medical programs, it places even more power in the hands of government bureaucracies with budgetary and programmatic priorities to consider.

In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legal for more than a decade, two government reports found that at least 26 percent of euthanasia cases where committed without the explicit consent of the patient and over 20 percent of those killed without consent were competent to make life and death decisions for themselves.

Escalating health care costs, coupled with growing elderly and disabled populations, set the stage for a culture of death eager to embrace alternatives to expensive, long-term medical care. The so-called “right to die” may soon become the “duty to die” as elderly, disabled, or depressed individuals are pressured or coerced into ending their lives. The move toward managed care also threatens to promote euthanasia as more and more doctors are offered financial incentives to decrease the number of health care dollars spent per patient. Belgium has considered legislation which would allow parents of children with incurable diseases to have a doctor kill their children.

If the authority to decide which lifesaving medical treatments are given is granted to corporations and governments, who value life based on dollars and cents rather intrinsic human value, and removed from parents, in consultation with medical experts who are trained to save and value life, then stories like that of baby Isaiah will become the norm of modern society.  The power to decide any child’s future should be the sole responsibility of the parents.

United Families International is working tirelessly to help ensure that not only the rights of parents, but also the right to life, are protected and respected worldwide.  Through educational and advocacy initiatives at the local, national, and international levels, UFI is fighting for families just like the Mays.  Isaac and Rebecca May have a fundamental right as parents to make important decisions for their son.  That right must not be taken by government fiat.  Likewise, Isaiah May, and everyone else on the planet today, has a fundamental right to life that must not be surrendered to the interests of the culture of death.

Tebow’s Super Bowl ad

In Abortion, Families, Free Speech, Media on February 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm

By now you know that Tim Tebow, his mother Pam and Focus on the Family have created the biggest Super Bowl advertising controversy of all time.

During Sunday’s game Tebow and his mom are going on a national stage to tell the story of how she chose life.

The “pro-choice” activists are up in arms despite the fact that no one has actually seen the commercial yet. They claim to be pro-choice, but apparently only if that choice is abortion. Mrs. Tebow sharing the story of a choice she made is so offensive to women’s rights and pro-abortion groups that they are demanding the ad be pulled.

Super Bowl commercials do not have a history of being family friendly. Commercials featuring demeaning portrayals of women aren’t the target of any of the women’s rights groups’ anger. When in reality, shouldn’t those be the ads that are protested?

Despite everything, there is an upside to all the controversy. Focus on the Family has received millions of dollars of free advertising. Thousands of people are now more educated on pro-life organizations and realizing how “pro-choice” groups are really only pro-abortion groups in disguise.

After Sunday’s game it will become clear that Focus on the Family is advertising exactly what the name of their organization claims – a focus and return to family values where all children are welcomed.

Where do you find Accurate Reporting?

In Abortion, Democracy, Education, Free Speech, Media, Values on February 5, 2010 at 3:33 pm

The 37th Annual March for Life in Washington D.C. counted record numbers of people – up to 400,000 marchers in D.C. and over 80,000 joined the Virtual March for Life – with no accurate national media coverage.

As for the national coverage that the March did receive, CNN’s Rick Sanchez wasn’t sure which side had more protesters. CNN’s footage shows a few pro-choice advocates then a huge group of pro-life protesters. It’s shocking that CNN wouldn’t admit to the overwhelming numbers of pro-life supporters in attendance and appeared to not understand the main purpose of this protest.

Jack Cashill, an independent video producer, was appalled. “Their performance in 2010 convinced us that the issue at hand is not ignorance or incompetence, not even bias, but outright fraud.”

Cashill produced a video which calls out the media for not representing the March in 2010 as well as in 2009. The video also shows interviews from March for Life attendees.

National news outlets have a responsibility to the people to show the news as unbiased and accurate. With so many disparities it is hard to know which news sources to trust. Previously mentioned on a UFI blog post regarding the Prop 8 trial, it is hard to find reliable news sources that tell all sides of the story.

Since unbiased news is essentially non-existent in today’s culture, where can we turn to for news? Both liberal and conservative news outlets can be informative but it’s important to realize that most entities do have an agenda.  The problem arises when these news outlets won’t acknowledge that they are writing news from a particular perspective—claiming to be neutral when they’re anything but.

Our suggestion:  Read both sides.  Choose a conservative website or two and a liberal website or two.  If you read both sides, you’ll have a basis to compare information and be more able to sift through until you find the truth.  You’ll certainly be more informed and better able to articulate your position.

What are your favorite sites to read the news? Leave them in a comment below to share with your fellow UFI blog readers.

Will Same-Sex Couples Save Marriage?

In Proposition 8, Same-Sex Marriage, Uncategorized on February 5, 2010 at 11:21 am

“The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,” one author has said. “If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

It seems they’re doing just that.

Homosexual couples, the world over, have found an “innovative” way to make marriage happier and last longer. In fact, the idea is so revolutionary that The New York Times recently ran a story about it.

The Gay Couples Study (cited in the story) has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

I know, it doesn’t seem like a good idea, but keep reading.

The study found open gay couples just as happy in their relationships as pairs in sexually exclusive unions… A different study, published in 1985, concluded that open gay relationships actually lasted longer.

Now does it sound so bad?

Well, the writer left out some details.

The longest relationship of any couple cited in the article began in 2002, and, oh yeah, according to studies done in 2003, the average length of homosexual relationships was 18 months. I guess that wasn’t worth mentioning.

You might say, “But homosexual couples might not have adopted this ‘open’ relationship idea until recently.” That’d be wrong.

In a study of 156 long-term homosexual relationships done in 1997, not one of the 156 couples was able to maintain sexual fidelity for more than five years, and most maintained a monogamous relationship for less than one year.

This isn’t a new idea; it’s just never been cast in such a good light.

This article is a reminder that the adoption of same-sex marriage into our culture is not just welcoming homosexual couples into our monogamous tradition, it’s a step towards destroying monogamy altogether.

Especially if heterosexual couples start taking unsound marriage advice.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers