ChinaAid to European Parliament: Religious Freedom in China at Lowest Point Since 1989

MIDLAND, Texas,Nov. 28, 2011 /Christian Newswire/ —

ChinaAid founder and president Bob Fu will be telling the European Parliament on Wednesday that the situation with human rights and religious freedom in China has deteriorated to its lowest point since the period after the crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen Square student-led pro-democracy demonstration.

Fu and several other ChinaAid witnesses were invited by the European Parliament to testify at its hearing on “The human rights situation in China” at the parliament building in Brussels, Belgium.

The next day, the delegation will be in The Netherlands to participate in a human rights forum on “The situation of Christians in China,” where Fu will be making a similar presentation on the serious deterioration of religious freedom, the rule of law and human rights in general.

For the EU hearing, ChinaAid was asked to make recommendations that would help the European Union set its China policy so as to address human rights problems in China. In attendance at the hearing will be members of the European Parliament and their assistants.

This is the second time that ChinaAid and Fu have appeared before the European Parliament. In 2009, Fu and two Christian lawyers engaged in rights defense work also testified before the same body.

Fu expressed appreciation to the European Parliament for the opportunity to testify.

“The grave human rights violations by the Chinese government is a global issue,” he said. “We urge the European leaders to take more concrete steps to encourage the Chinese government to improve its record by building an international coalition founded on an unwavering solidarity with the Chinese rights defenders community.”

In Ridderkerk, The Netherlands, the ChinaAid delegation will be speaking to an audience of mainly NGOS, representatives of the missionary organizations of several churches, some individuals with ties to China and members of the Dutch Political Reformed Party (SGP), Holland’s most orthodox Protestant party, as well as members of the Dutch media.

Both reports will be posted on ChinaAid’s website.

Introduction by Stan Cunningham of Catholics View

I just read this article of an employee of Planned Parenthood walking out and is now Pro-Life. Thank you God for leading this heart back to you and thank you for being with the prayerful outside of these abortion clinics. Here is the story.

Planned Parenthood employee becomes pro-life advocate

—-
“What I saw during the procedure was so gruesome to me, and something I had never experienced before, that I just thought, I’ll never do this again,’” she says. —-

http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/planned-parenthood-employee-becomes-pro-life-advocate/

**Photos courtesy of Springfield**(Not a single one above voted for life within the Springfield City Council.)

Originally posted on October 18, 2011.

Please note: Corrections to the original are in bold.

**UPDATE: Planned Parenthood has said they do not want to pay prevailing wages to construct the new abortion mill in Glenwood, so they are refusing the federal dollars! No thanks to the above city council members pictured above that reside in Springfield. The thanks should go out to all the Catholics of Springfield/Eugene and the organizations that stood up for NO public funds going to abortion! We need to keep the pressure on these politicians as they attempt to advance their political careers. Local politicians now must state their position on LIFE issues. The stage has been set with the vote by the Springfield City council. No longer can they stand idly by and say that their stance on LIFE will never come up and they can’t hide behind this decision by saying that it was going to be built either way – that is obviously not the point! Public assistance is not needed for abortion mills or morning after pill dispensaries. This was and can be privately funded by individuals such as those pictured above. If they wanted money to go to this project, then let their funds be the first.

The Springfield City council must start voting with their whole person. If you disfavor an organization, as VanGordon’s faith does dictate, then he should have voted no. If you are of the belief that faith shouldn’t have a role in politics, then you need to read Politically Catholic.

Here is the main article that i wrote earlier;
Although a large number of people showed up to silently protest the opening of a Planned Parenthood Mega Clinic in Springfield, Oregon being built, it doesn’t look like it proved to sway any City Councilor to move to re-open the debate of public funding for the project in Springfield. Glenwood, Oregon is a part of Springfield, Oregon that resides between the cities of Eugene and Springfield proper. Springfield manages the affairs for the populace within its boundaries. I am not sure how this came to be, but it always was for as long as I can remember. Within the next few years, Planned Parenthood (Abortions) will be moving their operations from the Springfield (proper) office to the site in Glenwood. But, this is not what the public funds will be used for – so far.

In Eugene, there is a Planned Parenthood Abortion clinic that will be closing soon, and I am told their operations will be moving to a site in Springfield (proper). 7 exam rooms in the current Springfield location will be bumped to 13. The Springfield City Council voted 6 to 0 (6-0) for $75,000 of federal grant money to be awarded to Planned Parenthood under the guise of Housing and Urban Development to be used toward construction costs.

(Edit 10/21/2011) I spoke with Sean VanGordon after a short Twitter back and forth today. To paraphrase, I told Councilman Sean that any monies going to Planned Parenthood of Springfield is casting a vote against life. I am not quoting, but he expressed that the reasons for his yes vote was because Planned Parenthood owned the property and the building was going to happen either way. He stated that it was his belief that Planned Parenthood could have funded the construction themselves, but drainage would be better if the City of Springfield stepped in with this funding. Specifically he said that the plan that Planned Parenthood gave for drainage would be OK, but by the City of Springfield adding more funds, the water quality would be better. I expressed to Councilman Sean that any support going to an abortion provider is a vote against life, even if it is to make sure the quality of water remains good for the community. I expressed the ‘in two pockets, still comes out of one’. The best way to describe this analogy is that any money from the government just replaces money that Planned Parenthood would have spent on construction themselves, and now they can pass the construction savings to more worthy causes, like killing babies (In their eyes, and I didn’t explain it to the Councilman this way over the phone).

I appreciated the phone call from Sean VanGordon, and after I post this I will Tweet the post so he can review the corrections and the edit above, and comment if he likes.

Although it took quite some time, I was able to research the planned move for Planned Parenthood and found some Springfield City Council records on the subject. You must read through the linked document, but you will find that all of the Springfield, Oregon City Council members voted to approve the entire plan here. On page 69 of this document it details that PP requested over 90k toward construction costs. It lists the council members at the time were;

Joe Pishioneri 
Hillary Wylie
Dave Ralston
Marilee Woodrow
Sheri Moore
Sean VanGordon

This may be another case of ethical pluralism, I enjoy identifying the politicians that don’t believe in abortion, but vote to uphold and/or strengthen it.

I was disappointed that not a single council member voted no to the plan as the community of Springfield tends to be much more conservative than our neighbor to the west – Eugene. If they suggested removing the Planned Parenthood funding from the plan (any of them), I couldn’t find such evidence anywhere. I did find that the City of Springfield Mayor, Christine Lundberg opposed the ground breaking of the new Mega Abortion Mill site in Glenwood.

‘Lundberg promised not to support the new center and said she’d stay away from groundbreaking ceremonies. But she told the pro-life delegates that the project is “out of our hands” because Planned Parenthood owns the parcel, which is on the west outskirts of Springfield. But foes of Planned Parenthood are persisting in asking that the city at least draw back from infrastructure work that will be part ofconstruction. “It’s full of cruel ironies,” says Father Liam Cary, pastor of St. Mary Parish in Eugene. “The money is meant to give people shelter and here it is being used to expel people from the shelter of the womb.”‘ (1)

More public funds will be used as construction continues on the new site in Glenwood. The funds will be used to accomodate drainage, which Planned Parenthood said will be very ‘green’, which has some irony – 1984 is coming to mind.

Unfortunately Planned Parenthood most likely chose this site in Glenwood because of the proximity to the low income population it will serve. The effect on the community will prove to devalue the land and homes nearby unfortunately as it encourages more low income housing. This fits with Sanger’s view of the poor who choose to get pregnant. Kevin Costner’s field of dreams will come true as it always is with Planned Parenthood- “If you build it they will come”. Unfortunately, the players (unborn babies) disappear (aborted) at the end – just like the movie.

I pray that the ethics of the following people to be changed to supporting life in their personal and public life;

Joe Pishioneri 
Hillary Wylie
Dave Ralston
Marilee Woodrow
Sheri Moore
Sean VanGordon

(1)”Reversal sought for city help on Planned Parenthood project” http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=16245 retrieved on October 18th, 2011.

**Update: KEZI News is reporting that Planned Parenthood is legally prohibited from using federal dollars to pay for abortions. I ask you the reader if someone were to pay for your remodeling project, what do you do with the money you saved? I am sure Planned Parenthood will use it wisely – to help pay for low income abortions and the like. Isn’t that a reasonable assumption? Money goes in different pockets, but still comes out of only one pocket.

This is a question that came to mind when I was looking at some of the search terms people used to reach my blog. The search term was “non catholic wearing saint medal”.

Christians that are not catholic probably find themselves on more than one occasion, acting Catholic. Maybe it is praying that a relative has made it to heaven when they passed away, placing a crucifix in their home, or maybe buying a rosary. Does the catholic church look down upon people acting catholic when they aren’t? Certainly the church would if someone were to take Holy Communion, but that is not the kind of ‘acting catholic’ I am addressing here. In a lot of cases if a non-catholic isn’t acting protestant then they are probably acting catholic! It is our job as Catholics to see this when it happens and to evangelize. We also need to evangelize to those that were practicing Catholics that hold onto some of their catholic traditions but are now attending church elsewhere.

As Catholics we are going to be confronted every so often by noticing someone we know acting catholic. To get a better understanding of how to approach this, let us assume the person that entered the search term , “non catholic wearing saint medal” is a friend of yours and you catch them wearing a St. Christopher medal. I would not ask him or her if they had it blessed. This could be viewed as sarcasm most certainly. Take the time to evangelize, but very slowly. Start off by asking them why they have chosen to wear a medal of a saint. Let them know that Catholics who wear them often have them blessed by a priest with holy water and why. If you need help, see my article ‘Why do Catholics wear medals of Saints’. The bottom line is don’t say or do anything to discourage them from wearing it. The Holy Spirit may move them eventually to ask more by constantly wearing it, or it may move you to evangelize more if you see them wearing it.

Another example that I have experienced is seeing a family member that isn’t catholic with a crucifix in her home. Actually, she has A LOT of crucifixes! I asked her why she has so MANY crucifixes! She said that she always liked them, and that was all she said. I told her the reason why my family has a crucifix in every room of our home, that it is a Catholic tradition. I then explained this tradition simply by telling her I wake with the Lord near me and I go to sleep with the Lord protecting me. I also said that in my home I like to be reminded of His love and to show that love to whoever is in my home. I have been moved to have other discussions with her about Catholic traditions, I even told her why our family has Holy Water in our home!

It isn’t difficult to explain the traditions of the catholic faith. The will to do it comes with having the wisdom to recognize an opportunity and to be in touch with your own beliefs of what role the Catholic traditions have in your own life. For instance, does a medal make you feel that you are protected from evil? or does a crucifix in your home make you feel that God is watching you and helping you at all times? Are any of these feelings wrong? No these feelings that you have are not wrong, but explaining them to someone else may give the wrong message. Instead of saying you feel protected when you wear a medal, simply say that the medal reminds you that God protects you from evil. Explain that you have a Crucifix in your home to remind you of His love.

Finally, it is very important to make sure that your comments do not seem idolatrous in any way. This is one of the main misconceptions of our faith so take the time to choose your words carefully. May God be with you and bless you with the ability to see these Catholic traditions our friends in Christ practice, and may you have the will to evangelize to them about the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

© 2009 Catholics View Catholic Apologetics

Over the past few weeks at Mass the Gospel readings have come from the Gospel of John. These readings when interpreted correctly, illustrate to us that Jesus Christ is the most perfect sacrifice and His intention for us to celebrate this through the sacrament of the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is foretold in “The Bread of Life Discourse” beginning at John 6:22 but, for illustrative purposes I will begin with John 6:50 as it is written; “this is the bread that comes down from heaven so one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from Heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” Jesus says this to the people gathered in many different ways, emphasizing that He is the bread of life and stating that His flesh is true food and His blood is true drink. After hearing this, many of His followers left Him, not believing what He had said. Prior to them leaving Jesus confronted them and asked them, “What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?”

Jesus then looked at the twelve and asked them if they wanted to leave. Simon Peter responded saying, “Master to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” John 6:68-69.

As Catholics we believe that Jesus blessed the Apostles with the Holy Spirit to teach the world of Jesus Christ and His plan of salvation for the world. Jesus also commissioned them to carry out the sacraments of the Church. The Apostles did so, starting with ordainingMathias, replacing Judas (the betrayer) Acts 1:15-26. The Apostles continued their work, having full authority of the church. St. Peter was infallible in his word and authority both of which continue on in the Papacy, St. Peter being the first. As Catholics we believe this line of succession has never broken.

The mysticism of the Christian faith has been eaten away by society. Despite miracles being recorded throughout history, as people of God we have lost faith in them. The mystery of transubstantiation (bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Jesus) is one of these miracles that occur at each Mass across the world. Non-catholic churches that used to believe in the Eucharist have gone from believing in transubstantiation to, “If you think it’s real for you, then it is real” and “it is only a symbol”  in order to conform to societies’ ideals and beliefs. Referring back to the Gospel readings we see the same lack of belief for miracles two-thousand years ago in John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Rather than just explain the Eucharist during the Homily, the priest detailed some of the criticisms that society has of the Catholic church such as; abortion, death penalty, same sex marriage, and birth control (everyone knows what the stance of the Catholic church is on all of these issues and we believe this to be the infallible moral truth). The priest then spoke of Jesus letting some of His followers go after He explained the Eucharist. Today, we see people leaving the Church because of one of these criticisms. As seen in the Gospel, Jesus let these people go.

The Catholic church has been blessed to continue on teaching when it comes to moral issues such as the ones mentioned above. Society though, expects the Catholic church to conform to what it thinks is politically correct, not traditionally held moral values. Expecting the Catholic church to conform to what society deems to be the correct way of life is like asking God to become more like us instead of US becoming more like Him. The definition of ‘Christian’, is simply ‘Christ like’ and Christ did not want us to water down any of his teachings in the fear of ridicule.

Finally, near the end of the homily, the Priest posed a question. He asked us if we wanted to leave. No one left and we stood as one Catholic community, parts of the body of Christ, as one, Him in us and us in Him.

© 2009 Catholics View Catholic Apologetics

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bone fragments confirmed to be Saint Paul (telegraph.co.uk)

Please click here to send a prayer card today to a loved one. A beautiful example of one of the prayer cards is below. What a wonderful blessing EWTN truly is to the Catholic faith!

During the prayer of intentions during Mass, we always pray for the unborn. Of course this refers to the unborn children of those who are contemplating abortion. As a Catholic, I have always been mystified by the politicians who label themselves as Catholic, but seem to always vote in favor of the expansion of abortion rights or vote “no” when a bill comes up that restricts abortion rights. Does this Catholic politician say “amen” to these prayers? Is this any of our business?

Today, almost constantly, within certain political issues the Catholic Church is instructing the American public of the Church position, and what a responsible Catholic voter should consider when casting their ballots’. A common response to the Catholic Church has been that this intrudes on the Constitution of the United States and the separation of Church and State. Should the Catholic Church involve itself with political issues of democratic governments’?

Literature Review

Nation under God

Alfred Emanuel Smith, Jr. was the first Catholic to be nominated for President. The critical issue of the time was prohibition, which Protestants believed should remain, and Smith believed in a relaxation of the law, even though it was part of the Constitution, a belief that may have reinforced the opinion that he would answer to the Pope, not to the constitution. Smith viewed America as a God fearing nation, and as a God fearing man himself, he saw no conflict between governing and his religion. “I have never known any conflict between my official duties and my religious belief. No such conflict could exist.” (Smith, 1927) Smith further explains (paraphrased) that the Ten Commandments came from God and the United States was built upon those commandments, therefor how could a conflict even be conjured during this time? Smith believed that if a conflict were to arise it would be because of a law in the future that violated the common morality of all God-fearing men.

Country First

President Kennedy (then a candidate) drew a much clearer line of separation between his political life and his religion. Kennedy did not support a Vatican Ambassador and believed his religion should only be important to him and no one else. On September 20^th, 1960, John F. Kennedy gave a major speech in response to critics of his Catholic faith, who assumed he would be guided by Rome if he was elected President of the United States. Kennedy assured the mostly Protestants concerns, by stating that he believed,”… in an America where separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president how to act.” In his speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association he said, “I do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me.” (Transcript: JFK’s Speech on His Religion, 2007)In the same speech he went into further detail mainly pointing out that he would decide issues according to national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures, even if threatened with punishment from within the church.

John Kerry responded to another Vatican document called “considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” within the document, it told Catholic politicians that they must oppose gay marriage and civil unions. John Kerry said, “It is important not to have the church instructing politicians. That is in an inappropriate crossing of the line in this country. President Kennedy drew that line very clearly in 1960, and I believe we need to stand up for that line today. Our founding fathers separated church and state in America. It is an important separation. It is part of what makes America different and special, and we need to honor that as we go forward and I’m going to fight to do that.” (Mass., 2003)

Discussion

Local Catholic Influence

The Catholic influence in politics has at its’ center issues involving human dignity and what is ethical for the common good. Typically these issues have been the death penalty, abortion, birth control, and traditional marriage. Catholic influence on these issues, particularly in Massachusetts was strong in the first half of the 20^th century, but began to decline in the second half, the child sex abuse scandal accelerating it. (Cunningham, 2005)

Be Catholic Always

Cardinal Ratzinger explains the role of the Catholic Church within politics by writing, “The emergence of ambiguities or questionable positions in recent times, often because of the pressure of world events, has made it necessary to clarify some important elements of church teaching in this area.” And, “It is, however, the Church’s right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law.” He explains that the Catholic Church believes that the role of the political person is to serve the promotion of the human person and the common good. The message within the document that most Catholic politicians may disagree with is: “there cannot be two parallel lives and their existence: on the one hand, the so-called “spiritual life”, with its values and demands; and on the other, the so-called “secular” life, that is, life and a family, at work, and social responsibilities, and the responsibilities of public life and in culture.” (Ratzinger, 2002)

The Vatican document assumes that Catholic politicians adhere to the same moral principles of Catholic doctrine when in “Public Life”. The Catholic Church is merely telling the politicians to act Catholic and this is a basic requirement of the church for all Catholics. Countless times in Mass, I have been told by the priest that the best way to recruit future Catholics is to act out our faith sensibly, at all times. Being Catholic is an inseparable trait from the whole person, just as a police officer is dedicated to act within the law in their professional and personal life, a Catholic is to act within the boundaries of Catholicism in the Church, and in secular society.

Ethical Pluralism

It is an unreasonable expectation to require politicians to separate their religious ethics from their public ethics. To act ethically, the entirety of a person’s human experience must be involved, which includes their religious life. “Human sexuality, though, is a central aspect of one’s self identity. It is thus difficult, if not impossible, for a supporter of homosexual rights to grant the distinction between the act and the centrality of sexual identity to one’s own personhood.” (Cunningham, 2005) Ethics are drawn from our human experience and religious life is part of that human experience for Catholics. I argue that one’s ethics is a central aspect of one’s self identity as well and as such cannot be separated into two categories; personal (religious) and public (voting). This would be ethical pluralism and does not reflect our whole person.

Assumption

A Catholic public servant acting contrary to his faith-when he votes or contrary to the belief of the church represents the faith as something it is not; misleading the people he governs. In these cases the church is forced to correct the error, because it may cause other Catholics to misinterpret what it means to be a Catholic.

Conclusion

If a person describes themselves as Catholic, then they have a responsibility to act within the guidelines set by the Catholic Church in their private lives as well as in public, just as persons who are police officers have a responsibility to act within the guidelines set by their organization. If we are responsible voting citizens, then we must act within our own set of ethics, the same ethics which guide our lives in everything. Diversity is respected by voting with our whole person, and respecting other persons whole being. The same should be expected of those who we elect, and they must be held accountable to how they describe their set of ethics, at the same time expecting them to be respectful of other persons and their faith or lack thereof. The Catholic Church, just as any other religious organization has a responsibility to lead their members in the ethics they prescribe.

Bibliography

Mass. senator blasts Vatican for decree on gay marriage. (2003, September). Church & State, 56.8, 19 From Gale Power Search. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Transcript: JFK’s Speech on His Religion. (2007, December 5). Retrieved October 14, 2011, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

Al Smith. (n.d.). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Smith

Cunningham, M. T. (2005). Catholics and the ConCon: The Church’s Response to the Massachusetts Gay Marriage Decision. Journal of Church & State, 47(1), 19-42 Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Ratzinger, C. J. (2002, November 21). Retrieved October 17, 2011, from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

Smith, A. E. (1927, May). Retrieved 10 15, 2011, from The Atlantic Magazine: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1927/05/catholic-and-patriot/6522/1/

Qamar David is imprisoned for remarks that Pakistan officials say was blasphemous toward Muslims. He was sentenced to life in prison, Asia is not as lucky. She has received a death sentence.

If my memory serves me correctly, didn’t Pakistan just get over a million dollar bribe from us to release a US Diplomat? What other evidence do we need to see that Pakistan supports Muslim extremism, therefor supports terrorism? I mean sending someone to Prison for life because a person talks about Jesus Christ; comparing Him to their Muhammad? Are they in prison for not wanting to drink the water that she fetched saying that it was unclean because a Christian touched it?

Where are the Muslim – non extremists in the world? Last I checked – as the hearings recently pointed out, they are sitting idly by watching their fellow Muslim attend Mosques that preach extremism! Does this make you a peaceful Muslim? I think not.

I’m sorry – but if you teach that America got what it deserved when over 3,000 died in the Twin Towers, clearly not a military target, that to me is terrorism.

Can you imagine if I said I thought abortion doctors got what they deserved if they were shot by a Prolife extremist? I would be classified as an extremist myself, but these Mosques are allowed to teach extremism under the cloak of Religious liberty?