April 6, 2010 by Stacy McDonald

Death, Bondage, and the Pursuit of Pleasure

Print Friendly


Yesterday, I posted a video that talked about IPPF’s desire to make uninhibited sex a “right” of every individual. Speaking out against perversion would be viewed as a violation of that “right,” and would carry “consequences.”

One commenter asked a legitimate question, and I thought it was important enough to highlight here in a post. Her question revealed to me that many people don’t understand the gravity of what’s going on here. Please take the time to watch yesterday’s video, as well as read the actual declaration from IPPF (the link is at the bottom of this page).

First, let me say that I am a virgin and I support and promote the idea that individuals should abstain from sexual activity until they are married.

But I would like to respectfully ask if any of you have read this “declaration?” Please read it…if anything just to educate yourself about what is truly being said.

While I do not agree with most of what Planned Parenthood stands for (especially when they deal in American politics and their stance on abortion), I do have to consider that they work with many MANY different cultures, nations, and social groups that do not subscribe to our morality, do not possess the same social structure as our nation, and definitely do not have the same health, justice and governmental (with all of its’ flaws) that America does.

Life and the world is much more complicated then we like to think. As Christians, we have to be “innocent” yes, but we also have to be as “wise as serpents.” That means thinking outside the box and realizing that before we can even think of sharing the Good News we have to consider that others are completely different from us.

Thanks for writing. One thing we need to remember is that this isn’t an issue of forgetting we’re not all going to agree on every jot and tittle of how and when (and to whom) sex education should be taught. And we’re not talking about some harmless group giving their “opinion” of how they wish things were. The IPPF is a very powerful, politically active organization that wants to force YOU and your children to accept their hedonistic morality.

Hedonism defined: Hedonism is a school of ethics which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. The basic idea behind hedonistic thought is that pleasure is the only thing that has intrinsic value.

The IPPF’s “declaration” claims that everyone in the world should have the “right” to uninhibited sex – even to what we would call “sexual perversion.” And this very influential group claims that we should all agree that no consensual sexual expression is perverted or wrong; to disagree would mean that we are violating a sexual pervert’s “rights” to sexual pleasure. And if we do that, we should be “held accountable.”

And, by the way, they want to teach this to your children without your consent. Here are a few examples from the declaration:

“This framework of non-discrimination prohibits any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of …gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status, sexual history or behaviour, real or imputed,…health status, including HIV/AIDS…”

“No woman shall be condemned to forced maternity as a result of having exercised her sexuality.”

Translated: If a woman chooses to break God’s law by fornicating, PP will help her to avoid the consequences (the unspeakable misery of motherhood) by murdering her child before he/she burdens her any further. “Forced maternity.” Give me a break.

“All persons have the right to control the disclosure of information regarding their sexual choices, sexual history, sexual partners and behaviours and other matters related to sexuality.”

So daycare workers, doctors, teachers etc. can hide their perversion if they want to. You shouldn’t have the right to know if your child’s pediatrician is a convicted pedophile; or, if your fiancé’ was actually born the same gender as you.

“No person shall be denied identity papers which indicate his/her gender or sex as reflecting the person’s self-defined gender identity, including but not limited to birth certificates, passports and electoral records.”

All persons have the right to exercise freedom of…expression regarding ideas on sexuality, sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual rights, without arbitrary intrusions or limitations based on dominant cultural beliefs or political ideology, or discriminatory notions of public order, public morality, public health or public security.”

In other words public nudity and public sex acts would become a “right!”

“All persons have the right to explore their sexuality…free from fear, shame, guilt, false beliefs and other impediments to the free expression of their desires…”

Of course this includes all forms of sexual deviance. Christian beliefs would be deemed “false beliefs.”

“All persons have the right to education aimed at eradicating stigma and discrimination, promoting the development of young people as informed actors taking responsibility for their lives and empowering them to participate in determining policy regarding sexual health and sexuality education.”

“All persons shall…have access to non-traditional and traditional information in all mediums that enhances sexuality, sexual rights and sexual health; young people in particular shall have access to information on sexually and gender non-conforming lives and sexual relations.”

“All persons shall have access to community-, school-, and health service provider-based information regarding sexuality in understandable language, including information on the means to ensure sexual and reproductive health and decision-making on when, how, and with whom to have sex and when sexual behaviour will become reproductive.” (This means your children should have access to birth control and abortion without parental consent – it’s their “right.”)

“All persons have the right to… demand that those who are duty-bound to uphold sexual rights are fully accountable to them. This includes the ability to monitor the implementation of sexual rights and to access remedies for violations of sexual rights, including access to full redress through restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantee of non-repetition and any other means.”

“All persons have the right to hold to account non-state actors [pastors, politicians, teachers, evangelists, authors, newspapers, etc.] whose actions or omissions impact upon their enjoyment of sexual rights. This includes the ability to seek remedies and redress for any violations of sexual rights.”

And who are those “non state actors?”

“Other actors in civil society whose actions and omissions have effects on the enjoyment of sexual rights should also be held accountable. These can include …not-for-profit and religious entities, as well as individuals.”

“States shall take steps to prevent third parties from violating the sexual rights of others.”

And what might those “steps” be? That’s the real question.

Here is a link to a pdf of the declaration:

Sexual Rights: An IPPF Declaration

Rather than Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the IPPF slogan should be:

Death (abortion), Bondage (sin), and the Pursuit of Pleasure (perversion)



Similar Posts:

33 Responses to “Death, Bondage, and the Pursuit of Pleasure”

  1. tiph says:

    This makes my heart heavy- that I may in the future raise children in such a culture saddens me. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I will keep the matter in prayer.

  2. Luci says:

    Stacy, thank you so much for posting more on this. It's absolutely horrifying to read … what struck me the most is that what they're advocating is harmful to everyone regardless of moral beliefs, background, country of citizenship, etc. We know from scientific, empirical data that casual sex and other such acts harm people. It's not a question of evaluating competing moral systems — it's simply speaking up for what's good for people and in line with, if you will, natural law.

    Blessings,
    Luci

  3. Stacy McDonald says:

    Tiph – Be encouraged. Remember God is in control! Information like this should drive us to our knees, knowing that our battle is not against flesh and blood (Eph. 6:12).

    The fact that it's gone this far should be a huge wake up call to the fat and happy Church who has been complacent and lazy in taking dominion.

    We have poorly represented Christ among the nations of the world by living lives counter to His Word. We must repent and get busy preaching the true Gospel and glorifying Him with our lives, giving them a true picture of His grace, mercy, and holiness.

    "And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned [blasphemed] among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord,” says the Lord God, “when I am hallowed in you before their eyes." (Ezekiel 36:23, NKJV)

    We must begin "adorn[ing] the doctrine of God our Savior in all things." Titus 2:9

  4. RalphC says:

    Echoes of Marquis de Sade…if he were alive, he'd be their poster child.

  5. Laura says:

    This is truly horrifying! I cannot believe that this is what the world wants… talk about to hell in a handbasket. You are so correct… we need to be driven to our knees, because we struggle against powers and principalities.

    My ears perked up (or "eyes" lol) when I read that pastor's could be held accountable. My husband is a pastor, and preaches expositorily. He leaves nothing out. When he preaches God' Word about sexual perversions, we could be sued.

    I'm honestly flabbergasted at this.

  6. Jennifer says:

    What utter, asinine nonsense. We have the right to keep our sexual histories from the public-NOT from our fiances, spouses, or the law if it's a CRIMINAL past. These people are about nothing but promoting "freedom" at the expense of lives, innocence, health and the RIGHTS of individuals to be protected from, to have freedom FROM the sins and filth of others. Everyone's forgetting about "freedom from" and screaming about "freedom to". Guess what, sexual liberals? Your sexual rights end at my body and my childrens'.

  7. Karen (Canadian Soldier's Wife) says:

    Oh, my.

    Some things that really jumped out at me… screamed, really… "the evolving capacity of children"… "free and responsible choices in family planning"… yikes. :(

  8. Librarian09 says:

    Thank you so much for responding to my comment and pursuing the topic further. Education and awareness is all that I ask. I hope I did not offend or anything, just wanted to encourage deepening of our knowledge.

    Grace and Peace to you and yours.

  9. BassoonJedi says:

    On page 17 of the PDF:

    "The concept recognizes that the levels of protection from participation in activities likely to cause children harm will diminish in accordance with their evolving capacity."

    HELLO!?

    So the adults realize that an activity is "likely to cause children harm," yet if the children are nearing the age of 18, the adults should let the children do it? Their own words condemn them! They realize that the activities are "likely to cause children harm."

    Apparently the people in the "highest decision-making body, the Governing Council" (note the lofty language, p. 6) at IPPF have a diminished "capacity" to understand the true impact of the harm that will result from many of the sexual behaviors they are promoting. Using their own logic, therefore they should be protected from making those decisions. Their own assertions make the legal age of 18 obsolete and irrelevant; attaining the age of 18 has clearly not given them the capacity to make wise choices.

    I agree that FGM, human trafficking, and the sex-slave trade need to stop. But this document is about much more than that.

  10. Kate says:

    My state has laws introduced that would punish pastors who speak out against homosexuality or refuse to marry homosexuals. They also have a law introduced that would force girls to get Gardasil and without parental consent or notification!

    Needless to say there is a movement in my state now to vote out everyone in the next election. There is only one assemblyman I'm re-electing and it's because he truly is a man of God and a representative.

  11. juliannemcelroy says:

    Any organization that promotes these tenets does NO GOOD. Only harm. Anything thought of as good is tainted by these perverted beliefs. And any help they give is a door to push this perversion down others throats.

    So, they do not do anyone any good.

  12. J & A says:

    I think this is a good example of why the world hates so many of us Christians. And I don't even disagree with your general principles…I am a reformed Presbyterian and just 'to the right of Glenn Beck', as my mother likes to say. ;-) I know your intent is good and I agree with it, but perhaps people like you make people who might subscribe to the beliefs of the IPPF go even more firmly in the other direction.

  13. Stacy McDonald says:

    "Perhaps people like you make people who might subscribe to the beliefs of the IPPF go even more firmly in the other direction."

    Can you be a little more specific? What is it about "people like me" that you find so offensive?

    I welcome respectful critiques, whether or not I agree with them. :-)

  14. Jennifer says:

    I'd be curious to know what you find so offensive about speaking against the promotion of abortion, sex for young people and the dangerous hiding of sexual diseases/crimes, J.

  15. Jane says:

    Well, didn't Jesus say the world would hate us for what we stood for? I think it's kind of expected then, IMHO, especially from PP and the like.

  16. LivingByDailyGrace says:

    John 15:18-19

    "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

    The world doesn't hate us because of how or why a message is being delivered. The world hates us because it hates Christ first.

  17. Stack says:

    Amen, LivingByDailyGrace.

    Stacy, thank you for writing this…and wow…I'm so sorry you had to write this. It just breaks my momma-of-three-beautiful-daughters heart. Lord Jesus, protect us all.

  18. Emily Walker says:

    Concerning the lady who wrote the original comment in the post:

    Sadly, many young, "Christian" women have been taught by antinomian "evangelicals" who believe that feeding the hungry is more important than calling them to repentance. They ascribe to a "gospel" that has almost nothing to do with the true Gospel of Jesus Christ but rather a gospel of humanism, man-centered rather than God-centered.

    My questions for her would be, where can you back up your claims with Scripture, and just what "box" are you referring to of which we should be thinking "outside"? Is "the box" those loathed restraints of the, dare I say it, the Bible? God forbid.

  19. Amy Bender says:

    Although I do agree with many of the author's christian viewpoints, I feel that she is using extreme and exaggerated examples to try and prove her point. I believe the author is misinformed and should try a more researched and unbiased way of writing.

    Here are my points of contention:
    Any rights defined in the Planned Parenthood declaration would not supersede State or Federal law. So, NO, people would not have the "right" to public nudity…. it is illegal.
    Also, in the United States, most states typically require one of two types of parental involvement– consent and/or notification in the case of a minor seeking an abortion.
    On this line: "the IPPF is a very powerful, politically active organization that wants to force YOU and your children to accept their hedonistic morality." I just don't believe that is true and thanks to this great country we live in…. NO ONE can force us to accept any view, political, social, religious or otherwise.
    I believe that Planned Parenthood's intention is to give people the FREEDOM to express their sexuality in a consenting and adult relationship without fear from social abuse or punishment. Even in the author's article she throws out verbal abuse by using the words "sexual perverts." It is not our right or place as christians to point fingers at others "sins". We need to live the greatest commandment of all…. "love one another as I have loved you" – Jesus.

  20. Jennifer says:

    "Even in the author's article she throws out verbal abuse by using the words "sexual perverts."

    That's because she was talking about actual sexual perverts, and it's a valid point. Last I saw, PP was NOT just targeting adults by any stretch.

  21. Jennifer says:

    "evangelicals" who believe that feeding the hungry is more important than calling them to repentance"

    I daresay keeping them alive IS the more immediate concern.

  22. Kate says:

    Ummmm…..in some places public nudity is NOT illegal. There's a town in Vermont that allows complete public nudity. In my state, according to the letter of the law (my brother is a state trooper and my father's cousin is a judge in this state) it is NOT illegal for a woman to be topless in public.

    Also, I don't see where Stacy is exaggerating when she's pulling out direct quotes!!!

    If someone steals, they are a thief, right? We can call them a thief. So why can't we call a pervert a pervert?

    Even if PP's INTENTION isn't to allow some 40 year old guy to be with a 5 year old girl, the LANGUAGE their writings use certainly opens it up to that!

    Some of us may not believe that the world would stoop to such a level. We're enlightened, aren't we? We basically understand that objectifying women and targeting children is wrong. But do we?

    Look at the porn industry and the sickos out there. I was once looking up an adoption website and accidentally came across a child pornography site (from the Ukraine)! Child molesters get less time in jail than a thief! Just read the paper!

    Look back in history to ancient Rome. They did horrifying things to children and each other!

    I do NOT believe Christians are supposed to hole up in their houses and keep their beliefs to themselves. I do NOT believe that we should NEVER stand up for what is right in the Word of God. I do not believe that saying a certain behavior or lifestyle is a sin, a perversion or an abomonation is wrong when it is clearly in the Word of God that it is, not to throw stones or be judgemental, but to uphold the Word of God.

    Stacy McDonald is not into sensationalism. She has presented the facts along with her voice on the matter which I'm sure she has prayerfully considered. I think the document speaks for itself on the horrifying nature of it.

  23. BassoonJedi says:

    Jennifer's quote:
    "I daresay keeping them alive IS the more immediate concern."

    Not to get too far off topic, because we are still addressing the gospel here…

    Most organizations that seek to bring the gospel to starving communities ALSO bring food and clean water. But if all you're doing is filling bellies, you're just making people more comfortable on their road to eternal destruction. Jesus performed miracles, fed people, and primarily preached repentance and faith. Not "I've got unlimited power so here's all the food you'll ever need, go in peace."

    It seems good, right? Feeding people? What's wrong with that? Nothing. What's wrong with JUST feeding people? Everything.

    For more on this topic, you need to research what is going on in Haiti right now… why they are completely helpless, cannot work for themselves and will be stuck in a cycle of dependency unless something breaks that cycle.

  24. Stacy McDonald says:

    Jennifer,

    Emily wasn't saying that feeding the poor wasn't important; she was saying that it wasn't more important than the Gospel. The two go hand in hand:

    "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:15-17, ESV)

    "Feeding people? What's wrong with that? Nothing. What's wrong with JUST feeding people? Everything."

    Amen! In fact, as you've pointed out, JUST feeding people causes more harm than good. That's why government/secular charity is a failure.

    Yes, we are to feed the poor, clothe the naked etc., but if we don't provide these things out of love for our Savior (expressed by proclaiming His goodness to the lost) what hope have we actually offered them? The food will be digested, the clothing will rot, and they will still be lost.

  25. Jennifer says:

    Hi, Bassoon and Stacy. I understood Emily's point and maintain that keeping someone alive is more immediate than witnessing to them. No need to worry Bassoon, I'm hardly ignorant of what goes on.

  26. BassoonJedi says:

    I see today that, in addition to numerous critics nitpicking every detail about the wording of your posts, we have an argument about social gospel (secular charity) versus Christian gospel charities. From a purely logical standpoint, the assertion about keeping a starving person alive being more immediate than witnessing to them is fallacious. This type of argument is called “false dilemma.” As has already been stated in a previously-posted comment, most Christian gospel charities feed people as well as preach the gospel. On the basis of logical reasoning, therefore, this claim to exclusion is refuted.

    Stacy, I concurrently am confused by and admire your patience with the constant arguing about minutiae in your posts and the comments section. Frankly, it is wearisome to me to see the obstinate, graceless attitudes from the same ladies day after day. Really now, must one take umbrage at nearly every comment or post?

    An open note to all ladies:
    As a former college professor with two degrees, military veteran, published author, public and private school teacher, professional musician, and now stay-at-home mother of three in a blended family, I NEED the support, information, advice, and encouragement I get from reading Stacy's blog. I don't cover my head, nor make a big deal about submitting to my husband, nor read Stacy's book with a highlighter and tattoo relevant page numbers on my arm to review later (that's humor, folks). I'm not a Stacy-ite, and truly I have held a completely different opinion on some matters. I want to read what Stacy has to share because it blesses me. I trust the Holy Spirit to grant me discernment. What doesn't bless me is seeing the same immature ladies constantly criticizing every post and comment. What possible Christlike motives could come from such belligerency? I've seen your "watchdog" websites, too, with their crass joking and prideful mockery. Nearly every detail of Stacy's past, personal photos, her private life, and the lives of her friends/colleagues is laid bare for the scrutiny of others on various websites. May God protect me and my family from such a difficult challenge. We are all sinners saved by grace.

    I just want to come here to see the lovely and encouraging things Stacy shares, and also to see the things I need to be concerned about as a Christian wife and mother. To be perfectly blunt, I think an examination of one's motives is in order if one is known for perpetual contention. Stacy, I hope the ways in which I have disagreed with you in the past have not offended you nor anyone else. May God grant me the grace and humility to disagree with you intelligently and lovingly, when the situation arises. This is your blog and your space.

  27. Jennifer says:

    "From a purely logical standpoint, the assertion about keeping a starving person alive being more immediate than witnessing to them is fallacious"

    Um, no it isn't. You can't witness to a starved corpse, can you?

  28. Stacy McDonald says:

    Dear Jedi,

    Thank you for your kind words. You have never offended me. I consider it an honor to dialogue with someone who is respectful and gracious, whether or not we agree on a single point.

    As for those individuals you reference, I believe that since they couldn't refute what I taught fairly, they resorted to character assassination. Isn't that typical? I was always taught that it is truly cowardly to shoot someone from behind. That's how I view the lies, partial truths, misrepresentations, and personal attacks that have been levied against me and my family.

    Though I realize curiosity can get the better of most of us, I would suggest ignoring gossipers and slanderers all together and not giving them the pleasure of an audience. Still, I am happy to offer anyone who has any questions a link to a special blog set up for the sole purpose of clarifying the false information about our family that was circulated on the Internet.

    Thank you, Jedi, for speaking up. Though I have received numerous private emails, you're one of the few who have had the guts to say anything publicly.

    I wrote the following article sometime back because I knew we weren't the only ones who experienced the arrows and darts of Internet assassins.

    http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2009/04/truth-hunt-or-witch-hunt.html

    I'll post a few interesting quotes in a second.

  29. Stacy McDonald says:

    The following quotes were taken from a book called The Wounded Minister. I was amazed by how perfectly he described our antagonists:

    * “The arguments of a pathological antagonist are usually found in little or terribly misrepresented evidence … quibbling over petty details, offering strong proof of irrelevant points … exaggerating the position of one’s opponent … making an accusation that cannot be disproved and then claiming that this makes it true … outright lying or falsification. An antagonist, in his attempt to make the kill, will take certain facts and so twist them that they are blatantly false when presented. In time he convinces himself that his twisted facts are true.”

    * “The pathological antagonist is never satisfied. His demands are insatiable. No amount of accommodation on the ministers part will ever suffice. Attempts at appeasement will not calm him down, but will encourage him to make more demands. … he is persistent and unstoppable.”

    *“The pathological antagonist will lead a campaign of attack on the minister … not trying to give constructive criticism …

    *“The attacking behaviour of a pathological antagonist is selfish in nature … this person is rarely interested in authentic spiritual goals. If one rationale no longer works to his advantage, he will devise another … his stated reasons for opposition are a ruse for his own hidden agenda…

    *“The attacks … are for destruction rather than construction. The antagonists’ actions divide the church; they do not pull the people together.

    Dr. Greenfield points out that "a pathological antagonist tends to attract certain followers." Greenfield points out that "without them, the antagonist’s efforts would fizzle. He usually does not have the courage to go it alone. He needs followers to bolster his campaign against the minister …calculating in his enlistment of a small band of followers. Each had a personal axe to grind …"

  30. Stacy McDonald says:

    He goes on to say:

    "The damage that they want to inflict is intentional and deliberate. They are not out simply to disagree … they want to inflict pain and damage persons. … clergy killers are determined. They are headstrong and will stop at nothing. They may pause for a time, change strategies, even go underground to reconnoitre, but they will come back with a vengeance to continue the intimidation, networking and breaking all rules of decency to accomplish their destructive objectives…

    "These persons are deceitful … masters of manipulation, camouflage, misrepresentation and accusing others of their own atrocious deeds … experts at twisting facts.

    “Intimidation is a powerful weapon … therefore, ministers and their supporters are easily intimidated by these persuasive and charming religious assailants.

    “Clergy killers wound or destroy either by direct attacks or by inciting others to inflict the wounds. Sometimes they induce victims to self-destruct, by harassing them to the point of frustration and anger. … Because these people live in denial as to their true nature, they would not see themselves in this chapter, even if they were to read it.

    "Clergy killers have surrounded and insulated themselves with a whole array of defense mechanisms and justifications for their actions. They firmly believe that what they are doing in harming and terminating a minister is the right thing to do…" emphasis mine

    Using half truths, spin, twisted facts, hearsay, speculation, and innuendo Pathological Antagonists attempts to not only attack the minister's teaching, they go to great lengths to attack their character and integrity as well. I found these articles fascinating (and disturbing) since my husband and I have experienced online attacks that ominously fit many of these descriptions.

    Due to a handful of "creative" bloggers who have grossly mischaracterized us and our ministry over the last two years, we have spent a great deal of time clarifying our beliefs and disputing misrepresentations of our teachings. Recently, the attacks became so serious (even highly personal in nature) that, to protect our ministry and our family, we spent a great deal of time in prayer and counsel, considering our options. During this time, we felt led to carefully document the truth and make it available to anyone who asks.

    Again, if you have any questions, please ask. You can click on my profile pic to get my email address.

  31. Jane says:

    Stacy,

    I had no idea! Out of curiosity, I found one of the blogs you refer to and was absolutely disgusted by the slander and character assassination of you, your family, and others (mainly LAF contributors). These people were getting personal, I found myself getting angry and I don't even know you IRL! This is not the attitude of true Christianity. I am so sorry.

    I so much enjoy your blog and the information and encouragement I receive from it. Keep it up!

    In Christ,
    Jane

  32. Jennifer says:

    You're right Bassoon, character assaults are terrible. I've seen blogs like that cutting down people of more than one belief system; the most fanatic always try to take a knife to others' personal lives. Stacy has remained patient in these trials, and wisely counseled me when I was upset to never let my own tongue deliver sin in return for hurt feelings. In addition to slandering websites, some of the recent posters here have been unexpectedly rude and questioning of Stacy's points and evidence, indicating strangely that we'd have reason to doubt her.

    Not all the ladies who showed disagreement here were rude, however, and the only ones I saw expressing disagreement more than once were actually very polite and reassuring of their intent to be respectful (I don't recall every comment, however, so it's possible you saw something I didn't). When you said, "I've seen your "watchdog" websites", it sounded as though you were addressing every woman who disagreed here, and I think we should be cautious about negative associations without proof. Unless you've seen that each and every critic here is attached to a watchdog website, it's important not to assume drastic things about their character. The ladies raising questions here in polite ways, whether repeatedly or not, have not earned our disrespect or suspicion.

  33. Stam House says:

    Thanks again for posting this!

    You did a great job expressing the gravity of this issue in a godly manner :-)

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.