[continued from previous message]   
      
   As a third example, in Red China where the so-called cultural revolution and   
   re-education programs are supposed to have established women as the equals of   
   men, female infanticide is a common practice in the villages as a consequence   
   of the Chinese    
   government's “one family, one child” policy. According to ancient Chinese   
   customs and religious beliefs (which obviously have not been greatly disturbed   
   by the imposition of communism), only a son can preserve the family name and   
   legacy, whereas a    
   daughter carries hardly any real value. Despite the communist revolution, many   
   Chinese families are still prepared to go to almost any length to ensure their   
   dynasty. If they can retain only one child, then that child will have to be a   
   boy if at all    
   possible. So it is that the Chinese press regularly reports incidents of young   
   girls being murdered by their own parents, for no reason other than the hope,   
   or expectation, that their next child will be a boy. The horrifying extent of   
   this problem    
   becomes clear when one contemplates the prediction of a recent study, that by   
   the year 2010 – if the one-child-only policy continues in force – China should   
   have 169 males of marriageable age for every 100 females of a similar age.   
   Leaving aside the    
   incredible social problems which would result from such an unbalanced   
   population, the conclusion derived from this prediction is that, although a   
   fantastic number of female babies are already being aborted or killed, in the   
   future this crime will    
   continue and grow unless some radical change in social policy or social   
   consciousness is effected.   
      
   [296] In the United States today, the latest data from the Census Bureau   
   reveals that, regardless of educational qualifications, women who work at   
   full-time jobs the year round still earn only 62% of what men are paid.   
      
   [297] Matthew 14:21; Mark 6:44.   
      
   [298] Matthew 27:17-19; Luke 1:39-40, 23:27-29; Acts 1:12-14, 17:1-4,   
   18:18-19; Philippians 4:3; 2 Timothy 4:19-21.   
      
   [299] Acts 17:1-4; 1 Peter 3:1-2.   
      
   From a historical point of view, perhaps the most significant example would be   
   Saint Helena. Though she was born an innkeeper's daughter, she married royalty   
   and, in 306, became the Empress-dowager of Rome by order of her son,   
   Constantine the Great. When    
   Constantine officially recognized Christianity, Helena was one of the first to   
   convert publicly, although it is quite possible that her sympathy for   
   Christianity may have preceded that of her son. That Helena became an ardent   
   advocate of Christianity and    
   exerted a tremendous influence over Constantine is certain. As for Helena's   
   other accomplishments, even the alleged discoveries of the “true cross” and of   
   “Jesus' sepulcher” pale in significance beside her indirect responsibility for   
   the establishment of    
   the “Roman Catholic” Church.   
      
   Nonetheless, it would be unfair to stress too strongly the deeds of any one   
   woman, for countless women, in the past and up till the present, have complied   
   when exhorted to raise their children as Christians, to proselytize to their   
   husbands, or to cajole,   
    entice and even seduce any and all men onto the path of Christianity. Even   
   today one well-known Christian sect passes out smutty literature which   
   encourages the female members of the sect to be prostitutes for Jesus.   
      
   [300] This contradiction arose because Buddha insisted that he, and his monks   
   and nuns, were all mendicants and, as such, should accept whatever food they   
   were given. But Buddha was clearly mistaken on this point, for occasionally   
   even beggars must be    
   choosers. More important, the life of a monk or nun should never be confused   
   with that of an ordinary beggar. The monastic life is founded not on the   
   outward forms by which the physical existence is maintained, but rather on the   
   inner choice to renounce    
   all personal possessions in pursuit of a high ideal. If after becoming a monk   
   or nun, that ideal becomes obscured by one's own external appearance, then the   
   whole foundation on which monastic life is built stands in jeopardy. Hence,   
   every nun and every    
   monk must clearly understand that their every action should be in perfect   
   consonance with their ideology.   
      
   [301] Undoubtedly, the answer to this question is guilt though, of course, one   
   may become a hardened criminal.   
      
   There is a popular set of children's stories patterned on a base of Christian   
   ethics and Christian theology, in which children visit a fairy-tale land where   
   Christ appears in the form of a magical, talking lion. The children go through   
   many adventures    
   with their friends, the talking animals; but, when they sit down to eat with   
   these unusual creatures, the meal is always bacon and eggs. The author tries   
   to rationalize this absurd situation by commenting that talking animals are   
   friends, whereas mute    
   animals are meant for food. Even accepting this ridiculous argument (which   
   immediately neutralizes any appreciation the child who reads these books may   
   otherwise have developed for the non-human living beings), the author fails to   
   explain the    
   unprecedented cannibalism of pigs eating pork. Certainly this author is guilty   
   of libel, or “false testimony”, towards a helpless and unprotected species – a   
   crime that unfortunately carries no penalty in Christian ethics or in any past   
   or present legal    
   code.   
      
   [302] Proverbs 12:10.   
      
   [303] Deuteronomy 22:6-7.   
      
   [304] Deuteronomy 22:9-11.   
      
   [305] Deuteronomy 25:4.   
      
   [306] Deuteronomy 14:21.   
      
   [307] Genesis 1:26-31.   
      
   [308] Exodus 21:28-32.   
      
   Note here that, on many occasions, animals were not only slaughtered but even   
   tortured for crimes against human beings, or for having been utilized by a   
   Jewish criminal or an enemy army. Thus we find evidence in the Old Testament   
   of oxen being stoned to    
   death and horses being hamstrung, as well as the wholesale slaughter of   
   animals related to an enemy city marked for obliteration. (See also Joshua   
   6:21, 7:10-26, 11:6-9.)   
      
   [309] Exodus 29:1-46.   
      
   [310] Leviticus 3:1-17, 12:6-8, 15:25-30.   
      
   [311] Mark 7:14-23.   
      
   Here, it would seem, Jesus may have admitted unintentionally the fraud in   
   which he consciously engaged each time he allegedly exorcised some demon or   
   demons. But, assuming that Jesus referred only to food, the suggestion that   
   there is no such thing as    
   unhealthy food is patently absurd.   
      
   [312] Genesis 24:15-20; Numbers 20:7-8; Deuteronomy 25:4.   
      
   [313] Mark 11:12-26.   
      
   Another example of unwarranted cruelty toward the lesser evolved species, for   
   which Jesus was at least indirectly responsible, was the wanton destruction of   
   an entire herd of pigs. (See Luke 8:26-34.)   
      
   [314] This accounts for the curious vacuum which exists on the question of   
   what hap-pens to animals and plants after they die. It is not known whether or   
   not there is a separate heaven for them, or whether they are admitted through   
   the pearly gates into    
   the heaven for humans. If animals or plants were recognized as having any soul   
   at all, then that soul would appear to be of an entirely different variety   
   than that of human beings.   
      
   [315] Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6.   
      
   [316] Luke 24:36-43; John 21:12-14.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)