Seg- you state that: Life is precious, you can secure it. Jehovahs thoughts for you is not to kill or cause more harms to his wonderfully created creature (Human).

If thats the case- why do christians involve themselves with war? If life is a gift from god- then why do christian men and women work in the armed forces, factories where they make arms and so on? Or is this yet again another example by christians of double standards?

I'm going to be using this particular thread to post poetry, quotes, articles and thought pieces that is celebrating the Divine Feminine as well as reminding the Dear Reader that Spirituality is not based upon christian or muslim perceptions or tenets. I would say 'values' but as one can patently see and observe from these patriarchal religions that they only have pseudo values exist.

I am Nature, the universal Mother, Mistress of All elements, Primordial Child of Time, Sovereign of All things spiritual, Queen of the Dead, Queen also of the Immortals, The Single Manifestation Of All Gods and Goddesses that ARE.

Though I am worshipped in many aspects, known by countless names and propitiated with all manner of different rites, yet the whole round Earth venerates me.

The primeval Phrygians call me Pessinuntica, Mother of the gods: the Athenians sprung from their own soil call me Cecropian Artemis. For the islanders of Cyprus I am Paphian Aphrodite, for the archers of Crete I am Dictynna. For the tri-lingual Silicians, Stygian Prosperine and for the Eleusinians their ancient Mother of Corn.

Some know me as Juno, some as Bellona of the Battles, others as Hecate, others again as Rhamnubia but both races of Aethiopians and Egyptians call me by my true name: namely Queen Au Set

This particular piece speaks a lot to me since it inspired me to create an album called The Paradised Papers: The Goddess Collection due for release this coming month on itunes. I am more than grateful and indebted to two authors: Merlin Stone and Apuleius, the minds of whom have been imbued with Light, Insight and Knowledge. The passage also gives a clever introduction into Goddess and Religious History, thus enabling the rader to research the names, places and people and discover what kind of agricultural society existed as well as the politics and religious clime of the time. Not to mention it leads the reader into a certain space where he or she can find out truths regarding the role of men and women and how Patriarchal Cultures tried to depose the Matrilinial lines and Matriarchical Societies.

The reader will note that

Donzman:
1 Am I the only one utterly disgusted at MIZIEYA?,
2 This guy acts as if the British embassy do not reject applicants even if they have perfect documents.
3 Applying for visas here is like lottery,
4 you just put it in the hands of God after doing the best you can to get your documents right.
5 My brother used the same documents to obtain his visa while my cousin who is going for graduate studies was rejected a month earlier, think about that for a moment!

Mizieya:
1 Probably not.
2 Since when did I say the British Embassy does not reject applicants even if they have 'perfect' documents? I have stated its an unfair system,
3 Applying for visa IS The Lottery not like a lottery.
4 Obviously god doesn't have big enough hands or brains or influence in worldly matters - perhaps god is simply not qualified as a god to influence people?
5 Your brother used your cousins papers? Or vice versa? Could you clarify what exactly point 5 means if not for me but for yourself.
6 are you residing in Britain or Canada? Or orbiting the planet in the Mothership?

I await your devestating response with baited breath.

i[b]zoneb: The flaw here of course is that not everyone believes your god made anyone let alone anything. My belief system states that male and female were made at the same time and given the choice to enjoy relations (sexual or otherwsise) at their own discretion. In fact if you look at varying African Religions take on creation you'll find that there were more than one persons existing upon Terra Firma.

As an aside- you'd best be sure your husband or boyfriend isn't on the Downlow,

If your religion professes love (agape) to humanity- it might be an idea to put it into practice and throw your preconceptions in the air. Even the Jews don't believe christian or islamic faerytales.

Modern genetic science has shown that homosexuality is the natural state of being for some human beings. If that is truly the case, and I believe that it is, based upon the scientific studies posted upon the Internet by actual genetic scientists connected with prestigious Universities, then it is God who is responsible for the condition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition of heterosexuality. To say that homosexuality is deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistake.

Rabbi Ted Alexander (Conservative) says that "This is the way God has created them, and if God has created them this way, I'm willing to give them the blessings. Furthermore, anyone who has any hesitation to give blessings to same-sex people should not say the Sabbath Psalm, 'How great are Your works, oh God,' because that includes everybody."

Within the Torah parashiot of Achare Mot-Kedosheem is found the verses that have been used for at least two thousand years, by Jews and Christians, to persecute a portion of the human population. These are:

Leviticus 18: 22 states: “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.” Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is an abomination.

This verse, and Leviticus 20: 13 (in Parashat Kedosheem) are verses in the Hebrew Tanakh (Bible) that are supposedly thought to mention a possible form of male homosexual activity.

One thousand years after these verses were recorded in Leviticus, during a period of historical time when Jews were in contact with a European Greek culture that had an openly promiscuous sexual modality, the very first Talmudic references to homosexuality as a perversion are recorded.

The question is, is this referring to homosexuality as a form of an expression of love between two males who live in a monogamous relationship together? Or, is this referring to homosexual liaisons between men who basically are not in a committed relationship, but are just being sexually permissive? Or, is our text referring to PRIESTLY, and not to the everyday rank and file Israelite's sexual practices? Or, is the text referring to an inability of a person to control their sexual urges by telling them to "get a hold of your emotions, control your bodily functions?"

Like all indigenous peoples, the Jews were not overly concerned about male homosexuality, where two men lived together in a monogamous, sexual relationship. As a rule, it did not get any notice.

The Talmud does not record a single instance of a person being brought before the Sanhedrin on the charge of homosexual activity.

All Jewish halakhic authorities agree that nowhere in the Torah does Torah prohibit homosexual sexual acts by women.

In the 3rd century CE, the Talmud records that Rabbi Huna (the miracle working rain making Rabbi) tried to legislate against lesbians being able to marry a High Priest, a Cohen, but his colleagues ruled against him (BT Yevamot 76a). They said that it was not permissible to prohibit what the Torah permits.

If the Torah was referring to homosexuality in general, why would it just address only male homosexual activity and not also female homosexual activity?

In March 2000, the 111th Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, representing The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, (Reform), passed a Resolution On Same Gender Officiation whereby they resolved to support a Reform Rabbi that would perform same gender marriage rituals. They also supported the right of Rabbis to choose not to perform same gender marriage rituals.

As a Jewish Flexodox Rebbe, I commend the Reform Rabbis for taking this important step towards full Jewish religious equality in our communities. I pray for the day when the other communities of Jewish thought; Conservative, and Orthodox, also follow suit.

In the San Francisco area, and, I suppose, other areas of intellectual progressive thinking, some Rabbis belonging to the Conservative movement have begun performing same-sex marriages. Rabbis of the Renewal and Flexodox areas of Jewish thought are also performing same-sex unions.

In the following article, I intend to record my reasons for my belief that the two prohibitions in the Torah that have been thought to prohibit homosexuality, do not in all probability do so, despite reams of Rabbis writing in support of the prohibitions.

Rabbi Hayyim Palachi writes that: “, the Torah gave permission to each person to express his opinion according to his understanding, It is not good for a sage to withhold his words out of deference to the sages who preceded him if he finds in their words a clear contradiction, A sage who wishes to write his proofs against the kings and giants of Torah should not withhold his words nor suppress his prophecy, but should give his analysis as he has been guided by Heaven.”

Rabbi Palachi notes that even though Rambam wrote with Divine inspiration, many great sages of his generation criticized his work. There are numerous examples of students refuting their teachers: Rabbi Yehudah ha–Nassi disagreed with his father; Rashba disagreed with Ramban; The Tosafists disagreed with Rashi. Respect for the authorities of the past does not mean that one cannot arrive at an opposing opinion. (See Hikekei Lev, vol. 1, O. H. 6 and Y. D. 42.)

Rabbi Marc Angel (an Orthodox Sephardi Rabbi, and past President of the Union of Sephardi Congregations, and past President of the Modern Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America) writes: “Diversity of opinion is a reality well recognized in Jewish tradition.

The Talmud (Berakhot 58a) records the ruling that one is required to make a blessing upon seeing a huge crowd of Jews, praising God who is Hakham ha–razim, who understands the root and inner thoughts of each individual. “Their thoughts are not alike and their appearances are not alike.” God created each individual to be unique; He expected and wanted diversity of thought.” Seeking Good, Speaking Peace.

Rabbi Hayyim David Halevi, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden both gave their opinions that “a student should question their rabbis’ teachings as best they can. In this way, truth is clarified.” (See Aseh Lekha Rav, 2: 61 and She’elot Ya’avetz, 1: 5)

Rabbi Halevi further quotes Rambam (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 23: 9), who states the principle that En le–dayan ella mah she–enav ro’ot – “A judge has only what his eyes see.” In other words, a judge must base his opinion solely on his own understanding of the case he is considering. No legal precedent obligates him, even if it is a decision of courts greater than he, even of his own teachers.”

In Judaism, we teach that ALL the Torah was given to Moses at Mount Sinai, and that even the most future Responsa of a future Rabbi was included in that Revelation.

We do not change the past teachings arbitrarily, but examine the present needs, look at all the past teachings on the subject, closely inspect the inner–meanings of any textual materials that are relevant to determine if we can deduce a new and “the true” meaning of the texts, and with a prayer towards the concept of unifying the Jewish people so that they last on into the coming generations, we do what needs to be done.

The Torah records the injunction against adding to or taking away from the intention of the Covenant relationship, (Deuteronomy 4: 2 & 13: 1), lest the nature of the Covenant relationship take on different meaning. The Rabbis needing to make sure that every ruling and judgment hang on at least a thread of Torah Law, strive to keep the ruling within Torah halakhah (the way).

In relation to this, let us examine the text of Leviticus 18: 22 “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.” Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is an abomination.

First, on the basis of the teaching in the Sifra, on Leviticus, (Baraitha d'Rabbi Ishmael), "Rabbi Ishmael says: The Torah is interpreted by means of thirteen rules (Rabee Yishmael omer: B'shalosh esrey midoth haTorah nidrasheth)," I am not convinced that the biblical passages (here in Leviticus 18: 22 and also in Leviticus 20: 13) refer to homosexual activity that is within a monogamous, stable, and loving relationship. I am not convinced that the Levitical text is referring to homosexuality at all.

Rabbi Ishmael states as his fourth method of Torah exposition: When a generalization is followed by a specification, only what specifies applies ("Miklal u'frat". The generalization is the text "A man shall not lay with a man, " The specification is the text “, as you would with a woman.” Thus, I am of the opinion, based upon the location of the prohibition within the biblical text and the content of the texts themselves, that the texts have been grossly misunderstood.

I think the texts are really referring to sexual promiscuity, which is the use of others, including relatives, animals, and members of the same sex, to satisfy the animal urges of sexual lust, not sexual activity in a positive modality. The clue is the words “, as you would with a woman” and it’s relationship within texts prohibiting incest, and sex with animals.

It is not the normal homosexual practice for one man to lie with another man as though he were laying with a woman. In fact, if a man was thinking of his sexual partner as though he were a woman, and not a man, it would not be a homosexual relationship, as one of the parties involved is PRETENDING that the person he is laying with is a woman. It is actually a permissive sexual situation where in the first man does not have control over his sexual emotions, but uses others to satisfy his sexual desires. The Torah warns this kind of person that certain types of sexual behavior are not permitted.

Secondly, the Torah begins chapter 18 by having YHVH–God state “I am YHVH your Creator–Force! You are not to follow the practices of Egypt where you lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs.”

What were the "homosexual" practices of the people living in Egypt and in Canaan in the 14th century BCE? The practices being referred to are those of cultic promiscuous sexual behavior.

According to Philo (1st century CE Alexandria, Egyptian Jewish philosopher); "They (the temple priests) would apply themselves to deep drinking of strong liquor and dainty feeding and forbidden forms of intercourse. Not only in their mad lust for WOMEN did they violate the marriage of their neighbors, but also men mounted males, Then, little by little they accustomed those who were by nature men to submit to play the part of women, " (On Abraham, Chapter 26, pages 134-136). This is, again, a substitution of the male body for a female body in male to male sexual activity. It is not homosexuality.

The passage in Genesis 19 that is used to give the nomenclature of sodomy to homosexual sex, (from the 17th or 18th century BCE) actually does not refer to an act of consensual sex or even to homosexual sex at all, but to an act of sexual degradation and male rape, as also does the passage in Judges 19: 22. These are acts of violence that are committed by parties seeking to show their hatred for those they are degrading. It is not an act of love or of caring.

The male prostitutes of I Kings 14: 24, 15: 12, II Kings 23:7 (proscribed in Deuteronomy 23: 18) are described in the Talmud (BT Sanhedrin 54b) as providing homosexual sex. However Targum Onkelos reads the text in a way that shows they provided sex to the FEMALE visitors to the Idolatrous temples. Thus, there is some question in the Targum Onkelos if these male prostitutes were providing homosexual sex or if they were providing heterosexual sex to women.

In any case, the male rapes of Genesis and Judges, and the promiscuous male sexual activity of I & II Kings does not describe monogamous, loving and caring homosexual relationships anymore than the case of Lot’s daughters incest describes monogamous, loving and caring heterosexual relationships.

Now let us look at the internal evidence, the words “toeyvah hee,” translated as "an abomination" or “a disgusting perversion.”

The word toeyvah is used to describe three categories of actions in the Torah as “abominations" or "disgusting perversions.” These are laws around idolatry (as in Deuteronomy 17: 4), laws around the eating of forbidden animal species (as in Deuteronomy 14: 3), and laws around the male sexual prohibitions, (as in Leviticus 18 & 20), which include incestuous relationships, bestiality, and same sex substitution.

I found the word toeyvah (or a form of the word) used over 100 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).

It is used 26 times in the Torah; 2 times in Genesis; 1 time in Exodus; 6 times in Leviticus; 0 times in Numbers; and 17 times in Deuteronomy.

It is in the Major Prophets 57 times. 5 times in 1 & 11 Kings, 3 times in Isaiah, 8 times in Jeremiah, 1 time in Malachi and 41 times in Ezekiel. It is not found at all in the Minor Twelve Prophets.

In the Writings, it is found once in Psalms and 25 times in Proverbs. The rest are scattered in Ezra and II Chronicles.

Now, as to the laws around idolatry, considered a toeyvah in Torah, there are many in the Jewish community that see in the depiction of the Christian Trinity idolatrous views, but they represent a minority opinion. Most Rabbinical halakhists do not see the Christian concept of Trinity as idolatrous.

Even the Mormon–Christian view of God as having a body of flesh and bone does not qualify them as idolaters in the eyes of most halakhic authorities. There are certainly no authorities within mainline Judaism that would consider any of the Christian or Moslem faiths as “a disgusting perversion or abomination.”

The eating of forbidden animal, bird and fish species, as well as eating a kid cooked in it's mother's milk is considered toeyvah in Deuteronomy 14: 4, as well as the eating of blood (forbidden even in the early Jewish–Christian community, see Acts 15: 20 & 29. It was changed in the early Christian community by virtue of a “revelation” from the leadership of the group. Seventh Day Adventists and many other biblically food observant groups would disagree that the Vision of Peter was intended to annul the laws prohibiting the eating of certain meat and fish species. Their opinion is considered the MINORITY OPINION).

However, we Jews do not obligate any other religion to the observance of the Torah laws, which were given specifically to the Jewish people and their descendants, including converts. This is with the possible exception of the seven Noahide Laws, and there is dispute among the halakhic authorities as to which seven laws non-Jews need observe IF they are indeed required to observe any Torah laws at all.

Actually, It is a shame that some unenlightened people use the passage in Leviticus to "prove" homosexuality is wrong, since the rabbis in the gemara (tractate Yevamot) specifically say that that passage refers to an androgynous - not to male-male sex.

Since the rabbis' interpretations are the basis of halakhah, anyone claiming that Judaism is against homosexuality based upon that passage is simply incorrect.

Among Jews, none in the Reform, Renewal or Reconstructionist communities would say of those who do not observe the biblical Kosher laws, that they were doing an act that was “a disgusting perversion,” even if it was an act of eating pork or shellfish. (At least, they would not say it publicly). More of the Jews in the above movements would be likely to refer to the eating of any animal, even a kosher animal as a disgusting perversion, due to their misplaced missionary zeal for vegetarianism.

Our second parashah Kedosheem, includes the verse that the Nazareener Rebbe, Jesus, called “The Second Commandment” (Matthew 22: 39), “You must love your neighbor as yourself, I Am is YHVH (God).” (Leviticus 19: 18b).

If you don’t wish a thing done to you, do not do the same thing to another. It creates karma that is returned to you eventually.

How you judge others is the same measuring stick that becomes the judging stick of yourself. It is easy to judge according to strictness. It is judging with love and leniency that is difficult.

Rabbi Hillel stated it in this manner to a proselyte, “Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to another. This is the whole teaching of the Torah, all the other words are commentary on this verse.”

Rabbi Akiba declared that “’You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ is THE fundamental rule of Torah.”

Rabbi Ben Azzai said that this “Law of Love” is the fundamental rule of the Torah provided that it is lived in conjunction with “This is the Book of the Generations of humanity. In the day that God created humanity, in the likeness of God created God human kind.” (Genesis 5: 1) As all of human kind are created in the intellectual Image of the Divine God, they are entitled to being treated with love and respect.

In fact, verses 34 & 35 (of this same chapter 19) states that “The stranger that resides with you shall not be treated differently than the home-born of your own people. You shall love him as yourself; for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not use a different set of rules to judge him by, nor will you differ in your measurements and weights."

With these verses as our guide, I cannot understand why Jews cannot live with Arabs in Israel; why the so-called "Religious" cannot live with Gays and Lesbians in respect; why Americans cannot live with Central American migrant workers and other “resident aliens” in our midst. Can we not see the rainbow of humanity of which we are a part as One Human Race? Can we not understand that we are part of a rainbow of religious paths that are all a part of the Oneness of God? (Micah 4: 5).

This chapter 19 of Leviticus also forbids us to oppress our neighbor, or to rob him, or to hold his wages past the day he is supposed to be paid, excerpt from "A Heterosexual Jewish Rebbe's View on the (Supposedly) Homosexual Texts in the Hebrew Bible" Written by: Reb Gershon Caudill, the Ecokosher Rebbe[/b]

chinani
Insert Quote
India has a "stable" economy? Shocked

Well that's great. May God Bless Them.

I hope their "stable" economy finds a way to feed the people, end forced prostitution, homelessness & all the rest.

As for the lack of "tribal warfare" it doesn't need any. When you have wealth & power in the hands of the few, the multitude are too busy starving & hustling to survive to have any sort of "warfare". Again, good for them.

[color=#550000]Clearly god doesn't bless any country: a myth that I choose to dispel. What India probably needs most are contraceptives- as well as sex education, but then thats applicable to almost any where, end forced prostitution, sure why not as long as your country takes the lead in ending exploitation, child labour, homelessness, poverty and most importantly the negative impact that the patriarchal religions have on the populace.

Name one country that works on the basis of a Cooperative- when you find one- come back to me on your pointless issue of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Perhaps you should teach America the values of equality, and high standard of living for all including the ghetto, New Orleans and so on, wealth and power can always be taken away from people, [/color]

[b]

Dear Perplexed Zeb,

1 When did I say I was blaming the poor for being poor?

2 My point is that at some point Blame needs to be laid on the doorstep of its rightful owner. As I have stated time and time again: other ex colonies have managed to get their act together: regardless of their countries governmental corruption.

3 I also stated clearly that other countries have helped Africa by sending doctors, making NGO's that help the community ie education, schools etc etc- as I stated before if you don't read a whole document or in this case a post then you're not going to understand and fail quite dramatically.

4 You naively think that because I live in Britain that I have no idea: I have seen for myself the state of different countries such as Gambia, India, and Pakistan: I like to travel. However, you yourself stated in an earlier post that you wish that the G8 and other countries would stop helping Africa: in fact your sentiment is echoed in a few African Tabloids and by a few African Leaders.

5 The Debt is world known, and if I recall it was already halved by joint agreement by the richer nations. To get out of debt is to get government to function properly: as it is- it is an up hill struggle because the mindset and governance is based on Suzerainty. Hence the Problem of Tribal Feuds masquerading as clashes between Christian and Muslim. In fact there are parallels here between the current African Disposition and the Suzerainity of Germany before that country managed to become a whole one.

5a) Even if there were not a debt to pay off- the chances are very high that the present state of affairs in Africa would still be there: namely because of Bad Management.

6 You say all this trade and yet people are broke: that still doesn't give any man or woman the right to abuse others just because at the end of the day: there is not a strong government, there is not a good driving leadership to get out of the rut- it effects the people: your own citizens say "oh we cannot do this, or do that here- this is Africa - not the UK, or America."

7 Zeb I guess if you say something often enough - eventually the lie becomes a false truth - lets practice this: Repeat after me "there are no gays and lesbians in Africa, there is no AIDS, there are no AIDS villages, there are no Tribal Feuds, Nigeria IS a rich and healthy and happy country, there are no 419ers, there are no rapes, it is a model of excellence and the judeo christian god jointly blesses Africa with the Islamic god: it is Utopia, "

8 Regarding the Farmers: the only way to get out of a vicious circle is by breaking the cycle and that leads back to Management: government. I agree that the whole set up is unfair, but then it is not unprecedented for the poorer countries to say NO- look at the last WTO meeting where China and other countries said no to the manipulation from the richer countries, If South Africa can stand on it's feet and strongly play in the International Arena despite its domestic problems - why can't other African countries?

I simply don't see any excuses.

9 Back to the original topic: just because there is poverty doesn't give any one the right to use or play on anothers vulnerability to get from A to B. I have talked with many Nigerians, and Ghanians and Gambians regarding their approach to life: they claim that the richer countries owe them - because of colonialism. They bracket not just the whites who live in the West but also the Blacks. In fact- I have had a few people say t me that even if someone is conning another person and you know they are conning them; it's ok because 'you should help a brother" - right, so lets just allow everyone to get away with crimes. Everyone is fair game for targeting. Apparently everyone else is to blame for the hardship in Africa except, Africans in Africa, how cosy and comfortable a spiel to spin. So in a nutshell it's all about Pay Back.

I find Pay Back tends to be a Bitch, and she and I are on a first name basis.

10 They justify the monetary and love scams because of this 'debt'. I find it ironic that we (the west) are enabling internet fraud even more so by equipping people with computers and training people to use them - which is a similar way as to how Osama managed to bite the hand that fed him, however I digress,

11 I agree that Africa's problems are deep- the chord that binds it together is Religion: Islam, Christianity and sandwhiched in between the two is the Tribal Clan and all that goes with it. However- none of Africas problems justifies the colourful internet scams in their myriad forms.

[/b]

HOW WOULD U FEEL MIZIEYA IF U DO ALL THIS AND STILL BE REFUSED A VISA

[b]I was asked a similar question by someone who asked me how would I feel if another country bombed the UK killing everyone: my reply was: Death is the least of my fearscapes- you are free to read into that as much as you will. A visa application is no different from applying for a job. One either gets it or one doesn't. Just because you fail in getting a visa this time around doesn't mean that it's the end of the world. There are opportunities for you to try again. If you want something that badly- you simply don't give up.

Basically as I opined earlier: if you think that the home office and every university in every country should give you a free pass - then you are incredibly naive.

The Blame Game doesn't cut it with me.

As I have opined quite clearly,if you don't meet the requirements of the visa standards then clearly you have missed something- my advice go through the checklist that the rejection letter put forward and try again next time.

If you're that concerned regarding the monies of the fees and where its going: do some research and check it out: like all administration costs- it generally comes from the Jane and Jon Doe Public Personal Pocket Fund. However if you have no qualms donating money to christian charities then you shouldn't have any problems paying an entry fee into a foreign land in order to get your application processed.

When I visited Gambia - I had to pay some kind of fee, if I visit Nigeria there is a visa fee to be paid- do you hear anyone complainng about it? Nope.

The home office and University are not working in partnership- they are two (2) seperate insitutions. Regardless of where you apply in any country in any land you will have to pay tuition fees. If it means travelling abroad to enter university then you will have to pay for a visa regardless of whether you are turned down or accepted.

Bear in mind not every country requires a visa for entry,

It costs £50 to get a passport and £50 for a visa in Nigeria- in fact if you look at the Home office requirements the visa and passport fee is based upon each individual countries currency which regarding Nigeria and the rest of the African continent works out cheaper to do so there than it does in the UK- the UK charges £90 - it may be £100- your point?

You say make it a lottery: well by all accounts it aleady is,

I agree that the system is unfair but I also agree that it is necessary.

[/b]

[b][color=#770077][font=Lucida Sans Unicode]Zeb, thanks for the rant. By the way, I only watch intellectual movies such as The Disputation (director Geoffrey Sax), Tied up in Tallin (director Edith Sepp), Anchoress (director Chris Newby), or classics such as, The Tempest (director D. Jarman), or The Corn Is Green (George Cukor),

I refer you to India and Pakistan- ex colonies and models of near excellence.- a working economy. No tribal feuds, nucleur capability, competitors in world trading.

A movie is a movie: for every Martha Stewart in the world, there's always a counterpart - your point? It's already been established that not one country is pure as the driven snow.

Yes there are international scammers abroad- Russian Brides springs to mind, Not only does Britain (my country) have Alqaida to contend with, but also Nigerian men using the UK as a base of SCAM operations. A case was documented in the BBC in Wales regarding a Nigerian doing a scam as he was trying to get to Ireland where his wife was: I believe he's being detained with the view to deportation. Suffice it to say this is not unique to Wales or the rest of Britain or the rest of Europe or indeed America.

Clearly you're making excuses for your countrymen: whereas I am not. Purely because none of my country men need a visa to get from A to B at anothers expense - don't get me wrong- the illustrious Pakistan and India are also notorious for the same thing similarly Saudi Arabia and so on. But- they aren't in denial about it.

The G8: You said that you wish the G8 would stop giving loans: I believe that basically developing countries should be in the driving seat of their own development and not dependent upon others or at the very least work in real partnership/collaboration which is actually hapening with Pakistan and China and some African countries like South Africa: Here is an article you should read:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/oda/2004/1107sachs.htm

Also check out the new scientist in regards to international collaborations with Africa.

now my wife want me to help pay the bill, this, I don't support at all because I have never done this in my life, how can I pay for what somebody else enjoyed,

Shakes head.

Since when has the act of abortion [/b]been 'fun"?

You need to think why your relative had an abortion in the first place - it is not the easiest decision or act for a woman to do,

If you're hesitant in helping a relative (regardless of how close or distant you are emotionally) how hesitant would you be if your wife, kids, friends needed help? You should hope that when you are in dire need that no one hesitates to help you.

The Threefold Law: what comes around goes around.

<disappears in a puff of smoke>