I am reading a book about the Holocaust. Over the years I have tried to study about the Holocaust in spurts, but after reading a series of ten books dedicated to the Wars first World War II. This is when I became fascinated with the events that occurred during the Holocaust. Anyway, let me give you a small happening of what has happened to dear Livia over time.
1. School shut down weeks before she was to graduate.
2. Forced to wear a star of humiliation on her in her city in Hungary.
3. All valuable possessions taken away, including her brand new bike.
4. Forbidden to speak to Christians, look at Christians, or have any affiliations with Christians.
5. Told they had to stay in their homes.
6. Told they were going to be taken to a new location and could bring furniture and possessions that they still had.
7. After hauling possessions to new location, they watched their things burn in a large pile.
8. They lived in a new location provided with meager foods, and they were still under control of the Hungarian government.
9. They said they were going to a new place, only could bring a bag with food.
10. They said to pile up all their things and they would get them when they got back. Things included, journals, valuable documents, marriage birth certificates.
11. After everyone handed these over, they lit them on fire.
12. 85 people were crammed into a small train car. For four days. No light. No bathroom. No shower. Very little food.
13. They arrived to Auschwitz.
14. Livia was with her aunt, mother, and brother. Her dad had been taken from them before they left Hungary.
15. The German guard separated all of them. But kept Livia with her mother. She thanks God for every small blessing throughout this.
16. They are told to strip naked.
17. Livia is whipped in the face for no reason.
Here is an excerpt from the book.
'I look at Mommy. She nods. "Let's get undressed." I stare directly ahead as I take off my clothes. I am afraid. By not looking at anyone I hope no one will see me. I have never seen my mother in the nude. How awful it must be for her.'
Another:
'We are lined up, and several young women in gray dresses start shaving our hair--on our heads, under our arms, everywhere. My long, thick braids remain attached while the shaving machine shears my scalp. The pain of the heavy braid tugging mercilessly at the yet unshaven roots brings tears to my eyes.'
Another:
The epithet "blode Lumpen," idiotic whores, is now downgraded to "blode Schweine," idiotic swine. more despicable. And it is upgraded only occasionally to "blode Hunde," idiotic dogs.
Another:
The strange creatures we saw as we entered the camp, the shaven, gray cloaked bunch who ran to the barbed-wire fence to stare at us, we are them! We look exactly like them. Same bodies, same dresses, same blank stares. They, too, must have arrived from home recently. They too were ripe women and young girls, bewildered and bruised. They too longed for dignity and compassion. And they too were transformed into figures of contempt instead.
I'm not sure I want to know what else happened at these camps. I mean I have heard the things, seen pictures. But I am not sure I want to attach myself to one of the people there and become part of their story and their life. This will create an undefinable passion for this thing they call the Holocaust.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Today My passion is..food
I want someone to create a food that is so good. Can be compared with a dinner of a Medium Rare (i used to like rare, but some people cook it WAY to rare, so I changed to MR, unless my brother Shad is cooking it..then im happy with rare) Steak and Potatoes mashed with the peels on and with gravy from scratch, and cooked carrots with bulls-eye sauce. Those of you who are unfamiliar with bulls-eye. It is a barb-o-que sauce. Anyway someone create this food that does not need to be heated up, kept cool, and can be carried in a backpack and take a rough atmosphere. Also it needs to be smell free, so it can be eaten in class. Also, it needs to be noise free as not to distract the person who really is trying to listen next to me. It needs to be fulfilling, not like the vending extravaganza of a line up of ten vending machines. Those of you who dont attend BYU.................it happens. And it probably needs to contain caffeine. Due to BYU not having it on campus. JK i hate caffeine. Really..it keeps me awake at night. Oh..somebody just invent it, because Im starving. And this 2 and a half hour class is way too long. I left my cookie on the counter. At home. Im at school.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Abortion
I guess I can start this thing simple or dive right in. My absolute absolute passion is abortion. Pro-Abortion rights people. No comment. I feel like this is something only Elder Oaks can address.
Dallin H. Oaks was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this
devotional address was given at BYU on 9 February 1999. (PS. he still is a member of the 12)
On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.
My young brothers and sisters, in today's world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape--the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand--are involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences (see Russell M. Nelson, "Reverence for Life," Ensign, May 1985, pp. 11–14). Using arguments of "choice" to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called "the weightier matters of the law."
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Just last week I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to, but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of, or the threat to the woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
The woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else's irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine--life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
----THanks Elder Oaks.
Dallin H. Oaks was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this
devotional address was given at BYU on 9 February 1999. (PS. he still is a member of the 12)
On this subject our prophetic guidance is clear. The Lord commanded, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Our members are taught that, subject only to some very rare exceptions, they must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. That direction tells us what we need to do on the weightier matters of the law, the choices that will move us toward eternal life.
My young brothers and sisters, in today's world we are not true to our teachings if we are merely pro-choice. We must stand up for the right choice. Those who persist in refusing to think beyond slogans and sound bites like pro-choice wander from the goals they pretend to espouse and wind up giving their support to results they might not support if those results were presented without disguise.
For example, consider the uses some have made of the possible exceptions to our firm teachings against abortion. Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Because abortion is a most serious matter, we are counseled that it should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.
Some Latter-day Saints say they deplore abortion, but they give these exceptional circumstances as a basis for their pro-choice position that the law should allow abortion on demand in all circumstances. Such persons should face the reality that the circumstances described in these three exceptions are extremely rare. For example, conception by incest or rape--the circumstance most commonly cited by those who use exceptions to argue for abortion on demand--are involved in only a tiny minority of abortions. More than 95 percent of the millions of abortions performed each year extinguish the life of a fetus conceived by consensual relations. Thus the effect in over 95 percent of abortions is not to vindicate choice but to avoid its consequences (see Russell M. Nelson, "Reverence for Life," Ensign, May 1985, pp. 11–14). Using arguments of "choice" to try to justify altering the consequences of choice is a classic case of omitting what the Savior called "the weightier matters of the law."
A prominent basis for the secular or philosophical arguments for abortion on demand is the argument that a woman should have control over her own body. Just last week I received a letter from a thoughtful Latter-day Saint outside the United States who analyzed that argument in secular terms. Since his analysis reaches the same conclusion I have urged on religious grounds, I quote it here for the benefit of those most subject to persuasion on this basis:
Every woman has, within the limits of nature, the right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Every woman has, at the same time, the responsibility for the way she uses her body. If by her choice she behaves in such a way that a human fetus is conceived, she has not only the right to, but also the responsibility for that fetus. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, she is not justified in ending it with the claim that it interferes with her right to choose. She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.
What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of, or the threat to the woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero.
The woman's right to choose what will or will not happen to her body is obviously violated by rape or incest. When conception results in such a case, the woman has the moral as well as the legal right to an abortion because the condition of pregnancy is the result of someone else's irresponsibility, not hers. She does not have to take responsibility for it. To force her by law to carry the fetus to term would be a further violation of her right. She also has the right to refuse an abortion. This would give her the right to the fetus and also the responsibility for it. She could later relinquish this right and this responsibility through the process of placing the baby for adoption after it is born. Whichever way is a responsible choice.
The man who wrote those words also applied the same reasoning to the other exceptions allowed by our doctrine--life of the mother and a baby that will not survive birth.
I conclude this discussion of choice with two more short points.
If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?
----THanks Elder Oaks.
My start on something new.
I have wanted to do a 'passion' blog for a long time. Not only to post my passions, but other people's passions that I am fascinated by as well. Pictures may or may not be necessary in this blog. So if you are a 'oh I read blogs for the pictures' Im sorry, this is not going to be that way. Also, if you are reading this blog..consider yourself smart. To have made it past the fourth line of words. Ps. Whats your passion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
