Monday, January 23, 2012

Facebook doesn't want Americans to see abortion...

At the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, there are many photographs such as this one documenting the brutality of the Nazi regime and its use of excessive violence against the Jewish People and others who were deemed "unfit" by the National Socialists.  The USHHM describes itself as, "A living memorial to the Holocaust" which "inspires citizens and leaders worldwide to confront hatred, prevent genocide, and promote human dignity."

Yesterday, on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, while President Barack Obama was hailing the day and telling the news media that he remains "committed to protecting a woman's right to choose," I posted a photograph of an aborted baby on Facebook.  The photograph was almost immediately removed by Facebook and I received this notice:

"One of Your Photos Was Removed. One of your photos was recently removed because it was found to violate Facebook policies. As a reminder, the following types of photos are not permitted:


* Content that is pornographic or contains nudity, or is inappropriately sexual

* Attacks on an individual or a group of people

* Depictions of self harm, excessive violence or drug use

Please keep this in mind before uploading new photos."


The message is clear: Facebook doesn't want Americans to see what an abortion really is. It's socially acceptable to kill a child in the womb. But Facebook doesn't consider it socially acceptable for another person to show the result of an abortion through a photograph.  Facebook knows that Father Frank Pavone is right when he says that, "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion."  And they are obviously intent on ensuring that Americans will not see the result of an abortion on Facebook.  At least Facebook freely acknowledges that President Obama supports what amounts to "excessive violence."

As this article explains, "Once they succeeded in ending democracy and turning Germany into a one-party dictatorship, the Nazis orchestrated a massive propaganda campaign to win the loyalty and cooperation of Germans. The Nazi Propaganda Ministry, directed by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, took control of all forms of communication in Germany: newspapers, magazines, books, public meetings, and rallies, art, music, movies, and radio. Viewpoints in any way threatening to Nazi beliefs or to the regime were censored or eliminated from all media.


During the spring of 1933, Nazi student organizations, professors, and librarians made up long lists of books they thought should not be read by Germans. Then, on the night of May 10, 1933, Nazis raided libraries and bookstores across Germany. They marched by torchlight in nighttime parades, sang chants, and threw books into huge bonfires. On that night more than 25,000 books were burned. Some were works of Jewish writers, including Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud. Most of the books were by non-Jewish writers, including such famous Americans as Jack London, Ernest Hemingway, and Sinclair Lewis, whose ideas the Nazis viewed as different from their own and therefore not to be read.

The Nazi censors also burned the books of Helen Keller, who had overcome her deafness and blindness to become a respected writer; told of the book burnings, she responded: "Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas." Hundreds of thousands of people in the United States protested the book burnings, a clear violation of freedom of speech, in public rallies in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.

Schools also played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas. While some books were removed from classrooms by censors, other textbooks, newly written, were brought in to teach students blind obedience to the party, love for Hitler, and antisemitism. After-school meetings of the Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls trained children to be faithful to the Nazi party. In school and out, young people celebrated such occasions as Adolf Hitler's birthday and the anniversary of his taking power." 

Today, censorship is beginning to be used against Christians to silence moral opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Today's censors do not have to gather up thousands of books, march by torchlight in nighttme parades and throw books into huge bonfires. They have merely to strike a few keys from the comfort of their offices.  And this at a time some university campuses are attempting to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality.  See here.

The USDOJ and Christianophobia: See here.

3 comments:

ACatholicinClinton said...

There are attempts everywhere now in the U.S. to censor Christians. In Fitchburg, some City Councilors wanted to silence Christians who were opposing Planned Parenthood coming to the city.

Such people do not believe in fairness and will do all that thye can to squash the Christian viewpoint.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

A student from Clark University just left a comment this morning asserting that, "The fact of the matter is that religious opposition toward homosexuality is problematic and deserves to be demonized because it is the source of a lot of hate and crime."

This neatly summarizes the attitude at Clark University and on many campuses. It is nothing short of Christianophobic hate.

Censorship of Christians is a growing problem because of this Christianophobia.

Elizabeth said...

MANASSAS, VA, September 21, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study has found that Google and other major social media sites such as Facebook have “actively” censored Christian and conservative viewpoints.

The report, conducted by National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and the American Center for Law and Justice, examined the policies and practices of several major Internet-interactive “new media” communications platforms and service providers, including Apple and its iTunes App Store, Facebook, Google, and others.


Many of the top social media sites have been found to be "actively" censoring Christian viewpoints.The study found that some of the new media technology companies have outright banned Christian content, and that all social media sites, except Twitter, have speech policies more restrictive than the free speech rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.

According to the study, seven of the major social media sites have banned “hate speech,” a term that the study authors point out “is often applied in the culture to stifle Christian communicators.”

The study authors also found that some of the media companies have been responsive to demands by pressure groups calling for censorship of conservative or Christian viewpoints.

The study notes that when Google established new guidelines for its “Google for Non-Profits” in March 2011, it refused to list “churches and other faith groups” that consider “religion or sexual orientation in hiring practices.” Christian churches that have applied for the suite of Google tools geared at non-profits have been rejected.

On another occasion the world’s most powerful search engine initially prohibited the British Christian Institute from purchasing space for an advertisement about abortion. It was only after the Christian Institute sued Google that the search engine permitted the ad.

Apple has twice removed applications that contained Christian content from its iTunes App Store, the study documented. In both instances, Apple admitted that these apps were denied access because it considered the Christian viewpoints expressed in those applications to be “offensive.”

“Of the 425,000 apps available on Apple’s iPhone, the only ones censored by Apple for expressing otherwise lawful viewpoints have been apps with Christian content,” observes the study.

For its part, Facebook has openly partnered with homosexual activists to “eradicate anti-gay comments on its platform,” the report found. “All of which suggest that Christian content critical of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or similar practices will be at risk of censorship [by Facebook]” says the study. In fact, in some cases such content already has been removed by the social networking site.

Myspace, another social networking site similar to but less popular than Facebook, also has a policy banning “homophobic” content.

Site Meter