Gays and Soccer
Two weeks after U.S. Soccer announced that both their men’s and women’s national teams will be wearing rainbow-colored jerseys in support of gay pride in June, Christian soccer player Jaelene Hinkle has withdrawn herself from the U.S. roster for two international friendlies this month, citing “personal reasons.”
A release from U.S. Soccer said Hinkle, 24, who is a defender for the North Carolina Courage, was called into the national camp to play international friendlies against Sweden and Norway this month. She was not replaced on the roster after her withdrawal.
It is unclear if U.S. Soccer’s celebration of gay pride this month is related to Hinkle’s withdrawal but she wears her faith proudly on social media.
First, it is a very good bet that she did withdraw because of the ‘gay pride jersey’ thing, but that she cannot explicitly say so without losing her chances of playing again, hence the compromise between her and the soccer team. It’s like a politician who suddenly withdraws from a political race because he wants to ‘spend more time with his family’; we all know it’s a cheap excuse, but we go along with it anyway.
Second, while I understand her reason for withdrawal rather than offensively fighting this requirement, one wonders whether it would have been an even more powerful statement to refuse to withdraw from the team but also refuse to wear the pro-homosexual jersey, and then force the team to act against your religious “freedom”, thereby once again exposing their hypocrisy.
Third, this incident is yet another affirmation of the fact that the homosexual movement is not about tolerance, but about forcing you to accept their agenda, and having sports teams, etc. wear their colors is just one propaganda tool to make this happen. The funny thing is that I do not even fault this particular cultural group for doing this; they are merely doing what a group that is culturally ascendant and powerful would normally do: namely, asserting their influence and taking ground wherever they can. But we need to realize this for what it is.
Fourth, Christians need to realize that more of this is coming. These are the equivalent of ‘shit tests’, even if they are done unintentionally; indeed, they are meant to help distinguish those who will just roll-over when confronted with the homosexual agenda and those who will fight it. And if you are planning to fight it, then you best be ready to do so and accept the consequences that will come with doing so.
It’s About Power
Two gay men were denied entry into a gay pride parade in Charlotte, N.C., simply because they support President Donald Trump.
The group hosting the parade, Charlotte Pride, rejected a request from Brian Talbert and one of his gay friends for a float at the event …Talbert, a leader of the group known as “Gays for Trump,” found out via email May 16 that his float application was denied…
Charlotte Pride, an organization that boasts “inclusive” and “dynamic” values, released a statement affirming their right to deny participation in the event.
In light of his rejection, Talbert questioned the pride group’s commitment to tolerance.
“For a group of people to claim to want tolerance, acceptance, and give it to every single person you can imagine to give it to, for them to sit back and judge me for exercising my right as an American to choose my leader without judgment is hypocritical,” he said.
Of course it’s hypocritical and lacking in “tolerance”. But that is, once again, because the issue is about power and maintaining the narrative, not about tolerance or consistency. And once you realize that fact, then all the actions that the Left takes make perfect sense.
Looking More and More LIke a Person
It is dark in the womb—but not that dark. Human flesh isn’t fully opaque, so some measure of light will always pass through it. This means that even an enclosed space like a uterus can be surprisingly bright. … But what exactly do fetuses see? And how do they react to those images? To find out, Reid shone patterns of red dots into the wombs of women in the third trimester of their pregnancies, and monitored the babies within using high-definition ultrasound. By looking at how the babies turned around, Reid showed that they have a preference for dots arranged in a face-like pattern—just as newborn infants do.
“This is the first time that anyone’s been able to deliver an image to a fetus,” Reid says. And it will finally allow scientists to study the mental abilities of humans at the earliest possible stage of our development—before we are even born.
First, he and his colleagues created a mathematical model that would predict how light would pass through a mother’s tissues, and what different images would look like to a fetus. Next, they used their model to calibrate two images—an upright triangle of red dots, and an inverted one. They shone these patterns into the bellies of 39 pregnant women, and then slowly moved the lights to the side. And using ultrasound, they could see that the fetuses would turn their heads.
They didn’t always do so, though. They were more than twice as likely to track the movement of the upright face-like triangle than the inverted one—exactly the same pattern you find in newborn babies. “This tells us that the fetus isn’t a passive processor of environmental information,” says Reid. “It’s an active responder.”
It also confirms that the preference for faces isn’t the result of experiences that happen after birth. …The preference already exists in utero.
Between 20 and 24 weeks into gestation, a fetus is upright in the womb, and its eyelids unfuse. It can then see, and what it sees depends on how light is bent, distorted, or blocked by the mothers’ body on its way into the uterus. Perhaps, Reid suggests, those patterns of light could influence the development of the fetus’s eye and brain, making the upper half of visual field more sensitive. That would create a bias towards top-heavy, face-like shapes.
“This is just a conjecture,” he admits, but one that he’s finally in a position to test. His team is now checking if fetuses share other infant biases, like a fondness for biological motion—movements that resemble those of living things. He also wants to know if they have a number sense, and can tell the difference varying quantities of dots. “If we can show that they do, we’re talking about fetal cognition, which is a whole new ballgame for developmental science,” he says.
First, skepticism of these experiments is always warranted, so that needs to be mentioned. However, if this pans out, then to me, this all sounds like the baby in the womb at that stage of development is a budding person, not just a human being (and I make that distinction for rhetoric effect, not because I necessarily think that it holds any importance when it comes to abortion). This is a person who has cognition, can make distinctions, and can think.
Now, in terms of the abortion debate, the fact is that as science progresses, it makes the pro-life argument stronger and stronger, not weaker. And my prediction is that in the future, it will be discoveries like this which we add substantial weight to the pro-life side. However, will that matter to the abortion debate? Most likely not, because abortion, ultimately, is not about the science or the facts, it is about convenience, and if the science and the facts are inconvenient, then they will be aborted just as fast as the baby is.