Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Eric Ohena Lembembe’s Death: Huffington Post Misplaced Priority.

This article is in reply to Robbie Corey-Boulet's article entitled "Eric Ohena Lembembe, Gay Rights Activist, Tortured And Killed", published 07/16/13 on Huffington Post Gay Voices. It is mind boggling how the author of this post considers this a topic of priority when the continent is being ravaged by poverty, poor governance, diseases like HIV and malaria, child trafficking, and unemployment. How would Americans feel for any journalist to be advocating lawlessness in their country? Why then does America want every country to do it? Aren’t there other priorities? If we are free to love who we want, why do people then make a deal when a father is loving his daughter or a mother is loving her son? Why shouldn’t a sister love and marry her brother or a brother love and marry his sister? Aren’t they pushed by instinct and innate urges that they have no control over? Notwithstanding, Africans are very private with their sex lives unlike westerners who have this compulsive behavior to tell it all for fame or financial gains. So, it will be difficultly to know who is gay and who is not. It is not a closet or market thing. Even heterosexuals do not go about telling people who they sleep with. It is probable that gay activists killed Mr. Lembembe to promote their homosexual agenda in Cameroon as they could use it as a bargaining point to mount pressure on the government to do more. 
Homosexuality is against the law in Cameroon punishable by between six months to five years imprisonment just like polygamy is punishable in the US. Why is there an alarm that some countries have laws against homosexuality? If the author was so concerned about human life and the rights of individuals, he should have looked into the reasons why Zimmerman was acquitted after killing an unarmed black kid. He should go down to the prison and see why African Americans make 90% of the prison population despite being 23% of the general population. He should go to the courts and find out why the color people receive more traffic citations in predominantly white neighborhoods. That is a priority in his own backyard!
I do regret the death of Mr Lembembe, and I don't believe anyone should be punished or killed for marrying whoever they want. I prefer humans to allow God to be the judge on the final day. However, I don’t believe Mr Lembembe was killed by the government or homophobic goons. Furthermore, there is no proof that he was killed because he was gay. Mr. Lembembe could have died of natural causes which are the same ills killing the majority of the people. The need to make everyone gay is why 90% of the asylum cases as gay cases are bogus. More so, Africans do not feel suspicious seeing two men in bed or two women in bed. We walked as two men, slept in the same bed as two men, and danced as two men without having the thought of homosexuality crossing out minds. I am from Cameroon and I know that the government can kill dissidents and the populace can apply jungle justice on those accused of witchcraft. Therefore, I do not believe that Mr. Lembembe was killed because he is gay.
As you heard Ghoshal say that the conclusion that he is killed by homophobic individuals is mere speculation. A more sustain cause of his death could come from some character weakness. Considering that homosexuals are very intolerant people, Mr. Lembembe had made many enemies that could actually cost him his life too. When they say that, "As far as they know he didn't have any other disputes, relationship disputes or money matters, so they attribute this to a likely homophobic killing,” they are saying that they slept with him and lived with him. Even when two people live together, one can still have a dark side without the other knowing. Therefore, the speculation is wrong! 
Although homosexuality has been part of the human family, it was not in creation neither was it an  acceptable behavior. The argument that homosexuality should be encouraged because it is protecting and promoting human rights is unsustainable because it is not everything that should be given to humans. There are certain times when human rights are denied and rightfully so. It is uncertain why people think that Eric Lembembe Ohena is a copycat syndrome fatality. Homosexuals should not be given the right to adopt children, and they should not be given the right to take into their homosexual homes children from their heterosexual marriages because their lifestyle does not endorse the means through which the children were born.  Homosexuality is a very strange concept in Africa and will be for a long time. If we are talking of human rights, then we must accept that African governments have the right to determine what lifestyle they want their governments to adopt. While most African governments accept polygamy as a form of matrimony, the West has ligated itself to monogamy with side dishes of polyamory, swinging and bestiality. However, the Africans do not tell them or try to impose on them to be their copycats. The westerners themselves are of age to select the matrimony they want. Before the advent of slavery or colonialism, the Africans were very well organized democratically and vested in problem solving skills that they do not need Western aid to figure out how their society should function. 
I always hear that what two adults do in their bedrooms is no one’s business. In December 4, 2003, in Germany, the world was alarmed to hear that Armin Meiwes agreed to kill and eat Bernd Juergen Brandes. Jurgen Brandes wanted to be eaten. This is a bedroom negotiation by two friends who were internet lovers. After eating the penis of Juergen, Meiwes decided to just eat his friend after exsanguination. Simply because it is a negotiation by two adults in their bedrooms does not make it right. Shouldn’t it be no one’s business that Meiwes ate Jurguen?
Another argument I hear constantly is that what an individual does with his life is none of our business. That too is preposterous! Just this year, on the first of this month, in Surprise, Arizona, the police fatally shot 52-year-old Joel Byne who was trying to kill himself. Why did they even had to bother seeing that he was trying to kill but himself? It is simple, the life he was trying to take does not belong to him. Simply because we bought and built a home, we cannot just burn it down without facing charges because we built it. The cock that crows may belong to a household, but it crows belong to the community.
The above anecdotes discredit the notion that what two consenting adults do in their bedrooms or what a man does with his life is no one’s business. That is why we are a community. The laws of the society are there to check and balance the excesses of certain people who are allergic to abiding to community rules. As such, Mr. Lembembe cannot just do anything he wants in Cameroon, talk less of permeating sodomy in the name of human rights. Corey-Boulet too has many priorities to fight for than fighting for a lost cause. Perhaps Africans do not want homosexuality; they have enough of evil already sapping godliness from the continent that they cannot afford to add another!
Until then, Corey-Boulet and the Americans should seek to find out where African priorities are right now. 
St Arrey of Ntenako.

Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk). Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk). "It is not how well you know a person; it is how well you treat them that they will live longer and happier with you." Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Are you A Homophobe?

Initially, I wanted to retort back by asking what type of stupid question is this, but I remembered, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (I Pet 3:15). It is certain that most people especially the homosexuals are misusing the terms homophobia and homophobe. Many people speak with a lot of nescience when the issue of homosexuality comes up. If you said you do not believe in homosexuality, they will say you are a hater or homophobe. Some will say that you are showing homophobic tendencies. Those arguments will mean that if someone said he does not like your shoes, then that individual is a homophobe. He or she hates or fears humans because he does not like your shoes. Do you see the fallacy in such logic?
The word "homophobic" is a total malapropism in relation to people who do not adhere to sodomy. Not being in favor of a philosophy does not mean that you hate the philosophers or the exponents thereof. While I do not share the apology for homosexuality, I still think it is the right of the individual to live as they want.  Notwithstanding, I will not be cowed to kowtow to godlessness just to be politically correct.
The word homophobia is defined as “Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.” If two ladies went to the store and one of them saw a pair of shoes. Her friend insisted for her to buy the pair of shoes, but she replies, “I don’t like it!” Does it mean that she hates the shoe, or does it even mean that she has contempt for her friend buying the shoes? No, the shoes are just not her preference. It does not mean she hates or has contempt for them; it is the same thing with homosexuality.  Simply because an individual said that he or she does not like the lifestyle does not mean that he/she hates them or has contempt. It simply means that it is not their preference.  
Another example will be movies. A friend of mine told me that he does not like action movies but likes scary movies, and I told him I do not like scary movies, but I like action movies. It neither means that he hates those of us who watch action movies nor that I hate those who watch scary movies since we are friends.  Just because someone has a preference over what you like does not entail hatred for your pacifier or even you.
When you get angry because they do not like what you like, you are actually the one trying to impose your lifestyle on others. Thus, we can rightly say that the homosexuals are the ones trying to impose their lifestyle on others because they demonize anyone and everyone who says he does not like their lifestyle. Just as they have their preference, other people too have theirs.
I was asking some children what they will like to become in future. One of them said a swimmer, but her friend said she will like to be a scientist. According to the logic that most people apply when homosexuality is concerned, it means that the student who wants to be a swimmer is a homophobe because she hates scientists. It means she is showing homophobic tendencies towards the scientists.
Therefore, note that simply because someone says he does not practice or believe in homosexuality does not mean he hates gays and lesbians. That is very preposterous and fallacious!

Until then, I don’t believe in homosexuality, but I am not a homophobe.

St Arrey of Ntenako

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk). Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk). "It is not how well you know a person; it is how well you treat them that they will live longer and happier with you." Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Sunday, July 14, 2013

George Zimmerman: The Facade of American Justice.

On February 26, 2012, a white neighborhood watchman called George Zimmerman profiled a 17 year old unarmed black teenager called Trayvon Martin and killed him with sniper precision  by shooting straight into his heart with one fatal shot.  Except in the eyes of white America, the world knew he was guilty. I have heard some people compare this case to O.J. Simpson’s acquittal. In OJ’s case, the evidence was circumstantial. Nobody saw him killing his wife and friend, and nothing was caught on him as the murder weapon; whereas, in Zimmerman’s case, he was standing right there on the body, and he still had his gun with him. Therefore, although I am unsurprised that Zimmerman is found not guilty, but my body horripilated immediately yesterday. What this verdict means is that any white man can pick a gun, profile a black man, kill him, bang his head on the wall and then cry “self-defense” and “stand your ground”.
There were two things the jury was to consider before convicting or acquitting Zimmerman of manslaughter: Is Trayvon Martin dead, and Did Zimmerman intentionally shoot him or did things that caused his death? To everyone except the jurors and white America, it is clear. Trayvon Martin is dead, and Zimmerman profiled him, followed him even when asked by the police to desist from following him, and he harbored malice as exhibited in his descriptive diction of the defunct Martin.
Even in the case of “self-defense” and “stand your ground”, one would expect the defense used to be proportionate to the threat. In Zimmerman versus Trayvon, the self-defense outweighed the threat because Trayvon Martin was unarmed, smaller in stature and attempted to flee away from the his profiler. Meanwhile, Zimmerman was armed, bigger and had trained in MMA fighting style. Moreover, he left his car and pursued the fleeing teenager purposefully to shoot him dead.  In the words of    Stevie Johnson – "Damn, Plaxico Burress shot HIMSELF and got 2 years! This dude shot and killed another. Yet, he's going home to his sleep number mattress." That is not as egregious as the African American- Melissa Alexander's case.
In 2010, Melissas Alexander whose husband had been abusing her, fired a warning shot into the ceiling to deter his advancing threat. She invoked the same laws covering “self-defense” and the “stand your ground”, but a jury found her guilty and ditched her a 20 year prison sentence. In the Burress and Alexander cases, there is no judicial wizard to show that racism has been in their conviction. If the same stand your grounds could not work for someone who did not kill and did not shoot anyone, why should it work for someone who actually killed an unarmed child? The message is clear: racism and injustice bedevil the American society and judiciary system. In such comedy of farce and in unison, they sing how the American Judicial system is the best. Uncle Sam does not know he is naked!
One procedure teachers have always used to determine the agent provocateur of a

Wednesday, July 3, 2013


Should these pastors who got their status by asylum and other cooked means confess to the immigration? This question always comes up in our forums and Facebook with people asking whether pastors who lied to the United States government that they were being pursued just to file for asylum should give back their papers. This is the factual background. There are many pastors from Cameroon and Africa as a whole who came to the US and filed asylum that their countries were pursuing them. Some claimed that because of their religious views, their lives were in jeopardy. Others even got into marriage for hire, generally called Doki marriage. They marry a woman or man for papers then later they abscond while other times, it is strictly business. You have many of these pastors in DC and Dallas areas who filed for asylum under false pretexts. They know that no one was pursing them, and they know that they never fought for any human rights. Some of them filed that they were gays even though they are married with children. Some of them came through foreign missions as one of their workers and when they reached here, they absquatulated and founded their own ministries. Others traveled with the passports of their relatives.
Today the same pastors are leading churches and others are preaching in the US. Although some are no more in the ministry, they are working with the papers they acquired from the tales they fabricated. Many Christians wonder if they should confess and forsake or what is the conduit for them to carry? The question and complaint I overheard is shouldn’t they repent of their sins. If they repent, should they then inform the US government that they filed asylum on false pretexts? As vile as it may be, their responsibility may not be the way we want them to react.
Are their actions tantamount to perfidy? This discourse will be based on logic, norms (mores and folkways) and bible to make a determination. Perhaps it behooves you to know that I came into the country with a Green Card from the Diversity Visa Lottery. Lest you think it is birds of the same feathers flocking together. Those who believe that if someone told a lie, he/she should go back to the said person and confessed his or her sin to them sustain their arguments by giving the examples of Abraham and Isaac. Before we start, it is essential to know that restitution could be mandatory and facultative. If you were caught, it will be mandatory, but if you were not caught, it will be facultative, per your own volition.
Some Christians believe that once you confess your sins, God has forgiven you, so you should move on. Consequently, since those pastors have confessed their sins, they do not owe the US government anything. They base their stance on the confession of Abraham and Isaac when each of them told a lie, repented and moved on (Genesis 12:10-13; 20:1-2).
This question should be contextually placed rightly to avert an overlapping application of hermeneutics. Consequently, we will divide the pastors into two groups: those who filed for asylum before they became pastors, and those who filed for asylum after they became pastors. We all do agree that in Africa especially sub-Sahara Africa, there is little or no religious persecution as to warrant persecution nowadays. Thus, all those pastors told stories. For those who filed before they became Christians, it is considered as the time of ignorance which God winks at (Acts 17:30). After they believe, they may do restitution if it is possible and practical. If not, they are allowed to grow in the Lord gradually to a point where there is correlation between their synderesis and their syneidesis.
While the concept of restitution is mentioned directly in the Old Testament, it is rather demonstrated in the New Testament. God told the children of Israel that if a thief was caught stealing, he would make full restitution (Ex 22:3). If a man went and placed his cattle in the farm, of another person and it caused havoc, the owner of the cattle must make full restitution. (Ex 22:5).If someone caused a fire burnt, the individual was to make full restitution (Ex 22:6). If you borrow an ox or farm animal and it died without you knowing, you did not make any restitution, but if it was stolen you made full restitution. One thing to note is that restitution was done for things that were practical.  
I have often had people ask me how can a man who wheedled a girl to bed or gave her a fetish marriage promise make restitution. What about all the sex? They argue. First and foremost, sex is a utility to both of them. Notwithstanding, restitution can only be applicable if due to the promise, physical gifts actually changed hands. Legally, if they were given freely, they cannot be forced to return them. Restitution cannot only be required if one party was coerced. It will depend on the conscience of the receiver to make amends-restitution.  
If you were sleeping with a woman, and you promised her marriage; hearing the fetish proposal, she decides to spoil you with money, the money did not come out of her freewill. It is no different from a scammer or swindler.  It came because of the promise you made. As such, you are required to restitute if you rescind or renege on your promise. If you withdraw your promise, you should restitute her money because she gave you the money in exchange for a marriage. While you cannot restitute the sex, you can restitute the money. Do you hear? This one will stick in your throat. Hahahahaha!!!!
Restitution means taking it to the original state before the fallout.  Restitution implies that which is exchanged for something. It is like trade by batter or to compensate. Simon Cowell made restitution to his former girlfriend. When they broke up, he decided to give her 9.6 million for all the years she spent with her. That is the definition in Job 20:8. Jesus restituted the ear of Malchius. When Peter cut the ear of Malchus- the high priest’s servant, Jesus was apologetic and to show that he felt bad about the actions of one of his disciples, he took the ear and healed him. Lk 22:51.
Filing for asylum as a pastor and obtaining the decision is falsehood.  However, although the result is something that could be returned with added cash, its evil outweighs its good; thus, it is not practical. Therefore, the ministers with fake papers cannot return their papers to the immigration, talk less of compensating the government for the advantages that those papers brought to them. Perhaps we should look at the story in Luke on Zacchaeus, a man who made restitution of those he had defrauded.
When Zacchaeus the rich chief publican met Jesus and gave his life to Christ, he told the Lord that he would give half of his wealth to the poor, and he would restitute 4 times to anyone he had defrauded. He was not forced; he did that on his own volition. Therefore, those pastors should not be forced and cannot be forced; they must do that on their own volition if they think it necessary.
Furthermore, restitution is done when it is feasible and practical for the better good of the doer and the sufferer. A woman who committed abortion cannot restitute to her dead baby. What good would it be for those pastors to hand over their citizenship through which they feed their families and bless the people of God? Would that make them more Christian? Hadn’t God forgiven them already? This is one of those cases where the letter of the law must match with the spirit of the law for the general good of humanity or the individual. It is not for nothing that equity is applied in jurisprudence. Moreso, while these pastors told a lie, there is nothing tangible that they collect from the government that they must make restitution? Therefore, I do not think that there is any biblical exposition directly or by inference that requires them to restitute or give back their legality.

Until then, I wish them well.
St Arrey of Ntenako.

“Bonyfish beware because the same net that caught the jawless fish, caught the cartilaginous fish” (Hamilton Ayuk). Beware earthly paradise seekers because there is a serpent in every paradise"(Hamilton Ayuk). "It is not how well you know a person; it is how well you treat them that they will live longer and happier with you." Idle people write, idler people read, and idlest people read and whine that idle people are taking their time (Hamilton Ayuk).

Is it Biblical for Christians to do In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)?

A Christian sister used In Vitro Fertilization to bear her first child because she was nearing menopause without a child. The church dis...