FOCA Animation Part 2

Below is part two of the FOCA animation.

FOCA Animation Part 1

Please see the videos below. Email otaaac@yahoo.com with "I am otaaac" (without the underlining of otaaac) in the subject line if you would like to produce an animation, live action, or combination video of parts that have been already written.

Note: Sen. Obama co-sponsored this Act that will eliminate all state laws that limit abortion.





© 2008 OTAAAC Productions

My Musical CV

Sacred Pieces

Tertius Dies – Exodus 19: 16-20 – 2007
SATB divisi, Bass solo, Organ, and Percussion

O Quam Gloriosum est Regnum – 2007
I. O Quam Gloriosum. SATB, Three Trumpets, Trombone, Bass Trombone
II. Justorum Animæ. – Wisdom 3: 1-3 – SATB a cappella
III. Alleluia. SATB, Three Trumpets, Trombone, Bass Trombone

Lux et Veritas – 2006
I. Lux et Veritas. SSATB a cappella
II. Lux. SATB a cappella
III. Veritas. SATB, piano

Christmas Day – 2006
SATB, guitar

Une Voix dans Rama – Mt 2:18 – a cappella SATB choir – 2008
Une Voix dans Rama – four a cappella SATB voices – 2005

This Christmas Joy – a cappella SATB – 2005
This Christmas Joy – SATB, cello – 2005

Jesus in the Psalm – Psalms 22-23 – 2005
SSAATTBB a cappella

Tandum Dic Verbo – Mt 8:8 – 2004
SATB a cappella

An Irish Blessing – SATB, Piano, Flute – 2004
An Irish Blessing – SATB, a cappella – 2006

Non-Sacred Pieces

Shane’s Cheesecake Passion
"Shane's Cheesecake Passion" by Sarah Holmes – 2007
SSAATTBB a cappella

Garden Party
“Garden Party” by LA Crompton – 2007
SSATTBB a cappella, Tenor solo


Mother of Exiles
“The New Colosus" by Emma Lazarus – 2006
SSATB, Soprano solo, piano

Contraception Causes Market Instability

“Are you serious? You think that “Contraception [Caused this] Market Instability”?” You’ll see by the end of my argument.

Way back in 1919, all major Christian denominations viewed contraception as evil. Then in 1920, the Church of England allowed (said it was moral for) married couples to use them, and then eventually all Christian denominations except the Catholic Church allowed them to be used by all.

The daughters of contraception are abortion, pornography and prostitution, same-sex “marriage”, spousal abuse, divorce, extreme selfishness, and all things that lead to the objectification or dehumanization of the human person (IVF, sperm banks, surrogates, genocide, etc). Through the widespread use of contraception, the actual statistical frequency and severity of all its daughters have increased.

Especially to the (usually masculine) rich, if their spouse was being objectified in the use of contraception, why not objectify and exploit the workers for all they’re worth. Eventually, many employees were loosing their jobs and their pensions to workers overseas.

The workers, who also used contraception because they thought they couldn’t afford children, instead spent the saved money on themselves and their pets. Their debt grew larger and larger.

Eventually, all the money being passed back and forth was credit because the greedy employers wouldn’t hire fellow citizens and the poorer citizens spent beyond their means. The employer couldn’t pay back the bank since no one was buying his goods.

By the way, people would buy their homes with no money down, beyond their means, and essentially sub-prime, interest-only loans.

By all the increased selfishness caused by contraception, the market was heavily burdened by heavy credit debt. Without the banks able to solidly secure debt, the global economy suffers with instability.

Can I prove that my thesis is true about the connection with contraception? No. I just wanted a forum to introduce the idea that contraception is the root of its daughters listed above.

What do you think? (Be nice now.)

Institutionalizing Same-sex “Marriage” is Detrimental

I’ve heard it asked – I’m sure you have too – how will legalizing, or institutionalizing same-sex “marriage” (or civil-unions or the like) detriment you personally or society as a whole in secular terms? It’s all about what is legitimate and what isn’t.

Let’s start in assuming that same-sex “marriage” will continue to become legalized (as in, now, MA and CA). The view that marriage is only for two people in eros love will be promulgated and strengthened. In the inevitable juncture that the two people fall out of (eros) love, the marriage effectively becomes de facto, if not de jure, void in the resulting separation, annulment, or divorce. Marriage effectively becomes a temporary state of life as if a couple was not married. In legally making this blanket judgment on the marriage definition, there will be no institutional safeguards for traditional marriage (the legality of no-fault divorces is also detrimental to marriage – another topic).

What is traditional marriage? Traditional marriage is a contractual, covenantal, or sacramental arrangement in which the union of a couple is fortified in mutual fidelity for the upbringing of children. The only people that can naturally have children of their own in this union are a man and a woman (Creating human children any other way is unethical – another topic. Also, human adoption is another topic).

If marriage is redefined, not just in the narrow sense of allowing same-sex couples to legally “marry”, but to redefine it to mean “marriage only in the throws of passion (eros)”, society will break down as marriages break down in response to the diminishment of couples’ passion for one another.

For the state to only and explicitly espouse heterosexual marriage, it legitimizes marriage only in the traditional sense. Thus, when eros love diminishes, extinguishes, or changes, the married couple has a state-backed institution that upholds their marital duty to live in mutual fidelity (even agape, charitable love) for the upbringing of children.

Further, research has shown that children who live with their natural parents in a low conflict home become happier kids overall than those in other family situations, including that of a same-sex couples’ home. Also, married parents are also happier than (an) unmarried parent(s) and live longer.

So, I am against same-sex “marriage” not because I hate homosexual people (I know some personally) but because I think that we will be better off in the long run if we uphold traditional marriage as the norm for a better society today and tomorrow.

I personally believe same-sex “marriages” as well as heterosexual couples living or having sex together is wrong. However, since this behavior does not literally take the life of anyone (as in abortion), people engaging in this detrimental behavior are not to be arrested per se (although I believe sodomy is harmful even if consensual – another topic). This is not because it’s part of a private choice (there is no such thing as a private choice since society as a whole is effected by its members decisions), it’s because this is a free country.

Yet, as the above argument shows, legitimizing same-sex “marriage” via state law will further breakdown society due to the breakdown of the family in general.

We are already in the midst of a societal breakdown. The number of unwed mothers and the number of broken families (through divorce or other means) is up from the 1920’s. Beliefs of some interviewed teens reveal the state of the traditional marriage that is the foundation of a healthy society.

From the blog “Positively in Control”, given the following list of four relationship types, teens report that they are equivalent.

• Two people who are seeing each other exclusively for some period of time
• Two people living together
• Two people who live together and have children but are not married
• Two people who have taken public vows.

If same-sex “marriage” is legitimized throughout the country, there will be no state institution that will uphold the reality that marriage is an arrangement in which the union of a couple is fortified in mutual fidelity for the upbringing of children. It is in the state's interest - us - to uphold traditional marriage.

IVF is Immoral

In-vitro fertilization, or IVF is gravely immoral for at least six reasons:

1. One or more human zygotes are created that may be destroyed later for research or to create additional space for newly created human zygotes;
2. A human is created unnaturally and not in a marital embrace;
3. Sperm is collected by degrading means, degrading for the man and for those involved in the porn industry;
4. An objectified surrogate mother may be used that is not the actual mother of the newly created human;
5. One must pay money to create and implant a human zygote into a woman;
6. A human child that is up for adoption looses their chance to be placed into a foster or adopted family’s home.

I look forward to the day when a human zygote legally becomes part of the human family and is not manipulated, created, or destroyed as a piece of property by morally bankrupt means. Yes, I hope IVF one day becomes illegal.

Update (1-23-2009):
For some more information about the unethical nature of IVF see this: "Couples Tempted by IVF Face a Number of Moral Dilemmas" by Kate Bluet

A sampling from Ms. Bluet:

Since abortion was legalized, the number of babies put up for adoption has plummeted. Would-be adoptive parents far outnumber the babies who need a home. The control of childbearing has resulted in a dearth of children. Infertile couples who want children must therefore choose between long waiting lists and assisted reproduction.
...
Of course, it’s possible for a multiple pregnancy to be reduced, and the procedure is fairly common. After all, goes the logic, better to lose two babies in utero than lose all four at birth. Doctors can determine the position of all the fetuses by using ultrasound. They will then test those fetuses that are easiest to reach for abnormalities. And if all the fetuses are equally healthy and get-at-able, the doctors will ask the parents which gender they would prefer to keep.
...
Luckily for us, we’re not the ones who have to find out; that’s left to the babies being born in greater and greater numbers who will have to struggle with questions of genetic identity, with siblings lost in utero, and with the fact that half of their genes were shopped for and purchased by credit card.

Talk about sick!

No Morality Without God

I’ve already finished “The God Delusion” by Dawkins, and I’ll be resuming the breakdown of the book later. However, I would like to make one observation about materialism and atheism.

I’ve heard many atheists and agnostics say that they can be “moral” even if they don’t believe in God. In other words, they can believe that they can act morally even though they do not believe in God. I believe this claim is self-contradictory and false. One cannot deny the existence of God while at the same time believe that they are moral.

If one does not believe in God, I would argue, one is a materialist by definition. If there is nothing spiritual or supernatural, everything has only a material dimension contained within. Since everything is believed to contain only material essence, only material causes can determine how everything acts. Since only material manipulates material, there is no basis for morality since morality presupposes that there is a free will contained in some material in some fashion. In other words, in order for a material human to be moral, more than just internal material processes must determine any action taken.

For an atheist to be non-contradictory, there can be no morality since only material processes determine causes and ends. Therefore, one cannot believe at the same time that God does not exist and that they are moral.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I believe free will is a spiritual construct that comes from God since humans were specifically chosen to be made in the image and likeness of God. Theists, and even Deists can be moral since they believe that morality has a basis in God, in whatever form. Further, Christians can acknowledge that Atheists are moral or immoral since Christians have a non-material basis for morality. However, to be consistent, Atheists can never see anyone as moral, otherwise they will be indirectly acknowledging a moral Creator of the moral universe.