Thursday, 24 April 2014

No, Actually We Are All Funding Your Anti-Gay Christian University.


Well, Fr. Raymond de Souza never got back to me about his wild claim that the Office of Religious Freedom actually said anything at all in defense of a jailed atheist in Turkey. I only posted to his Twitter account. Maybe he missed that. No surprise there.

But you know who I do think was a little surprised during the Michael Enright panel discussion about religion's place in the public square: The Public God? - panelist Janet Epp Buckingham.

It happened towards the beginning of the audience questions and I'll go into it below. But for now I'll take a few guesses. Perhaps she came to a realization that her 'private' Christian university is still given tax breaks which amount to public funding? Or maybe her surprise was over anyone even questioning the privilege inherent for religious institutions such as Trinity Western University? Perhaps she was just annoyed to have to point out that religious institutions deserve our public money but can behave however they please.

During the panel discussion, which is only partly available over at CBC, but is still over at Stitcher, moderator Michael Enright asked the panelist what religion's place is in the public sphere.
Janet Buckingham (JB) (7:57) I think religion should have a place at the table like other interests or identities. It shouldn't be excluded. It has a lot to add to public discourse but it shouldn't have a privileged place and certainly institutional religion shouldn't have a privileged place.
How unexpectedly reasonable. I like that she emphasized that institutional religion should definitely not have a privileged place; like private Christian university.

Alas, my relief was not to last. Later in the discussion, Moustafa Bayoumi, asked Buckingham about whether Trinity Western University - a Christian school at which she is currently an Associate Professor and that forbids their students from homosexual relationships - actually receives any federal funds.
Moustafa Bayoumi (MB) (33:30)  I have a question for Janet if I may. Are there public funds also for the university or is it fully private?

JB It is a fully private university.

MB So there are no public funds there?

JB No.

MB So in that case, I think that in a pluralistic complex society that we also have to admit the space for those things we may find objectionable. So I actually have no problem with the university although I might disagree with it on a very fundamental level.
You know, I agree with Moustafa to a point. He went on to talk about Bob Jones University and how their  backward racist views eventually cost them their tax-exempt status; or in other words, their public supplemental funding.
MB ... they also were getting - as many universities do, even the private schools - were getting some state public funds for it. And then what happened was, not that the university was shut down, but that they just lost any kind of state funding...
At this point another panelist chimed in and it sounds to me like a third panelist, Alia Hogben, I believe, also showed support:
?? ... If Trinity Western, however, asks for public money to support their law school then I think we've crossed a line between closed secularism and open secularism.
So this is pretty covered, right? I mean, that horse has been thoroughly beaten. Janet Buckingham states that religion is owed no special treatment and the entire panel agrees that it just wouldn't be right for the Trinity Western University - or its new Law School - to discriminate against anyone if they were getting any public funds.

I had read that the school was in fact receiving public funds before. Maybe I heard wrong. I mean there it was from the horses mouth. I remember thinking to myself as I heard the recording that surely the school must not be receiving a dime of public funding or else she would have corrected their previous statements and not consented with her silence. Otherwise, one might suspect her of telling a lie.

Well, in the Q&A period with the audience, someone (??) asked her this.
?? (1h06m) Quick question for Janet. I believe the donations to Western Trinity University are tax-deductible are they not? 

JB Like they are to other religious charities. 

?? Right, and as such would that not mean that you would now be using money from the public sphere and now you're also proscribed by the public public sphere? 

JB Well then have to require that the Roman Catholic Church allow their...

?? Agreed! 

JB ... priests to marry and that they have women priests. But we don't allow the state to interfere with religious beliefs and practices any more than we allow religion to interfere with the state.
Uhm... Oopsie.

Well, I suppose tax deductible donations count as public funds. The public pays the taxes. And the fact that all religious charities get it is yet another cause for concern, believe me. The fact this school is even classified as a religious charity confuses me a little as well.

Then I went digging and gets worse.
The Harper government has awarded over $20 million of its infrastructure funding to Christian colleges and universities since the launch of the Knowledge Infrastructure Program in 2009.

Some of the schools receiving federal infrastructure funds prohibit things like homosexual relationships, based on the educational institution's moral code or religious teachings.

A new analysis by Radio-Canada finds that out of the $2 billion allocated in the Harper government's 2009 Economic Action Plan to support infrastructure improvements at universities and colleges, $20 million went to 13 Christian schools, including:
  • $6 million for Crandall University of Moncton, N.B.
  • nearly $3 million for Ancaster, Ont.-based Redeemer University College.
  • $2.6 million for Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C..
As an aside, it makes sense this was found out by the French language public radio broadcaster because half the time I think the English media in the country is willfully ignorant of state endorsement of religion. Anyway, check out last year's Charity and Giving Report for over at the Canada Revenue Agency.

I would guess that $5,498,766 in receipted donations would be tax-deductible. Then we have government funding of $1,404,902. This pattern goes back years. It looks to me like I've been funding institutionalized discrimination against LGBT people by a religious institution. Could someone please explain this?
"The federal government should not subsidize institutions that have discriminatory practices," said Robert Johnson, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

While the amount of funding may be small, "it is still very symbolic, because it gives legitimacy to these colleges and these institutions," Johnson says. "And it is especially surprising in a context where the postsecondary system – universities, public colleges in Canada – are underfunded."
The federal government is getting their money from you and me.

It seems to me that Janet Epp Buckingham clearly denied that Trinity Western University was receiving any public funding. Then less than an hour later she admitted those who donate to the school receive tax-deductions. Then I find this news article and CRA report that suggests the Harper government handed millions to the school. I would love to hear her explanation for these apparent contradictions.

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

Shocking New Poll: Atheists Are Normal People Who Don't All Bow Down To Dawkins As Their Pope!

'You don't say!' (source)
Our friend Douglas Todd 12 ) over at the Vancouver Sun - who delves into topics we're told to avoid - has made a startling discovery. Atheists, in British Columbia at least, are not all mindless worshipers of Pope Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins: Just 25 per cent of atheists, agnostics ‘approve’ of him

Now, hold the presses! I thought New Atheists were all soulless automata devotees to Dawkins. I thought they accepted his prognostications from on high like some sort of Holy Prophet, God-Appointed Regent, Holy Emperor or, yes, Pope or Dalai Lama. I suppose I must have been misled by all those articles by religious folk in the National Post or Salon. You know, the ones. They tell us New Atheists who we blindly follow.  It was an easy mistake.

I cannot help but think that many media critics of the New Atheism - a label made up entirely by the media themselves to describe pesky non-believers who dare to open their mouths - have so thoroughly bought into their own false narrative that this news may come as some sort of revelation to them. I'm not sure if Todd is one of those or not, but his article wouldn't be newsworthy if it didn't come as a surprise to some significant amount of his readers.

Anyway, the shocking results seem to say that atheists aren't mono-dimensional intellectual peons subject to the whims of Richard Dawkins and that they have varied ideas about the supernatural. Douglas describes the poll he's referring to in a related article.
Still, the exclusive poll for The Vancouver Sun suggests the majority of B.C. atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated either don’t have an opinion on, or don’t know, Richard Dawkins, the high-profile British biologist who has become synonymous for many with the so-called New Atheism.
Shame on them, right? What kind of New Atheists are they anyway? I mean, reading this article and the previous one about the poll itself, it seems like the only thing they have in common is their total lack of belief in a god! How surprising!

For the sake of brevity, let me sum up the article in a few points.
  • Many atheists are apparently more fond of the Buddha or the Dalai Lama than Dawkins, but they don't believe in a god.
  • Many atheists are fond of the Dalai Lama, but they don't believe in a god.
  • Many atheists are OK with Jesus - who they may or may not believe actually existed. Still, no god.
  • Many atheists, myself included, approve more of this Pope than the last one. Yet, they don't do the god thing.
  • Quite a few atheists, myself not included, have fallen for supernatural concepts like reincarnation or karma, which, incidentally, do not require any belief in god.
  • Many atheists will attend religious events, which they may find completely ridiculous and even offensive - mostly likely for the benefit of friends or family. All the while, during these events they are abstaining from any belief in god, mind you.
Yes, that's right. A-theism means no belief in god. I hope this poll may increase awareness out there but I shan't hold my breath.

As for woo. It's a problem that only education, proper critical thought and skepticism can combat; atheism is just a single vector, which often comes out of these, but is not the solution.

Douglas continues to point out that atheists, other than their lack of god-belief, appear to be pretty normal people.
The atheists, agnostics and unaffiliated were not particularly unconventional. They basically follow provincewide norms when asked to rank the importance of country (87 per cent say important); family (95 per cent); friends (94 per cent); career (68 per cent) and affluence (52 per cent).

And while atheist, agnostic and unaffiliated respondents were more liberal than other British Columbians on doctor-assisted suicide (89 per cent support it compared with 72 per cent of all respondents), 56 per cent favour the death penalty, the same as the provincial average.
 Imagine that.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Construction Work Update From Kasese Humanist Primary School.

Classrooms attached to the School Hall.
It's been awhile since the last time I posted about construction over at the Kasese Humanist Primary School. So here's some information from School Director Bwambale Robert.

April 19th:
First, I have been working on several things at the site including crop planting, tree planting, purchasing and fixing shutters to the lower primary classrooms attached to the School Hall. Verandas too have been made all over the School Hall and entire lower Primary Block. All the rooms have been shuttered and finishing made.

I spent close to three days in the cold at night together with teacher Solomon and Tresor, safeguarding the shuttered metallic doors and windows as thugs sometimes remove them when the cement is still setting. Also, the fact that they were fixed during the Easter season, most jobless youths try to achieve money the hard way and end up stealing whatever valuable they come across.
Here are some photos Bwambale sent me on the 19th showing this work on the School Hall. This update is quite image heavy so I'm putting it below a cut.

Monday, 21 April 2014

Mission Accomplished! Nigerian Witch Hunter Deported From UK

For Helen Ukpabio Spiritual Attacks can come from innocent little babies or mermaids.
Good news from across the pond! Remember when the Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network (WHRIN) and several other human rights groups petitioned the UK Home Office to kick dangerous Nigerian (child!) witch-hunter out of Britain so she doesn't brainwash other parents into abusing or abandoning their children?

Well, news is slowly coming out that she has indeed been barred reentry into the country.

Helen Ukpabio Deported From UK
The British Homeland Security has deported Mrs. Helen Ukpabio, the President and Founder of one of Nigeria’s largest Pentecostal churches believed to be leading the spread of witch-hunting in the country. A United Kingdom based human right activist and charity worker, Ms. Modupe Debbie Ariyo announced this in a one paragraph sentence via her Facebook page on Friday, April 18, 2015. “Helen Ukpabio deported from UK…hurray!!!” Ariyo said. Ariyo, who’s the Executive Director of Africa Unite Against Child Abuse (AFRUCA) in furtherance of her terse release sent as a confirmatory note of the deportation, said that the British Home Secretary, Ms Theresa May was pressured by human right activists and the UK press to act. “Theresa May was under pressure from charities to act…the evidence was overwhelming too” she stated. Ms Ariyo called on her Nigerian counterparts and the press to borrow a leaf from their action which led to the deportation of Ms Ukpabio.

“Now, it is up to our Nigerian colleagues to learn from our example. These people can be challenged. They are ordinary human beings like you and I.” Ariyo maintained.
We need more stands like this against preachers who spread hate against children not only in Nigeria but also in places like Ghana where they need special witch camps to protect those who are accused of being witches. 

Sunday, 20 April 2014

Things I Like: Carnival of Souls

Mary Henry (Candass Hilligoss) emerges from the river into which the car she was riding in crashed killing her
friends.
Spoiler Alert: If you've not seen this film, why not skip to the bottom and watch it there.

A few weeks ago, I watched the 1962 cult classic Carnival of Souls. It's an independent film made in Utah on a shoestring. You know, most of the psychological horror coming out of these times is crap but this film is a little gem. And after watching some of the popular television from this time, I am amazed at how grown up it is.

I usually don't bother reviewing movies on this blog, but this film has had an odd knack of sticking with me. The protagonist is herself an atheist church organist in Utah, in the early sixties. It's sort of an interesting piece.

I'll be using synopses from Wikipedia.
Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) is riding in a car with two other young women when some men challenge them to a drag race. As they speed across a bridge, the women's car plunges over the side into the river. The police spend three hours dragging the murky, fast-running water without success. Then Mary miraculously surfaces. She cannot remember how she survived.

Mary then drives to Utah, where she has been hired as a church organist.
We learn of Mary's lack of religious faith towards the very beginning of the film when she meets with some kind of director at the organ factory in Lawrence Kansas.

Organ Factory Boss: Well, Mary, you'll make a fine organist for that church. It will be very satisfying for you, I think.

Mary: It's just a job.

Organ Factory Boss: Well, it's not quite the attitude for going into church work.

Mary: I'm not taking the vows, I'm only going to play the organ.
Many strange things happen to her. She is obsessively drawn to the Saltair Pavillion, which was built as a bathhouse, but later became a carnival as the waters of the Greak Salt Lake receded far away from the shore upon which it was originally built. It's a dead carnival on a dead lake.

Original Saltair Pavilion c. 1900 (source).

Abandoned Saltair Pavilion in the 1962 film. Picture taken from a different angle than above. (source).
I'm not sure if this acted as a symbol of the profane, churchless world or not, but abandoned carnivals are both incredibly compelling and spooky at the same time. It gets an A+ from me.

There is a creepy and silent man who has appeared to Mary several times before. He seems to be drawing her to this pavillion. Everything points Mary there.

Her gig at the church doesn't go well. She refuses to actually meet the congregation - I suppose she just doesn't like church. She then begins to go into a trance state while playing the church organ and the music becomes eerie and erratic. During her frenetic playing, she once again sees the creepy man dancing with other creepy people at the pavillion. The minister actually fires her on the spot because of this profane music.

There is cleverness with audio as well. There are intervals where Mary can hear herself speaking, yet nobody can see or hear here. Then everything goes silent for Mary as if she is deaf. It's only with the singing of birds that Mary is able to regain her ability to hear the real world.
Soon, Mary begins experiencing terrifying interludes when she becomes invisible and inaudible to the rest of the world, as if she simply is not there.  
The story really plays out like a play or one of those early Twilight Zone episodes. I won't go into any other detail. The use of creepy locales, music, audio (and lack of audio) are all brilliant. I won't give away the ending, which is quite clever, actually.

And it's also fun to see what the fate of an atheist undead organist would have been in 1962 Salt Lake City.

Damon Linker: Atheism Cannot Explain Self-Sacrifice

 
Feeling energetic this Sunday morning? Well, Damon Linker is at it again. After telling us atheists how we can be honest about how miserable and self-loathing we're suppose to be, he's now reminding us that atheism doesn't have the upper hand over religion. You know, like it's all a big popularity contest anyway.

Why atheism doesn't have the upper hand over religion
"There are certain experiences that atheism simply cannot explain"

First, let me get the initial paragraph out of my system.
In my last column, I examined some of the challenges facing religion today. Those challenges are serious. But that doesn't mean that atheism has the upper hand. On the contrary, as I've argued many times before, atheism in its currently fashionable form is an intellectual sham. As Exhibit 653, I give you Jerry Coyne's latest diatribe in The New Republic, which amounts to a little more than an inadvertent confession that he's incapable of following a philosophical argument.
It would appear that I, Jerry Coyne (exhibit nº 653), all atheists who open their mouths against superstition, and a large swath of scientists everywhere are all duped by this intellectual sham. Or so says Linker, who, I'm sure, understands these things better than all of us. We're just not smart enough to grasp the wafer thin and ever so intricately subtle philosophical arguments which undeniably show Linker's deity exists. We've been unconvinced for hundreds of years. Indeed we must be very dim.

I would just chuckle about this and leave it there, but Linker goes a step further here.
The fact is that there are specific human experiences that atheism in any form simply cannot explain or account for. One of those experiences is radical sacrifice — and the feelings it elicits in us.
Maybe I'm reading between the lines here, but it seems like Linker is saying that self-sacrifice really relies on Christianity - somehow, hanging by some kind of philosophical thread thingy. Well, I guess he's right. Sacrifice is a Christian trait that was somehow vacant from us before Christianity came along. Just take a look at other mammals, I'm certain mommy moles would have never defended her young to her death before Jesus.

What a load of hooey. I would suggest that Linker cut through some of his mumbo jumbo and have a frank discussion with the soldiers over at the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers about self-sacrifice and how it is Christianity that truly compels one to lay down their lives for fellow soldiers and country.

Linker demands an explanation for human behaviour. Can Science explain it?
Pick your favorite non-theistic theory: Rational choice and other economically based accounts hold that people act to benefit themselves in everything they do. From that standpoint, Vander Woude — like the self-sacrificing soldier or firefighter — was a fool who incomprehensibly placed the good of another ahead of his own.
Newsflash: atheism is the non-belief in any gods. Of course it doesn't explain empathy and self sacrifice. These are two completely different and unrelated questions: Is there a God? and Why do mammals self-sacrifice? How is this so unclear? Why is this so difficult? A lack of an explanation does not prove religion or God.

Oh, and who has time to pick their favourite non-theistic theory? People feel compassion for others, this is Humanism. It's part of being human. This happens naturally because it works. People who must rationalize this constantly frighten me a little.
Other atheistic theories similarly deny the possibility of genuine altruism, reject the possibility of free will, or else, like some forms of evolutionary psychology, posit that when people sacrifice themselves for others (especially, as in the Vander Woude case, for their offspring) they do so in order to strengthen kinship ties, and in so doing maximize the spread of their genes throughout the gene pool.
Altruism, in its purest sense, is unlikely to be 100% detrimental to the one doing the altruism - or them passing their genes on. And don't get me started about free will, which I do subscribe to as compatibilism. Free will is free within the very real limitations of our own bodies which are machines bound to physical needs and brain processes.

Linker seems to attribute some kind of goal or motivation necessary for evolution. There is no motivation here. Nobody is doing anything to spread their genes through the gene pool. It just so happens that some behaviours have resulted in this outcome more than others. That's it really.

And just when I thought, perhaps, he got evolution above, we get this.
But of course, as someone with Down syndrome, Vander Woude's son is probably sterile and possesses defective genes that, judged from a purely evolutionary standpoint, deserve to die off anyway. So Vander Woude's sacrifice of himself seems to make him, once again, a fool.
There is no deserve when it comes to natural selection. It's perfectly possible for someone with Down syndrome to pass on their genes. I'm often left speechless at just how much contempt folk like Linker have for evolution driven by natural selection. This is how things work on a daily basis.

Look, life is not fair. Truly, can we not all see this with our own eyes? To help those in need is a human trait that has had the effect of softening the blow of a heartless and mindless reality which cares not for what is right or wrong. The ability to feel empathy for others and the revulsion we feel when justice is undermined are evolved traits that have proven very useful for us as a species. They have gotten us to where we are now and they are essential for us to save ourselves on this planet with a short term sacrifices needed for long term survival in a climate the grows more fierce.
But why is that? What is it about the story of a man who willingly embraces a revolting, horrifying death in order to save his son that moves us to tears? Why does it seem somehow, like a beautiful painting or piece of music, a fleeting glimpse of perfection in an imperfect world? 
I suppose it seems this way to Linker. To me it seems utterly tragic. The father's behaviour is commendable and worthy indeed, but I would never call it beautiful.
I'd say that only theism offers an adequate explanation — and that Christianity might do the best job of all. 
Okay! Let's see this explanation then! It must be really good because Science is still working on it with fields like evolutionary ethics.
Christianity teaches that the creator of the universe became incarnate as a human being, taught humanity (through carefully constructed lessons and examples of his own behavior) how to become like God, and then allowed himself to be unjustly tried, convicted, punished, and killed in the most painful and humiliating manner possible — all as an act of gratuitous love for the very people who did the deed.
Well that sounds fucking insane. Proof for creator, please? Proof for diving incarnation, please?

It turns out today is Easter Sunday. On it some celebrate the Son of God (who is also his own father) who allowed himself to be nailed to a tree.  He did this to appease himself because he was very angry at humans. Apparently God is into self-destructive behaviour.

God went through all this pain and suffering so he could forgive human transgressions of his many laws - some of which are rather silly and even Christians no longer follow them. Naturally, his divine mind would have foreseen all this. With complete foreknowledge,  he crafted humans who were indeed perfectly free but were too weak and stupid to control themselves so they deserved eternal torment. They were perfectly free to go through all the motions God had already seen for himself. They were free to dance - at the end of strings.

What sane being would have to torture and murder himself, go live with Lucifer for a couple of days and pop back up and sit at his own right hand so he can feel better with himself for not eternally punishing the human race for being unable to properly behave? What being could ever be so melodramatic? Well, no being we've ever reliably detected so far; thank goodness for that!

Of course, none of it makes any sense at all. Vander Woude was better than his God because unlike Yahweh, Woude was human.

If Vander Woude were like God, he would have personally thrown his son down the well. He would have declared that his son deserved it - perhaps because he was disabled. Unlike the tragedy that did occur, Woude would have remained dead for only two days and would have risen on the third unscathed. He would have then demanded that his son bow down to him and worship him so that he may continue to pad his ego into eternity without end.

Someone needs to tell Linker that atheism means lack of belief in gods. A system like his own Christianity possesses a great deal of baggage that can be examined, critiqued or attacked. Christianity is making a positive truth claim. Perhaps he should identify more substantial movements like secular Humanism when launching attacks.

Otherwise, it just looks like that old Christian habit of building atheism into a tall straw man.

Friday, 18 April 2014

Yes, I Get "Good" Friday Off


Something rather strange dawned on my today. Around noon, I checked my phone only to find several urgent emails from some of my business associated in the United States. It seems like they had forgotten that Good Friday -- the Christians call getting nailed to a tree Good, apparently -- is a holiday up here in Canada. My Australian associates remembered of course, they get Friday and Monday off too.

And so, it's true. I checked it. Americans -- the most religious people in the developed world -- don't get today off. Yet I, living in this bastion of secularity, Montréal, Québec of all places, do. As I mentioned above, extremely secular Australia seems to get both today and Monday off.

Actually last week one business contact informed me he would be attending mass and would pray for me. I've run into this flaunting business before and I've written about the extremely religious e-mail signatures I occasion upon in business emails. It all seems rather odd and shocking to this secular Canadian. Up here, one simply does not mix religion with business -- it might prove to be an unwanted obstacle to getting the contract signed.

Honestly, sometimes I'm baffled at how Americans could even have a godless constitution and an Establishment Clause. When one looks at the way things are down there, how could this have ever happened? Did it ever happen? Well, they have the documents to prove it, I suppose. Looking at the culture itself versus the documents of their Founding Fathers, I wonder if it wasn't some freak accident.

Well, I know I'm not expressing my thoughts clearly. Sue me, it's a holiday.

Keep Nigerian Child Witch Hunter Out: Human Rights Groups Petition UK Home Office

For Helen Ukpabio Spiritual Attacks can come from innocent little babies or mermaids.

I've written about her before and now I'll write about her again. The fact that witch hunter Helen Ukpabio is a menace to her fellow Nigerians is well-known, but now she's travelled to London to spread her vile and harmful superstitions into the United Kingdom.

Nigerian 'witch-hunter' who claims any child who cries is a 'servant of Satan' could be banned from the UK over fears she is a risk to youngsters

Britain has every right to keep out dangerous criminals who incite fear of children which undeniably leads to child abuse.
She uses her sermons to incite hatred, intolerance and persecution of alleged witches and wizards. 
Her supporters, of which there are many in West Africa, believe she is a servant of God who has helped eradicate spiritual ailments from humankind. 
Her beliefs – promoted through her publications (Unveiling the Mysteries of Witchcraft), films (End of the Wicked) and sermons - fuel witchcraft accusations against children in the region.
Leo Igwe has written about her dreadful shenanigans.  She has literally convinced parents that the cause of their earthly misfortunes are their own children - who are witches and working for the devil. This has lead to the horrendous abuse and abandonment portrayed in Channel 4's Saving Africa's Witch Children.
The documentary will feature shocking stories of torture inflicted on children, including a 13-year-old who was tied up with chicken wire and starved and beaten for two weeks, and a 14-year-old girl who was burned with acid before her mother attempted to bury her alive. 
One 17-year-old was left brain-damaged after having a three-inch nail driven into her skull.
Don't think Ukpabio is part of the problem? Here's what Wikipedia has to say.
Ukpabio has published her views in several books. An example is 'Unveiling The Mysteries of Witchcraft', in which she states that: 
'If a child under the age of two screams in the night, cries and is always feverish with deteriorating health he or she is a servant of Satan.' 
A fact not mentioned in the book is that these symptoms are common in young children, especially in areas like Nigeria with poor health and high levels of malaria. 
She also produces a number of films to spread the view that children can become possessed by evil spirits through her film production company, Liberty Films, part of the Liberty Foundation Gospel Ministries franchise. The most famous of these is End of The Wicked in which child actors are shown to eat human flesh and murder their parents.
Oh, and she also believes mermaids are a real problem as well!

The Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network (WHRIN), which I have written about in the past, is one of the groups demanding that she be banned from ever reentering the country - which I wholeheartedly support. They are petitioning Home Secretary Theresa May to deny entry into the UK based on the very sensible argument that it is not conductive for the common good. You know, because she makes films demonizing little children and claims Satan infects babies with fevers.

They mentioned something rather interesting as well:
In a letter to Ms May, the campaigners warn: ‘Whilst the Government has moved swiftly to block entry to the UK for Islamic preachers whose presence is considered as harmful to the public good, there have been no cases of Christian pastors facing such measures.’
That's interesting, too.