Hiding from Our Convictions

I am a Canadian, and I am proud of my Canadian heritage.  However, I have spent much time in my life in America.  My children are American citizens, Canadian as well, and are direct lineal descendants of one of the passengers on the Mayflower.  As a child, I was raised on Canadian and American history, and of course, the American history was more exciting, as was the American fiction, or at least it was presented as being more exciting.

A number of years ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to become snowbirds, northerners who head to the south of the US (or elsewhere warm) for the winter.  Though we have had occasion to travel to Florida, Texas, and California, we have settled in Southern Arizona and have a "candominium" in an over 55 RV resort there.  A candomium is a humorous epithet for a park model trailer, and these abound in most over 55 RV resorts throughout North America.

Living here for a significant part of each year, I have had the chance to study the people, their attitudes and history, as well as their founding documents, and their understanding of them.  Reading the documents upon which this nation (America) was founded is an inspiration, from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and its Amendments.

Accordingly, watching how the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch of the government have largely destroyed the intent of the founding fathers particularly in the last 50 years though is particularly disturbing.  Needless to say, seeing how our Canadian politicians abuse our rights and freedoms is also extremely tortuous.

In both of our once great nations of North America, we have moved from standing on the bedrock of our faith in Jesus Christ to sliding around on the sands of political correctness, where what we once knew to be sin has been glorified, tolerated and in fact, encouraged.

For fear of offending others, we have put down the biblical principles of our faith in Jesus Christ, and taken up this mantle of tolerance for our own sins and the sins of others.  Where the Bible tells us to lovingly reprove our brothers and sisters in grave sin, not by judging them, but by confronting them for their own salvation, we instead, have stood idly by, while pornography, abortion, contraception, adultery, and homosexuality have run rampant in our society.

I say this not to judge, since I had a lengthy period of grave sexual sin in my life, and am easily tempted by the rampant, and continually growing list of books, television shows, movies, both mainstream and pornographic, web sites, and other media, to sexual sin.  I know that the proliferation of things alluding to or directly supporting sexual sin in our society create for me the "near occasion of sin", and believe that it is not me alone that faces these temptations.

If we tell someone who is living with her boyfriend, or his girlfriend in a sexual relationship, or is living a homosexual lifestyle, that they are in a state of grave sin, then we are considered haters and intolerant.  The same is true if we confront a man or woman, who is having an extramarital affair.

During the period of my life, when I was in grave sexual sin, not one of my Christian friends confronted me.  All were tolerant and "understanding" of my personal sadness at the time over the general situation of my life, and ignored what else was going on, even though it was pretty obvious.  For my part, I was in a period of emotional turmoil, but I was medicating my emotional distress with sexual license.  A couple of people did talk about me behind my back, and as word of what they said about me filtered its way to me, it was so distorted as to qualify as gossip, and not be corrective nor instructive.

In America, people trumpet the First Amendment to the Constitution as a license to say what they want, and by extension, do what they want, except when they hoist up the Second Amendment, so they can carry a gun, in case someone doing what they want appears, or might appear, physically harmful to them.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That Amendment has been used by pornographers to justify selling smut everywhere, or displaying it on the internet for all to see.  And we, the people, including those of us who are not citizens, have stood silently by.  By the way, in Canada it is the same.

But, interestingly, and more importantly, religious people, who have strong convictions against funding contraception, which is really a form of abortion in many cases, and directly against funding abortion, are having to fight against the government of the day and the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate, requiring virtually all employers to provide these facilities in their health care plans.

Corporations like Hobby Lobby are in a fight for their lives literally.  The owners, and principals of dissenting and litigating businesses and institutions are fighting to have the right to have conscience objections to providing these things in their health care plans, while wanting to provide real health care to their employees and members.

So, the government that the people of America have selected to govern their affairs is forcing an ideology of sexual freedom (the apparent right of anyone to have sexual relations with anyone they choose at any time, regardless of sex, religion or race) upon the people of America, with nary a whimper from most, and from rampant bloviating by those who claim that Hobby Lobby and their ilk are mere troglodytes from a dark, evil age that has passed out of fashion.

In Canada, the provision of contraception entered into health care plans, including those of private school boards, and religious institutions, also with nary a whimper, and our Catholic bishops stood by, even fanning the flames of this travesty by issuing the Winnipeg Statement in 1968, after Pope Paul VI had released the seminal, and tragically prophetic encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. In the Winnipeg Statement, our Canadian Catholic bishops basically stated that Humanae Vitae was too harsh, but not in so many words, and told Catholic Canadians to follow their consciences, without providing them with the proper guidance to help them do so, in accord with Catholic teaching.

And, in Canada, we have no laws whatsoever governing abortion.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zero.  Not only that, but our national health care system pays for them, as just one more necessary health care procedure.

In Canada, we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and like the First Amendment to the US Constitution, section two of that charter grants certain rights as follows:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

What is shocking and most frustrating is how the freedom of religion has been scourged in both countries by courts and pseudo courts such as human rights commissions, who, in the interests of political correctness have eroded these rights and supplanted them with artificial rights of individuals to not feel judged, or hurt, or discriminated against.

So, in both our countries, where certain Christians in keeping to their principles, have either refused to perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, or to photograph such an event, or  to provide flowers or a cake for such a ceremony, they have been taken to task by the preservers of political correctness.  Apparently, if you have a Bed and Breakfast in your home, you cannot exclude a homosexual couple from renting your room either.

What is also shocking is that there seems to be no practical instances of heterosexual couples who are not married being denied accommodation.  It may be easier to draw the conclusions that two people of the same sex are a couple, and therefor assumed to be homosexual, whether that is in fact true or not.  However, since lots of married couples have different last names, and many marrieds do not wear wedding bands, knowing that a couple entering your hotel or B&B are in fact not married would require asking a question of them to confirm their marriage status, and that seems, well, out of the question.

To use discrimination in its non pejorative meaning as merely to differentiate between two things, why would a resort, hotel or other place of accommodation not refuse a room to all couples that are unmarried, in the biblical sense of that word?

Christians have found it all too easy to not really stand on all the principles of our faith. 

Last evening, I watched a movie where a man was forced to figure out if what he believed in was important enough to take a stand on.  The principle of the movie was based on the loss of Christmas in our society, which is rapidly being replaced with "winter holiday", but the issues he faced, including the difficulties of taking a stand are similar.  What was most clear to me was that the right of Christians to express their faith in public has been being eroded for a long time, and we have generally stood by and watched it happen.

I have linked the video below if you wish to see it.  I believe that it is worth your time.

So, I have a closing question, and my question is this.  Have we lost the courage of our convictions, or have we lost our convictions? 
 

What is Rabble Babble?

Only in Canader, eh. Pity!

There is a site that the Flaming Kitty, BCF pointed his readers to called rabble.ca, which has a section called Babble, making it Rabble Babble what one might expect in the subsection. It is in fact true to the definitions below, and members were pontificating the other day on systemic white supremacist racism in Canada.

Here is the definition of Rabble:

1. A tumultuous crowd; a mob.
2. The lowest or coarsest class of people. Often used with the.
3. A group of persons regarded with contempt: "After subsisting on the invisible margins of the art scene ... he was 'discovered' in the mid-80's, along with a crowd of like-minded rabble from the East Village" (Richard B. Woodward).

And here is what Babble is defined as:

1. Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds.
2. Idle or foolish talk; chatter.
3. A continuous low, murmuring sound, as of flowing water.

Certainly, what I read was inarticulate and meaningless, as well as idle and foolish, by a low coarse class of people. At least, they call themselves like it is. I just don't get why they would want to brag about it.

Anyway, one free speech oriented individual Viking 77, who shares meaningful opinions from time to time over at the Kitty's Blog, had attempted to raise the convo over at Babble above the banal. He wandered off after being harangued by the Babblers. I visited the particular page linked above on 3 occasions, to see if I read what I thought I read, and whether it got any better with time.

In response, I can confirm that I read what I thought that I had read, and it did not improve with age, or additional commentary.

Meanwhile, over at Blazing Cat Fur's site, we engaged in a little fun and foolery amongst ourselves until Blaze chilled us with the use of big, though cool words. In response to Viking's valiant attempts to bring sanity to the Rabble who were babbling, he said the following:

Its Marxist twaddle designed to instill guilt among gullible liberals, a tactic of cultural Marxism employing elements of cultural and moral relativism to undermine society Viking.

Well, that ups the ante considerably. After I had interjected a meaningless, but fun response to the use of big words, with a suggestion that he pop over and insert them into the babble that was going on at Rabble, a reader called The Phantom took it up another notch saying:

Structural racism" is an unprovable rhetorical construct designed to beat up Conservatives and white people generally. Its what you have to resort to in a culture like ours that has decided racism is damn foolishness and moved to eliminate it in all walks of life.

When confronted with a culture that actually -is- racist, these weenies can't encompass it. They think its all politics or something.

I agree with what both of these erudite guys had to say, though I am not sure what it means. Fortunately, The Phantom had brought things back to a level that I could get totally, when he called the Babblers "weenies."

But, this I get. Since the Babblers are probably in general a bunch of white guys and gals, with too much time on their hands, and probably supported by Mommy and Daddy's money, their racist remarks against white people, of which I am one, probably would get a free pass, if one of us were to complain to the Barbara Hall thought police about it. This is undoubtedly true, even though reading the "twaddle" did hurt my feelings, such that I am beside myself. In fact the two of us are fighting over the keyboard at this very moment, making it challenging to write this posting.

Now, if we could only get them to use the word "Nazi" in there somewhere, we could go to J Ly, and have them investigated into submission. These clowns do remind me of the now infamous Canadian Nazis, that have been writing screed from their basements, and are more a threat to themselves than to any real personages, but have gained the ire of the Ceej and the CHRC.

The twaddle these clowns are spouting sounds so much like extreme Socialism, that they would give Nazi's a bad name. But, in the end it is just a form of sex by oneself, with equal abilities to bear fruit.

Jennifer Hartline Has a Tiger By the Tail

Boissoin Victory in His Lawyer's Words

What The Judgment Means

I received an email from Stephen Boissoin this morning, as did his other friends and supporters, which was Gerald Chipeur's summary analysis of the judgment rendered by Justice Wilson in the case of Stephen Boissoin against Darren Lund. As you know from the many postings and articles about the case, it was a case of alleged, and in fact as far as the Alberta Human Rights Commission was concerned proven, egregious discriminatory hate written by Stephen Boissoin about homosexuals in one, count 'em, one letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate over 7 years ago.

Those of us who have been baffled at the perfidy of the Alberta HRC have long awaited the case getting to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, and then the ruling in the case. I have referenced this case in over 80 postings these last 6 months, wishing to understand what happened, and how and why. You can look over at the Label for Boissoin on the left hand side of this page to see the current number of posts I have made referencing the case, and click on it to access them specifically.

But, as the case has hopefully drawn to a conclusion, though there is a possibility that Darren Lund will appeal the ruling, probably at his own peril, it is appropriate to read what Stephen's lawyer, Gerald Chipeur, QC has as his brief analysis of the results. They are enlightening:

The decision of Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of Queen's Bench in Boissoin v Lund will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada:

1. The decision established a very high threshold for the conclusion that a publication is in violation of the "hate" provisions of Alberta's human rights laws. The prosecutor, Dr. Lund, told the Canadian Press that "If the language contained in the letter does not meet the threshold of hateful, I am not certain what possibly would." If Dr. Lund is right, then there will be no further prosecutions. The decision of the Alberta Human Rights Commission to withdraw from the case suggests that the Commission learned from Dr. Lund's mistake. There is no place for thought control in a free and democratic society.

2. Dr. Lund told the Calgary Herald that the decision of Justice Wilson "takes away the tools at our disposal". He is correct. The tools of censorship should not be available to prohibit freedom of expression in Canada. There is no circumstance in a free society where limitations on political or religious debate can be justified.

3. While the decision did not strike down Alberta's "hate speech" laws, it significantly limited the application of such laws. Justice Wilson properly pointed out that a province may not duplicate the federal Criminal Code rules outlawing hate crime. Furthermore, Justice Wilson interpreted the provision in question as only prohibiting hateful words that lead to discriminatory activity under the provincial human rights legislation. Justice Wilson found that Stephen Boissoin's letter to the editor was not hateful and did not cause discriminatory behaviour. It is difficult to conceive of a political or religious debate that would meet the two part test established in the legislation. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that in the future no religious or political debate will be found to be in breach of the current text of Alberta's human rights laws.

Gerald Chipeur, QC

So, for purposes of the Alberta HRCM Act and Section 3(1) and 3(2) of that act, a 2 part threshold has been defined for alleging discriminatory communication.

First, the province, and all other provinces would do well to heed this judgment, may not duplicate the Federal Criminal Code as it relates to hate speech. That is a big victory, as the Human Rights Commissions, including the one under J Ly in the nation's capital, have made their own parallel universe where they write and interpret their own legislation, and have made whatever they want to call hate speech out to be criminal like behaviour, though couched in their own terms of reference, and political correctness speak. This judgment can be seen as a deterrent at the Federal HRC/HRT level as well on the same basis.

The second determination is of equal significance. Justice Wilson found that HRC's/HRT's can only deal with hate as it relates to discrimination under their purview. In the case of Alberta, this means fundamentally discrimination in the workplace and the provision of goods and services. Basically, Justice Wilson stated that the Alberta HRC was ultra vires their legislative authority to have ever taken on this case, and others like it.

Congratulations to Stephen Boissoin, Gerald Chipeur and his team, and all others who supported Stephen in this long, drawn out case.

For a review of the particular and key wording in the Judgment, Rebekah over at Miss Marprelate has the skinny The Miss Marprelate Tracts: Boissoin Ruling Quotes.

Boissoin Victory in the Light of Day

Stephen Boissoin Is Still Not THE LETTER

As the general silence over Stephen's victory continues to deafen us, the particular commentators who have looked up from their long early winter naps to pick up on it, speak volumes. To put it simply, it appears to me once again, that those, particularly MSM types, and all those with an agenda, which makes all the rest of us, who comment on the Boissoin case do so by defining Stephen as THE LETTER.

Even Justice Wilson felt the need to let fly a negative multi-adjective barrage about THE LETTER in his mostly favourable judgment. It makes me wonder if had Premier Stelmach written the letter, a highly unlikely thing since it must be admitted that it was politically incorrect, if maybe the learned judge might have opined against the constitutionality of the hallowed Section 3 of the Alberta HRCM Act, with appropriate case law references.

I actually wrote a piece back on September 17, at the end of the Appeal Court sitting date for the case, entitled Stephen Boissoin is Not THE LETTER. Since I do not want to rehash it, I urge you to read what I wrote earlier, as nothing has changed really. There is an element here of Richard Thomas forever cast as John Boy, or Ron Howard forever cast as Opie Taylor. The good news is that they are fictional characters and the Good News is bigger than that.

So, Stephen will continue to outlive and outshine THE LETTER, and will use it and the experiences from it all to do what he wants in his heart to do most, which is minister to young people. The real depth of the man is what the youth see, not just THE LETTER, and there is real depth there. Someday we will read his life story, and it will curl your hair, to see how low he fell, and why, and to see how high he has climbed back by the Grace of a loving God.

But there were other things that have struck me over the last 2 days since the announcement of victory arrived in my email from Stephen.

I am reminded that in Mark 9:40 it says:

"whoever is not against us is for us."

So, when I read that a gay online news organisation, Xtra.ca supported the Boissoin judgment, I draw some encouragement, even though other Christians are not so quick to agree. I confess that being on the site and seeing the ads that were there was disturbing to me, and "my" understanding of what might be a "homosexual agenda" challenges me.

But, then I think of another important scripture Ephesians 6:12 which says in the midst of a discussion of spiritual armour:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

So, here is my 2 cents worth and I might be overvaluing what I am about to say.

In talking about those who support the free speech rights of 3 men who spoke about homosexuality from a Christian oriented perspective, Stephen Boissoin and Father Alphonse de Valk, who was investigated by the Canadian HRC, as well as Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, who was under the thumb of the same Alberta HRC that took 7 years of Stephen's life away, those who agree with us that they, and therefor we, have a right to express opinions based on our faith are not our enemies in this instance.

Further as Ephesians 6:12 says, they themselves are not our enemies anyway, and that causes me to want to back away from any vitriol that seeks to surface, and cause deeper wounds, at a time for healing.

When I look at my own sinfulness and think of the opening verses of the 7th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I am chastened as it says:

¹"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ²For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Much of what I see happening that I think is non productive is judgment of individuals, rather than of sin, and forgetting our own sinfulness in that judgment.

We are called to love one another, and in my discussions with Stephen Boissoin, and communications with him, as well as when he has been quoted correctly, I see evidence of his love for all, and a special love for homosexual individuals. As he says, THE LETTER has brought with it a notoriety that has put him in position to witness to his faith and the love that emanates from that faith for all of God's children. It was not his original plan, nor all his choice, once THE LETTER was published.

But, too many writers have taken his words in THE LETTER out of the context in which he meant them. For Pete's sakes, it was just a letter to the editor, which garnered some responses, both favourable and unfavourable, and would have died as he carried on with his work with at risk youth, having made a point. He might have gotten some support rolling for change in education, which was the issue.

Instead it became a focus of examination for all and sundry, and took on a life of its own, as Dr. Darren Lund pushed his own agenda, and as the Alberta HRC pushed theirs. As Hamlet says: "Ay, there's the rub."

It is helpful to us all to remember that as THE LETTER does not define Stephen Boissoin, calling someone a homosexual, or a Christian or a father or whatever does not define them either. They are in essence inaccurate descriptors that give a very incomplete picture of the individual.

Take for example Homosexual. There are some homosexual individuals who are basically sexual sluts. News flash people. That is no worse than many so called Heterosexuals who swap spouses at sex clubs, cheat on spouses with other people's spouses, or lust after other people but do nothing physical about it. It's just that a heterosexual slut can present himself or herself as righteous by attending the right church or political function on the arm of a spouse and all is well, NOT.

Take our recent ex-hero Tiger Woods, for example. When the manure converges with the fan blades it is not a pretty sight. But, this didn't just happen this week. It is a long standing thing, and he looked pretty good to us all the whole way. But, he had a secret that when it came out has destroyed some of his crafted image. It, of course is sad, and he like every other sinner on the planet, especially the one you see in the mirror every morning, needs our prayerful entreaty on his behalf for healing of the sin in his life.

So, before you judge Stephen Boissoin as THE LETTER, or a man or woman who you believe is a HOMOSEXUAL by that simple moniker, I urge you to remember that he and they are our brothers and sisters, loved by Almighty God every bit as much as you or I, and in that alone worthy of our love, prayers and encouragement, not our condemnation.

If you knew Stephen as I have had a chance to come to, and if you knew some particular homosexual individuals that I know even better, you would see in each case someone who is very kind and considerate of others, who has a heart of service to their fellow man, who seek out truth in their daily lives. In each case, you would see a much loved Child of God, who carries still some woundedness and pain that leads them each to their own sinful areas, just like you and me, and blocks them and us all from seeing the fullness of God's love for each and every one of us.

Will you be an instrument of God's love for all of us, or do you have this deep seated need to judge others for what you believe to be the sin in their lives? If you are still stuck on the latter, I offer you John 8:7 as my final word:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Moral Relativism - Solzhenitsyn Was a Prophet

So Too "Stop Islamization of America" and Carman

H/t Joshua

DL Adams over at SIOA wrote a solid piece on Moral Relativism. Though it is American at its heart, it is also about us here in Canada. What is happening in our two formerly great lands is tragic, but it is reversible, if we have the courage to stand up against it. The piece was too good to just link, so I have reproduced it here:

In the dark halls of denial and confusion once known as the learning and planning centers of great public and private institutions across this great land, it is believed—altogether incorrectly—that Moral Relativism has no victims, only beneficiaries.

We have recently seen a jihadist in the US military commit heinous unspeakable crimes of murder and treason at Fort Hood, Texas. He was allowed to commit treason and murder because those in positions of authority allowed him to do it preferring to avoid the appearance of a negative opinion and concern about jihad (and necessarily the “religion of peace/Islam” from which jihad comes) and treason to protecting the lives and security of American service men and women. This is a disastrous failure on the part of many Americans in positions of grave responsibility. This horror must be laid entirely at the feet of the failed philosophy of Moral Relativism and its ugly sibling multiculturalism. Most horrific of all is the fact that this appalling crime at Fort Hood was so readily preventable.

Equivalence is the essence of Moral Relativism; Hasan at Fort Hood was allowed to do his evil business because his expressions of jihad intent and murderous feelings towards non-Muslims were simply “his opinion”, and nothing more. Even expressions of outright treason by Hasan evinced no definitive reaction from military authorities.

If we have no standards of belief, no accepted concepts of truth and value, then any new ideology that reaches our shores is considered by moral relativists to be as valid as the host culture and perhaps even superior simply because it is “different”. Moral relativists have no basis upon which to make moral or ethical judgments and certainly cannot/must not express any opinions that might denigrate or criticize another’s ideology or belief system regardless of the moral or ethical quality of that system. Moral relativists, multiculturalists, and the politically correct are all “birds of a feather” deluding themselves and others that their openness and radical tolerance, even for those with outright offensive ideas, makes for a happier world. They are wrong; Hasan at Fort Hood is one of many proofs.

When all fundamental concepts of “value” and importance, and even the idea of the dichotomy that results from better/worse, good/rotten, intelligent/stupid, enlightened/ignorant are utterly abandoned, denied, and scorned what is left is moral and ethical equivalence. A society that has no idea what it stands for, what it believes in, what it means for citizens to be part of the society itself—is doomed. A society without core ideas is a society destined to failure.

Such a society of radical tolerance has no moral core, no ethical foundation and is bereft of intellectual honesty even to the extreme of forgiving a traitor his treason as if such ideas are merely opinion and completely victimless. We know that this is not so. Moral relativism creates victims not co-prosperity. Our failure to acknowledge good/evil, loyalty/treason, right/wrong, best/rotten, allowed Hasan to commit his reprehensible crimes at Fort Hood.

We are a society adrift, it is clear, because we have disavowed the foundations upon which our society was built. The preventable mass murder at Fort Hood is but one illustration of the victim-creating debacle that is Moral Relativism. Of course, this obvious negation of the value of Moral Relativism hasn’t prevented us from adopting this failed concept as the basis upon which we interact with others, at home and abroad. Fort Hood is the culmination of Moral Relativism in our culture; it is a failed and repellent philosophy that must be abandoned.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Moral Relativism as something that one accuses another of, rather than something to which one proudly admits. This alone identifies Moral Relativism as an inherent negative, and not something that most reasonable people admit to proudly or at all. Reasonable people know that some cultures are better than others, but haven’t the courage to say. Political correctness is the strong arm of the intellectual failure that is Moral Relativism and Multiculturalism. And what if someone who speaks the truth is described in unfavorable terms? Who cares? The truth supersedes all of this hokum fake Utopian philosophy bunk. The truth requires no defense but itself.

Most often it is associated with an empirical thesis that there are deep and widespread moral disagreements and a metaethical thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons. Sometimes ‘Moral Relativism’ is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the titan of moral clarity and Soviet prisoner of conscience and author of Gulag Archipelago, and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, was a prescient man. He warned us about the coming failure of our society back in 1978 in an address at Harvard University (oh, how that institution has failed in its mission!).

The theme of Solzhenitsyn’s address was a warning to the West that a rejection of definitive truths is the foundation of a society’s decline and eventual destruction. He identified the abandonment of the concept of evil and the rise of “humanism” that today is Moral Relativism and post-modernism as the ugly egg from which failed cultures are born.

Such a tilt of freedom in the direction of evil has come about gradually but it was evidently born primarily out of a humanistic and benevolent concept according to which there is no evil inherent to human nature; the world belongs to mankind and all the defects of life are caused by wrong social systems which must be corrected. Strangely enough, though the best social conditions have been achieved in the West, there still is criminality and there even is considerably more of it than in the pauper and lawless Soviet society. (Solzhenitsyn, address at Harvard, 1978, see citation below.)

Without a firm concept of societal identity and a definitive understanding of and belief in right and wrong, good and evil and similar dichotomies the West cannot succeed over time and will fall to more absolutist ideas due to a lack of moral willpower.

And yet — no weapons, no matter how powerful, can help the West until it overcomes its loss of willpower. In a state of psychological weakness, weapons become a burden for the capitulating side. To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being. Nothing is left, then, but concessions, attempts to gain time and betrayal. (Solzhenitsyn, Harvard address, 1978)

We saw with great pride a rush of enlistments after the jihad attacks of 9/11. We know that our heroes still reside in our country, but they are not the standard, they are not the main—they are standard bearers of the idea of self-sacrifice and service that requires a firm understanding of right and wrong and the courage to identify both and take requisite actions. The society from which these brave soldiers sprang has gone in a different direction than they. Our soldiers are our guide, not our politically correct leaders in broken institutions that refuse to defend themselves and us for fear of causing offense to someone real or imagined. Certainly, we have lost our moral willpower.

Facing such a danger, with such historical values in your past, at such a high level of realization of freedom and apparently of devotion to freedom, how is it possible to lose to such an extent the will to defend oneself? (Solzhenitsyn, Harvard address, 1978)

Solzhenitsyn believed that moral growth was imperative for any society and that its citizens must move forward morally and ethically. The existence of and adherence to a legal system was insufficient; meaning and value could never come from law alone but only from moral growth and understanding.

Societies require laws because of humanity’s inherent flaws; if we were perfect there would be no laws. We are not perfect, but adherence to law alone is insufficient to sustain a society and is no foundation upon which societal health and growth can be constructed. Materialism and legality is not enough.

We must have a firm foundation in morality and ethics—which we have abandoned here in this great land. We cannot say that we were not warned. Solzhenitsyn was very clear back in 1978 we just didn’t listen.

It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one’s life journey may become an experience of moral growth; so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it. It is imperative to review the table of widespread human values. Its present incorrectness is astounding.

A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.

And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,
Thursday, June 8, 1978

The rise of post-modernism and Moral Relativism whereby equivalence and mediocrity (or outright evil) trumps value and quality (Pirsig, where are you?) continues to be the grim reaper of our cultural and societal life. It will soon eat us whole.

We are now in a great economic collapse, the worst since the great depression. After trillions of dollars have been spent on recovery efforts our national unemployment rate hovers at almost 11% with the “real” unemployment rate considered by some to be much higher. As of this writing there is no recovery but for Wall Street firms enjoying immense infusions of capital because they are simply “too important to fail”. However, the American street (not as important to some as the Arab/Muslim “street”) has felt little benefit and little stimulus and continues to suffer intensely. One would think that in this crisis environment companies and governments would show a clear bias for the growth of American business and therefore support of their fellow Americans; it is not so.

On November 24th it was reported in mainly foreign outlets (China) that a Chinese company was granted a $100 million contract to do subway work on the New York subway system in Manhattan. The only American “news” outlet to cover this contract was the Wall Street Journal, and they literally only ran a two sentence “story”. According to the Journal, the Chinese contract was

…to build subway ventilation facilities in Manhattan.

China Daily quoted one analyst as saying that, “…the order came as no surprise as the US government is spending massively on infrastructure projects.”

How is it possible that the US government and likely the government of the city of New York in this case, are granting massive infrastructure contracts to foreign firms? Certainly there are American firms to do this work? The answer is Moral Relativism.

The article from China Daily was first reviewed several days ago. At that time there were 8 comments from Americans all criticizing the awarding of this contract to a foreign firm and wondering how a foreign company could get such a contract when American companies would be glad to get it. The commenters on this article all wondered how there could be an economic resurgence and recovery here in the United States if foreign firms were being granted large contracts from municipalities and by the federal government itself. These are all important questions to any American. In reviewing the article on China Daily this evening all the comments are gone. Communist states do not have neither freedom of speech nor freedom of the press, remember?

Moral relativism is an insidious thing; Solzhenitsyn warned us about it back in 1978. When we have no loyalty to our own people during the greatest economic collapse in almost a century can we be in anything but a national decline?

China, Switzerland, Rhodesia, Indonesia, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, etc.—every country and culture are all the same to Moral Relativists who have no moral core, no concept of what it means to be an American and why it is important to defend America and the concepts of freedom and tolerance and liberty upon which it was founded.

The horror at Fort Hood occurred for the same reason that infrastructure contracts for improvement of American cities are granted to foreign firms amidst a great economic disaster—because , as a culture, we do not value ourselves above others. This relativism is what “Moral Relativism,” and “Multiculturalism” are all about.

We do not see our value in comparison to other cultures because to make such a comparison is considered wrong, intolerant, and bigoted. Such comparisons are not allowed due to our embrace of multiculturalism and Moral Relativism.

We no longer can identify right/wrong, good/evil, etc. We can only embrace the concept of total inclusiveness; though this is an extraordinarily counter-historical radical concept. We are inclusive to the point where traitors, lunatics, killers, and haters are tolerated because they are simply “different” rather than wrong or dangerous or evil.

Our culture appears to have accepted the false premise that if we are but radically inclusive and uber-tolerant than all of our adversaries will love us for our inclusiveness and tolerance. This idea is a negation of the history of humanity, and the nature of humanity itself.

We live in a Utopian fantasy based upon the denial of the nature of humanity.

Our legitimization of ridiculous multiculturalism and Moral Relativism has disastrous results – most particularly the death of innocents at places like Fort Hood (and on 9/11), and the ongoing decline of the greatest country ever seen on this planet, the United States of America.

If we are to recover from this economic nightmare from which we suffer, and persevere against absolutist and totalitarian ideologies such as Islam and the corruption we see in high and low places in our leadership, we must return to the foundations of our democracy. We must accept that loyalty to our fellow Americans is the first and foremost obligation for us all and that the myth of surpranationalism and global unity is just that - a myth.

There is evil in the world, and humanity is not perfect. We must aspire to greater things than the adherence to only our laws alone (this is the core of Solzhenitsyn’s warning); American power and greatness has always rested upon the concept that our shores are the last safe haven in a difficult and often savage world; our society is open to all who want to assimilate and become American. We must not become like the herd; and remain steadfast as the leader and the safe haven for those innocents who, cruelly abused by their own corrupt societies seek a place to reside in safety and freedom.

Certainly, there must always be a place to go for succor and life for those who flee the horrors of the world – a place of decency, opportunity, and justice. We have the privilege to live in this place.

Benjamin Franklin said upon leaving the Constitutional Convention after ratification that we now have a “Republic, if we can keep it.” We must support our Republic and acknowledge its exceptionalism and value and make good the promise of Lincoln at Gettysburg that this nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal shall not perish from the earth.

If you want a prophetic answer in song to Moral Relativism, try this one from Carman, 'Our Turn Now."

Freedom

Socon - Set Me Free

This is an excellent posting by John Pacheco at Socon or Bust. It requires no further comment:

The great and noble effort by Canadians during the past couple of years to remove the shackles of the Canadian Human Rights Commissions cannot end in a simple legal fiction which treats freedom as an end itself. Freedom – true freedom – is not an end but a means. It is a valid instrument exercised by a free people for the pursuit of the truth. But, as with all instruments, it can be abused to such an extent that its abuse can become the precursor towards enslavement in almost every area of human existence – spiritual, psychological, moral, and material.

The great danger of modern times is to either suppress freedom for some purported good, or to treat its exercise in an absolute way as if it has no legitimate moral boundaries. In the end, both philosophies end up in the grips of tyranny. The human rights thug wishes to impose an arbitrary system of “human rights” which tyrannizes the population by the very system he operates within, while the “free speech absolutist” tears down the boundaries of authentic freedom by eskewing the moral virtues of justice and decency. He may even have little regard for the truth. In the end, both systems end up in the tyrannical gutter. The latter system simply takes a little longer to ripen.

For those of us who have fought the thuggery of the HRCs, we must be wary that any mere legal victory will not keep the totalitarians at bay unless we all recognize that freedom without the truth is a cheap, legal fiction. It will not survive unless it is at the service, and not the master, of the truth.

Genuine freedom is found in truth. And truth is only found in God. That’s why Jesus says, “the truth will set you free“. No human government or even human philosophy sets us free. Only God can truly set us free because He is the author of authentic freedom.

True freedom always has a moral component, while the false freedom that the world offers can only bound us to a moral tyranny. It seeks to enslave us, first, in substance and then later “on paper”. Our ultimate goal is to be set free from the corruption within so that this genuine freedom then becomes reflected in the culture at large. It’s inside-out, not outside-in.

Mark Steyn On Political Correctness

Major Hasan was Enabled

Mark Steyn wrote a fine article about the problems the real world gets itself into when it adopts political correctness.

He starts off with quoting the Queen of Censors herself:

Ever since this magazine attracted the attention of Canada’s “human rights” regime, defenders of the system have clung to a familiar argument. In a letter to Maclean’s, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Canada’s chief censor, put it this way: “Steyn would have us believe that words, however hateful, should be given free rein. History has shown us that hateful words sometimes lead to hurtful actions that undermine freedom and have led to unspeakable crimes. That is why Canada and most other democracies have enacted legislation to place reasonable limits on the expression of hatred.”

“Hateful words” can lead to “unspeakable crimes.” The problem with this line is that it’s ahistorical twaddle, as I’ve pointed out. Yet still it comes up.

As if what J Ly said was not sufficient, it was mirrored when Messrs Steyn and Levant tag teamed the House of Commons Committee on truth justice and the Canadian way:

It did last month, during my testimony to the House of Commons justice committee, when an opposition MP mused on whether it wouldn’t have been better to prohibit the publication of Mein Kampf.

“That analysis sounds as if it ought to be right,” I replied. “But the problem with it is that the Weimar Republic—Germany for the 12 years before the Nazi party came to power—had its own version of Section 13 and equivalent laws. It was very much a kind of proto-Canada in its hate speech laws. The Nazi party had 200 prosecutions brought against it for anti-Semitic speech. At one point the state of Bavaria issued an order banning Hitler from giving public speeches.”

And a fat lot of good it all did.

But still the old refrain echoes through the corridors of power: vigorous honest free speech will lead to mass murder unless we subject it to “reasonable limits.”

The problem with political twaddle of any sort, but particularly that which demands to be correct, is that is sounds good coming off the tongue, as long as those in earshot are similarly inclined to receive said twaddle. It withers when confronted by someone who is more inclined to the truth, a la Steyn.

As Steyn points out political correctness has finally come home to roost, though most are still trying not to see it that way:

Actually, the opposite is true: a constrained and regulated culture policed by politically correct enforcers leads to slaughter. I’m not being speculative here, as Commissar Lynch is about my murderous prose style. It’s already happened, just a couple of weeks back. Thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the U.S. Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way.

As Steyn goes on to point out in detail, Major Hasan is what happens when people who know try to hide themselves behind political correctness. The people did not have to die. Someone, one someone had to speak up, and shut Hasan down.

Read the rest of the article, please. Help stamp out political correctness. Engage your brain.

I Came That They Might Have Life

And Have It To The Full.

These are are the Bible words of John Chapter 10, verse 10. He spoke this particular thought in the midst of his dissertation on being the Good Shepherd. Although the entire discourse of Chapter 10 in John's Gospel is significant, this particular clause has caught my attention lately.

It strikes me as a curious statement. If Jesus came that they/we might have life, then he means that they/we did not have life before. I believe that He means that we were alive physically, but not spiritually, in essence, since we were clearly physically alive at the time of his speaking to our ancestors. As a Christian, I can resonate with that part of it. Yeah, He brought us New Life in Him. Yeehaw! Now we're cooking with natural gas. If He ends the statement there, we are home free, and everything stays as it is, except we give our lives to Jesus. We are saved, and life goes on because we now have it.

But, He adds "And have it to the full." Look around you people. Do you see a lot of Full Life going on. Nope, me either. But, Jesus Said. Well, what did he say, really?

He said we MIGHT have life, no guarantees that we WILL have life. In fact, this is totally consistent with the concept of Free Will, where we have a say in whether we have Life or not. Choose Life, choose death. Your choice.

Jesus also instructed his disciples in Matthew 10:7 to go out and preach: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Well, if the kingdom of heaven is at hand, it is really close, but not in hand, meaning that you have to reach out for it.

So, if we Might have Full Life, and if the Kingdom of Heaven is real close, why are we living like this is untrue? Having lived my life like what Jesus said is untrue, even after I knew that it was true, I can tell you that it is hard to see around the blinders and through the curtains of the deception that we have all been taught in our lives. As for me, I take full responsibility for my inaction towards God in my life. I have seen enough of my sinful tendencies, as I yearned for something more.

I spent years as a project manager, eventually getting a Masters Certificate in Project Management from a programme at York University. One thing that I learned that stuck with me in that programme was important to me in the rest of my life. If a certain series of actions produce a particular result that you do not like, there is no way that repeating the exact same series of actions will produce a different result, one that you will like. Systems happen to be perfect that way.

I understand that to apply to how we live our lives. Most of my life, I have chosen to "do it my way". Frank Sinatra was a prophet. So, when Jesus says I "might have life", He was correct in my case. I might have life, but I was too intent on listening to Sinatra, so I didn't have life, at least not the life that He said I Might have. I am firmly of the belief that without Jesus in our lives there is no way that we can have the Life that he has in store for us, where the kingdom at hand, becomes the kingdom in hand.

But, once committed to Jesus, how do I get to have life to the Full? There is no doubt in my mind that Jesus saving actions of dying on the cross and then being resurrected was in itself sufficient to destroy sin and death. What is less certain is our ability to walk in that redemption. So, as Jesus also said in John Chapter 14:

¹⁶And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— ¹⁷the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

So, that is why I supported my friends these last few weeks as they led a Life in the Spirit seminar in Ridgetown. The problem with most people who are committed to Christ, is that they are not committed to the Counselor that He gave us when he returned to heaven. That Counselor is the Holy Spirit.

If I were rewriting John 10:10 to get the full meaning from it (for me), it would read like this: "I came that you might believe in me and what I have done and have eternal life here on earth, and if you seek and listen to the Holy Spirit, you will have that life to the full."

Of course, Jesus could not really tell them about the Holy Spirit at that time, they wouldn't have gotten it, so to put that in his Good Shepherd speech would have been contextually inappropriate, and confusing. If you read on from that passage you can see that the people were confused by what he told them in the instance, and adding more would have been TMI (too much information) to the max.

We are called to put it together, though, to use our brains to think, to use our hearts to love and hope, and to use our feet and voices to do his bidding in our lives, and in the lives of those we choose to love.

I urge you to let the Holy Spirit be your guide on a journey to Jesus Christ,

Walker Morrow Is A Standup Kid/Guy

So Why is Will Not After Him

Quite some time ago, I decided that I would not name He Who Will Not Be Named In My Blog (Will Not - for short) in my blog. I am not interested in giving him publicity, nor of particularly catching his eye, though I imagine that like all free speech advocates in the press and blogosphere I have at some time or another.

But, I do know Walker Morrow quite well. Like many others in the blogosphere, I have come to know him by his writing and also by his direct communication with me, and his republishing of many of my ramblings.

Walker Morrow is a kid chronologically. He is 17 years old. Chronology aside, he is a good young man, with good values developed from a loving home. Besides that, he is an example of how good our kids can be. It's pretty hard to figure that he is young from reading what he writes. Unlike many, he does not write screed. He thinks first, and backs up what he says with truth, you know hard facts. He has opinions, and you are free to disagree with them, but more often than not, he states facts. He researches what he writes. Wow!!

Walker hit a bump in the road. He wrote an article that was published by the Cowichan Valley Citizen on October 8, 2009. Free Dominion is possibly the only place that you can find it at the moment, though I expect it could go viral. I read it, and can't see why anyone in particular would get their knickers in a twist about it, but Will Not did, and threatened to sue over it.

Anyway, it has been a tug of war with Walker Morrow as the rope, and Walker has come out last evening with these thoughts on the bumpiness here and here thus far.

Scary Fundamentalist, in his latest blog posting describes the approach to Libel Chill that someone can take to silence critics, and then gives examples from someone he calls "B" who sure sounds a lot like Will Not to me. Anyway, here is a link to SF Scary Fundamentalist: Writing the Textbook on Libel Chill

It really is time for this kind of nonsense to stop. Take it viral folks.

A Reality Check From The Discipleship Front

Archbishop of Denver, Charles J. Chaput

h/t Fr. Tim Moyle

As the Archbishop concludes discipleship costs, and it should if it is to have any value.

A reality check from the discipleship front

What the hell don’t you understand about the term separatin [sic] of Church and State. Keep your evil hands off of our Health Care Bill. Mind your own business. We don’t care about your beliefs, and if you want to meddle in our affairs, we will be coming for you. If that’s how you want to play, we will come for your pedophile priests, your ill-gotten money you stole for decades. The Catholic church is just another organized crime syndicate that should be put out of business. Get the f--k away from Congress, or you will regret it … .

That’s a real e-mail from a real person. The man who sent it last week was either very candid or very foolish about his anger: he added his real name and e-mail address. I’ve withheld them here because I like to hope that most people, or at least many of them, are better than the poisonous things they sometimes write. But this e-mail does teach a useful lesson, because it’s not just a case of a random bigot getting in touch with his inner bully. Instead, it’s a snapshot of the anti-Catholic bitterness that drives some of the loudest voices in the current health-care debate.

Let’s remember that the Founders encouraged an active role for religion in the nation’s public life. Let’s recall that freedom of speech for Catholics, their leaders and their Church is constitutionally protected, just as it is for all citizens. Let’s also finally remember that Catholic-baiting is one of America’s oldest and most favored forms of hatred. The irony is that some of today’s ugliest bigots posture themselves as socially “progressive” and work in politics or the mass media, or both.

Catholics entered this year’s national health-care discussion with good will and a long track record of public service. Catholic medical care is a national network. Most Catholics, as part of their Christian faith, see decent health care for all persons as a social obligation. They’re eager for some form of good health-industry reform. But “reform” isn’t a magic word. It isn’t an end in itself. The content of the reform matters vitally.

For months Catholic leaders have worked vigorously with congressional and White House staff to craft sound health-care reform legislation. Service to the poor, the sick and the suffering is part of the Church’s Gospel vocation. The bill passed by the House on Nov. 7 was a step toward a goal that is shared, in principle, by most Catholics. Like most bills, it was a mixed success. Critics argue that it lacks adequate conscience protections; that its penalties are extreme and largely unknown to the public; that it’s too complex; that it violates the Catholic principle of subsidiarity; and that it’s financially damaging and unsustainable.

These concerns are serious; they demand our reflection. There is nothing “mandatory” for faithful Catholics about supporting or opposing this legislation in its current form. That’s a matter for personal decision. But the House bill does seek to address the health-care crisis in a comprehensive manner; and it does—at least, so far—meet a minimum moral standard that makes Catholic support possible.

Those two words, “so far,” bring us back to the point of this column. The House health-care bill—the Senate will now develop its own version—meets the minimum threshold for Catholic support for one simple reason: Catholic pressure forced abortion and abortion funding out of the legislation. Abortion has nothing to do with advancing human health. Abortion and public funding for abortion, no matter how discreetly it’s hidden, have no place in any genuine health-care reform. This has been a key moral principle for Catholics every step of the way in the health-care discussion. With Roe v. Wade likely to be secure under this president, excluding abortion and its funding from reform legislation would be a modest, sensible compromise for “pro-choicers.” It might prove that something like common ground on abortion policy really is achievable in a Washington that describes itself as post-partisan.

Instead, the opposite has happened. The abortion-driven anger dumped on Catholic beliefs, leaders and the Church at large since Nov. 7 would make the Know-Nothing bigots of the last century proud. We’ve seen it from members of Congress, the news media, the abortion industry, and sad, deluded people stuck in their rage like the man quoted at the beginning of these remarks.

Here’s the moral of the story: Catholic witness has a cost. When we’re willing to pay it, we prove who we are as disciples—and the nation benefits. When we’re not, life’s a lot more comfortable. But that was never the point of the Gospel.

Wonks Need Apply

Then They Need to Be Shot Down Figuratively

Letters to the Editor of The Daily Observer, paper of the Ottawa Valley.

It seems Mr. Sampson objects to the existence of a cross in the Pembroke Marina, poor boy. There is a limit to how smart you can be, but there is no limit to how dumb you can be. Here is his letter:

In today's society, religion is a more private issue than it has ever been. Due to western multiculturalism, governments keep private beliefs away from the public sphere so as not to foster any 'in' group, 'out' group mentality. Having progressed as a society, it is surprising that a public boardwalk at the Pembroke Marina prominently displays a Christian cross. The most recognized symbol of the world's second largest religion is on display in an area that should be free of such symbols.

When talking to public officials about this glaring middle-finger aimed at multiculturalism, I was told it is my interpretation of the symbol that is at fault. "It is just two pieces of wood nailed together," I was told. The same would be true of a giant swastika, but in that case no one would be hypocritical enough to quibble about "interpretation."

I am not comparing the Christian religion to Nazism, but how am I supposed to interpret the symbol?

I think it is inconsiderate for a mainstream religion to be posting its symbols along public boardwalks. The marina boardwalk is a beautiful scenic area, so why should only one group get to see its symbol while everyone else's is neglected? This is a public area - is Pembroke that far behind the times?

Eric Sampson

Pembroke, ON

Who was the wonk that called it just two pieces of wood nailed together. Call it what it is. Be honest about it, for Pete's sake. Fortunately, Gilles Lacaille spoke up:

Editor:

Re:Writer disagrees with the use of a Christian symbol at the boardwalk.

Eric Sampson believes Pembroke is behind the times and believes that the cross wags an impudent finger at multiculturalism. This is typical relativistic tripe, the same mentality which insists "Merry Christmas" be replaced with "Season's Greetings" to avoid offending anyone's religious feelings.

This is part of the same battle being fought against the Canadian Human Rights Commission's Section 13, which squashes and eliminates the very symbols of the founding morals of our society and calls it a preservation of free speech.

This is not about one ideology getting preferential treatment over another, or about neglecting others. This is about recognizing the existing cultural inheritance of the founding members of the Ottawa Valley. The method in which Mr. Sampson whines about the cross is endemic of the Human Rights Commission supporters and their culture of entitlement.

Nobody cares if Mr. Sampson is offended at the "inconsiderate" display of a religious symbol, nobody except for those who believe the citizens of Canada have a right not to be offended.

And if the latter truly comes into law, we'll lose our freedom, which in Canada came from attitudes cultured by people who grew up under the shadow of that very symbol, and for which many have died for and are remembered every November 11.

Will Mr. Sampson also take offence to the overt display of religion during the laying of wreaths and the prayer during Remembrance Day ceremonies?

Gilles Lacaille,

Pembroke, ON

The best way to deal with the lunacy that has galloped into our society is to speak against it. Thank you and Bravo, Mr. Lacaille.

Life In The Spirit

Joshua Makes an Important Observation

Friend Joshua, who possesses much wisdom and very solid powers of observation, made the following comment as a result of his first telling me about Ashley Cleveland, a Christian musician he came across years ago, and my posting one of her songs from youtube here yesterday.

Here are his thoughts:

Thank you so much. In my previous communication about Ashley Cleveland, I forgot to mention that it was through Ashley Cleveland that we (my wife and I) reconnected with the Christian world. Until then, we had thought of our family as one of God's "little flocks of sheep", but socially speaking we were our own little island. After "getting into" the "Christian rock" sections in various US music stores (and online), we began to form strong connections, bonds and friendships with families like our own in the USA.

Michael, this brings up an important point. My wife, adult children and I all agree that Christian families are far more common in the United States than in Canada. And we all KEEP noticing it. It's been years now! And it's depressing to us all as Canadians. Just an observation, but maybe one that has been/could be confirmed/denied? I really don't know...

I was going to just add a comment to his, but think he has touched on a more serious issue, so decided to make a posting about it here.

I think my friend Joshua has noted something that I currently agree with, though the long term reality, I both fear and hope is likely to be different, so let me explain.

First off, I think that American Christians are far more out there and in your face with their faith, and by that I mean most particularly and in general the American Evangelical Christian family. God Bless Them. It appears to me as a snowbird, some time resident of the USA, that the American people are more demonstrative of everything that they possess, and that includes their faith. It shows up more in Evangelical Christians, and they have been a blessing to that nation, and to any of us who have reason to meet them or receive the blessing from them or their music or teaching, and preaching.

What is not so much in evidence in America is the Catholic Christian family, and not because of their weakness of faith as such, but because of the quiet way that Catholics have learned to live their faith.

In Canada, we are by our nature quieter about everything, and so are our Evangelical Christians. Canadian Catholics are quieter still, by and large, I think, and observe.

In my view, the Christian family has been under attack in this country, Canada, for a long time, and one area of that attack is the muzzling of free speech and trampling of other fundamental human rights here particularly for Christians. The HRC attacks on Stephen Boissoin, Fr. Alphonse deValk, Bishop Henry for having the temerity to speak out on Church teaching, which is unpopular in our secularized world are only some of the examples. HRC/HRT decisions that follow the secular agenda in all areas, where it is often contrary to Church teachings and the beliefs of people of good will has served to make us even more timid to speak out. At this time, the only group in this country that you can discriminate against with impunity is Christians.

From my time in the US, particularly over the last few winters, it seems that the Christian family in the US was stronger there, but I think it is reasonable to say that the Christian family is now under serious attack, and that attack is being led by the US Democratic Party. It happens in subtle ways, like the new Hate Speech legislation, and not so subtle ways, like in the vaunted Health Care Reform. And there is more on the horizon.

Christians, who now form a minority in both our countries are being handed over to be slaughtered, not in a visual holocaust sort of way, YET. It is the destruction of and manipulation of the values that we Christians hold dear. The devil is very much behind this and is only too pleased to facilitate it. Hell (and I mean that word), he has what is happening now in his end game plan.

But, we Christians have read the end of The Book, and he is not in it, certainly not in a victorious place.

God is calling us to stand up for what is truth, and to speak against injustice, even if it hurts peoples' feelings. We Christians must stand together against evil, particularly evil that masks itself as tolerance of lies and deceit.

So, in the midst of this dire situation, and it is far more dire than we believe, or want to believe, some great good is occurring. For example, Pope Benedict is on a mission to make the Body of Christ one again, inviting people of good will, to come home, to strengthen the Body as One. A serious problem that prevents Christians from making a united response to the evils that surround us and confound us is our fragmentation. Our message of truth gets watered down, since we all have different versions, not of the core principals, but on other very serious matters.

No Christian should be silent on Life, and its sanctity from conception to natural death. It is natural law, and clearly ordained by God. How can one be for Christ, and be pro-choice, for example? "What you do to the least of these little children, you do also to Me."

God loves each and every one of us just as we are, but He is not prepared to leave us that way. He wants the very best for us, and it is up to us to go out and find His best, and then claim it for ourselves, and employ it in His Glorious Name.

Which brings me to the quiet American and Canadian Catholic Family. Pope John XXIII saw ahead and so he brought new life into the Church with Vatican 2. As he said from his death bed: “The moment has come to discern the signs of the times, to seize the opportunity and to look far ahead". He invited the Holy Spirit, who had never left, to take an active part in the formation of the current Church, and to transform the hearts and minds of Catholics and other people of good will.

Catholics and all Christians are invited to let the Holy Spirit come alive in them, to walk in the gifts of the Holy Spirit that have been available to Christians since the beginning, and for those Christians, particularly Catholic Christians who have received Confirmation of the Holy Spirit to seek release of those gifts that God has for them, and which are particularly necessary in this time and place.

So, dear readers, I believe, and am not alone in that belief, that unless we wake up to what is happening around us, we are in for worse times, and the Christian Family will face extinction, out of apathy.

Come out, dear readers, and walk in the Joy and Truth of God's Holy Spirit. You only need to invite God to give you His Spirit to guide you; to guide you to other believers who share that Spirit, to guide you to places where you can make a difference in your faith in Him, to guide you to the Cross of His Salvation.

Rumours of the death of Christianity and the Christian Family, its primary unit, in North America are premature, because there is a remnant of believers who are called to reinvigorate the faith, and when you are called by Him, who does not want to lose one of you, then you must heed His Voice.

I will be writing more soon on Life In The Spirit of God, and will share with you God's most exciting and exhilarating call on each and every one of our lives.

The Voice of Canadian Martyrs

Persecution of Christians - IN CANADA

Lest we think that the faith is not being persecuted, read on. I picked this up earlier in the week, but failed to write about it. This case has gone on for some time, and is sickening to Christians.

Scary Fundamentalist: The Voice of Canadian Martyrs

Fellow free speech and Christian bloggers Scary Fundamentals and Deborah Gyapong both have jumped on this. When I read SF's take, I could not just quote from his piece, so I have quoted it all here:

The Voice of the Martyrs is an international Christian organization in several Western nations that raises awareness of worldwide persecution of Christians and provides relief or legal aid when possible can. They routinely highlight cases in which Christians are killed, tortured, jailed, or otherwise persecuted by their government for their beliefs.

One of the cases of persecution that they have recently identified is in the backwards, third-world despotic hellhole of - wait for it - Canada.

The persecution of Canadian Christians by the government's Human Rights apparatuses is reaching proportions not seen in many non-Christian nations. India's government, for example did not foist such incredulous conditions on Mother Theresa's aid organization as we have seen in Canada with Christian Horizons, which provides care and education to thousands of mentally disabled in Ontario.

This has nothing to do with the fact that CH is partly funded by tax dollars, but rather everything to do with employment contracts. As a Christian organization that sees to the spiritual development of its patients as part of the service, each employee at CH was required to sign an explicitly Christian morality code before being hired. After one employee, Connie Heintz, revealed she was in a lesbian relationship, she claims she faced harassment and pressure for her to resign, which she did in 2000.

Christian Horizons has been through this before. It was taken before the apparatchiks in 1991 for firing two employees who were in common-law relationships.

The OHRC got involved in the Heintz case, and got the Tribunal to slap CH with a generous dallop of Human Rights "remedy"(hereafter referred to as "sentence") which will gut the entire Christian culture of the organization. The same fate is in store for any religious organization that hires anyone. The Ontario Human Rights Code's s.24(1) contains very little protection for religious organizations, government funded or not. Essentially, churches are only allowed to specify a religious requirement for pastors, but as for everyone else they hire, no specifications on faith or morality are allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if Barbara Hall, commissioner of the OHRC, will go one step further and advise Christian ministers to include the promotion of the state's version of "human rights" in their sermons, as they did in Britain.

Part of the sentence is a requirement that all of CH's employees take Human Rights reprogramming training, to abolish the "poisoned" (i.e. Christian) environment in the workplace. The organization was also punitively fined $10,000 for creating that Christian environment. So much for the "remedial" nature of the Code.

It is a sad state of affairs when Canada is now internationally recognized for its persecution of Christians.

It is more than time to stand up for the freedom to proclaim and live our faith as Christians. We must stand together against that which would prevent us from telling the truth. This is one example.