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

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.

Free Speech Victory for Pro-Lifers!

That Youthful Energy At Work

Big Blue Wave notes the free speech victory for pro-life students at U of Calgary who stood up for their right to present their beliefs publicly.

BIG BLUE WAVE: FREE SPEECH VICTORY FOR PRO-LIFERS!

Here is the actual email content from the Canadian Constitution Foundation, about the incident that precipitated charges against pro-life students at U of C, with the outcomes, and other information:

The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) today announced that the Alberta Crown Prosecutors’ Office has decided to stay the trespassing charges which the University of Calgary had pressed against its own students.

The Alberta Provincial Court trial had been scheduled to take place on November 4, 2009.

Earlier this year, the University of Calgary charged its own students with trespassing when the students refused to comply with a University demand that they set up their Genocide Awareness Project signs in a circle facing inwards, such that no passersby could see the signs.

“The Crown’s decision is good news for free speech,” stated John Carpay, one of the lawyers representing the students, and Executive Director of the CCF.

“The Canadian Constitution Foundation takes no position on abortion, but we defend free speech for all Canadians, especially on the campus of a taxpayer-funded university,” added Carpay.

Since 2006, the Campus Pro-Life students had set up their provocative signs on campus twice per year, in a circle facing outwards. Large colour photos of aborted fetuses were among the images used to generate discussion and heated debate. The University of Calgary took the initiative to post its own signs nearby, declaring that the display was permitted under the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms Section 2 guarantee of free speech.

In 2008, after the Genocide Awareness Project had been displayed on campus without incident on several occasions, the University declared that “security concerns” necessitated censorship, and told the Calgary Police that the display “would trigger violence.”

The University’s lawyers warned the students that a failure to comply with this new demand to turn the signs inwards would result in trespassing charges, not to mention penalties of suspension or even expulsion for “non-academic misconduct.”

The students took the position that they were not in violation of any University rule, policy, bylaw or regulation. The students also argued that the University had no qualms about the display on campus of large colour photos showing the results of torture perpetrated by Chinese Communists on adherents of the Falun Gong religious movement. The students claim that the Falun Gong torture photos were merely one example of a myriad of obscene, offensive, and disturbing expression which the University tolerates on campus.

The University’s own website promises that, as part of its respect for “the rich diversity of our learners,” there will be no discrimination or harassment on the basis of various grounds including race, religion, and political beliefs.

Suzanne at Big Blue Wave said this:

Those pro-life kids in Calgary-- they have GUTS.

That's what will win the fight for the unborn, folks. Remember that.

It is, of course, interesting to note that free speech seems to be such a workable concept in our society, as long as we all know what speech is politically correct, so we don't try to speak freely about sensitive issues.

Wouldn't want to hurt the wrong person's feelings now, would we!

"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." I don't remember reading the hopey changy addendum to that Bible passage. You know the one that says: Just don't try to use truth as a defence when we come to get you.

When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

Blazing Cat Fur

Max Yalden is out of touch with real society, as one would expect from a former CHRC Chief Commissar, certainly if the current leader of that band is any indication of out of touchness, and also plain old touchiness.

The Star gave him a place to vent his spleen this morning, in a piece that made me bilious. Can't wait to burn his new book.

Quoting from the piece:

Sometimes it is useful to return to a contentious topic long after it has disappeared from the headlines, public passions have subsided and minds are perhaps more open to sober second thought.

One such subject is free speech vs. freedom from hate. A debate on it raged for months, triggered by complaints by a group of Muslims against Maclean's magazine for being allegedly anti-Islamic. But the issue was never fully resolved. Understandable, given that there's no easy answer.

"Clearly both are desirable in any civilized society but they are often seen as being in conflict. Need this necessarily be so? Except as between unrepentant hate-mongers, on the one hand, and over-committed freedom of speech freaks, on the other, I do not see why they should be."

What moron thinks that free speech has disappeared from the headlines. As long as those in favour of a right to take away our right to free speech keep blathering on, those who believe that the Right to Free Speech is a fundamental right and freedom in Canada will not let this rest. It may not be in the press every single day, but it will be there on a regular basis.

So, free speech and freedom from hate are both desirable in a civilized society, eh! Give me a break. Hatred is an emotional response to something that a person does not like. Hating some things is a good thing. Hating others not so much. So, by denying those who hate something or someone the right to speak their piece is going to make it better, NOT! It will go underground for a time, like it did just before Hitler arose to power, largely resulting in his rise to power.

As I looked around, I was not the only one disturbed by this piece, and so rather than rehash this, I will recommend that you follow the link below over to Blazing Cat Fur's comment and links. Make sure that you take the first link to Scaramouche for a dissection of the Star piece.

Blazing Cat Fur: When EX-CHRC Gas Bags Deflate

Some Rights Are More Equal Than Others

No Apologies Writes

Over at No Apologies Neil Dykstra has a good synthesis of the goings on with CHRA Section 13.

He cites the two ways that the Federal Law is being examined, the Appeal of the Lemire decision, and the JUST committee meetings and coming recommendations about it.

It is important also to note once again, that Alberta's similar law in Section 3(1) of their human rights legislation is on trial, and now awaiting a decision in the Stephen Boissoin case that was heard at the Alberta Court of Queens Bench in mid September 2009.

The court heard about the egregiousness of the Decision on its face, but also was put to task on the constitutionality of a law limiting free speech in this country, with the words "likely to expose to hatred or contempt".

Australia Considers Bill To Criminalize Free Speech By Christians

It is Still in the Consideration Stage

Excerpt from The Australian:

Australians who wear a crucifix to work or offer to pray for a patient in hospital could run foul of a charter of rights, according to a British legal expert who says its introduction in this country would trigger an attack on religious expression.

Barrister Paul Diamond said equivalent laws in Britain had intensified religious resentment and introduced a degree of uncertainty into the rule of law.

He cited the example of a workplace dispute at British Airways in which the company had tried to prevent an employee from wearing a crucifix while permitting other workers to carry Sikh ceremonial knives and wear turbans and Muslim head scarfs.

Mr Diamond said the secular ideology of the British Human Rights Act was being used to politicise the judiciary and eradicate “unacceptable religious viewpoints on same-sex, on women, on a whole range of moral issues”.

Mr Diamond, who is visiting Australia as a guest of the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty, criticised the report of Jesuit priest Frank Brennan's consultative committee on human rights, which has called for a human rights act, a charter of rights and changes to the way courts interpret legislation.

Mr Diamond's concerns are in line with those of 20 church leaders who were part of a delegation to Canberra last week that urged Attorney-General Robert McClelland to reject a charter.

Catholic Cardinal George Pell said there was no doubt a charter would be used against religious schools, hospitals and charities by those who did not like religious freedom and thought it should not be a human right.

[...]Mr Diamond said the ideology of the British Human Rights Act had contributed to a widespread attack on religious freedom since it gave effect in Britain to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[...]He said one of his most frightening cases concerned a man known as David Booker who was threatened with dismissal for telling a co-worker that Christians opposed pre-marital sex and same-sex relations.

“She had asked him about his Christian faith. She complained and he was suspended and would have been sacked had we not intervened. It was a private sector employer interpreting their diversity policy to eliminate offensive Christian viewpoints from the culture.”

In the 10 years of its existence, the British Human Rights Act had intensified racial and religious tensions, caused widespread community resentment, introduced a degree of uncertainty to the rule of law and been associated with an influx of young, politicised judges, he said.

He rejected the charter lobby's argument that Australia was out of step with comparable western democracies in not having a bill or charter of rights.

"I hope this doesn't sound patronising, but it is good to be 10 years behind. I've seen the future and it doesn't work. You can avoid it," Mr Diamond said.

Further excerpt from Wintery Knight who has cited some of the tip of the ice berg of particular cases in the UK, Canada and the USA where putting down Christian thought and action has become sport:

Not only has this caught on in the UK with the British Human Rights Act.

• Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade
• Another nurse faces termination for being a Christian in public
• UK stewardess fired for refusing to dress as a Muslim
• Couple arrested for answering Muslim’s questions about Christianity

Canada has similar infringements on religious expression because of the anti-Christian Canadian Human Rights Act.

• Pro-life debater shouted down at McGill University
• Pro-life debater shouted down at St. Mary’s University
• The persecution of a Catholic Bishop (at Blazing Cat Fur)
• The persecution of Rev. Stephen Boissoin (at Ezra Levant)
• The persecution of Catholic Insight magazine (at Ezra Levant)
• The persecution of Christian businessman Scott Brockie (at The Interim)

And bad things are already happening the United States.

• Feminists suppress free speech at East Georgia College
  
• ACLU instigates arrest of two Christians for praying in a church
• New Mexico Human Rights Commissions fines couple $6000 for being Christians
• Obama forces Catholic school to cover abortion on health care plan

People of Good Will, this is not going away. It will only continue to get worse, unless you/we stand against it. You want a real pandemic. Here is a real pandemic. It is viral. The hatred behind this is highly contagious. There are Christians ministering throughout the world, who are being killed for their faith currently, as always, and the numbers far exceed H1N1. This particular strain of the Christian Persecution flu makes a slow death.

Learning: Lessons for Social Conservatives from the Free Speech Movement in Canada

Miss Marprelate Speaks

Rebekah over at Miss Marprelate write for Mercator, and of course has her own blog. She is a good young writer, and this may be one of her best, so far. She is only scratching the surface of her abilities, and I look forward to more good stuff from her.

The Miss Marprelate Tracts: Learning: Lessons for Social Conservatives from the Free Speech Movement in Canada

(Com)Passion and Power

What Are Society's Motivators?

A friend pointed out to me the other day that I was operating with Passion, but not Compassion in a particular discourse. Truth be told, it is easy to drop the Com from Compassion in day to day life. But really, gentle readers, aren't we all called to walk with Compassion for our fellow man?

For my wife and me this has meant that we do our charity locally more than just sending cheques to organisations. We do support our local Church, and charities that we believe are doing good work, but much of what we do is more hands on now. We can do this in part because we have nothing but time on our hands, but also because we realise that it is the right thing for us to do.

Today, we are working on a quilt because a member of one of the quilt guilds that my wife is a participant in, challenged members to make quilts for youngsters who through no fault of their own are forced with a parent to find refuge from abuse in a shelter.

But, what of goverment? Take Human Rights, for example. OK, I will. We have government bureaucracies in charge of ferreting out human rights wrongs, and making them right. That just seems so wrong to me. It is, to me, and example of "Let the government do it." Why? Do they have a passion for this work? Sure doesn't look like it to me, if you take the shenanigans of J Ly and her band of cronies at the CHRC as an example? Ditto, Barb Hall and her folks at the OHRC. And don't get me started on Alberta, or BC for that matter.

While J Ly chases after pretend Nazis, and publishers, she does so at the expense of free speech in this country. Ask Marc Lemire how it feels to have his life put on hold for 6 years, and his back account empty, while the J Ly bunch pillory him and lie about him along the way to get a conviction, which in the end was hollow and opens doors to real freedom of speech in this country.

Ask Stephen Boissoin over in Alberta how it feels to be gagged by the Alberta HRC because what he said was not politically correct? It doesn't matter if he can prove the truth of what he says, because as we have all learned, truth is not a defence at the HRCs.

And in Ontario, the Barb Hallers are chasing after landlords, transit systems, and the like to bring "equality" to us all. Did anybody ask us if we wanted it or believed it was even real? See what George Jonas said about the elusive equality. He called it a Chimera with good reason.

Is there any Compassion in their work? Sure isn't any visible. They are paid to bring people down for discrimination of some sort or other, and are in marketing to make sure they have enough business to justify their sinecures. They even invent new human rights beyond the Charter along the way.

Is there Passion in their work? Maybe, but hard to tell. No, I think it is about Power, political power. I have seen too many cases that have no basis in the fundamental rights and freedoms that our Charter guarantees us.

The Barb Hall's of this world live for power, the ability to enforce made up rights is a good place to have power, because you make it up as you go.

Let's have a revolution, you and me. Let's work at treating our family first, then our neighbours, then the rest of our community with respect and dignity. Let's us stand up for Charter fundamental human rights, not hopey changey ones that are being thrust on us. Some wag said long ago: "Charity begins are home." So, let's try it. Let's make government redundant in areas of helping others. Let's care about one another without regard for religion or political, or other beliefs.

Oh, for this to work, we need a new attitude shift as well. Forget taking offence when someone says something against your beliefs. As one friend said to me more than once: "Suck it up Buttercup." Instead of filing a Form 1 with Barb or whatever the form is in another province or federally, spread love. Why, because "Love Does Not Take Offence."

Stop letting the government do it. Do it yourself. If you want to reduce taxes, get rid of the government meddling in your life at every turn. Make it only some turns, where they can do a better job than we can. They cannot look after our neighbour better than we can. Make them leave, because they are not needed.

Weaning away from government intervention everywhere we look won't be easy. They don't want to shrink, and we are usually too lazy to stop them.

Wake Up folks. It's our turn now.

Voices, The Lay State and Religious Liberty

Knights of Columbus Symposium in Mexico City

I am a member of the Knights of Columbus, have been for a few years. My father before me was a Knight as well, as was my father in law, before they passed away. It is a very good fraternal organisation that invites Catholic Men to become more involved in their communities, spreading the love of God through their charitable efforts.

So, when I read about joint involvement of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Knights, it caught my attention. From the K of C site, I read:

The Knights of Columbus and the Archdiocese of Mexico City cosponsored a conference on religious liberty in the Americas Sept.25-26 in the Mexican capital. The event was organized by The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has held similar conferences in the Middle East, Europe and the United States. Supreme Knight Carl Anderson delivered the opening address. Other speakers included Harvard law professor and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Mary Ann Glendon, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN Human Rights Commission J. Kenneth Blackwell, and former U.S. Ambassador-at-large for International Religious Freedom Robert Seiple. Professors from universities in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Canada also gave presentations. A special Web site features complete details of the conference program.

The purpose of the conference was:

to raise awareness of international religious liberty standards and how they apply to the United States, Latin America, and Mexico. The symposium is also meant to encourage the emerging voices of religious liberty in these countries and to foster collaboration among academics, activists and other creators of culture.

The symposium covers a large range of topics from the application of religious liberty in the international context to specific religious liberty issues in various countries on the American continents. Among the speakers are experts from different countries such as Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Canada, and different distinguished universities in the United States and Mexico.

Supreme Grand Knight Carl Anderson opened the conference saying:

Christianity is looking to create political ethics, not political theology. “These political ethics should be the same as our personal ethics. They should be consistent with our well-formed Christian conscience. Furthermore, as Pope Benedict has pointed out, our understanding as Christians that humanity is imperfect, and that politics too is imperfect, mitigates against our acceptance of radical, political solutions, which consider themselves perfect. This is the promise –and failure—for instance of communism and liberation theology”.

Doctor Jorge Traslosheros, a researcher for the Institute for Historic Research of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, made a presentation titled “Sacred-phobia and religious liberty”. In it he stated that:

"there has been a transformation from characterizing religion as “the opium of the people”, as the Marxists did, to now being considered the “tobacco of the people”. “That is, religion viewed as an evil that should be eradicated, at least from the public spaces”, said Traslosheros. The UNAM academician added: “there is a tendency, each time more pronounced, among the intellectual elites and the communication media to adopt a sacred-phobia, an aversion to the sacred”.

Videos and text of all speeches are available here.

It is good to see voices speaking out for our religious freedom.

Manitoba Dodged a Bullet

Pick Selinger Over Ashton

You might recall that I wrote about Steve Ashton, the would be Premier of Manitoba a while back here, and here. In those blog posts, I was largely quoting other periodicals, though I had my own opinions on it. He had presented a half baked idea that was particularly odious to all of those who value free speech. That he might make it as Premier of one of our provinces was a most challenging thought.

The good news, I hope, is that the people of the Manitoba NDP party picked Greg Selinger to be their party leader, and new Premier today. He slipped by Mr. Ashton with a margin of 1,317 votes to 685 votes, the largest margin of victory in 35 years.

That is particularly good news if Mr. Ashton's idea, for his made in the UK so called (in)Dignity Act never sees the light of day. One can only hope that Mr. Selinger has no thought of giving this idea credence. As for Mr. Ashton, who hails from the northern reaches of Manitoba, we can be charitable to him and the life that he was raised in, and particularly the brain freeze that he must have live with all his life.