Garth, Different Species and Two Different Types of Communication…

I have to apologize to Greg in advance since his requested title policy for this blog really won’t fit well tonight as I attempt to do some bullet-point blogging on a few different stories that have come up recently and deserve commenting on:

1)The Garth — Got the reception that he deserved for the “Screw the West, We’ll Take the Rest” redux. I hope he doesn’t come back to tell us he’s inclusive the next time a homosexual agenda issue comes up, but if he does, it won’t be the first time he’ll be caught directly lying to Canadians. That last note makes his quote from today all the more amusing (emphasis added):

For writing and acting in defence of my country, for opposing those who put self interests before Canada, for the decisions I have made, and the consequences they have yielded, I regret nothing.

Who knew Turner had such self-hatred?

2) Regarding the most recent evolution post, “Tom” has actually posted alleged proof for macroevolution (the effort is appreciated). Two problems though; First, after being told repeatedly by PZ Myers’ fanboys that we’ve had proof for years, this opening statement from Tom’s article doesn’t sound too compatible (emphasis really added!):

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

So, before June 9th of this year, would Darwinists have happened to have been acting on some level of faith or is the article, written by a well-respected science publication, just wrong and in need of serious correction? Secondly, I’m happy that the bacteria have discovered some new munchies, but as was brushed upon in the definition of a species argument, can we indicate if these lemon-sucking bacteria are in fact a completely different species from their brethren and not just hungrier?

3) I cannot sit by any longer when it comes to Harris-Decima. The Toronto Star’s resident polling firm (that should tell you a lot about their credibility right there!) has been doing weekly polls recently that indicate a trend in which the Harper Government is now on par with dog food in popularity questions they ask. However, their latest butcher job shows over 60% of Canadians preferring massive carbon taxes if

the rising price of fossil fuels is a reason we must move even more aggressively to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels

.

That’s a big if to be assuming there, and one that even I would agree with, were I actually polled. However, I thought the article the quote appears in was called Canadians want climate action now, poll suggests, not (oh, I don’t know), Canadians want action now to end addiction to high gas prices, addiction to oil, poll suggests. Oh, The Star…

4)Finally, it’s always cute to see the NDP attempt to orchestrate some sort of public backlash via the government. Of course, what will really happen is that NDP will fail but consumers will take care of themselves by canceling phone plans and the sort. The phone carriers might think that their government-mandated cartel creates a highway robbery scenario, but there are still millions of us non-mobile Canadians who make do just fine without cells, and it’ll stay that way until someone approaches us with a reasonable cell phone plan!

SEE ALSO: Joanne indicates she’ll be first blood if the new texting fees come in; looks like you got a winner here guys! Right From Alberta also noticed an interesting point about the NDP’s petition to stop these fees.

Students punished for refusing to kneel and “pray” to Allah

This is horrifyingly disrespectful to both Muslims and Christians alike:

Two schoolboys were given detention after refusing to kneel down and ‘pray to Allah’ during a religious education lesson.
——-
They said forcing their children to take part in the exercise at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent - which included wearing Muslim headgear - was a breach of their human rights.

This sounds like modern-day socialists who are trying to push pan-culturalism down the throats of regular religious folk — the insidious goal being to dilute individuality.

I have knelt and prayed with Muslims before. Knowing full well that I was a Christian who would not understand any of their mumbling, these Muslim guys still invited me to join them. [While they prayed to Allah, I prayed to God with a few petitions to the Virgin Mary tossed in for extra points.] The second time was when a few Muslims — who arrived early for a separate event taking place in our church basement — knelt at the pews of our church and prayed with us during our mass. Each of these experiences praying alongside Muslims was very moving and respectful. What happened at the Alsager School, near Stoke, was disgusting.

The Real Morgentaler Scandal

Four national newspaper chains, a bunch of chatty heads and literally hundreds of blogs and still, we seem to have all missed the boat on this one. Regardless of whether you see the new Order of Canada recipient as a mass-murderer or human rights crusader, the history doesn’t lie: Dr. Henry Morgentaler broke the law of the land, and was charged for it twice (in 1970 and in 1983). While he was acquitted the first time, it took a Supreme Court ruling to spare him from serving his full sentence. Now, before all of you pro-abortionists go ahead and disregard this as an evolution in our sensibilities, the law, or just the abortion lobby’s face-saving abilities, I should remind you to think about what you are endorsing. While the 1980s saw the social pendulum swing your way, the pandora’s box of contextual laws and rights can just as easily favour, say, a “crusader” like James Kopp who trashes our murder laws, but does so in order to stop other murders, or with rogue doctors who ignore the Canada Health Act and charge patients for their services, or companies who have strict hiring practices against gays. Yes, these ideas seem remote right now, but that’s the funny thing about trends — they change. At least if we still had a respect for the rule of law in this land, good intentions would not be an excuse that could be held up in the face of a blatant disrespect and disregard for the tools through which our society keeps its stability. I’m not even saying that Morgentaler is necessarily morally wrong just for breaking the law (although I personally believe he is), but rather that it’s a pretty sad day when the government rewards one of its citizens for so publicly snubbing it. Buller?

Ostracize Morgentaler and the Order of Canada

I am not a recipient of the Order of Canada but I would toss mine out if I was. [Since the government technically owns the medal, I would have to give it back -- maybe showing up at this year's ceremony and throwing it at the feet of the Governor General would suffice.] I would certainly reject it if it was being conferred to me alongside Dr. Morgentaler this year. Does Dr. Morgentaler cheapen the award? No, he just clarifies the inherent cheapness of the award. [I mean, give me a break, Kim Campbell? Nice gal and all but really. Come to think of it, maybe that is all I need to say!] I do not think it is such a prestigious award at all.

I think abortion is abhorrent just as other people may think it is the salvation of mankind. I have every right to disassociate myself with anybody I want. That really is the only peaceful power I have in our current state of affairs. I say: “Bravo!” to these guys.

Darwin’s “Well, Dress Me Up And Call Me Science!” Tour Comes To Canada

In comparison to it’s American release, the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed movie which challenges the dogma of Darwinian evolution has come to Canada with less of a ripple but alongside the symbolic victory of Mark Steyn over the “BC Human Rights’ Tribunal” and its thought crimes division. Using the tried and true methods of decrying anything that deviates from the notion that all life magically appeared on the Earth at some unpredictable point in the past and then morphed into the species we see today, the Darwinian apologists attacked the movie as being too friendly to deism and discussing ideas that *aren’t real science*. The former argument is trivial, overly emotional and frankly not worth discussing and more than saying that Atheists are always going to hate every other religion out there since one of their key beliefs is that their faith is being held back by all the rest, even if they merely exist (the complex behind this is another blog for another day by another blogger).

As for the latter though, wouldn’t it be interesting if we, for one moment, got truly investigative and turned the tables on the all too comfortable Darwinians who have become yet another group to hijack our education system for their own self-preservation and motives? After all, in the noise of bitter reviews, intimidating threats and exhaustive and bewildered requests to anti-Darwinists to just shut up, I think the evolution debate has failed to examine a key component: whether the theory of Charles Darwin is truly something worth wasting time on in the science class to begin with. After all, a physicist who learns anything from F=MA to the hydrogen fusion reaction that is continually taking place at the centre of our sun to even string theory is able to take that knowledge and apply it to the benefit of mankind in a strictly physical sense. Even if the highly controversial string theory proves to be a dead end, what it would tell us about how elementary particles don’t interact would help us to zone in on other understandings and ultimately give us a better way to understand the very microscopic. In turn, that would allow us to apply our knowledge one day to advancements that might, for example, allow for microscopic computers that write data onto quarks, just as F=MA gave us the first building blocks we needed to put a man on the moon. Chemistry need only need mention of companies like DOW or Pfizer to prove its contribution to our modern society and even a late-comer to quantitative analysis, biology, will soon prove invaluable to an entire generation of baby-boomers who are in the midst of retiring from the workforce currently. In fact, the driving force behind science is not just getting to have a better understanding of the world around us, from the very small to the very large, but also being able to apply that knowledge in some fashion.

When it comes to the necessity to teach Darwinian evolution in a grade 7 classroom, or high school, or even university, what is the purpose? I mean, we can keep clubing each other over the head about how detrimental it is to society for the other side to get a voice in on the debate, but as I noted above, the debate always ends up in the realm of the meta-physical; things pertaining to the existence, or lack thereof, of God! Has evolution allowed us to come up with any great invention or advancement? Is it so essential to our understanding of biology or chemistry that twelve year-olds need to understand it if they are going to pass their high school biology or chemistry courses? Or are we all fooling ourselves here, using findings that more properly belong in the hit-or-miss fields of archeology and social science to indoctrinate young minds with what is practically nothing more than a contemporary, social statement?

The fact is that evolution is still very much stuck in in the past, and will continue to be until it can offer actual testifiable evidence of one species giving way to another over the course of two or more generations. It’s all about the findings in the dirt, the rock layers and the pretty pastel pictures that appear in text books. The funny thing about history is that as it becomes more remote, the possibilities of the imagination grow exponentially. It’s also the truth that if evolution was so essential for our children to learn, I should have never graduated from university, nor anyone else who currently walks to Earth and believes that evolution deserves a more skeptical analysis, since the understanding of that knowledge should have been essential in understanding everything from RNA-DNA reactions to the immune system. Evolution should have to be to biology what F=MA is to physics if the official story is to be believed, wherein a student that fails to acknowledge the very foundations cannot comprehend or excel while studying the more advanced topics.

So as Expelled comes out this weekend in a fraction of the theatres it did in the US back in April, you’ll probably see a few fireworks fly as the Darwinians campaign to remain the only kid on the block. What the movie will continue to do though is extend a debate that has lasted for over 150 years and certainly isn’t going away; a debate where a lot of questions could be and should be asked. Ultimately, the most dangerous of those question for Darwinians isn’t “Can you prove it?”, although they certainly hate that one. Rather, if they want to spend valuable class time teaching my son or daughter about their great theory about nothing, the worst thing they could hear back from my kid is “So what?” The runner up might sound something like “Why are you so concerned about us hearing from the competition?”

Successful teen pregnancy pact in Massachusetts

I believe these teenage girls just wanted attention and needed to feel important — they succeeded. My suspicion is that the outrageousness of this event is just a mirror of the outrageous lack of attention or love these girls experience on a daily basis. There seems to be an odd naivety among adults automatically assuming that teenage pregnancies are “accidents” or unwanted.

Days after a major news magazine uncovered a teen pregnancy pact at a Massachusetts high school, parents and school officials struggle to understand the reasons why the girls may have participated in the scheme — and what could have been done to avoid it.

What could be done to avoid it? Well, that depends on who is intervening and when that intervention takes place. From a school nurse’s perspective, I suppose force-feeding contraceptives would probably be the only strategy because clearly these girls wanted to get pregnant.

I have an old-fashioned solution: make girls earn their allowance (cell-phone, movie money, computer privileges, etc.) by baby-sitting their neighbor’s kids. That would be a great preventive measure.

Libertarianism versus Liberalism vs Conservatism

I am a libertarian, small-l because I support neither the American Libertarian Party nor the Canadian Libertarian Party. However, what exactly does that mean, and what makes me different from a liberal, small or large “L”?

Obviously, we differ on issues of the economy. Liberals support a welfare state, a “trickle-up” sort of economic policy, if you will. However, on this issue we disagree with Conservatives as well, most of whom are exponents of a “trickle-down” economy.

The reason that we libertarians find ourselves here is because unlike both of these two ideologies, who make a clear distinction between social and fiscal issues, we do not. We oppose government intervention in the economy on a moral level, not a practical one. My business is my business. Not yours, not Harper’s, not Stelmach’s. Be it concerning money or not, they government can just stay out.

Worse than regular welfare, what the Liberal’s propose, is Corporate Welfare. Perhaps one of the sickest, vilest, most disgusting practices of government, this is when the nation gives a boost to a company, often to a company that supports the government.

On to social issues, where many are tempted to lump us in with the Liberals. Yes, we do tend to oppose social conservatism on most issues, like the Liberals. however, once again, our motives are different.

We often do not believe that gay marriage is morally right. We often disagree with people who do drugs. However, we believe it is their legal right to do so, whether we agree with it or not. We don’t legislate morality.

Some issues, most notably abortion, are very divisive for libertarians. I am personally against it, as I see it as murder. Nobody has the right to take the life of someone else. Other libertarians do not see a fetus as a living person, so they see no problem in aborting it. That’s not what I want to debate here.

However, it shows another difference between us and the Liberals. We do not support absolute freedom, we support freedom as long as it does not interfere with the freedoms of others.

And there you have it, from a living, breathing libertarian.

Telling Libertarians By the Company They Keep in Social Policy Circles

After last week’s stunning juxtaposition of the Prime Minister apologizing to Indian children who were sent to denomination-assisted government education facilities in which their human rights were terribly abused while a “human rights tribunal” essentially made a 2000 year-old religion illegal, and with this week’s news that the senate has now approved a bill which would take a way the God-given rights of parents to discipline their children, it could be quite easy to write on how these latest attempts by secularists to conform all of us in their image will only lead to disaster and the demolition of the free state of Canada that we all knew and loved. However, I think tonight it would be more constructive to examine a group that has helped to make this possible and which still has the power to reverse the trends if they were to reanalyze their thinking.

I’m talking of course (see title) about libertarians, or specifically about what libertarians are considered today. While the term could apply to many distinct schools of political thought, including the one that I subscribe to, the libertarian moniker in 2008 refers to one who is adamant about reducing government spending and intervention in the economy, while also subscribing to the secularist interpretation of human rights. I say this, instead of saying that they are “socially liberal” like libertarians like to describe themselves, because I’ve found that description to be a simple matter of opinion and not a quantifiable statement like one’s opinion on government spending levels can be.

As I said above, I consider myself a libertarian, but one of the Lord Acton (a 19th century Catholic and noble) brand, not of the modern rendition. Therefore, it’s fairly safe to say that I typically agree with most modern (secular) libertarians and find their reasoning to be typically sound on fiscal matters. I’ve spoken and debated with many over the years and have observed their frustration at many on The Left who like to believe that the economy is a macro-sized golden goose which you can feed government dollars and have it produce a “just society”. Many have lamented just how emotionally-based liberal arguments are and how they don’t hold up to the real world realities or mathematical proofs that we now know.

As such, it might come as a shock, but I find that libertarians too easily fall into the irrational and overtly emotional impulses of their liberal friends when it comes to the topics of drugs, abortion, marriage and the family’s role in society. In essence, I believe that modern libertarians have to answer a very difficult question which is why they tend to be onside with the likes of the NDP when it comes to issues like this, despite their dramatic opposition to that party’s attitudes in almost every other policy arena. Put another way, if it that if government endorsement of “gay marriage”, aborting fetus lives and marijuana for all is liberty, how did the NDP arrive at these conclusions and for the same reasons expressed at libertarians. Granted, a broken clock is right twice a day, but simple analogies don’t do justice to over a century of political philosophy development; either socialists and liberals are capable of spearheading liberty as they use national kangaroo courts to squash our speech freedoms, or modern libertarianism has gone astray.

After debating many libertarians, I have come to the conclusion that it is it the latter: when it comes to such issues, libertarians have let their angst for authority cloud their judgment and sense of natural order with emotional impulses, thus letting them arrive at the conclusions they do. Otherwise, why is it so well known that a great majority of self-described libertarians are pro-abortion, instead of pro-life? As I inferred above, if libertarians were naturally and neutrally socially liberal, shouldn’t a sizable minority (at the least) arrive at the conclusion that an unborn fetus’ right to life outweighed a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy that she played a pretty intimate part in creating? It’s too lopsided to be a simple matter of rights since both sides of the debate have a well-defended right they’re trying to argue in favour of. I hope that one day the libertarians in Canada see this as well, and begin to connect liberalism’s attack on free society with our destructive social policy and not in spite of it!

Catholics help girl get abortion

When Catholics fire Catholic employees for un-Catholic actions, it is an outrage. However, when the state fires Catholics for un-Catholic actions, it is fine and dandy — they even get the Catholic authorities to help:

Officials have called the matter to the attention of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) headquarters in Washington, urging it to prevent any repetition of the incident.

As far as the state is concerned, the main difference solely seems to be administrative:

It is illegal in Virginia for a social worker to sign a parental consent form for an abortion.

The morality of the actions do not seem relevant.

Nobody can possibly know the motives of the people who facilitated this girl’s abortion. All we can do is respond to their actions which, in my opinion, sabotage the Church. I find this whole thing to be demonically appalling and my rage is directed at Catholics. Any and all of the Catholics who knowingly facilitated this horror should be publicly shamed.

I want to re-iterated my recommendation that the Church should stop any partnerships with the state.

A Perspective on the Boissoin Letter and the AHRC Verdict

The Rev. Stephen Boissoin wrote a letter to the editor, which was printed by the Red Deer Advocate. It resulted in a complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, on the grounds that homosexuals might be offended.  He just thought they might be offended, so decided to take the complaint out on their behalf. Turns out that a whole bunch of homosexual organizations in fact support Boissoin’s and the Advocate’s right to speak publicly, even though they disagree with what Boissoin wrote. But never mind all that. Instead, the Alberta HRC found Boissoin guilty of possibly offending someone somewhere. The penalty for that is he has to pay for all of his own defence costs (thousands of dollars) while the complainant doesn’t pay a dime. Additionally, he has been commanded to write an apology for his actions, and have it published in the Advocate, he has been banned from saying anything negative about homosexuals or homosexuality EVER again, AND he has to pay damages to the complainant, one Mr. Lund, in the order of $5000. Never mind that the complainant was not damaged. At all.

So it is into that context that I thought it could be appropriate for you readers to find out exactly what started all this.

Homosexual Agenda Wicked

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the “Moral Majority.” Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term “morality.”

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, “I’m just not sure where the truth lies,” or “If they don’t affect me then I don’t care what they do,” abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke’s observation that, “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It’s time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn’t rooted in protecting homosexuals from “gay bashing.” The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don’t allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It’s time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

And now for my comment. As a piece disseminated in the public, I think it lacks tact. I think that the caveat emptor he issues to lead off the piece is true and heartfelt, but this guy I don’t think has heard of the term, “you catch more flies with honey”.

I think it is true that somewhere along the way, the homosexual lobby ceased to press for equality, and is now demanding acceptance and celebration. Witness gay pride parades, which regularly feature explicit behaviour and nudity, but yet are billed as “family events”. I think that people need to demand clarity from our politicians, and even hold the myriad homosexual lobby groups to account, with what they are doing. A civil society doesn’t mean one where nobody ever disagrees. Dissent is necessary for progress, in all areas - moral, scientific, economic, political. If everyone is forced to agree, then you have totalitarianism, Stalinism, take your pick of socialist dictatorships.

Yet that is exactly what we are moving towards if we prosecute everyone for having bad manners. If the mode of the day is respect, then surely we can respectfully disagree with one another. Why does disagreement necessarily have to mean disrespect?

But back to the subject. I will go farther: Boissoin’s letter was inflammatory. It consistently characterized the homosexual lobby as some kind of militant organization bent on destroying… presumably heterosexuality. I think there is a desire that is common to all people to convince others to be as we are, that is just part of human nature. However, if you want to argue with someone, you won’t get very far by using rhetoric like this. The call he makes, not unlike an Old Testament prophet or a Great War recruiter from the early 20th Century, is to rise up and defend against the evil. It is surprising that he elected to use a public forum like a newspaper to make such a call. It is kind of like going to Nigeria to recruit people to combat radical Islam - a good chunk of the people there will actually be opposed to you, so why appeal to them to rally to fight… themselves?

It was not necessary. I do not support the HRC’s decision in this regard. In fact, I find the ruling to be more disgusting, more inflammatory, and more of a challenge to our way of life in Canada than anything Boissoin said. To think that a pseudo-court has the audacity to force someone to apologize for not offending anyone? To think that a tribunal could award “damages” to a person who was not damaged? To think that bad taste is a crime - well, why hasn’t anyone taken Don Cherry to the HRC for offending Canadians’ eyes with those ghastly plaid suits he wears on Hockey Night in Canada? I am sure he has actually caused damage in that case, whereas in the Boissoin case, there is no damage.

Lastly, as a postscript, as a Christian, I firmly believe that Boissoin’s post should have ended with paragraph one. While I believe the Scriptures are clear that homosexual behaviour is an offense against our maker (much as using a pencil sharpener to manufacture nails is an offense against the manufacturer of a pencil sharpener). It just isn’t what our bodies were designed to do. It’s not anyone’s fault. The reality is there are lots of people who for many reasons, prefer to do things with their bodies that are contrary to their design. As a Christian, my job is to introduce people to their creator, and their saviour. If you don’t believe in a creator and redeemer of the universe and mankind, well, then the conversation stops there. But even failing that, I will stand up and fight for a society that gives me the freedom to believe as I wish and the freedom to talk about it in public. Just as I will stand up and fight for the freedom of those with whom I disagree to do the same.

I have no problem with people believing differently from me. I do have a problem with them, or anyone else telling me that disagreeing with them is a hate crime.

« Previous Page — Next Page »