Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Doesn't anyone see the irony here?
Rachel Dolezal considers herself to be a black woman, even though there is not one gene to warrant this identification. But she claims to be "black" because she thinks of herself as "black".
And Bruce Jenner, who had gender-changing surgery, because he thinks he is a "woman".
Glad to see that one journalist did (see the irony, that is).
Robson really struck home with me when he concluded "I always wanted to be tall".
at 12:51 PM
Thursday, June 18, 2015
Another tragedy in the US as a lone man killed 9 people inside a Baptist church, while members were holding a prayer meeting.
And the inevitable question arises: should there be more gun control in the US?
For once, I have to agree with President Obama as he said that this simply does not occur in other countries with the regularity that it does in the US, and the problem is guns.
Now, I know that those who believe in the right of private citizens will cite the second amendment of the constitution which gives the regular folks the right to "bear arms". But this amendment comes from a time when people really did need to protect themselves from violent assaults by their enemies and to hold their own against intrusive government. But the times have changed, and don't we now protect ourselves with the law and with our words, instead of our weapons?
The latest perpetrator used a hand gun, supposedly the one his father gave to him as a gift. And gun laws allow guns to be exchanged within a family. But this guy is nuts, surely anyone can see that, except perhaps the father who gave him the gun.
But if there had been no gun to be given, those nine people would be alive now.
There is no longer any need to protect yourself from the overreaching government with a weapon; we now have our courts and our logic and our words to do our fighting. The time for violence with weapons is past. If a psychopath gets violent, without a gun, he will have to resort to a weapon like a knife which does a lot less damage.
I for one am in favour of more gun control. I just do not see the need for private citizens to have guns in their homes. Let those who disagree leave a comment.
Friday, June 5, 2015
And you thought it was about marriage? How wrong you were. All the commentary on how the referendum was ‘about more than marriage’, how it went ‘beyond the letter of the law’ to touch on something deeper, something psychic, confirms that the campaign for gay marriage is not about achieving social equality — no, it’s about securing parity of esteem, which is very different.
What is being sought through gay marriage is not the securing of rights but the boosting of esteem. And this is a problem for those of us who believe in liberty. For where old, positive forms of social equality were a narrowly legal accomplishment, concerned simply with either removing discriminatory laws or passing legislation forbidding discrimination at work or in the public sphere, cultural equality is far more about… well, culture; the general outlook; even people’s attitudes. It is not satisfied with simply legislating against discrimination and then allowing people to get on with their lives; rather, it is concerned with reshaping the cultural climate, discussion, how people express themselves in relation to certain groups.
This is why we have seen, across the West, the bizarre ‘gay cake’ phenomenon, where there are more and more cases of traditionalist bakers (and other businesses) being purposefully approached by campaigners to provide services to gay weddings. The aim of this very modern form of religious persecution is to discover and expose those whose attitudes have not yet been corrected by the top-down enforcement of parity of esteem, of protected feelings, for gays. That cultural equality is concerned not merely with altering laws, but with reshaping culture and even belief itself, is clear from the growing trend for harassing those who do not bow before the altar of gay marriage. ....
...... That is, all must agree, all must partake; there can be no room for the exercise of individual conscience when it comes to the engineering of a new cultural climate.
Years ago, I tried to read After the Ball, the (apparently) definitive book on how to advance the gay agenda. I gave up after about 40 pages, it was just so depressing. All I can recall is how Kurt Madsen said that it is necessary to get the camel's nose under the tent in order to get the entire camel in later. That beginning, he said, was to portray gays as victims and to garner sympathy for them from the majority of people. And he proceeded to outline how gay activists were to promote the "gay agenda" until society accepted them as they were, without exception.
It seems that they have succeeded. We now live in a world where you are considered "intolerant" and "bigoted" if you don't accept the homosexual lifestyle. Upholding the Christian values of traditional marriage will soon be considered wrong, and those who do will be punished in some way. Just look at the bakers who decline to make a cake for a gay wedding. It is not about their refusal to bake that cake, it is about their stating that they disagree with the values of the homosexual lifestyle and that is just not acceptable to those who are in the gay bleachers. Look at the attack on the Duggar family who handled the crisis in their family in an appropriate way when it happened. But the fact that they had some moral problems has made them the target of all those who hate Christians.
So, unless we want to be cowed by this turn of events, we must stand up and defend the values that we hold. If you believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, don't be afraid to say so. You have that right and those who think you don't, are stealing your freedom from you.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Same-sex marriage, gender transitions, reproductive technology, the list seems endless of what has been unleashed by the sexual revolution.
Fr. Dwight Longenecker has a very good article on this in NC Register.
Catholics, who have the strongest theological, anthropological, ethical and historical grounds for defining marriage, rightly see the crisis in marriage. But we really haven’t seen anything yet. As reproductive technologies continue to become more widely available on a global scale, the confusion about sexuality and marriage will be spread to the whole human race. The experience of the developed world has shown that while reproductive technologies can be used to turn the baby-machine both off and on, it is most frequently turned off. The demographic winter that is approaching will not only be for the developing world, but for our entire race, and there is only one solution for the problem.His conclusion is that
The solution is for Catholics to understand clearly the simple facts of natural human sexuality, to teach them to our children and to live them out to the best of our ability. The solution is to offer an attractive, pro-life alternative by building strong, vibrant and creative families, along with dynamic human communities.
I hope that priests read this and pluck up the courage to speak of it to their congregations. Nothing will be gained by ignoring the elephant in the room. And much can be gained by tackling the problem head on.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
So, wearily and with a reluctance born of not even supporting the argument’s conclusion, let me restate the conservative Catholic’s only proper response to news such as that from Dublin last weekend. It is that 62 per cent in a referendum does not cause a sin in the eyes of God to cease to be a sin.
It must surely be implicit in the claim of any of the world’s great religions that on questions of morality, a majority may be wrong; but this should be vividly evident to Christians in particular: they need only consider the fate of their Messiah, and the persecution of adherents to the Early Church. ‘Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you,’ says Paul. What does the Archbishop of Dublin now have to say to the 743,300 people who voted to uphold what their priests taught them was God’s will? These, and not the gays, are now the reviled ones. Popular revulsion cannot make them wrong.
Have some of us, in short, made the mistake of taking the church at its word? Was it always, anyway, about going with the flow? Was it always secretly about imposing the morals of the majority on the minority — so all that is necessary is to discover which way the preponderance falls?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/as-a-gay-atheist-i-want-to-see-the-church-oppose-same-sex-marriage/Abortion next, I suppose. Here, too, shall I live to hear the divine ahem? Silly me. And there I was thinking they meant it. As so often in my life, I have missed the big celestial wink.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Note, Mary is the #1 name until 1962 when it falls to second place. Then it begins to drop rapidly down the list, until it is completely gone by 1972.
And what was going on during that decade? Legalized sale of the birth control pill in North America, plus almost complete rejection of Humanae Vitae in 1968, the long-awaited encyclical by Pope Paul VI on contraception.
Reject the life issue and reject the faith. It's all downhill from there on.
Parallel to the abandonment of the name Mary is the decline in the number of children per family.
The facts speak for themselves.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
A few months ago, I posted a video of the day when pro-life supporters planted 100,000 pink and blue flags on Parliament Hill. This was October 2, 2014 and this group, www.weneedalaw.ca, has repeated the full display again on the grounds of Queens Park in Toronto.
As well, there have been smaller displays of 10,000 flags in various locations across the country, about 30 so I am told; one that I heard of was in Charlottetown PEI.
Of course, we hear nothing of this from main stream media. But that is not surprising.
I was speaking with a member of the weneedalaw group this week and she told me the impact this display had in Ottawa. Many people came up, thinking that this was an event for breast cancer since October is Breast Cancer month. They were told, no not breast cancer, but these flags represent the abortions done in Canada each year. They were met with shock and disbelief at the enormity of the problem. As one person said, "surely you mean 100,000 world wide?" No, was the reply, "each year in Canada".
Members of Parliament entering the House of Commons saw the display and apparently a number came out through the day to look. They too were taking in the vast number of flags. The display achieved its goal - to raise awareness of the extent of abortion in our country. Citing statistics just doesn't do it, but a visual display drives the reality home.
So, weneedalaw is planning on doing this in a number of cities across the country prior to the federal election next fall. When I found out, I was super excited and my adrenaline was pumping with excitement that, at last, we could do something dramatic here to show people the reality of the abortion holocaust.
Thinking that others would share my excitement, I began to talk with those whom I thought would be on board. How disappointing to find out that the very people who do the most publicly on the abortion issue are not on board with this. Why? they disagree with the philosophy of weneedalaw and therefore won't cooperate in any project with them.
The issue is gestational legislation. WeNeedaLaw supports any effort to dialogue with those in power in order to bring about some move to curtail abortion legally in this country. As it stands now, Canada is one of only three countries in the world that has absolutely no legal protection for babies in utero. In that, we stand together with North Korea and China, both countries known for their human rights violations.
Emails were flying back and forth between myself and a spokesperson for the group that refuses to cooperate, with links to various articles supporting both positions. Their position is that any legislation that is gestational is unjust because it divides babies in the womb into those who can be aborted and those who cannot be aborted. They will not support any legislation that does not outlaw abortion from conception.
The other side believes that holding out for legislation that bans all abortions from conception to birth is unreasonable and therefore efforts must be made to curtail abortion, to reduce the evil that is being perpetrated. If you can't eliminate the evil, you can reduce it.
While I respect the belief that all abortions are wrong and should be illegal, I am taking sides with weneedalaw, because I have decided that compromise is necessary in order to achieve any results. Usually compromise is a dirty word and I am usually in that camp, but my practical self says holding out on principle in this case is costing lives. If the abortion mindset is like the Berlin wall, it won't come down all at one blow; but removing brick after brick will weaken that wall and it will collapse eventually.
Just this week, Bryan Kemper wrote a post on why he was supporting the Pain-Capable law in the US. This law would ban abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which medical science says babies in utero can definitely feel pain. The law also includes exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape and incest. Kemper is usually a no-compromise sort of guy.
This has got to be one of the most divisive aspects in the pro-life movement, to the point of causing serious infighting amongst friends. I have been called evil, faithless, a compromiser, and even the enemy of God. All of this because I am willing to support legislation that I believe is a positive step toward my end goal: the total abolition of all abortion.
I have heard people say that every time a law is passed with an exception, that we are throwing those babies ‘under the bus’. However, we can’t throw a baby under the bus that is already under the bus. Abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy, and so those babies are already sentenced to die. What we can do is pull as many babies out from under the bus as we can, until the bus is no longer there.
From the website of www.weneedalaw.ca
Even if there is no abortion law, abortion remains legal. Adding restrictions doesn't make it legal, nor does it make abortion more legal. Some of what was legal is now made illegal (e.g., abortion after 12 or 18 weeks' gestation), thereby saving some lives and limiting evil. That is exactly what the Bible calls the State to do – to limit evil.http://www.weneedalaw.ca/about/direction-matters-why-we-support-gestational-limits
Some might object, "Wouldn't a law prohibiting abortions after a certain number of weeks arbitrarily divide humans into 'protected' and 'unprotected' classes?" The continuum of human life begins at fertilization and ends at natural death. Currently under Canadian law only "born" humans have protection, so our law today already divides humans into "protected" and "unprotected" classes. If the law was changed to reflect increased protection by extending it to "pre-born" humans from 20 weeks to birth, then fewer babies would fall under the unprotected class, thus limiting the injustice of abortion. We certainly do and would support any initiative that would move more humans into the "protected" class.
Even Pope John Paul II made the statement that in countries that have no legal protection for the unborn, it is right and just to do whatever can be done to restrict that evil. WeNeedaLaw has the support of Priests for Life in Canada as well as the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform along with a number of pro-life voices including Bishop Henry of Edmonton AB.
Chris Rostenberg, writing in Human Life Review, writes that it is a waste of time to argue for the right to life of tiny embryos at conception. People simply do not relate to that. However, the majority of people do understand that killing a baby at six months gestation is horrific and would support banning late-term abortions.
For individuals and for societies, the debate begins with killings of older children, not with embryos or euthanasia. Late in the pregnancy, there is no real question of whether the unborn is a human person, while at the beginning of pregnancy there are such understandable questions. If you support late prenatal homicide, then you support early abortion too, but the opposite is not necessarily true, so it makes sense to discuss late abortion first. With euthanasia, the subject wants to die, but the unborn child in the sixth month does not. Late abortion is simpler than many other facets of the life issue, and more outrageous. There is an urgent need that many people feel to stop late abortion . If or when it becomes possible to pass anti-abortion laws, most states will probably go through a pro-compromise phase, The only way prolifers, pro-compromisers, and pro-hybrids can get the law they want is to expose and overturn or circumvent the supreme Court rulings, That is our first battle.
So, I support this effort even if it means a willingness to compromise on ideology. That ideology isn't getting any babies saved, and getting Canadians to support a law limiting abortions will save some babies. I can no longer stand on the sideline and be an idealist. I am willing to get down and dirty and do something that will really bring about an effect.
WeNeedaLaw is planning on putting up the 100,000 flag display here in Halifax. Date and time will not be disclosed as we don't want those pesky pro-choice people coming and destroying it. It is done like a flash mob, come in quickly, set up, shock, and then take it down. Move to the next city.
If you want to help, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
We are going to need 80-100 energetic individuals to do this. All I can disclose at this point is that it will be sometime next fall. Let's get those 80-100 folks signed up now!
In case you didn't see the display in Ottawa, here is a video of it. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, flags are worth 100,000 lives.