The Negative Advantage?

It seems that this election is largely a battle of the neg-ads. From all the commentary we hear, it appears the party with the best negative advertising will win the election. Perhaps we have been wrong to believe that love makes the world go round—forget it, sex does it—any variety. After all, society is suffering from the strangle-hold of heterosex.

No wonder so many of our churches are failing. We have not mastered the art of running down the other churches—we only tinker at it. Obviously we must be more effective at this. We need campaigns and rallies to establish the apostasy of other church groups and damn other religions. Judgment is more effective than love.

No wonder evangelism is ineffective. Who cares about the love of God? Lay much more stress on what miserable sinners others are, and the damnation that awaits them. Only the enlightened few—us—who enjoy God’s favour can enlighten them. And, of course, keep them out of our churches.

Let’s face it, Darwin has already proved that life consists of the survival of the fittest. Those unable to care for themselves are a drain on resources, better used for more constructive results. Let nature take its course on those unable to help themselves. 

Our marriages too, may be suffering from too much tolerance of the other partner. Much more fault finding and female subjugation would make for a calmer life. After all, nature made men stronger for a reason. Service to others is not only self-defeating, it defies nature. A servile wife makes for a satisfied life.

Watching the neg-ads, clearly all the protagonists are deceiving liars, only bent on power and set to ruin Canada. If Harper wins, families will die of starvation while the rich enjoy nirvana. If Iggy wins, we will only earn enough money to pay our taxes. If Jack wins, reckless social programs will bankrupt the fragile economy. Worse still, if Gilles ever became prime minister, he would break up the country. Hmmm, actually . . .

Remember all this on voting day. Maybe we should spoil our ballots and vote for Ghadaffi?

Abortion: The Elephant in the Room

It is intriguing to wonder why we tiptoe around abortion like a sleeping tiger. It continues as major issue facing Canada, typified by the persistent refrain: “I’m fearful Harper/the Conservatives/others will raise the abortion issue.” It betrays the subconscious fear that it remains an explosive issue

It remains so for a reason. Abortion is the number one issue facing Canadians on two fronts. First it deals with human life and death, and second, as long as a large part of Canadians oppose it, it remains an major ethical issue that cannot remain dormant indefinitely.

I recognize the difficult and often dire straits of many who seek abortions and the help they need. Unfortunately, abortion is a short term, counterproductive solution, rather like cutting down a needed fruit tree because it obscures the view. There has to be a more humane solution than simply aborting human life.

Apart from the destroyed life of the unborn child, growing numbers of women—and men—hide their pain following abortion, for guilt often infuses grief at this significant loss. They wonder what their aborted child would look like at today’s age; his eye or her hair colour, and mourn the loss of joy from a lost expanding family.

I can’t help feeling that the venom we direct at pedophiles, beyond their deserved judgment, is a subconscious cultural reaction to suppressed guilt at the widespread termination of children we have been given and rejected.

But the problem has greater reach than the individual. It is not possible to terminate 100,000 human lives a year, consider it acceptable and settled, without consequences. This amounts to about 3.2 million abortions—approximately the population of Alberta—since Canada repealed all laws protecting the unborn in 1988.

This huge loss has impoverished our nation of a complete province of people who would now be serving our nation, expanding our industries and culture, and providing the natural balance between the young and earning and the old and feeble. Now, we need to augment our birth rate, well below replacement value, to ensure a stable or growing population.

I welcome those attracted to our shores because of the opportunities Canada offers. The vast majority seek what we all need: a secure and stable environment to raise their families, most of whom will aid our deficient population because they do not practise abortion.

Abortion and infanticide in China and India have left those most populous nations with a huge imbalance of the sexes. Our supposed mastery of nature may yet turn and slap us in face. Abortion is a negative and destructive mastery. We can have the children nature gives and limit the children we desire, but not make the children we need.

I doubt we know all the ramifications from widespread abortion. Unless we discuss abortion freely and openly to seek all its outcomes, national and personal, we may leave a deteriorating legacy for the children we permit to live.

Democratic Multi-Culturalism: Separating "Them" from "Us"

Whatever the value of democracy, the adversarial system that our form of government produces makes it hard to take the cut and thrust of political wrangling seriously. The recent English election debate reinforces the appearance of the most influential people in the land squabbling like children, contradicting each other, while saying almost nothing of substance.

The arrangement of combatants in this latest battle royal, although apparently settled by lot, says volumes. Mr. Harper was safely ensconced in the west, his place of solid support, while Mr.Duceppe occupied the east where he would like to ascend the throne of a sovereign Quebec.

Mr. Ignatieff, meanwhile, was strategically placed between Jack and Gill, close enough to grab their hands, if necessary, and hoist them up in a caricature of Stephan Dion’s triumphant formation of his coalition.

I have little patience with Mr. Duceppe whose expressed mandate is to break up Canada and obtain the lion’s share of the public purse for his wannabe nation. But one comment he made resonates deeply with me. He complained that multiculturalism doesn’t work for Quebec.

He is repeating comments about the failure of multiculturalism made by both the Prime Minister of England and the President of France. One Canadian commentator, Brian Seaman at http://www.canada.com/life/Multiculturalism+Still+work+progress/4531150/story.html tries to cover the failure of multiculturalism as a “still a work in progress” after 40 years. He claims Canada is sufficiently different to make it work.

It seems to me, that multiculturalism, as “in progress” in Canada, is producing a polyglot of small political enclaves imported from the sending countries. Whatever the legitimate grievances of first nations, they provide a template for other “second” nations to follow, creating ghettos that have little or no allegiance to Canada yet use the infamous Human Rights Tribunals to air their grievances.

But if a nation of immigrants—as I am—is to be forged into a nation, an integration process of some sort is needed to produce a cohesive country. Newcomers must recognize the responsibilities as well as the rights of residence and citizenship. They are not simply a package transplant from their homeland, apparently the way some understand multiculturalism.

This would not only ease the way for immigrants to settle, but would also make it easier for Canadians to recognize and support new residents as neighbours rather than strangers. We need and appreciate the skills and industry that immigrants contribute to Canada, but need an approach to immigration that includes, not divides, “them” from “us.”

Unfortunately, the form of divisive government practised in Ottawa, and illustrated in the Great Debate, reinforces a multi-partisan culture the rest of us, new or native, don’t really want to follow.

The High Cost of Divorce

Family break-up is slowly strangling both the Canadian courts systems, and the cohesive life of the country. It has long been my belief that if we cannot get along with those closest to us, there is little hope for other equally important relationships that make up a national fabric?

We can follow the journey from “easier” divorce (no divorce is easy), to relaxed sexual mores and the flight from traditional marriage, that has left us with a legacy of broken lives for parents and children alike. The vitriol and hatred spawned from the deluge of marriage wrecks, easily carries over into the culture and threatens the stability of community.

Adding to the tragedy of divorce, is the outrageous financial costs and the vicious fall-out from the adversarial system of our courts. Georgialee Lang, a respected lawyer in Vancouver, has called for change to this system, which affects so many, to be a major election issue. Read her story at http://www.canada.com/will+broken+family+system/4585240/story.html

Given the prevalence of divorce, however much we may decry it, Christians should be in the forefront of providing counselling for reconciliation; but where that is not possible, also for a fair and compatible severance. Alleviating the misery of divorce, like bringing healing to the sick, should be part of the Christian mandate, while continuing to combat sin, the cause of both.

The current law and court system accentuates the suffering of divorcing families. “With lawyer’s fees in the tens of thousands of dollars, many Canadians wander alone into family court like sheep to the slaughter.” Georgialee suggests a procedure most jurisdictions outside Canada have already adopted:

“A move to a presumption of joint custody, in which parents continue to participate in their children’s lives on a level playing field. With a rebuttable presumption of joint custody as the law of the land, a significant group of potential family law litigants could bypass the court system.”

We need to support, pray and vote for those who uphold Christian values—whether or not they have Christian beliefs—if they are in a position to enact them. When we cannot save the marriage, perhaps legal change can lessen the trauma; particularly for the children who are always the victims of divorce.

The Road to Polygamy

We await a court ruling on polygamy in Canada. Last week, the BC Supreme Court of British Columbia wrapped up deliberating whether polygamy laws violate religious freedom under the Charter.

If nothing else, a population generally balanced evenly between men and women suggests that marriage consisting of one of each would be preferable. What do you do with all the boys that cannot marry because a few old men have claimed and married all the women?

Carolyn Jessup at 18, became the fourth wife of a 50 year old man. She reports that surplus, young teenage boys, accused of succumbing to sinful temptations, are dropped off in a city and told they are not wanted any more. (Macleans, April 4, 2011) I guess that cleanses the commune of potential trouble makers!

 Apart from the obvious arithmetic, marriage restricted to two people is based on the natural need for one woman and one man to conceive and parent a child. This was the creation ideal in the Old Testament, despite the acceptance of bigamous marriages.

Even there, the experiences of Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah indicate the arrangement was less than happy. All the wives in Old Testament polygamous marriages squabbled, creating the same misery as unfaithfulness in monogamous marriage. Christ confirmed monogamous marriage in the New Testament.

But if members of the same sex can form a marriage, restriction to two marriage partners loses its original rationale, making it difficult for liberal governments and courts to deny marriage rights for other arrangements.

Furthermore, families with more than two legitimate parents were created by the so-called "two-mother" ruling of the 2007 Ontario Court of Appeal. The court held that the biological mother of a small boy and her same-sex partner are both legally mothers of the child. The boy's biological father is still considered his father.

This family of two female married parents and a legitimate father outside the marriage is an opening parody on polygamy. Furthermore, Ontario recognizes multiple wives if previously married in a consenting jurisdiction. Put that beside the irrelevance of only two in a marriage, and polygamy becomes a reasonable option.

The slide into an eventual definition of marriage with multiple relationships is predictable even though the journey may be bumpy. Tradition, religion and social acceptance are no match for the juggernaut of Canadian Charter rights currently defined by the courts.

Together with the burgeoning use of internet pedophilia, children have become a by-product of sexual union, in which current culture prioritizes recreation over procreation. Are we heading for another, worse tragedy than the Canadian native residential schools heartbreak behind us?

Religion in Canadian Politics?!

Once again, the idea that religion is bad for politics is being dragged into the election arena. Because religious contenders for parliament seem unwilling to expose their religious views, they apparently have a “hidden agenda.” You can read the report by Ian Bushfield at http://www.canada.com/Religion+Canada/4549627/story.html/

Ian’s own agenda, showing through his article, is the tired old line that religion skews truth; only non religious people have a balanced view of life, and therefore should run the country. He is fearful of the “Religious Right” that seems bent on thwarting his ideas of ethical progress in our nation.

Ian is entitled to his views as an atheist, but he makes the common mistake that non-religious people are free of religious bias. There is no empirical proof that God exists, or that He doesn’t, only circumstantial evidence. That is why Christianity and other religions are a “faith.”

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Unless Ian, or other atheists, can prove beyond doubt that there is no God, his beliefs are a faith like anyone else’s. Then the question arises, why should his faith take precedence over another’s faith, or his faith based “reason and evidence” be superior to another?

This feeds into the faltering multiculturalism in Canada. It is not a work in progress, but is in regression like Europe. Why? Simply because religion, that most new immigrants espouse, is deemed inappropriate for national policy making, and sidelines those newcomers multiculturalism is trying to accommodate.

Ian is right. Deeply held religious views do affect policy decisions—including his. There should be “an open discussion about the role of religious belief in Canadian politics.” But he would mistakenly consider himself impartial and excluded from that discussion.

The growing popularity of the Conservative Party reflects a growing disenchantment of the way Canada’s liberal democracy is going. Ian’s “archaic” traditions may still be the bedrock on which Canadians are finding stability in the shifting sands of secularized ethics.

Either there is a God or there isn’t, and if He exists, He may be detached or involved in this world. Without clear proof for any of these views, they may all be considered legitimate and valid as a guide for life. But a wrong view is likely to destabilize a country.

Religious views on life are likely to be as right as Ian’s secular views could be wrong. Most people believe in a God of some sort, and if, as I believe, He is involved in our world and cares for our country, we are unwise to ignore Him. Better to bring Him into our political debate and policy making.

Denying Love

I’m not sure which saddens me the most, Terry Jones, or the Afghans who killed a score of innocent people in reprisals against Jones’ Koran burning. You can read the story at http://www.canada.com/dead+second+Afghan+Koran+burning+protests/4549498/story.html

We may well recognize the reason for the anger, but provocation never justifies irresponsible reactions. Yet it is often deemed legitimate. Here’s one man’s excuse: "I took part in the demonstration to curse the foreigners but I had no weapon. But I don't feel sorry for UN workers killed; our people are slaughtered by foreigners everyday."

I recall a less lethal comparison. A father, angry with his small son, took his anger out on a nearby chair and smashed it. Then he said to his son, “Now, look what you made me do.” The boy’s behaviour probably caused his father’s anger, but not the broken chair.

We are all responsible for our re-actions as well as our actions, including those brutal Afghans. Not only them, but the whole terrorist plague, ostensibly justified by the actions of others. I recall God’s word: “It is mine to avenge, I will repay” (Romans 12:19, quoting Deuteronomy 32:35).

He who calls on God to avenge him, denies himself the right of vengeance. That’s why Christians are called to weather the gravest provocations without recourse to violence. Which brings us to the crusading Mr. Jones, who blamed his action on his understanding of the Koran’s content.

He claims that the Muslim reaction proves that the Koran incites violence. Certainly, the reaction to the burning was likely after recent demonstrations against the cartoon of Mohammed, and Jones’ response shows he expected it. Thus, his action deliberately engineered the Muslim reaction. While not directly responsible, he must shoulder some blame for the resulting deaths.

Whether the Koran incites violence is really beside the point. Like the Bible, there are sufficient interpretations out there to justify various lifestyles—good and bad. Our personal experience with many Muslim families indicates we cannot paint all Muslims with the same brush. But for the Christian, Jones’ actions are invalid on the very basis of our faith.

God demonstrated His love for us in this: Christ died for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8). If we are conformed to His image and the likeness of His Son, we will also love our enemies. Jones failed to show that reflection of God’s love for Muslims, by burning their most treasured possession, however he felt about its value.