Round-Up, Shriveling Weeds and Catching Horses

David Warren on suicide and euthenasia. Referencing Masaryk's "Suicide and the Meaning of Civilization", written in 1881 but still profoundly relevant, he makes the case that suicide is a moral and religious issue.

Chesterton on suicide: " Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot be bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom his death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the cross-roads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines."

The conventional wisdom of the day seems to lend itself towards later marriages. We don't want to mess up our degrees. We don't think that young people are mature enough for marriage (okay so some of them probably are, but have we considered how our permissive attitude towards delayed responsibility might contribute to this?). However this can have a devastating effect on young men and women.

“You wanna know why I got married? Here’s the deal: The wisest man in the Bible, the strongest man in the Bible, and the godliest man in the Bible all fell into sexual sin. For me to stay engaged to Bridget from the time I was a sophomore until I graduated from college was for me to expect myself to be wiser than Solomon, stronger than Samson, and more godly than David- and I was neither- so we got married.” Voddie Baucham Jr.

Mark Regnarus makes the case that while the Christian church has focused on abstinence education it has fallen prey to an unfavourable view of early marriage. Thus the church is simultaneously expecting virtue while discouraging the proper expression of desires. The reality is, it isn't working. The fact that 90% of Christian teens are having pre-marital sex despite the church's obsession with sex issues should tell us something. Regnarus also deals with five of the biggest pitfalls that plague early marriages and helps to show how people can get married early and have a long-lasting marriage.

The Apple Cidar Mama adds a list of qualifications for marriage, and a anecdote about the stigma attached to young marriages. I am sure that if I get married within the next few years that will be an issue for me, since I look a good bit younger than I am and I'm not that old to start with.

Binky the WebElf is on a long, long holiday. At least it feels very long for this deprived addict. However if I have any east coast readers they may be interested to know that he will be coming down from the North Pole or wherever it is that he lives to give a workshop at the ECP Live Free or.... Fight conference in Halifax. Free Speech junkies will also be glad to note that the Levant himself will be speaking at the conference. Now as I look at the map Ottawa is between Halifax and Calgary. Why couldn't Levant have a nice long stop-over with maybe a speech stuck in...

I hate going to conferences where they are going to be teaching you how to "get involved" and all they tell you is that you should write letters. News flash: That is not breaking news. However that aside, and since I don't pay to read Mercatornet so I'm not feeling ripped off right now, they have a good article on how to write good letters to the editors, and why you should.

I like to listen to music while I write. As I was writing this post a line in this song caught my attention and I decided to add the song to this blog.

Lyrics for Dual Wield

Rise and build,

Servants of Adonai

Bend your backs

For the Lord is worthy

(Sorry can't get this line anyone want to add it in the comments?)

We are called to serve Him

work with purpose

for we build the kingdom

Stack your bricks, clutch your sword x2

Enemies plot to come against us

They despise Him and despise His kingdom

Stand your ground blast the horn

We unite in the Lord x2

Father You alone

Are great and terrible

Hear us Mighty God

Be our shield this day

Fight for your brothers, daughters and sons

Fight for your wives, and fight for your homes

Father You alone

are great and terrible

Hear us Mighty God

Be our shield this day

Fight for your brothers, daughters and sons

Fight for your wives, and fight for your homes

Jesus, Jesus...Won`t you help make it through the night x4

Lyrics partially copied from http://www.scribd.com/doc/6435511/Dual-Wield

Ezra Levant on TV. Due to circumstances I haven't seen the last few minutes of the movie but I am sure that it is interesting. I agree that we should not be encouraging the HRC by taking complaints there. As Kathy Shaidle said "The pro-life establishment is always at their dumbest when they think they're being clever."

Related, the problem with free speech for me but not for you, is that you never know who the me and who the you will be in the future. As the B'nai Brith is finding out to their cost.

Jasmine Baucham on clothing, modesty, and style. "You Dress Like a Homeschooler" and "A Dress Code of Sorts". Style never really mattered to me when I was younger but in the last little while I am starting to appreciate modest and stylish/classic clothes. I do wear dresses only but I have discovered that there are more nice skirts/dresses available than one would guess.

On statistics. I love statistics. I think that they are fascinating and usually very instructive. However a few worthy cautions.

Christina Hoff Sommers identifies and debunks some statistics used by feminists to propagate their metanarrative of male oppression.

David Warren loathes statistics on the ground that they are dehumanizing and reduce people to things.

And Yes Prime Minister is characteristically witty, skeptical, and demonstrates statistic gathering techniques with squirm-inducing accuracy.

Howard Levitt in the Financial Post attacks Mayor Miller for his disastrous handling of the Toronto strike and Barbara Hall of the OHRC for what amounts to either legal illiteracy or almost lies. Freedom through Truth gives the background and bios to answer the question, who should we believe?

So... we overreacted. Well, we're big kids and can say we're sorry. Or if not sorry, we can at least admit that we weren't targeting the HRC for the right thing. This time.

Why I don't use drive-thru ATMs.

Very sad stories from standing in front of an abortion clinic.

"The Dark Side of Single-Parent Adoption"

Pro-lifers are violent domestic terrorists because seven people have died at the hands of fringe adherents. So using this logic can we call Democrats nasty racists because some left-leaning people beat-up a man and use racial slurs? Sounds fair to me. And until every prominent left organization goes on record publically condemning the attack it will be more than fair.

Albert Mohler on hurt feelings laws.

Going to Hell in a Handbag

Wintery Knight is fighting with Drew at "Pursuing Holiness"

about what is needed to revitalize the church.

and get men into it

Without making them feel like this

Wintery Knight thinks we should focus more on science

apologetics

and debate

Drew thinks that there is an "overall lack of substance" to blame

and that the church needs a lot more all-round intellectualism

better doctrine

(sorry Drew, couldn't help it)

(is this better?)

and expositionary preaching

They both agree about one thing though, the church is way too feminized.

passive

and includes too many group hugs

While Stephen of Psalm Trees (who isn't fighting, just for the record but I thought that this article had some relevance)

has some excellent views on the importance of doctrine in the church.

says that learning about doctrine is an important part of spiritual maturity

Right thinking is important to right living

Right thinking is part of loving God with our minds

And part of following Christ is following Him as He is

Miss Marprelate upon weighing the different points of view

Agrees with all of them more or less

and would suggest a group hug

except that she would be accused of being an emotional female

so she won't

The Shack - Links

http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2865

http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/a-review-of-the-shack-download-it-here.php

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-04-11

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=8808844260

http://www.dougwils.com/index.aspAction=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=5989

The Shack - But...

"But it helps us to see things in a new way by breaking our preconceived notions and boxes."

When dealing with the Shack, I think we have to consider the implications of our assumptions that newer is better. That preconceived notions are probably wrong, and that breaking stereotypes and reforming our opinions in order to get rid of our current ideas about God is good.

The reality is that new ideas should be handled with extreme caution. I believe that our default position should be a historic and traditional one unless we have compelling reason to believe that a change is necessary. If a change is necessary then we should proceed with the utmost caution, trying to take into consideration all the possible reverberations of our decision and understanding that the change will probably affect things to a depth that we do not yet know or understand.

Breaking boxes can be good or bad. preconceived notions can be right or wrong. Old ideas can be relevant or irrelevant. Change in itself is not a good or a bad. However if we are trying to abandon millenniums of church tradition or political tradition or cultural tradition, we should err on the side of caution. When one person stands alone against the way things are he may be very, very right. However he may be very, very wrong.

There is nothing evil, there is nothing even close-minded about defaulting to a traditional way of understanding until you are obliged by overwhelming evidence to see that you need to change. To stand by what always has been is to acknowledge that you are not smarter than thousands of years of scholars and theologians. It is to acknowledge that seemingly small changes in doctrine or practice can have implications that we may not see for a hundred years.

To accuse people of fearing the unknown may be quite true. People ought to fear uncharted waters. That does not mean we do not sail into them, it does mean that we should examine every wave with a critical eye. That we should question the implications of every statement. That we should understand the ramifications of every turn of phrase.

So many things look so nice when they are introduced as a new and better way to do things. People try to bring in hate speech laws because they think about how nice it would be if people only said happy things all the time. It is the people who understand the past, who look beyond the carefully chosen examples to see the ugly possibility lurking within, who understand that there is a reason why we have a tradition of freedom of speech. These are the people who have what it takes to uphold justice.

People come to everything with preconceived ideas. The free speech people come with the presupposition that justice and an open and free media is more important than hurt feelings. The hate speech law people come with the presupposition that freedom from hate and discrimination is more important than the rights of a few racist fanatics to say whatever vile thing pops into their mind. What needs to be shown is that someone’s preconceptions are wrong, not to fault them for having them. Not to fault them for defending them. If we went into every debate with a clean slate, no preconceived ideas, then we should be in a terrible mess. You go into a debate on economics with presuppositions about math, and how the system works. Otherwise you would be lost.

Our goal should not be to throw out the old categories because they are old. Nor to break boxes simply because they are there. Our goal should be to determine which boxes should be broken and which should not. Which old things are good and what are bad.

To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton very badly, If you see a gate and say "That has no purpose let's tear it down", I shall certainly not let you tear it down. When you have found out what it is for then I may let you tear it

The Shack - Misc. Bothering Stuff

""Are there any (People) who you are not especially fond of?" Mack asks Papa. "Nope"."

I'm no Biblical scholar but I am sure that there are bits of the Bible which reveal God's wrath and judgement on people that He is not especially pleased with or fond of. Psalms 2, 5, and 58 to name a few from off the top of my head. Unless you want to say that abhor, destroy, cast out, derision, displeasure, vex, break them, dash them to pieces, perish, wrath, break their teeth, cut in pieces, vengeance, are terms of endearment.

"I [God] am not who you think I am, Mackenzie. I don't need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It's not my purpose to punish it; it's my joy to cure it."

Mack is told to condemn three of his children to hell and refuses.

""But I haven't judged anything," Mack offered in confusion.

"Oh, but you have. You have judged them worthy of love, even if it cost you everything. That is how Jesus loves."... "And now you know Papa's heart," she added, "who loves all his children perfectly.""

Norman Geisler, "The book also contains a classic heresy called Patripassionism (Literally: Father Suffering). Young claims that God the Father suffered along with the Son, saying, “Haven’t you seen the wounds on Papa [God the Father] too?’ I didn’t understand them. ‘How could he…?’ ‘For love. He chose the way of the cross… because of love’” (p. 165). But both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325) made it very clear that it was Jesus alone who “suffered” for us on the Cross. And that He did this only through His human nature. To say otherwise is to engage in “confusing the two natures” of Christ which was explicitly condemned in the Chalcedonian Creed (A.D. 451). Suffering is a form of change, and the Bible makes it very clear that God cannot change. “I the Lord change not” (Mal. 3:6). “There is no shadow of change with Him” (Jas. 1:17). When all else changes, God “remains the same” (Heb. 1:10-12)."

"His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars in her [God's] wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a deep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her eyes...Don't ever think that what my son chose to do didn't cost us dearly. Love always leaves a significant mark," she stated softly and gently. "We were there together.""

The Shack - Authority and Institutions

The book is utterly anti-authority. It says that there is no authority in the Godhead contra 1 Corinthians 11:3 “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God”.

Young basically says that all authority is an evil perversion, wherever that authority is found, in a family, a state, society, God to man, anywhere. Authority hurts people, it uses and abuses them. I am sure I don't even have to bother quoting scripture to prove that this is wrong.

This was a long section so I had to take short excerpts. If anyone thinks that I took them out of context feel free to post a fuller version.

“Hierarchy would make no sense among us [the Trinity]. Actually, this is your problem not ours."

"Really? How so?"

"Humans are so lost and damaged that to you it is almost incomprehensible that people could work or live together without someone being in charge."

"But every human institution that I can think of, from political to business, even down to marriage, is governed by this kind of thinking; it is the web of our social fabric,: Mack asserted.

"Such a waste!" said Papa, picking up the empty dish and heading for the kitchen.

"It's one reason why experiencing rue relationship is so difficult for you," Jesus added. "Once you have a hierarchy you need rules to protect and administer it, and then you need law and the enforcement of the rules, and you end up with some kind of chain of command or a system of order that destroys relationship rather than promotes it."...Authority, as you usually think of it, is merely the excuse the strong use to make others conform to what they want."...

'the will to power and independence'...is the matrix; a diabolical scheme in which you are hopelessly trapped...

So are you telling me that whenever we humans protect ourselves with power..."

You are yielding to the matrix, not to us," finished Jesus.

"To force my will on you," Jesus replied, "is exactly what love does not do. Genuine relationships are marked by submission even when your choices are not helpful or healthy."...Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way."

Mack was surprised. 'How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?"

"Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don't want slaves to my will: I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me."

A) He is redefining the word submission. Definition of submission from answers.com

Quote:

n.

The act of submitting to the power of another: “Oppression that cannot be overcome does not give rise to revolt but to submission” (Simone Weil).

The state of having submitted. See synonyms at surrender.

The state of being submissive or compliant; meekness.

B) Although we are brothers and sisters of Christ we are children of the Father, and we submit (proper definition) to Him. Although we are brothers and sisters of Christ we also obey and serve Jesus as well. Paul called himself a bondservant of Christ. Christ is called the head of every man. There is love and obedience in our relationship with God.

"Jesus" said, "I don't create institutions-never have, never will" pg. 179. He doesn't like politics, economics, religious institutions, or religious activity. He has followers who are Muslims and Buddhists and he doesn't seek to make them Christian. pg. 182

"Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims,...Some are bankers and bookies, Americans and Iraqis, Jews and Palestinians. I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my Beloved."

"The Bible doesn't teach you to follow rules" referring to things like "doing good things and avoiding evil, being kind to the poor, reading your Bible, praying, and going to church." pg. 197 We are not under any laws, and I don't care what kind of view you have of the Bible, most Christians agree that murder, for example, is still wrong.

Maybe I am too cynical but I think that if a man who was caught in adultery later writes a book in which he says that marriage is not an institution, there is no law, responsibilities and expectations ruin relationships, and no one is allowed to judge anyone else, well, I would just call it very convenient. I would not however want any prospective husband to think that way.

The Shack - The Bible

When Young discusses the Bible, he displays a lack of proper respect.

“God’s voice, had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to be moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners’ access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligentsia. Nobody wanted God in a box, just in a book. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges…” pg. 65-66

I think that any orthodox Christian would have to say that even if God does communicate on some level with people today, He does not contridict the Bible. If you claim to have some new revelation that contridicts a proper interpretation of the Bible, we call that a cult, not God's voice.

They mock traditional family devotions where parents catechise their children and instead substitue something where the Trinity sit around holding hands, kissing, and patting each other on the back. Frankly, regardless of what goes on in heaven between the Trinity which is beyond human comprehension, I don't think that this is a constructive alternative to family devotions. Christianity allows us to meditate on God and experience intimacy with Him but we need more that just that if we are to grow in our faith. Like Bible reading and teaching doctrine to our children. It also mocks prayer at meal time.

Norman Geisler comments, " An underlying problem with the message of The Shack is that it uses personal experience to trump revelation. The solutions to life’s basic problems come from extra-biblical experience, not from Scripture (80-100). Non-biblical voices are given precedent over the voice of God in Scripture. These alleged “revelations” from the “Trinity” in the shack are the basis of the whole story. While biblical truth is alluded to, it is not the authoritative basis of the message. In the final analysis, it is experience that is used to interpret the Bible; it is not the Bible that is used to interpret experience. This leads to a denial of a fundamental teaching of Protestantism."

The Shack by William P. Young - Intro and The Trinity

"Mackenzie Allen Phillips's youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation, and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness. Four years later, in this midst of his great sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change his life forever." Product description off Amazon.ca

The book The Shack took the Christian, and secular, world by storm. Originally self-published the book has risen to become a number one selling book and has ignited an enthusiastic following. Yet some have accused the book of heresy, and have identified many prominent theological errors in it.

In the interests of full disclosure, I do not like The Shack. I find it more than a little heretical and intend to treat it as such. If you are interested in an un-biased evaluation of the pros and cons of the book, keep looking. My purpose is to set out that which all Christians should find a matter of deep concern.

One of the first problems that people have with the book is it's portrayal of the Trinity. God the Father is portrayed as a black woman, Jesus as a middle-eastern man, and the Holy Spirit as an Asian woman.

The Father and Spirit have never been incarnated in human form. Jesus said “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth,” John 4:24.

The Ten Commandments forbids the use of images to worship God.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things”

(Romans 1:22,23).

To be quite fair and hopefully unbiased I must say that I have frequently seen images of God used in artwork and other venues and have not condemned the work as all bad because they fell short in that one place, but it is a matter for concern.

Young also fails to give God the glory, authority, majesty, and holiness, which is an inherent part of His nature. He truly makes God in the image of man. There is no sense of wonder and awe toward God, just a bunch of friends hanging out at the cottage.

On the gender issue. We are not called to be creative and inventive when it comes to the worship and understanding of God. Our duty is to live out what He has revealed in the Bible which is our source for truth. God is not masculine or feminine to be sure, but God is not a goddess. He reveals himself in the masculine and I don't think redefining God for shock value is a good idea.

Our church and culture today is suffering from a strong feminization. We don't need to encourage it. Even the men in The Shack were not positive, strong, masculine, Godly men (two guys hugging and holding hands down at the beach looking at the stars, one of them being Jesus, come on...).

I also have a problem with putting words into the mouth of God. Even in a fiction I find that it is too perilous an undertaking for any human to attempt.

There have been some to argue that the Shack is just allegory so we shouldn't get upset at the way he chooses to portray God. After all, people don't attack Narnia for portraying Jesus as a lion for example. The crux of the matter is, of course, the implications and lessons we learn from the allegory. This is what should really concern us in my view. Portraying God as a female in a culture where things like female pastors are a big issue is not neutral. When C.S. Lewis portrayed Jesus as a lion it wasn't neutral either, he was portraying something about the authority, majesty, and power of God (btw the Bible does compare Christ to a lion "the Lion of Judah" Lewis didn't invent that.). Our question is, are those implications correct. And yes the Chronicles of Narnia has theological implications, Lewis intended it to, and it is quite fair to critique it on that basis.

Stuff

When even China gets scared about it's demographic winter, why isn't the rest of the world panicking?

Challies has three excellent quotes on boys and men.

Very rational indeed, and also very rational to tell kids that they can prove a universal negative. Do none of these guys study logic?

I can't believe that I have to write about this but since everyone else is... Telegraph-Journal apologizes to the Prime Minister for telling lies. Michael Harris asks the million dollar question, how did this happen anyway? Deborah Gyapong wants to know why all the anti-Catholics are now so offended that anyone would dare insult the sacrament.

Our dear, dear friend Warren Kinsella has threatened to bring a lawsuit against LifeSiteNews of all people. Does he never get tired? To quote, "What the supposed Christians at Lifesite published is, pardon the expression, a ********* lie. And they are going to pay for it, big time." Google Cache stuff at Blazing Cat Fur. Original article at LifeSite. Warren Kinsella's threat letter here. Don't you dare give in LifeSite!!!! Oh and that is so rich, Kinsella calling LifeSite "supposed Christians" after the way he uses God's name.

The United Church discredited itself a long time ago, but still.

Well Franky Schaeffer all I can say is that I am so glad it is too late to change anything. You can slander and disrespect your father and what he fought for as much as you want, but evangelicals are now politically active. There is no clock to turn back. Thank you Francis Schaeffer. Via noapologies.

Ezra Levant is getting lawsuit threats again. It is worth reading the libel notice just for laughs. It is an education in and of itself. Awan seems extremely fond of the word "innuendo". Levant writes about it here and here.

Words can come back to bite you.

Exposing once again the extreme right-wing bias of the mainstream media. Remind me why neo-Nazi types are, by definition, considered right wing extremists again?

Albert Mohler on the right not to be offended.

Exchanged links with the Pugnacious Irishman. Please go check out his blog. I enjoyed it.

Event Blogging: "Winning as a Pro-Life Candidate" by Rod Bruinooge

Intro by Rebecca Walberg. Socons and fiscals can be united. We need to stop apologizing for who we are, pro-life can be a winning strategy. Canada has one of the most radical abortion policies in the world. We need to bring pro-family back into the picture, we cannot allow the pro-choice people to define us. To be pro-life is to be pro-women rights. Abortion is dangerous and women can frequently be coerced into it. Women often see no other option to abortion. We believe that women should be given all the information and that both women and children should be given care. We believe in the humanity of the child and in our collective humanity. Abortion is a matter of social justice, minorities and poor women are more likely to have abortions. Often this is a barely disguised form of eugenics.

Rod Bruinooge is of Aboriginal background, he has a young family and is a very staunch supporter of pro-life and family policies. He won in an unlikely riding on a very strong moral stand.

Rod Bruinooge

Social conservative, particularly pro-life views are not a liability but an asset. I am in a very liberal urban riding. Conservatives have only won twice in 100 years.

PowerPoint Presentation

Winning as a Pro-Life Candidate in Urban Canada. There is a mantra in Canada that you don't flaunt your pro-life views. The pro-life label can build a winning coalition because it can cause people to change parties in your favour. It is the most powerful issue in Canada. If you stand on this issue the media will get your message out and other people will respect you.

There are factions within the abortion debate.

Hard Pro-Life – abortion should be illegal in Canada

Pro-Life with Conditions – abortion should not be banned outright but are in favour of increasing information for women like ultrasounds pre abortion, third-trimester banned.

Hard Pro-Choice – Abortion always for any reason.

Soft Pro-Choice – abortion should be legal but there should be some limitations. Essentially the same as pro-life with conditions.

Pro-Choice What is it?

Informed consent – No

Laws against partner coercion – No

Prevention of Female Selection abortions – No

Acknowledge incredible science on unborn – No

Statistics

Well over 2/3rds of Canadians support some limits.

Fewer than 10% support abortion up until the final moment of pregnancy.

Other Facts

Most Pro-life candidates and Mps are in Conservative party

Social Conservatives are the base of the party.

Polling Data – How the question is asked is everything in this debate.

The abortion advocates abuse all information, because the data is skewed.

2/3 Canadians believe there are existing abortion laws.

Urban Polling Data

Pro- Choice 48%

Pro-Life 30%

Pro-Life with Conditions 22%

Winning Elections

In 2004 Bruinooge ran a quiet PL campaign and lost by 6500 votes.

2006 ran a louder PL campaign and won by 111 votes.

While there were other factors this stance probably helped.

2008 ran a pronounced PL campaign, media predicted 12 point loss due to “strident anti-abortion views” There is a view in the media that these views are completely unacceptable.

Won by 14.8% and 5800 votes. There was no follow up story about pro-life vindicated.

The way to keep this ball rolling is to get involved.

Pro-life messaging is important. Saying that I'm pro-life and women should have access to all information is an incremental message.

Saying that you disagree with the fact that the unborn child has no legal worth in Canada even in the final stages of pregnancy is acceptable.

He founded Aboriginal Life Circle with MY Canada to promote the aboriginal view on life which is overwhelmingly pro-life.

Winning the nation

Support pro life candidates, be involved in politics, pro-lifers are resilient.

Event Blogging: "How Ideas Get Turned Into Law" by Joseph Ben-Ami

It is important to understand how ideas become laws if we want to develop effective strategies. This is one of the reason why we have different organizations instead of one giant one, because they can contribute at different stages of lawmaking.

When it comes to making laws Parliament is almost entirely suprifulous. The Cabinet is really the law making body in our country. The Cabinet can sometimes pass laws without going through the whole Parliament ringmarole. They are prevented from doing this in practice because Parliament holds the money bag and can punish a Cabinet who insults them. It is important to realize this because if we are focusing on lobbying people it is far better to focus on Cabinet Ministers than backbenchers or opposition MPs. It is exceptionally difficult to get a legislation through without Cabinet's support.

The real benefit of a private member's bill is communication. A bill is a piece of legislation. To become law it needs to pass Parliament and the Senate, going through three votes and a committee at each level. It really needs government support to go anywhere. The real question when you are writing a private member's bill is not what will happen if it passes, but what will be the impact of introducing it and having it discussed. Changing the law is our goal, not our stratagy. We need to be more cautious, and more aware of the demoralizing effect constantly losing has on volunteers and members. If we use all of our strength on bills we know won't pass is it the best use of our time? If you ask people to write 2, 3, 4, letters that don't work they may start to ask what the point is.

The key to getting the law changed is not to elect MPs that agree with your goals. The key is to elect a political party which agrees with your goals. We don't have a political party that opposes abortion. We try to elect as many pro-life MPs as possible but what we really need is to elect a pro-life government. During the marriage debate, when the Liberals were pro-gay, some people worked to elect Liberal pro-marriage candidates when it would have been better to work towards getting a pro-marriage government in.

Cabinet controls what happens.

It is also important to remember the beurocracy. They do have influence. We need to take our lobbying of them seriously.

We have a system that can only change incrementally. Whether we like that or not that is the reality.

The 64,000 dollar question is, what about provincial governments? Abortion for example is funded at the provincial level. We can do a great deal on a provincial level rather than spending a lot of time lobbying backbenchers to support private members bills that have no effect. Education is a major issue that can be dealt with locally. Centralised curriculum is a big problem. Our schools are engines of social change today and those who control the curriculum and education are those who shape social norms.

You can get involved in either federal, provincial, and municipal politics. Municipal politics is not as glamourous but it is the most effective and has the most impact on people's day to day life.

It is not good enough to simply have goals. We need a plan. We need to demand exellence of ourselves as individuals and organizations.

Okay I missed a bunch of questions or statements after this as well, sorry again.

Event Blogging: "The Power of the One - How to be a Catalyst for Change" by Tristan Emmanuel

Why we need to be the catalyst for change in our culture.

First Point. We often feel that the problems which plague our culture are so big, that there is nothing we can really do. Our economy is recession. Democracy is fading. Morality is bankrupt. We feel incapable of doing anything about it. However this keeps us from doing anything. Yet we all impact our culture, either passively or deliberately.

Often we assist in our own demise unwittingly. Socons engage in worldview pessimism. We obsess with end-times to the exclusion of trying to change things in the present. They think that it will only get worse so why engage? We know that the end is nigh and evil will only speed the end-times so we shouldn't fight against it. We have been living in the “end-times” for almost 2000 years now. This attitude discourages cultural engagement except evangelism. Evangelism is important but to believe that it is the only valid cultural engagement if fallacious. We just leave our country in the clutches of the devil and his forces. This has created untold disadvantages for social conservatives and has helped to create the situation we are in today.

These people have an unbalanced view of their own Scriptures. It undermines the cultural mandate which is also in the Bible. Go into the world and multiply and cultivate as it says in Genesis. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations in Matthew. Go disciple entities, nations as nations, not just individuals, and teach them ethics. Universities, parliaments, all of Canada's institutions are stamped with our Judeo-Christian heritage. We need to be involved in the present not just obsessed about the end.

Another problem is that we tend to evaluate things by intention, not results, because we believe that everything is just going to get worse. If our heart is in the right place we can be unprofessional and ineffective but it doesn't matter. Intentions are good, but in business they are irrelevant, unless you are the Toronto Maple Leafs. How often have we given organizations a passing grade when they fail because they have a good heart? How everything falls out is God's business, we just need to engage.

Second point, we are puritanical in our ideas. We believe in all or nothing. I am not calling people to violate their consciences, but in this fallible world where our ideals will never be fully realized it is important that we not be petulant. The pro-life movement has not been able to get one piece of legislation through. Is this perhaps because our all or nothing attitude too often gets us nothing?

Lastly, if we are going to be effective cultural warriors we need to stop being pacifists, we need to stop giving up without a fight. Too many conservatives especially religious ones are far too meek in the face of cultural aggression. For example, the bishop of San Francisco. Two gays dressed as nuns walked in behaving very inappropriately, and received communion. A city prosecutor in San Fran was willing to press charges because what they did was so offensive but the bishop issued an apology instead. In another case Emmanuel was speaking for Boissoin. During the event, he was surrounded by a bunch of gay militia carrying banners. They shut the meeting down for 30 minutes. They had people at the door making sure no one left. The hotel manager came and actually had to ask if they wanted the hotel to ask them to leave.

This doesn't mean that you become nasty but don’t give up when you meet very hostile and aggressive opponents.

Change begins with ourselves and our perspective of the world. If we think that everything is just going to get worse, if we insist on all or nothing, if we give up at every opposition we will not be effective.

Missed part of the Q and A due to computer problems, sorry.

Q: Shouldn't we be interested in judicial as well as political issues.

A: We sometimes put too much emphasis on politics. The judiciary is also very important.

I am still amazed at the level of civility and order in the transition of government in this country. There is hope in Canada because we have managed to gain what is really a very difficult thing. We have developed in incrementally.

Event Blogging: "Communication Essentials for Social Conservatives" by Joseph Ben-Ami

One thing that socons need to do is to put a smile on our faces and not take ourselves too seriously.

Great communicators are not born. Churchill had a lisp but that improved over time. We can all become, and we must all become, at least good, if not great communicators. We are all ambassadors.

The first rule of communication is that you won't change anyone's mind if you don't talk about issues. How many times are we told that “You can't talk about that”. In politics people say “Don't talk about that before you get elected.”. However you do have to get re-elected. Another one is “Wait until we have a majority before we talk about this”. The problem is that people become accustomed to what they are doing and it is very hard to do an about face after a few years when you do get your majority. It is also not honest, it makes us really have a hidden agenda. Democracy is meaningless without a competition of ideas. We need to have an agenda of our own, not just be “not liberals“. Unless we are branding ourselves we will be branded by our opponents.

Point Number Two : For Conservatives to win, they have to run as conservatives. In 1995 the Mike Harris government won two governments. They won on a strong conservative platform. Then they got re-elected because they did what they said they were going to do. After that the Red Tory centralists ran and lost. This is oversimplifying but it makes the point. On the national and international stage, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan won massive support as real conservatives. Yes Conservatives sometimes lose, but not as often as they do as centralists.

If you want to be a spokesperson for the issue that you are passionate about you need to study, and learn the art and science of speaking.

Everyone has heard that appearance isn't everything, but in communication it is almost everything. The colour of the backdrop, the clothing you wear, the lighting, those are the things that make a speech memorable. The most important thing is presentation.

The next one is auditory, the quality of the sound, how you say what you say. You use positive words not negative ones. Daycare v. Childcare, always call it daycare if you are against it. Euthanasia v. Right to Die.

These are the three most important things to do if you are going to be speaking.

Prepare

Prepare

Prepare

Know the subject, never get caught out. If you do get asked a question you don't know, say I don't know, don't mumble.

Know your audience. What is the age, wealth, political leaning of your target group?

Know what you want to say and say what you want to say. Only make three or four points. People won't remember more. Rehearse your lines. Don't let the interviewer take control of the interview. Never fill dead air, when there is silence don't just talk to talk.

Always anticipate the opponents' questions.

Preparation, Preparation, Preparation.

Bypassing the mainstream media. Use the internet well. Give out CDs. Get creative, do charity drives.

There is a bias in the mainstream media but they are your friend. They have a very important status in society so you will have to work with them. Be clever and try to get past their biases but don't fight them. You will never win a war with the mainstream media, so don't try. Most journalists do try to overcome their biases. We also have friends in the media. There are people biased in our favour.

Q: Can you run as a conservative in the Conservative party?

A: You live in a free country with a lot of opinions. You do have more freedom outside of the party. I believe that you will see more assertiveness in the future because you can play the game even within the Conservative party. Politics does not reward loyalty it rewards disloyalty. Pushing the envelope can work you should try to find a balance.

Event Blogging: "Reaching the Young" by Faytene Kryskow

Faytene Kryskow with My Canada. An organization targeted at young people between 15 and 35.

One of the things that they have been committed to doing in this movement is waking Canada up to the fact that they exist. There are actually young people who are committed to traditional values. The Great Canadian Lie is that such young Canadians do not exist. Most young people are not interested in economics but they do care about social issues. If you study the history of movements they are fuelled by youth power. If the conservative movement is to survive then it needs the power, and ideas, and innovations of youth. In 2006 Facebook came on the scene and, for example, Faytene has 3300 friends that she can invite to an event. Youth just need leadership and practical ways to help.

Second point is that there is a new normal in Canada. Young people are drinking, smoking, using drugs, and having sex less. The majority of young Canadians want the age of consent raise to 16 yrs. 9 out of 10 kids don’t approve of extra-marital affairs. And 43% want one parent to stay at home.

58-9% of young people engaged in some kind of political activism or activity other than voting.

16-25% boycotted or choose a product based on ethical issues. (Numbers vary depending on the age bracket)

Obama had a good touch for understanding the passion of young people which was a reason why he won.

Vast numbers of young people do not vote. This is a huge, untapped voting block. Politicians need to find out what makes young people tick if they want to get into office. They are more involved in activist activities than older people so they are into the issues, but they aren't voting.

Young people are not into economic issues, they are into social issues. The conservatives are boring young people and are not offering them what they want.

They went onto the streets of Ottawa asking young people, if you could say anything to a Member of Parliament and if you found one who was into those issues would you vote for them and work for them.

Some clips were shown of young people concerned about gang violence, aboriginal issue, city planning, euthanasia and assisted suicide, taxes, poverty. All of the young people shown would vote and most would volunteer if a politician would address their concern.

CBC poll on Facebook poll for youth on their wish for Canada. Out of over 3,000 options, the number one wish was for the ending of abortion.

Faytene’s personal flash-point was when Mr. Martin said “We believe that we are representing the views of the next generation” about legalizing gay marriage. However the CBC poll disagrees with this.

What are the socons giving the young people to rally to?

My Canada’s achievements: From 10 young adults they have gotten to a solid membership of 5,000 people and an online membership of 50,000 people. Several hundred have visited parliaments, there have been 400 sit down meetings with parliamentarians. Full time volunteer internships. Regularly published in national media and on talk shows. Volunteering and working in campaigns.

Summary: We exist.

We won't work for pizza we will work for passion.

Socially conservative give more than liberals, so if you want money and help, running as a socon is a good idea.

Where to Find Us:

#1 Rule for this game is don't play games. Give them something solid.

If you are real then MY Canada will mobilize a team for you.

Be on university campuses and find their cause groups.

Youth Groups and young adults.

Facebook is your friend.

If you make your cause known they will find you.

The future is bright and this demographic is serious but not naive.

Q: Is My Canada really non-partisan? Do you believe that Christian values are coming to the forefront?

A: It is non-partisan when it comes to political parties. Yes, Biblical wisdom is social wisdom. Young people are waking up to moral wisdom, that happens to be in line with Biblical wisdom, whatever the inspiration. It is now hip to be holy.

Q: The media has succeeded in convincing older people that young people are liberal but is that only a false veneer?

A: The young people are cause orientated. Secondly there is a movement back to conservative values particularly on drugs and sex. There is a media veneer and bias. There is a new normal in Canada.

Q: Does My Canada support other organizations other than political campaigns

A: Every history maker is focused. They do have issue pages that would link other organizations.

Event Blogging: In Search of Unity: Fiscal Conservatives and Social Conservatives Myths and Facts by Joseph Ben-Ami

Conservatives refers to the conservative movement not the political party. Political parties exist to get elected and stay elected. They have to balance policy and popularity. While these are necessary, they exclude pure conservativism which only independent conservatives can fully embrace. Liberal also refers to the ideology not the party. There is no single definition of conservativism. It is not a set of doctrines but flows from an examination of first principles. No idea has been more damaging than the division between social and fiscal conservatives and the belief that they have different, if not incompatible, beliefs. Conservatives are not like beer, to be tolerated in moderation. People call themselves progressive conservatives to indicated fiscal or limited conservatives, as opposed to social conservatives.

Consider two big issues. Deficits for fiscal conservatives. Marriage for social conservatives. They seem to be completely unrelated. The ideas however find their source in a government which is too big economically and too overreaching as a social activist. Most problems in society comes from government getting too involved and too all encompassing. Is there a possibility that voter apathy can be related to the fact that government is everywhere so it is no longer significant?

Our common goal is to restrain government. While we have different concerns this is our point of intersection. Socons are concerned with the moral conscience of a nation. They may be susceptible to believing that the state should be proactive in this role but thoughtful conservatives believe that the moral conscience of the nation should be church and family. The state should be limited so that it doesn't encroach. We shouldn’t change the government so much as limit it so it doesn't limit us.

Socons should be more interested in fiscal conservativism because a big government is related to having money to spend.

Fiscal conservatives should be interested in socon because the erosion of the natural family is related to issues like demographics which has an impact on social programs. Conservatives should be interested in matters of healthcare and social security. The purely economic consequences of the breakdown of the family is incalculable.

The character of the nation is formed in the family which has an impact on economics because that is where they learn things about hard work and money sense.

We have a symbiotic relationship so we should cooperate instead of snipping at each other.

To summarize, there is much room for diversity within the conservative movement. But within that diversity there is much philosophical unity. Belief in small government, low taxes, personal accountability, liberty. Liberty is not an American copyright. The American revolution was a revolution because they didn't have their rights as Englishmen, which is our common heritage.

Q: I have trouble understanding how social conservatives and fiscal conservatives can agree in areas such as child labour which may be a fiscal benefit but a social problem?

A: The short answer is that it is a very complicated issue. I believe that it hurts our economy to ship jobs overseas to places where they use child labour and human rights violators. Just because something is profitable doesn't mean that it should be done. This is why we should have a synthesis between social and fiscal conservatives so that there is a conscience to fiscal conservativism.

Foreign policy is a more complicated issue but there should be a moral component and socons need to engage, not isolate themselves.

Q: Two big issues for Americans are hate crimes and healthcare. There are alternatives in America and healthcare is a freedom issue. Canadian socons don't address or even believe in private healthcare.

A: There are many good outcomes and many bad outcomes from the Canadian healthcare. The Americans don't understand the implications of government healthcare. There are many pressures coming and it will mean healthcare cost cuts. The inevitable outcome is rationing which can have profound moral implications.

Q: People who are fiscal conservatives may have a different worldview which doesn't want the moral side. Christian worldview can have both but the insertion of a secular worldview introduces the split.

A: Yes there is an issue of worldviews. The fact that we have different worldview doesn't preclude cooperation. We should look past motivations to goals. I think that there is a moral component to deficits and putting burdens on children.

Q: Should there be a role for government in regulating medical issues because autonomy won't automatically bring about good morals.

A: Abortion is a point of unity because fiscal and moral conservatives don't want government funding of abortions which is a good thing. When the government makes the decisions they could make the decision to impose a moral code but they aren't. So at least in the States the government doesn't fund abortion which is better than the Canadian system.

Q: What is your policy approach to try to bring them together.

A: This is one small step towards doing it. That is a question for individuals, particularly.

Event Blogging: Tristan Emmanuel on "Running Right - Lessons from the Hillier Campaign"

Starting around 9:00, Joseph Ben-Ami gives opening remarks before introducing the first speaker Tristan Emmanuel. Emmanuel is President of Freedom Press Inc. A publishing company which specializes in conservative Canadian authors who write from a Canadian perspective. He was also the campaign manager for Randy Hillier, who ran for the Conservative leadership in Ontario.

Emmanuel is speaking about the Hillier campaign and it's mission. He advances two main points 1) Conservatives must advance real ideas and 2) Ideas are useless without real people.

· In the world of political spin there is nothing more damaging than the old perception that liberals are full of new ideas about justice and compassion while conservativism is just plain boring old. He suggests that liberal “new ideas” are like snake oil salesmen who comes into town with new ideas. There are too many “shills” in Canada for liberalism. Even many religious conservatives are shilling for liberal-socialism. The argument that something (like communism) has some kind of validity if it sounds “good on paper” is obviously ridiculous.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservativism is rooted in reality. Hillier ran because he believed that people deserved a clear choice between conservativism and liberalism.. He opposed amalgamation because it wasn't practical. He believed in elective Senators and opposed a government monopoly on liquor. His most courageous stand was against the HRC. Principled dissent is fundamental to democracy, even if that dissent is politically incorrect. Such principled but politically incorrect speech defeated slavery and supported suffrage. Although Hillier wasn't most people's first choice, he was most people's second choice.

Randy was a real person. He was an unpolished, folksy, charismatic person. Honest to a fault. He was not interested in being handled by backroom political advisors He was very authentic and principled. His aim was to bring the PC party back to it's conservative roots, freedom, and democracy. While Hillier may not have won, his involvement was beneficial in influencing Hudak to oppose the OHRC.

The main point of Hillier was that Conservatives have to come back to conservativism.

The Q and A session

Q: Will Hillier have a portfolio in a PC government?

A: Probably

Q: How do we know that Hillier was most people's second choice?

A: Emmanuel was his manager and saw the results. He was a safe second choice for many people because he wouldn't win. The vote was also divided because the socons and libertarians were divided between pro-life and anti-HRC.

Q: Did they have policies on property tax, government raising taxes without people permission?

A: They didn't although they did have policies related to cities.. Ben-Ami adds, they did have a position that property tax regulations go back to the municipalities.

Q: What did they learn?

A: They announced too many policies.

Q: As campaign manager, who would you advise the candidate to speak to and how?

A: Speak to people depending on who they are. Candidates should be learned and yet ideas are not real unless they are communicated in ways that people can understand.

Q: Should the geographical value system be changed because it is not balanced. Some ridings have a larger proportion of voters voting than others?

A: All ridings are weighted equally unless they have less than a hundred votes.

Q: Should they have gone pro-life?

A: Hillier had to be real and if he wasn't pro-life they couldn't pretend that he was. Pro-life is really mostly a federal matter. This is the first time that politicians addressed HRC and that is important even for pro-life people because unless we have freedom of speech they might not be able talk about pro-life. His position on pro-life is libertarian. The state shouldn't say anything but it shouldn't fund it either.

Q: Hillier was a very rural person, did he learn anything about bridging the gap between rural and city people?

A: They did attract urban people with tax cuts and real conservative ideas that are attractive no matter where you live.

Q: What kind of leader is Tim Hudak, is he more of a social conservative?

A: Hudak is not a libertarian. Conservatives believe in limited government. It should be strong in what it does and leave the rest alone. Libertarians believe that people are intrinsically good and should be mostly left alone. This is naive because of the problem of evil. People left alone tend to go to anarchy not cohesion. Emmanuel doesn't know if he is libertarian or conservative. He promised to do something about the HRC however.

Event Blogging: Campaign Essentials for Social Conservatives

Blogging the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies' Campaign Essentials for Social Conservatives, July 27 at the Crowne Plaza Hotel. Not the Mariot Hotel as the concierge at the Crowne tried to tell us, that was the Conservative Party Training. Don't ask us how we know.

This commentary on the convention is just that, a commentary. It is not meant to give the exact words of any speaker but just to give a brief summarization in my words of the substance of the lectures. Although I may give exact quotes sometimes without necessarily giving credit. Just please don't sue me for plagiarism. The speakers moved fast. The disclaimer over, we can get back to business.

Large room, small group, very small group. A book table with books from Tristan Emmanuel's publishing company Freedom Press Inc. They look pretty interesting. Found a wall socket to plug the laptop into. Bonus. While we are waiting I read the pamphlet we got at the door.

From their pamphlet: “The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies is a non-partisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to the advancement of freedom and prosperity at home and abroad through the development and promotion of sensible public policy that meets the challenges of a complex and modern world... For too long public policy discussion in Canada – at all levels of government – has been little more than a monologue.... The goal of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies is to replace that monologue with dialogue”

How well they succeed? We shall see, I suppose.

Word and Image

Reflecting on the fact that most Christians don't even know what the word means. How about this for a definition. This and this for an explanation of what that ignorance and hostility to truth translates to. And this to put it to music.

"

Well I don't agree with most of Xanthippa's personal opinions but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if there was some validity in this analysis of the Canadian public's response to Harper's Communion scandal.

You know, like, those people.

How does that song go again... "You say that you're tolerant and open minded, well here's your chance to prove it to me, Tolerate this."

If I may quote the article itself, "The Church of England unveils a two-in-one wedding and baptism liturgy today as it seeks to make peace with families “living in sin”." Just what we need, encourage unwed parenthood in a nation where 32% of births are already outside marriage. What's wrong with having two ceremonies rather than writing a new liturgy? It's a shameless publicity stunt.

Do they not even get that suggesting that some people are excluded from the Bible is highly offensive to Christians of ALL stripes? Via Blazing Cat Fur - "Nope no riots yet"

Ontario Human Rights Commission accused of ignoring human rights issues to engage in activism and nonsensical meddling.

German homeschool girl put into a mental institute because she had "school phobia". Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

Some new words for your dictionary. I have to admit that I also have my binkings embossed in gold and framed on the wall. Maybe someday, somewhere, someone will refer to my posts as binking. Then I can die happily.

Objective proof that using societal pressure to squash offensive hate speech works. Just like the free speechers said it would.

Application accepted for World Youth Alliance Online Training Program. Very pleased. Now I have over 340 pages of stuff to read in about six weeks.

Ultimate disconnect with reality.

My Auntie's paintings. I like this one but I really wish she would post the one with pears in canning jars. Hint, hint.

Wintery Knight illustrates my inner alter ego.