Post 230--Away with Gangsters

I've written about gangsters before.  I was almost going to write that it's a topic that fascinates me, but that would not be true. It's a topic--no, it's not a topic or a subject; it's a person or a group of persons, mostly male, if I may still use that term! And it's hardly a fascinating person or group. I really want to say that a gangster or a group of them are probably among the most despicable of all human beings. That's how I feel, deep down in my heart.

Now I know a Christian is not to despise anyone. Heh, God so loves the world...!  And if He can love a world that has offended Him time and again, 24 X 7 over the centuries and millennia, perhaps even over billions of years, who am I to despise people who really have hardly affected me?  I read about them in the papers and I cut out many articles to file away for occasions like this one, when I write about them. No, I really need to change my attitude radically and seek forgiveness. Learn to love them even, perhaps? 

You may remember that in the previous post I treated you to an article I translated from my favourite Dutch daily, Trouw. It told the story how a Dutch court has criminalized the most vicious of Dutch gangs, the Hell's Angels.  Not sure I used the right word: "criminalized."  Lawyers, like us theologians, have a way with words and distinctions that are hard to follow for others. Perhaps the word "ban" would be more correct, though I would not know the difference. At any rate, both mean something like "away with them."

Now I do not regret their banning, for this is not banning persons from life, but their organization and their way of life or, rather, their way of death. If you were to spend a few hours reading my newspaper cuttings about gangsters, I don't see how you could defend them or how you could tolerate their culture, their way of life and their organizations. The Dutch have declared them not wanted and illegal. They have decided there no longer is place for them in Dutch society.

Here in Canada?  We put a protective shield around them. We call it "human rights." Human rights allegedly protect every body in Canada--yes, allegedly.  In reality, they protect criminals with their violent behaviour more than the ordinary law-abiding citizen. For the latter, human rights seem more like a prison that prevent us from protecting ourselves and each other. Gangsters do not care about anyone's rights; they step on them; they shoot and kill without genuine provocation. They spread terror left and right, but the authorities protect them with their gentrified legal system. They even spend unlimited time and money to find out who killed one of them.

Why on earth should society be so concerned and so protective about gangsters, people who have voluntarily chosen a most dangerous life style?  When a proven gangster has been killed, why not just bury the guy and move on? That's one less to worry about. Now the police can spend time protecting law-abiding citizens.

In my mind, people who chose violence should lose their human rights. Finish. Why should we protect them from their own choices? So, I appreciate their criminalization in the Netherlands. It's an important step forward.  But I recommend the next step also: Deny them their human rights. Quit protecting them while the ordinary citizens live in fear or just get shot.

Canada, when will you close the door to your prison of false human rights?  You have criminalized terrorists. What's the difference between those, apart from their motivation? 

==========

PS--I was planning to copy one of the many newspaper cuttings I have on the subject of gangsters. However, you will have noticed irregularities in the fonts used in these posts. I have not been able to overcome that problem; I'm just not a techie.  However, a techie friend has just promised to help me fix the problem.  So, I resist the temptation to include that cutting. Hopefully he will be able to help me out this evening.  Once that is done, I may well succumb to the temptation of listing quite a number of such articles by their web access.  We'll see what happens--but he first has to help me with the immediate past posts. 
      

Post 197--This Confusing World

The heading of the article I draw to your attention today is CNN.  So, I start with them. I was amazed when I saw the heading of this article and when I read its contents. Here we have CNN praising and defending Israel.  They praise Israel for the many Nobel and other awards its citizens have won, far more than any other nation in proportion to its tiny population, certainly far more than the nations that would like nothing better than to see its people erased from the face of the earth. I am not used to such sounds from CNN. Highly unusual.

I agree with CNN on this one. My response to these facts is that I would love Canada to invite the entire Jewish nation to move over to Canada, live where they themselves please and bless Canada with their amazing talents. I cannot imagine how far they would take Canada into the stratosphere of the arts and sciences. Our country would be transformed totally. And the Jews would finally have peace--no one to molest them anymore.

Not only did CNN praise Israel for their accomplishments, but they also criticized the nations that continually criticize Israel; it criticizes the critics. Now, we all know that Israel is not a perfect nation and deserves critique, but what of the nations that major in this critique within the halls of the UN?  The article asks pointed questions about a number of them. Is Israel really worse than those others?  This is a list of rhetorical questions the answers to which are so obvious, they don't need to be spelled out. Why are those nations not taken to task?  What right do they have to critique Israel? Do they have any sort of higher ground from which to expressed their holier-than-thou hypocrisy? 

What amazes me still more is that  Jake Tapper, the anchor of the above CNN programme, expressed all the above in the context of President Trump's declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Ordinarily, one would expect CNN to castigate the President for this action.  After all, the network specializes in berating Trump. That's about all I hear them do, the reason I am tired of them and no longer listen to them.  For once they were able to restrain themselves with respect to their President. Another highly unusual event.  I can hardly imagine such restraint on their part!  Is this the same CNN I know?  If you do not believe in miracles, perhaps you ought to do a rethink! Can you blame me for being confused?

That said, I now provide you with the opportunity to hear it from the horse's mouth as it comes to us from the Algemeiner of December 22, 2017.  As our own CBC likes to put it, "Have a listen."


Top CNN Host Calls Out Human Rights-Abusing UN Member-States for Hypocrisy on Israel

Jake Tapper. Photo: Screenshot.

CNN news host Jake Tapper on Thursday called out human rights-abusing UN member-states for their hypocritical focus on Israel.

On his “The Lead” program, hours after the UN General Assembly passed— by a 128-9 margin, with 35 abstentions — a resolution calling for the United States to drop its recent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Tapper noted, “The United Nations General Assembly, from 2012 to 2015, has adopted 97 resolutions specifically criticizing an individual country, and of those 97, 83 have focused on Israel. That is 86 percent.”

Tapper continued: “Now certainly Israel is not above criticism, but considering the genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, the lack of basic human rights in North Korea, the children starving in the streets of Venezuela, the citizens of Syria targeted for murder by their own leader using the most grotesque and painful of weapons, you have to ask is Israel truly deserving of 86 percent of the world’s condemnation? Or possibly is something else afoot at the United Nations, something that allows the representative of the Assad government to lecture the United States for moving its embassy?”

Watch the segment below:

T

Post 174--Disrupting Church Services--Zombie Prohibition?

I am a writer. As such, I do a lot more than just writing this particular blog. I operate an extensive website I've told you about frequently--< www.SocialTheology.com >--as well as another blog--
<  ChristianMuslimWorld >--. Sometimes they overlap such as when I decide a certain article, either my own or a guest article, is suitable for the other vehicle as well. In all of them I occasionally share articles with you about the gradual pushing Christianity out of the way here in Canada, but also in other countries.  In some countries it is another religion that persecutes Christians. This is true especially in Muslim and Communist countries, but also happens in Buddhist and Hindu nations.

It also happens in Western countries, including Canada. However, in the West, it is often under the radar so that most  people do not notice. Hence they often feel that talking about persecution of Christians in Western countries is a matter of paranoia, a distorted imagination. I plan to exposing this dangerous tendency by giving it more coverage to show you it's not just paranoia or imagination. It happens. It's true. But usually it is done in such small steps and in such hidden ways that people either not notice or just shrug their shoulders as a non-issue that is blown all out of proportion.

And true enough, in many cases these are small issues that by themselves are not all that significant. However, when you pay attention and put them all in a row you have to come to the conclusion that there is definitely a tendency, an important tendency in Canada, for example, of slowly putting tiny screws on what on the surface look like minor issues.

And while in two paragraphs back I point to other religions plus Communism as the perpetrators, here in Canada it is mainly the people with secular or liberal agendas who are behind it all.  Note that I refer to"liberal," not to"Liberal" as in the Liberal Party, though that Party has its share of supporters for this movement. But it's not only those with such an agenda, there are also kind people among them whose secular or liberal definition of religion blinds them to its real nature. So, when anti-Christian measures come on the table, they don't even recognize them to be anti-Christian in however minute shape.

Today I treat you to an interview published by Lighthouse News, an online news source operated by ARPA--Association for Reformed Political Action, "Reformed" being another term for "Calvinistic," not the former Reform Party. It is also close to Presbyterianism, but that's for another time. You will profit the most from this interview if you also pursue the links in the document. 


                                 DISRUPTING CHURCH SERVICES

André Schutten, Director of Law and Policy - ARPA Canada

As we told you a few months ago on Lighthouse News, the federal government is making a move to eliminate so-called “zombie laws”. These are essentially old laws       which are no longer in effect. The most common reason for their obsolescence is that they’ve been struck down by the court. While those laws are technically still on the books, they have become unenforceable, so they need to be removed to reflect that reality. But earlier this month, the federal Liberals introduced a second bill to eliminate some other old laws, and one of those eliminations could have an impact on every single pastor, and every single church, mosque, synagogue, or Sikh temple in the country. This is a completely separate bill from the one we discussed back in March. On the feature today, ARPA’s Law and Policy Director, André Schutten, on what the government is doing with this latest bill.

LN: Andre, let’s start with some background on the difference between these two bills.

AS: So they have a zombie law [Bill C-39] already and that one targets all these old Criminal Code provisions that were ruled unconstitutional, right? And so, I’m not really sure what the government’s up to. It might be that they’re trying to pass other stuff through this one and they use that description as cover. So C-39, which is also that – unconstitutional provisions, right – it’s “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts” from the Minister of Justice. So that one is the zombie law one. So I don’t know what else they’re trying to do with C-51, but I imagine that what they’re trying to do is they’ve got this cover going on, and they’re saying “Look! All we’re doing is cleaning up the Code again, and we’re just taking care of anything that’s probably unconstitutional.” But what they’re doing with that is they’re also taking out sections that aren’t unconstitutional; that are actually good sections (but) they just don’t feel like debating them.

LN: And that brings us to the central issue here. Right now, the Criminal Code says you can’t harass or assault a clergyman or minister in connection with him performing his duties, on the way to or from a worship service for example. And… you can’t disturb or interrupt a worship service while it’s underway. That is specifically addressed in the Criminal Code. But section 14 of the new zombie law, Bill C-51, specifically moves to eliminate that part of the Criminal Code.

AS: Yeah, so this one clause – Clause 14 – is key to that. Clause 14 is the one that removes protections for worship services. Whether that’s Christian worship services or Islamic or Jewish or Hindu or Sikh worship services; it’s written very broadly and says that anyone who disrupts these worship services is “guilty of a criminal offence.” And that’s a good provision to have, and yet they’re removing it, for no apparent good reason anyway.

LN: ‘I’m looking at that clause and I looked at it initially and I went: “Wow. This is really big.” And then I got to thinking about it and in the government’s defense – and I’m not defending the government, but just to play devil’s advocate for a minute – what’s the last time this provision was ever used? I mean, this is an ancient law that said you’re not allowed to disrupt a church service. Could the argument be made that being a multicultural, pluralistic society, church services aren’t special enough to require a specific clause in the Criminal Code to protect the conduct there?

AS: So, in reviewing some of the transcripts from the House of Commons on debate on this, Mr. Tom Kmiec – he’s a Member of Parliament from Alberta – he pointed out that this section has actually just been used a couple of weeks ago right here in Ottawa, where somebody has been charged under this provision. So in that sense, it is still a “live” section of the Criminal Code; it is being used.

And I think what’s driving the desire to remove this section from the Criminal Code is an attitude that a religious service is no different than a university lecture for example. And why should we give special protection to religious ceremonies if we don’t give it to, you know, a university lecture? And you can imagine, right, it’s been in the news; professor Jordan Peterson for example tried to give a lecture at McMaster University, the University of Toronto, (and) elsewhere, (and) he gets shouted down by protestors, right?

And so some people might say, “Well why – if we’re not gonna give criminal law protection to Jordan Peterson to give his lecture – why would we give it to a minister to give his sermon?” And I’d say that fundamentally the two are very, very different. A university lecture is one thing, but a religious service is something at a much different level. It’s something much more profound going on. And whether you’re Christian or not, I would say that protection ought to be there for a Muslim service – like a prayer service as a mosque – or it should be there for a Jewish service at a synagogue, or at a Christian service at a church. And I think that the government should not be afraid that this section is in any way unconstitutional; it certainly never has been ruled unconstitutional. So we should keep it.

And we need it in today’s society. Again, thinking of the Jordan Petersons of this country that get shouted down (while) giving a lecture, it’s not that hard to imagine that we might one day see people disrupting – in big ways – Christian services where orthodox teaching is being preached from the pulpit.

LN: Is this a fundamental shift in Canadian society? I mean, here we have on the one hand a government that pushes through (Bill) C-16, (that) says you have to use whatever pronouns somebody says they want to be described as, and on the other hand they’re removing this historical context of protection for religious services. It seems to me that there’s a fundamental reshaping of society going on here.

AS: Yeah, I think so. Absolutely. It seems to me there’s this fear of our Christian heritage. There’s this fear of our Christian past. And while I would say it’s absolutely true that the history of this particular section does have to do with Christianity and the Christian faith and protecting church services, that doesn’t mean that it has no value today. Even though we are definitely not a Christian nation anymore, we definitely should be protecting (the) Christian faith but also, again, other faiths should be protected in this respect as well.

And the counter-argument might be made that “Well, you know, we took out those sections but don’t worry; there’s still a section about criminal trespass,” right? So people can be charged under criminal trespass. But that, again, shows a total ignorance of what a worship service is. Now I can’t speak for the Jewish faith or the Muslim faith or the Sikh faith, but certainly for the Christian faith, our worship services are public events. It’s a public worship service. So, you know, we can’t exactly criminally charge protestors who come to a church service if we’re so public about our worship. Our worship is open to the public; we want other people to be able to come. They’re welcome in our church buildings. We want them to hear the Gospel. We want them to get to know Jesus Christ. But yeah, if they’re going to be disruptive and so on then we want to be able to also have the criminal law protection to make sure that that doesn’t happen. So we see ignorance of the Christian faith here, we see the ignorance of our history here. We see ignorance of the possible risks to not just the Christian faith but to all faiths with the approach being taken here. And I think that’s problematic all around.

LN: Is there anything we can do stop C-51? I mean, how do you mount a legal challenge on something that takes something away? It’s kind of a complicated piece.

AS: Indeed. We can’t exactly make a claim that – I don’t think – that we have a constitutional right to this provision. At the same time, we can make the argument that there is no constitutional reason to remove this provision. And so, certainly we are going to apply to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights – that’s where this bill is now – so that’s the Committee stage in the House of Commons, and we’re going to lobby to get that Clause 14 removed. We haven’t looked at the rest of the bill yet, so there might be good parts in the rest of the bill, I’m not going to condemn the entire bill, but this one clause – clause 14, which removes protection for our pastors and our worship services – definitely has to be cut out of that bill. https://arpacanada.ca/lighthouse-news/disrupting-church-services/#lhn-article-7442

Post 161--Vimy Pride Can Never Diminish the Pain

Today is Maundy Thursday, the day on which Christians begin the weekend that ends with Easter, the day we celebrate Christi's resurrection.  This being a blog devoted to the Christian faith, this post should really be about that tremendously important historical event.  However, it happens to be the day that I read Joe O'Connor's report about the Vimy Ridge memorial week, when Canada remembers, mourns and celebrates the supreme sacrifice thousands of Canadian soldiers made at Vimy Ridge in France. It was such an important event that it has been  credited with the birth of the Canadian nation. 

I don't get a chance/time to write a post every day or even regularly, but I will try to treat you to some meditation on the Good Friday--Easter axis before the weekend is over. However, as a Christian writer I cannot simply ignore such an important and sad event for and in our nation. Actually the Good Friday--Easter axis has this in common with the Vimy story: they both include a very sad part and very joyful one.  For Vimy, the sad part is the death of thousands of young Canadian men; the happy part is that it represents a young nation coming out of the closet of obscurity onto the world stage. We Canadians are proud of that.  So, death leading to a new life.

Similarly, the sad part of the Christian story is the death of Christ through crucifixion for the sinfulness of the human race, including yours and mine. The celebration is about the resurrection of Christ: Death does not have the final word; it is not the real end, except of just a phase. And that resurrection spelled the beginning of a new awakening emerging from Jerusalem into pretty well all the nations of the world.  Here, too, death leading to a new life. 

But for today, the Vimy story as Joe O'Connor tells it in the "National Post in the Vancouver Sun (April 10, 2017). I decided to leave the newspaper's reference to "related stories" down below in place for your further edification.

============

Willie McGregor was sitting in a tent, sipping on bottled water and peeling an orange. It was going to be a long day, the 94-year-old Albertan said, as the hot April sun beat down on Vimy. The last time McGregor was in France was June 1944. He landed on the beaches of Normandy — as an army medic — and saw things that no person should ever see.

“There are times when I’ll think about the war every night,” McGregor says. “I was asked after I came back if I wanted to work in a hospital and I said, ‘No, I’ve seen enough blood.’

“I went into farming. I have had a good life.”

On Sunday, McGregor was here, at Vimy, positioned in the shade near the soaring Canadian Memorial. “It is an honour,” he said. The 25,000 other Canadians who came, many wearing red and white, would agree. A 21-gun salute was fired, replica biplanes flew past, bagpipes played, a minute of silence was observed. Prime ministers, presidents and future kings gave speeches. Justin Trudeau elicited roars from the crowd, speaking of “the burden they bore, the country they made;” the Prince of Wales intoned, “this was Canada at its best;” while François Hollande said the “message of Vimy was to stand united.”

Philippe Huguen/AFP/Getty Images

But Vimy, at its core, is for the Canadian people: a memorial to 3,598 farmers, city boys and fishermen, killed taking a ridge that no other nation could take. The land is a gift from France, paid for in Canadian blood. Walter Allward’s soaring monument exudes an aura of permanence.

In northern France and nearby Belgium, the war — even 100 years after Vimy — is not viewed at a distance, but up close. people hear that you are a Canadian and some smile with surprise. Every village has a cenotaph. Every other field, it seems, a cemetery.

Kurt DeBacker was born in Ypres, Belgium, the site of the world’s first gas attack, a town pulverized during four years of fighting, a place full of Canadian ghosts.

DENIS CHARLET/AFP/Getty Images

“I grew up in the world’s largest graveyard,” DeBacker says.

When DeBacker was a kid — he is 46 now — his mother would tell him to watch out for the rusty bits in the garden, shrapnel pieces that he and his pals dug up by the bucket and traded in at the museum for Snickers bars. He was 13 when his school principal appeared at the class door and asked his friend, Laurent, to step outside.

“Laurent didn’t return to school for two weeks,” DeBacker says. “His father was a sugar beet farm. He ploughed over an old shell and was killed when it exploded.

“My friends, we grew up playing in the Commonwealth cemeteries — we were respectful of them — but the grass there was always so soft and green.”

That grass was once mud. Deep and thick, and full of the dead, about 50 per cent of whom were never identified. What sometimes gets forgotten in the memory wars — in the tribal custom of honouring our dead — is that the Germans were boys, too. With moms and dads and brothers and sisters and stories and dreams that died in the mud. In this land of bones, it is hard to find a place more lonesome than a German cemetery.

Christian Hartman/AFP/Getty Images

I went to a German  cemetery and it was very emotional for me,” says Heike Hemlin, a German-born public servant who moved to Canada 25 years ago. Hemlin grew up in a culture of silence, when being German meant being ashamed of what your grandparents and great-grandparents had done. “We were the bad guys,” she says.

Commonwealth cemeteries are full of light, colourful flowers, manicured grass and white marble headstones. German crosses are black. The men are buried in mass graves. There are no flowers. Germany rents the land — in perpetuity, relying on groups of schoolchildren and volunteer donations to maintain their burial sites. It is punishment, everlasting, for starting the war, and it is part of the tragedy of it.

The pain is everywhere: John Kelsall’s father, Sam, fought at Vimy. Sam would often tell the story of a farm boy in his unit from Saskatchewan. When a hand grenade landed in a trench full of men, the boy pounced it — sacrificing himself for his friends.

“My father would tell that story with tears in his eyes,” Kelsall says.

Peter Robinson’s great-grandfather, Pte. Edward J. Clement, survived Vimy, but was killed three months later near Arras. His widow, Elizabeth, lived for another seven decades.

“I saw what his death caused,” Robinson says. “Sadness, anger, financial strain — not least because the politicians of the day were so indifferent to the widows’ plight.”

Related

·         ‘We must believe it: Never again’: Trudeau commemorates 100th anniversary of Vimy Ridge

·         Vimy Ridge database: Search the names of ancestors who died in the historic First World War battle

·         A century later, Canadians are still searching for traces of the 44 missing soldiers of Vimy

Six days ago, Gen. (ret.) Rick Hillier addressed a crowd of Vimy pilgrims on a boat gliding up the Seine River and told them how, if they were proud of being Canadian now — if their hearts beat red — that their hearts would be bursting come Sunday, April 9th. There is pride, indeed, great big chests full of it, being here, on this day, and listening to stories about our great-great-grandparents’ generation, dying, living, fighting like lions to the everlasting gratitude of the French.

But pride, perhaps, isn’t the correct word at Vimy, with its soaring monument, and with the politicians on-hand to give speeches on the 100th anniversary of an event where nothing needed to be said.

Words can’t capture the magnitude of the place. Look east, away from the monument, over the Douai Plain, and what you see is beauty: farmers’ fields, rich and green in the April afternoon light. Walk around the base of the monument, however, and the meaning of Vimy is clear. It is carved into the stone — 11,285 names of the Canadians who died in France and whose bodies were never found.

“We haven’t learned a thing, have we?” Willie McGregor said, his voice full of wonder. “I think of this world, and it is still a terrible mess.”

Post 137—Ex-envoy Criticizes New Human Rights Office

The Harper government established an office to monitor religious freedom in various countries. It is interesting that, to the best of my knowledge, Canada was not among the nations to be monitored. Why do you think that was? No problems with religious freedom in Canada? Are you kidding? Many of the previous posts hint at restrictions on religious freedom in Canada, but it’s not usually identified as such and so no one recognizes it. I will try to make that more clear as we go along.  In the meantime, think about or even check out various earlier posts and see if you cannot find evidence or instances of it.

The Trudeau government has closed down that office and merged the concern for religious freedom with a new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. No more special attention for religious freedom; only freedom in general. Marie-Danielle Smith wrote a piece about this development in which she summarizes and quotes various statements on this merger by Andrew Bennett, formerly in charge of the Harper office. I encourage you to access it at this URL:

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ex-envoy%20criticizes%20new%20human%20rights%20office

Pay special attention to Bennett’s critique of the new situation. The concept of inclusion in the merged office is, he said, “ill defined and thoroughly vague” so that it “could muddy the water and distract from specific religious persecution issues faced by minorities abroad.  More training is needed for the staff, “because there is a ‘relative ignorance’ of religion in the public-service ranks and a ‘false understanding of separation of church and state’ still seems prevalent.

Ask yourself what Bennett said about ignoring the public role of religion. Yes, the office’s attitude is out of step with recent scholarship. It used to be said that religious issues were basically a sub-set of economic and political. You solve the latter two, and the religious issue will be solved as well. It is now widely recognized that this is not the case: religion is an issue in itself.

What is “historically inaccurate” according to Bennett? 

What are Canada’s allies wondering about with respect to our government?

Post 119 Election Mudslinging

US Campaigns in the Media

The media, especially TV, have inundated us poor Canadians with election rot. There’s this interminable US presidential campaign that’s been going on for ages--for years it seems, especially if you’re not particularly enamoured with that kind of public engagement. Though we don’t have a voice or any influence whatsoever in this process, even our own TV stations bombard us with talk shows and news talk about that drawn-out procedure, if you can dignify it as such. Of course, our stations are nothing compared to CNN and its competitors. With CNN it seems it’s 24/7. 

Canadian Campaigns

And in the middle of all that, we had a double doze with our own Canadian road show that ended with Harper out and Trudeau Jr. in, this boy who, the Harper wordsmiths continually maintained, was not ready for such elevated office as Prime Minister of the world’s second largest country. In hindsight, there’s a lot of evidence that this claim may well have been right on. As to the rest of their claims and the opponents’ counterclaims, it was at the same sordid sewer level we still suffer daily from down south.   

Campaign Levels 

The language political opponents use to describe each other is really out of control. In any other cultural segment the insults and outright lies would end up in legal suits and in the courts of the land, with our friendly lawyers having a hay day. What’s unacceptable in every other segment seems to be the thing to do or say in the realm of political campaigns. Of course, that should not surprise you, since the segment is laden with lawyers in whose realm half truths and outright untruths appear to be the daily diet. 

You, readers of this blog, have witnessed the Canadian show and continue to witness its prolonged American variety. You probably shake your head occasionally in consternation at the level to which our honourable leaders can sink. Just now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a US Supreme Court Justice, one burdened with the awesome responsibility of speaking and judging the truth of things told CNN that Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, is not consistent and says “whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”  Of course, Republican leaders disagreed, while some on the other side agreed.  However, even some left-leaning newspapers called the justice on it. As a Supreme Court justice, she is expected to maintain an impartial stance and not sink into the sewers of politics. The Washington Post commented, “There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a ‘judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.’ Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts.”  That may be true, but such public comments are an indication of the low level to which participants in the race and their henchpeople sink today. (Sorry for the awkward neologism. “Henchmen” would not do it today and a bare “hench” is not acceptable to the Webster crowd. I’m caught between the linguistic “devil and the deep blue sea.” I am open to suggestions here, please.)

Fathers of the Nation

But if you think this is a recent phenomenon, think again. You may have a surprise coming.  People identified as fathers of the United States used the same kind of language. The Denison Forum shares the following shockers:  

The 1800 election pitted John Adams against Thomas Jefferson. A Jefferson surrogate labeled Adams a "repulsive pedant" and "gross hypocrite" who "behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character." An Adams surrogate warned that electing Jefferson would create a nation where "murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced." Stephen Douglas claimed that Abraham Lincoln was a drunk who could "ruin more liquor than all the boys in town together." (Actually, Douglas was a heavy drinker, while Lincoln abstained from alcohol.) Lyndon B. Johnson ran an ad against Barry Goldwater claiming that the latter would bring about nuclear destruction, killing America's children.

A Questionable Corollation 

So, if these greats did not shun such language and, apart from Johnson, they left us with the legacy of a great nation, I guess we should not worry about the low level of our Canadian politicians. There’s hope for us. Is this a case of the deeper the filth the greater the legacy?  Who knows what greatness lies ahead for us in Canada! Hmmm. This conclusion somehow does not have the ring of truth about it. Can anyone point out the logical fallacy I employ here? 

Exporting Democracy

Apart from the legacy question, one of the problems I recognize here is that the nations who practice this kind of shenanigans are also the nations who export “democracy” to the “primitive” nations of other continents and, by so doing, destroy the unity of ethnic groups. I will try to bring some details of this in the next post.

If you have been with me long enough, you may remember previous posts in which I promised not to make any more promises to you, my readers. You may have noticed that in the previous sentence I have just sunk back into the morass of promises, a place where long ago I promised not to descend. I retract that promise. I just can’t live without making promises. But if that’s true for politicians, perhaps I should loosen up as well and just fly with them. If I can’t live without promises in this blog, then I will just have to break that one promise. Just that one!

Post 115—Our Dutch Trip--Reflections

I’m back!  And if I get this post online today, I’m back even earlier than promised on May 27.  And let me tell you, as wonderful as our trip was, there’s still nothing like home, which for me is downtown Vancouver BC.

Canada--My Home

Yes, home for me is in Canada, but I continue to have a strong feeling for two other countries. There is my birth country as well as Nigeria, the country where my wife and I spent 30 years in ministry, where we raised our family and, even after having left there 20 years ago, is still uppermost in my mind and affections. But for today, it is my birth country, NL—The Netherlands.

My Affection for Nigeria

My many Nigerian friends who read this post should not be jealous at my “divided” affection. Many things in life diminish when you share or divide them. When you give a $100 to one person that recipient gets more than when you divide it over two persons. But when you give love to one or two or a thousand persons, it does not diminish, each gets an equal share. Money divided diminishes; love or affection divided increases. That’s the nature of the beast. (I should probably call it “the angel” rather than “the beast.”) 

Besides, if you check my website ( www.SocialTheology.com) , you will find that I have paid much more attention, energy, time, money and, yes, affection on Nigeria than I have on the NL. At the same time, the background and perspective I utilized in my Nigerian ministry, including my many publications, have a definite Dutch philosophical and theological colouration, based as they are on the Kuyperian or Reformational school of thought. So, a nice mixture of these two cultures in my life with no need for either party to be jealous! Actually, I don’t believe anyone will be jealous in this situation, but there is nothing like  pre-emptying a negative possibility! But for this post and the next, it will be NL.

Flat and Green

Living as I do in BC (British Columbia, Canada), there is one thing that particularly strikes me every time I visit the “Old Country” is its flatness.  When I lived in Nigeria and visited the country, I was struck by its greenness. So fresh and green everywhere as soon as you leave the city. And that, in contrast to Nigeria’s seasonal green, all year round. But coming out of BC, it is the flatness of the country that is impressive, especially when combined with the green. It is interrupted only by the many man-made “hills” that serve as approaches to bridges or as overpasses.  Now such unending flatness may sound dull to those who prefer rolling hills or towering mountains, but in combination with the green, it creates beautiful breath-taking scenery wherever you go. I am not sure which of the two I would prefer to live in, flat or mountainous, but for a change, I simply loved it as my wife and I rolled through it all by means of train, bus, rental and even bike. The flat lusciousness of it all.

The Bike Culture

Living as I do in North America (NA), another thing that made my eyes grow green with jealousy is the large presence of bicycles (from here on referred to as “bikes”).  What a different love affair from NA’s love of cars. Bikes everywhere, no matter where you turn, except, of course, along express ways. Not being used to such heavy bike traffic, it was more challenging for us as pedestrians in the city to avoid collisions with bikes than with cars. They even have single-floor parking garages for bikes but often store them two high above each other, especially at bus and train stations. Bikes are used for most local trips as well as farther afield. They are used for serious transportation even more than for recreation, but their vacation use is the greatest demonstration of the Dutch love for the bike. Our hosts took us out biking into the country along a network of crisscrossing bike paths everywhere.

Various features of the bike culture struck me. Most people wear ordinary street clothes on their bikes; no special attire, even women in minis. No helmets and, not infrequently, no hands either, for they are needed for the smart phone as you negotiate traffic!  

Single bikes are good for transporting entire families!  A parent in/on the saddle doing the peddling, with one child on the back carrier and one in a special seat mounted on or behind the handle bar. Our main hostess told us that this is a major time of intimacy with your little tike at your front on your bike. And if your children are not on the actual bike, they could be sitting comfortably in a box mounted on the front of the bike, an arrangement called “bakfiets” or “boxbike,” two or even three at a time, but now we have graduated to three-wheelers.  

Another sociable feature of the bike culture is that with separate bike paths, people often ride side by side, chatting amicably as they go, so different from the sparse biking in Vancouver where it is always behind instead of next to each other. As to the bakfiets, it is also used to transport goods, sometimes in open, sometimes in covered boxes.

You’d think that flat country would make for effortless biking, but there is a hitch—strong winds that are as challenging as steep hills. From my own childhood I remember regularly coasting up one of these artificial hills, pushed along by strong winds, but peddling hard on the way down. I also remember peddling a bakfiets to deliver bread for a neighbouring bakery. So, as fascinating as I found the bike culture, it was not altogether new to me. I experienced all the above features at one time or another way back then. Though other forms of transport have greatly proliferated since then—cars, buses, trains—the bike has not lost its popularity or omnipresence in any way.  In fact, the bike has increased along with the country’s population.  

Mayor Robertson's Bike Challenge

I’m sure our Vancouver mayor’s eyes must be as green as mine were. I wish him all the success, luck and blessing he needs to make our city more bike friendly.  He has courageously pushed ahead in his bike programme in the face of much ridicule and opposition. I hope he will not relent. I believe he represents the future of our city when it comes to biking.  We once thoughtlessly embraced the car without considering many of its negatives or even being aware of them. It will take a lot of planning and politicking to undo the damage we have inflicted on ourselves and our environment.

Post 97—Do You Have a Cigarette?

Het is geen man

Die niet roken kan

Smoking in Lutjegast

That little vignette is one I grew up with in my Dutch village Lutjegast. It means simply that if you don’t smoke, you’re not a man. And our village meant it, seriously. As a young boy, I knew every single person in the 1100-person village, barring none. And I knew a great deal of child-appropriate stuff about almost everyone, barring one or two.  But there were two categories of people who puzzled me: those who were not married and those who did not smoke!  That married thing affected both genders, but the smoking only males. Women did not smoke, period. One who did would hardly be considered female—the complete opposite. 

And smoke the men did—with a few exceptions, but they were not men anyway, these mysterious creatures. Everyone, from pauper to pastor smoked. Though pretty well all Christians in today’s Canada oppose smoking and see it as an unhealthy addiction, that was not the case in Lutjegast or in the rest of the country. Even our church elders during their monthly meetings would smoke cigarettes, pipes or cigars, possibly accompanied by wine.  My Dad, a serious Christian, was one of the main cigarette merchants in town. As Christians, we were strictly opposed to so-called “worldly amusements,” but smoking was not one of them.

As to myself, during my early teens I was eager to join the ranks of adult men. One of the rights of passage to arrive there was to smoke. So, I would rush the season by occasionally “borrowing” a package of cigarettes from my Dad’s supply and share cigarettes with my friends. Just imagine the hero I was!  Ah, yes, we were getting there!

Imagine our surprise when we immigrated to Canada in 1951. For the first time in our lives we met Christians who thought smoking sinful, especially Baptists.  What kind of Christians are these? we wondered. Smoking sin?  Aw, get off the pot (pun intended)!  We were from a Reformed church in The Netherlands and smoked lustily right after our Christian Reformed (CRC) morning service—outside, for all to see.  We became known as the “smoking church,” a derisive distinction among Canadian Christians.

That was the 1950s.

Baptist versus Reformed

The tradition continued for some time after our immigration to BC, also in my own life. Though I was too young to be a dedicated smoker, Dad did occasionally allow me to smoke a cigarette. I have several pictures from that period of my smoking, one of them in our living room right after coming home from church. Over time I became a regular smoker, though never a heavy one. I actually went in and out—quit and resumed, quit and resumed. Later, during my 50s in Nigeria, I would smoke an occasional  cigar or pipe, but Nigerian Christians severely reprimanded me. I eventually gave that up as well, not because I considered it sin, but it hurt my throat and vocal chords—which, I guess, did turn it into a sin, since we are not to abuse our bodies. My Dad, he was a chain smoker for some 40 years.  

Fast forward to the 21^st century—2016. Somewhere along the line at around 60, my Dad suddenly quit cold turkey and from there on chastised anyone who could not manage such a drastic change—really, kind of hypocritical. But today you will hardly see anyone smoking after a CRC service. Neither will elders smoke during their meetings. We’ve become Canadians!  Indigenized. Smoking is sin, we now argue vigorously. The Baptists were ahead of their time. Well our time anyhow. Not just time wise, but even ethic-wise.   They were right; we were wrong! Wow, that was a hard one to swallow.  Baptists more right than we Reformed?  Was that possible?  Well, they were, possible or not. Some of us are still smarting from that humiliation! 

But in Canada we’re pretty well on one page on this one now, Baptist or Reformed, Christian or Secular. There’s a strong awareness that smoking kills and is, in fact, one of the most ferocious killers in the country.  Many places are now out of bounds to smokers, including restaurants and city parks, most major buildings, not to speak of church facilities. Remaining smokers are feeling the pressure and are defensive. Things have turned topsy-turvy.  Now it’s almost a matter of

                                                                  

                       Het is geen man

Die nog roken kan

“It’s not a man who still smokes,” but now women (vrouw-en) have to be included as well, like:

Het is geen man of vrouw

Die nog roken wou

By now you can probably figure it out! But, just in case, here it is in the Queen’s English:

It is not a man or woman

Who still wants to smoke

Doesn’t quite sound like a limerick in English, but it makes the point.

The following public practices have become offensive and are seen as ill-mannered:

         

Smoking in any crowd, thereby forcing people to inhale your secondary smoke, even on the sidewalk, at a bus stop, in the park or on the beach.

          Dumping your cigarette butt carelessly on the                 street. It’s considered littering, especially when               your city has attached butt trays to lamp posts for           that purpose.

Smoking yourself to death at my expense. Of course, that holds for all unhealthy practices, some of which, I am hesitant to admit, I practice as well.  So we all end up in the same ball park.

What of those who argue smoking is part of our freedom?  Should it even be that?  When it creates so much sickness leading to death and I have to pay for the results of your addiction through our medical system? Why should I?  Our forced insurance system logically leads to a great increase of my public responsibility for my health and for a restriction of my freedom to smoke or engage in other personally harmful practices. I have at least the moral, if not legal, right to demand you stop. Through our insurance system, we have become each other’s keepers—exactly where Jesus wanted us to begin with. It took a Baptist preacher-politician to get us there almost over the dead bodies of the RCMP. 

Even as a human right smoking is now frowned upon.  The last couple of days there’s been a story in the media about an employer who for years has refused to hire anyone who smokes, on or off the job, even at home. Even in “human rights-cracy” Canada, so far no one has sued him. No one has yet tried to make a quick legal buck of this practice? That says something about how far we’ve come—a long way indeed.

What of those who argue smoking is part of our freedom?  Should it even be that?  When it creates so much sickness leading to death and I have to pay for the results of your addiction through our medical system? Why should I?  Our forced insurance system logically leads to a great increase of my public responsibility for my health and for a restriction of my freedom to smoke or engage in other personally harmful practices. I have at least the moral, if not legal, right to demand you stop. Through our insurance system, we have become each other’s keepers—exactly where Jesus wanted us to begin with. It took a Baptist preacher-politician to get us there almost over the dead bodies of the RCMP. 

The best solution to all this is to encourage each other to live our lives along the best health guidelines as possible and remember our responsibility to each other.

Now try that last version of that Dutch limerick on your smoking friend!