Post 158—Is Prime Minister Trudeau Funding Islamic Extremism?

I may have reminded you of this before, but do you remember that during the last Federal election the Conservative Party of Canada kept repeating that Trudeau was not ready for being Canada's Prime Minister?  I full agreed with that, for I had seen no sign whatsoever that he was ready. Too young and too inexperienced in politics. Just cute and belonging to a famous political family.   Well, since his election he has undone so many measures that the Conservatives put in place for the security of both Canada and the world. Don't get me wrong. I am often aghast at what Conservatives say or do as well.  Too many Canadian politicians of whatever party are just that: politicians, not stateswomen or men. Trudeau has shown himself just one of that crowd and, because of his high position, he stands out as just another politician. Apart from his initial composition of the Cabinet--gender equality and wide racial representation--I have seen little positive from him. Oh, he looks cute when he poses in the midst of young people and all that, but when it comes to serious decisions, he seems to have no standard of any kind.  So, I am sharing with you a news item from The Rebel, an alternative news source that mainline journalists despise.  Though I enjoy reading the Vancouver Sun, I am aware it is mainline and often ignores events that do not pass their test for "responsible news."  I have noticed for years, for example, that they never report on the annual MissionsFest, a large Christian event held in the very heart of Vancouver that draws some 30-35,000 people every time, including high school students who do not drink or do drugs. Now that's a miracle of its own that the press ignores. Recently there was a large Christian gathering in Vancouver that was totally ignored also, except that they made a lot of noise about Franklin Graham.  So, I am fully aware of the selective nature of mainline media.   Here then The Rebel: ========== Hamas is the Palestinian version of ISIS.  Besides being Islamic extremists, and calling for death to all Jews in their charter, Hamas routinely launches rockets into Israel, firing them from hospitals and schools, using Palestinian citizens as human shields. This practice clearly violates international law. But Hamas doesn't break international law all on its own. They work with a UN organization called UNRWA to hide these rockets. UNRWA runs the schools and hospitals that Hamas attacks from. They have also provided textbooks to children that promote the murder of Israelis. Because of such horrific actions, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to stop providing funding for UNRWA — they were simply too closely tied to Hamas. (The Harper Conservatives still helped fund other Palestinian relief agencies, just not UNRWA.) But Justin Trudeau has decided to start helping Hamas again and reinstate UNRWA funding. Now, thanks to documents obtained by The Rebel, we have proof that the Liberals knew their decision to reinstate UNRWA funding with Canadian tax dollars could be diverted to terrorism. Watch my video, or click here to see the documents we've obtained.  UNRWA may have been a good cause when it started back in the 1940s, but it has become corrupted. If you agree that Justin Trudeau should not fund UNRWA with Canadian tax dollars, then please go to www.StopHelpingHamas.com and sign our petition. And remember, I'm on your side, Brian Lilley ============== I am not much of a techy and do not know whether all the links in the above will work. If they don't, please find The Rebel online yourself and see what you can see or hear.

Post 152—A Place for Spanking

I hope you don’t get tired of my apologies and my changes in direction or even promises not kept—which is not the same in my mind about breaking promises.  The document that I thought I would discuss in follow up from the last post is not what I expected it to be. So, we will let it go and do something else today. However, in case you’re curious, here’s URL that deals with issues somewhat related to that of Post 151--

               

       https://arpacanada.ca/news/2017/02/14/thoughts-religious-                                           tolerance/#feature

Yes, something else, but not something completely different. While the last post talked about shooting and murdering, this post will talk about spanking. To some people that’s in the same class as shooting and murder—it’s all doing violence to people.  Some time ago a friend of mine, Mark Penninga, the Executive Director of the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada published an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun under the title”Time and Place for Spanking.” I’ve written about this issue before, because I believe when a government gets involved in ordinary family affairs, it is intrusive and goes far beyond its legitimate reach.  Government and family exist in different spheres, each of which have their own laws and protocols. Governments may only interfere in families when there is evidence of families being highly dysfunctional. To some people, spanking, any kind of spanking, no matter its severity, becomes the government’s business, for its mandate is to protect its citizens, even infants, from violence, including parental violence.   

Penninga’s main point is that the term spanking covers a broad range of meaning, ranging from the gently corrective to that of the cruel and abusive. Attempts to have government make every form of spanking illegal in order to prevent the cruel type, has the opposite effect.  Then he demonstrates his point at length, all of which you can read yourself by turning to the articles’ URL (see below). One study, for example, that covered 50 years and examined 26 other studies concluded, “Whether physical punishment compared favorably or unfavorably with other tactics depended on the type of physical punishment.” The study looked at what the researchers called an “optimal” type of physical discipline — conditional spanking—and upheld it as legitimate.

Penninga wrote:

Sweden in 1979 became the first nation to outlaw all physical discipline. Since then, criminal charges for physical child abuse by relatives against children under age seven increased by 489 per cent between 1981 and 1994. There was also a shocking 519-per-cent increase in criminal assaults by children under 15 against children aged 7-14. Perhaps most devastating, 46-60 per cent of cases investigated under Sweden’s law result in children being removed from homes. About 22,000 Swedish children were removed from homes in 1981, compared with 1,900 in Germany, 710 in Denmark, 552 in Finland, and 163 in Norway.

Consider the 2010 case of a mother and father from Karlstad, Sweden, jailed for nine months and ordered to pay 25,000 kronor ($11,000) to three of their children who were spanked. More damaging than the jail and fines, all four of their children were removed from their home. Although the court concluded that the parents “had a loving and caring relationship to their children,” apparently spanking is serious enough to merit such an extreme sentence.

And then he concluded,

Parents will have a variety of opinions about the merits of physical discipline. But problems arise when the state assumes the role of parent. The role of the state is limited to preserving an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers (including child There is much that the state can do to promote a society in which children are safe and families can flourish. Banning physical discipline will achieve neither.

Parents will have a variety of opinions about the merits of physical discipline. But problems arise when the state assumes the role of parent. The role of the state is limited to preserving an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers (including child abusers), so that the other institutions of society can flourish. The institution of the family is an independent part of civil society accountable directly to God (although the state increasingly understands itself to be a god it seems). Parents are entrusted with the authority to lovingly raise their children and the state may only interfere in exceptional circumstances, such as real child abuse.

There is much that the state can do to promote a society in which children are safe and families can flourish. Banning physical discipline will achieve neither.  So far my friend Penninga. 

The Vancouver Sun published an editorial supporting Penninga’s main argument, while the highest court of the land agreed as well, but not everyone did, as you can see on the last of the three websites that appear below. As to myself, I am the product of a tradition of occasional reasonable spanking when deserved and emerged a humane, highly educated and successful person from a peasant background without any spanking baggage to sour my life. The same holds true for all 9 of my siblings as well as for the 11 and 9 siblings of my father and mother respectively. As the Bible puts it, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” That’s ancient wisdom that liberals tend to deny, often having contempt for the past and its ways.

So, here are three URLs for you to check out, with the third one vigorously rejecting the point of this post.

 http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Opinion+Time+place+spanking/11049750/story.html.

See also www.keep43.can for supporting arguments.

            See www.nospank.net for opposing view.

Post 96—Farewell to Shelley Fralic

In contrast to Post 95, this is a shorty. Possibly the shortest of all so far.  It is a farewell letter to Shelley Fralic, a columnist with the Vancouver Sun, who has retired. 

My Dear Shelley

These days we don't often start letters with "Dear....," especially not a married man to a woman married to someone else. But today, for this one very special occasion, I cannot resist it.  

I was shocked when I first learned of your retirement. Will there still be life after Shelley Fralic in my hands in the morning along with my cup of tea--cup of coffee in the case of my wife.  Well, yes, there will be, but it will not be an improved life.  

Your final column is so beautifully written, so full of love for the Sun and its readers, so emotional. So aware also of the responsibility of a journalist not only but also of her influence and power. I have often said that the Sun is a more effective opposition than any official opposition party, partially because she is not paid to oppose. It opposes when it has to, when it is just the right thing to do.  And you have been an active player in that role. 

So, Shelley, thank you and good bye.  I pray for rich, rewarding and grandchildren-filled years ahead for you.  I have been in that phase of life for some fifteen years now and believe me, it is indeed the best part of your life in spite of its inevitable dead end. I will archive your last column, if only to keep me attuned to the responsibility of a writer, of which I am one.

I think I will make this letter public by putting it on my blog under the title, "Farewell to Shelley Fralic."

Jan/John H. Boer

West End, Vancouver

Blog 60--Contradictions and Inconsistencies: The Stuff of Life

I’ve been gone for a week, camping with daughter Cynthia and her family and some other friends. The group was great for socialization and the river-side facility was great—and free for us!  But in the latter half of July, you can expect warm weather, not so cold that you shiver and have to put on layer upon layer, especially when there is a camp fire ban due to extreme drought. We broke up camp and returned disappointed to the coast at Kent, near Seattle. But there the heat was so intense that camping was just as uncomfortable. We broke up camp again and returned home in Vancouver, disappointed, not to say disgusted. All of which is to explain the extra long time between posts.  

Blog 59 is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. I know these terms are not exactly synonyms, but I will kind of use them as such in this blog. Notice how imprecise that last sentence is?  When I wrote this post, it was Monday morning and I didn’t feel like forcing too much precision on myself. So our topic for today is just right—for me and, I hope you can live with it. 

It happens quite frequently that my wife (Fran) and I catch each other in contradictions, the term now including inconsistencies as well. We usually acknowledge it, but the conversation often leans toward a negative attitude towards such things. It seems more virtuous to be consistent, even though as years have taken their toll, we are becoming increasingly tolerant of contradiction. Is that natural with age?  Or is it the effect of post-

modernism on us? That we’re veering away from the demands of strict logic?

At any rate, the previous blog was full of it. I agree and disagree with Pete McMartin; same for the VS editorial. And then I reject both of their approaches for not going to the heart of the matter. I was fully aware of it and was good for letting it all stand. Sloppy thinking could be another reason I could add to the above paragraph. Combining “sloppy thinking” with “reason” is surely an example of the very thing I am talking about.

I am a graduate of Calvin Theological Seminary (CTS) in Grand Rapids (MI, USA). It is a good seminary and I am proud of having graduated there (1965). I have given quite a detailed report on my three years there in our memoirs (Every Square Inch: A Missionary Memoir, vol. 1, chapter 12-- <www.Social Theology. com >. Once there,turn to the first entry on the Boeriana page.)

In terms of our subject for today, I wrote about how bored I would occasionally be in Systematic Theology (ST) classes. Systems are usually logically coherent entities. So, in these ST lectures the point was to fit the Bible and theology into neat logically consistent boxes. The result gave a static feeling. Everything stood still. Even God came out as a static being that is fully consistent with Himself, including even that most “illogical” construct of the Trinity. Sometimes I would get so tired of it, I would play hooky for a few days and spend my time reading other theologians. I especially liked the writings of professor Gerrit Berkouwer of the Free University of Amsterdam for the contrast between him and my CTS profs precisely because Berkhouwer did not construct such tight logical boxes; he was more open. 

Neither does God fit into our logical boxes. The profs did  acknowledge that when it came to issues of election/reprobation vs human responsibility. They had inherited that difficult conundrum from childhood and had grown up being comfortable with it. But somehow that mostly static view of God did not cut it for me.  Of course, I am talking the 1960s. I suspect that the atmosphere at CTS has changed like everything else in this world.

The emphasis at that time at least was on a God who tolerates only truth, truth being at least partially defined as logically consistent statements and intolerance for what we might call “gray” statements over against the plain black and white stuff.  I loved and still love the stories in the Bible that challenge that kind of static God in favour of a more fluid one. There is the story of the midwives who lied to Pharaoh in order to save the baby boys of the Israelites, but whom God blessed because of their courage (Exodus 1:15-22). Then there is the story of Samuel’s anointing David to be the next king. Samuel objected to God that Saul, the current king, would kill him for what amounted to a coup. Then God instructed Samuel to give a false reason for his coming to David’s town (I Samuel 16:1-3). God is described as repenting or regretting things He had done (Genesis 6:6-7; Exodus 32:14; Judges 2:18; I Samuel 15:11, etc.). At the same time, we also read in I Samuel 15:29 that God “does not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.” So, a very fluid picture of God under certain circumstances, though still faithful and trustworthy with respect to His people. 

So, I do not apologize for the occasional contradiction in my own life, including those in Blog 59.

The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) coined the famous Latin phrase “Cogito, ergo sum,” meaning, “I think; therefore I am.”  It expressed the idea current among philosophers at that time—and still for some ordinary folk even today—that the essence of a human being lay in his rationality, his mind. If you know something—and that means you are thinking, you have a mind-- well, then you must be a human being. Something like the touristy trend of thought, “It’s three p.m.; hence this must be Victoria.” Taking off from there and following a radically dangerous step into the almost forgotten country of Latin, I would like to suggest, “Contradicio; ergo sum,” hopefully meaning something like “I contradict; therefore I am.” It does not define my essence, but it does make me feel just a bit more comfortable. At least, it gives me a vague permission to contradict myself—of sorts.