Post 226--What's in a Name?

There's just a short item in one of Vancouver's "street newspapers," the newest one actually, Star Metro Vancouver (May 22, 2018), the author of which is Cherise Saucharan.  "Cherise"--ah, people concoct such interesting names these days, but usually names without historical foundation.

Remember that in the previous post I complained that a major characteristics of liberalism is disdain for the past and for traditions? This has also carried over into the naming of children. My first name is that of my paternal grandfather, since I am the first son in my family.  My middle name is "Harm," after my father's oldest brother. And so it went in my tradition.  But liberals don't like tradition and so they seldom name their children after senior family members; they just concoct any name they like, perhaps an existing name or something they concoct themselves. 

Liberalism is a powerful ideology that has even spilled over onto people who would be shocked to be called liberal. My wife and I, staunch non-liberals as we are, fell for that when naming our children. The first names of the first two were just shaken out of our sleeves and had no historical connection to our extended family. Their names arperfectly fine, but they are the product of liberal spill over. They are Cynthia and Kevin respectively, with Kevin being the oldest. In this post, I follow tradition: Ladies first!

But we did not fall for that liberal tradition altogether. Our daughter's middle name is a combination of both of her grandmothers. Sadly, neither grandmother accepted that name as legitimately named after them.  The middle name of our first son is that of my youngest brother, Dick. Dick is the youngest of ten siblings and the only born Canadian in my birth family. We decided to honour him through our first son, for, we reasoned, being the last of ten, no one will name any of their children after him.  For years, Dick did not believe our explanation, but after we repeated it enough over the decades, I believe he's come around and accepts it--with some degree of pleasure, I believe.

But that son has a third name or, if you prefer, a second middle name: Samu'ila. Though born in the USA, it was during our Nigeria missionary years. We had been married seven years before his arrival and so we called him Samu'ila, which is the Hausa version of Samuel, whose birth story you find in the Old Testament at I Samuel 1.  That Samuel was also the end product of many years of agonizing prayer. Of course, it wasn't only prayer that brought him into this world--just thought you should understand!  Hausa is a major West African language that we spoke during our 30 years there and still speak. 

By the time our youngest son came around, we had come around as well--from that liberal spill over, that is. We named him after our two grandfathers. We retained the original Dutch version of my father's name Wiebe and that became his our son's first name, of which he has always been proud and even used it as a successful ploy, together with his Nigerian dress, during his election campaign for college student council. His maternal grandfather's name was a Frisian one difficult to pronounce for non-Frisians. After the family's immigration to the States, he took the name "Charles,"probably the closest English equivalent, but if we used that for his middle name, his initials would be "W. C." Those who know gentrified English, will realize that this would make him a butt of jokes: "water closet"-- in other words, "toilet!"  So we turned to "Karl" instead.

It is of some family interest and pride  that Grandfather's complete name is Prins Charles, a name you've heard before, I'm sure. The family is kind of proud of that connection to Prince Charles, but regret that the similarity stops there! They would have liked an invitation to the latest wedding!

If you are an analytical reader, you may have noticed I have described liberals both as anti-tradition and traditional at the same time, something that only looks like a contradiction. Traditional liberals tend to be against long established traditions--and that is their tradition. Yes, they have their own traditions, the ones they themselves created over a period of time that is long enough to have created new traditions. You might say they are non-traditional traditionalists. This is another good topic for another day, soon. 


Did I ever get side tracked today. I was going to talk about Cherise's article and never got to it. Well, to entice you to look for it within a few days, here's what would have been today's title: "My Body a Distraction?"

Post 225--Centennial of (Some) Women's Suffrage in Canada

This blog contains more critique of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau than praise, something I am not proud of and does not make me happy. I would much rather have reasons for praise than critique. I would much rather be happy with my PM than unhappy. But as a Christian, I cannot not see myself happy with a Liberal government, for the essence of liberalism is to downgrade, if not actually despise and have contempt for established age-old traditions, many of which belong to the order of creation.

The last statement in the above paragraph probably sounds like I'm a dyed-in-the-wool kind of conservative. I'm not! Definitely not!  But that's for another post. Actually, my deepest attitudes and theories are embedded in this entire blog. If you've been reading my previous 224 posts, you will have grasped at least something of my perspective--neither liberal nor conservative but Reformed Christian. As I said, for another post.

But today I agree with and support our PM, something that gives me joy. Again, it is not 100%, but when you celebrate something, you don't major in qualifications; you just joyfully celebrate. And that's what I'm doing today. And I invite you to join the PM and little me.

You may remember that one of the first actions of our PM was to appoint a Cabinet marked by gender parity as well as racial diversity. And, you may remember, I expressed praise and gratitude for that move.  Unfortunately....  No, no, I don't go there today. Just celebrate! That step by the PM was a huge step forward in the process of empowering women in our country. It wasn't all women at that time, something the PM acknowledges below, but it was a huge and significant step forward in the dynamics of developing history. Please remember my "Tomato Post" no. 224. Tomato history is an interesting example of history developing forward and opening up towards richer variety and differentiation; The suffrage issue is not merely an example but actually a huge step towards the liberation of 50% of Canada's population. It significantly pushed history forward and opened it up.

Today, we join the PM in celebrating the centennial of that first huge step of women suffrage. Please read his statement below and celebrate. 

===========

Statement by the Prime Minister on the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote in federal elections

May 24, 2018
Ottawa, Ontario

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote in federal elections:

“One hundred years ago, women in Canada gained the right to vote in federal elections for the first time. Today, we recognize the countless women who have transformed politics in Canada and shaped a better country for all of us.

“This decision was a turning point for gender equality and a victory for Canadian democracy. When more voices are heard, we shape laws that reflect who we are and decisions that improve the lives of Canadians. Social activists and feminists worked hard to win the right to vote. Our democracy is stronger because of their commitment to their convictions, and their vision for a more just future.

“While this anniversary represents an important milestone in the quest for equal rights in Canada, not all women benefitted from this progress. Indigenous women, Asian women, and others were denied the right to vote. These exclusions remind us that progress does not always happen equally, and we must do more to make sure everyone’s rights are respected, promoted, and valued.

“Canada continues to work hard to address the obstacles women and girls face. Here at home, we are taking steps to promote women’s participation in the workforce, support women’s leadership, reduce the gender wage gap, and fight gender-based violence. In 2018, Canada put gender equality at the core of the federal budget, and made empowering women and girls a key theme for our G7 presidency. Thanks to measures like our Feminist International Assistance Policy, we are working to empower women and girls and advance gender equality around the world.

“The 100th anniversary of women winning the right to vote in federal elections reminds us that we are stronger when everyone, no matter their gender identity, can participate freely, fully, and equally in our democracy. A century later, women’s leadership continues to push Canada forward. Today, let’s celebrate the achievements of the many women who have shaped our country. Let’s honour their legacy, push for justice and equality, and make sure all voices can be heard.”

PMO Media Relations: media@pmo-cpm.gc.ca
This document is also available at https://pm.gc.ca

Post 206--Euthanizing Children?

Christians who take the Bible seriously--and that definitely does not include all who call themselves by that name!--take life seriously at all ends of the stick: before birth, at birth and from there all the way to old age.  Life is ours to receive, not to take.  That's God's prerogative.  That is the principle held by them since the dawn of the Way. 

Unfortunately, in our secular age of liberalism and most other kinds of -isms, life is under threat. Governments and medicals in the Western world are all ganging up on the vulnerable. We've had abortion for a long time. Then came assisted suicide for the aged and sick. And now we've arrived at children. It just goes on and on and on.... The holocaust was a horrendous attack on human life. The Soviets and Chinese have had their horrible bashes. We in the West have outdone them all with our abortion where year upon year millions are aborted in country after country. But it still isn't good enough. Now we're after living children.

Please read the following from the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (Canada):

By Euthanasia Prevention Coalition · Canada · 02/26/2018

Canada legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide (known as MAiD - so-called “medical assistance in dying”) on June 17, 2016. The law requires persons to be at least 18 years old and have a condition where “natural death is reasonably foreseeable.”

Soon after legalization, the Canadian government announced that the Council of Canadian Academies would examine extending euthanasia to children, people who are incompetent but have made an advanced request, and people with mental illness.

Last October, the Canadian Paediatric Society published a study examining euthanasia for teens, young children, and newborns. This study seemed designed to open the door to euthanasia for children.

Now the Biennial Provincial Symposium on Paediatric Palliative Care (at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto on April 25) will feature a break-out session titled: “Developing a policy on Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) for Paediatric Patients” followed by wine and cheese.

Has the Council of Canadian Academies already decided to extend euthanasia to paediatric patients? Has the Canadian Paediatric Society decided that euthanasia will be extended to children and newborns, using this Symposium to develop a policy for when the killing begins?

Why are they so interested in euthanasia for children? Children can’t choose and their autonomy is questionable.

This is not about a “slippery slope” but rather an incredibly fast incremental extension of euthanasia. The law is not concerned with choice and autonomy but the rules that the doctor should follow before performing the act. Whether it is incompetent or competent people, or children, lethal injection is what it is and the decision is made by the doctor. Choice and autonomy are only slogans for selling the act.

We oppose euthanasia for children!

FOR FURTHER READING...

Paediatric Palliative Care Symposium and Child Euthanasia

Canadian Paediatricians consider extending euthanasia to newborns, minors and teens

Medical Assistance in Dying: A Paediatric Perspective

Netherlands Euthanasia "experts" advocate for child euthanasia–with or without consent

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 170--British Liberals vs Conservative Christians in Politics

British Christians wonder if there is room for them in politics

By Catherine Pepinster | --

Religious News Service

Tim Farron, leader of Britain's Liberal Democrat Party, arrives at a polling station in Kendal, Britain, on June 8, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Andrew Yates

In general, I am no klutz.  If I were I would not have a doctorate and would not have published as much as I have. However, when it comes to technical computer stuff, the description would not be far off.
I copied this article from the website Religious News Service and try as I may, I cannot adjust the formatting as it came to me. You may have noticed such irregularities before. I get easily stumped when it comes to this stuff. So, please take it as it comes and concentrate on the content rather than the format. I hope that is not asking too much.

I am treating you to an important British issue of religion in politics. Yes, it's a British report, not a Canadian one. However, the situation in Canada is not much different. If you read up on Liberal theory in Canada and practice, you will find parallel, if not similar situations in our own country. The thing is, it does not appear often in our secular media and so you're not aware of it. For this reason, I do draw your attention to it occasionally--like today--and this won't be the last.   

LONDON (RNS) Concern is growing among British Christians about their place in the country’s public life after Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, resigned over his religious beliefs.

Farron, who led his party for two years, cited the difficulties he faced squaring his Christianity with his political leadership. In a statement Wednesday (June 14), Farron said: “I have found myself torn between living as a faithful Christian and serving as a political leader.”

“I seem to be the subject of suspicion because of what I believe in and whom my faith is in,” he added. “In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we are living in a tolerant liberal society.

Farron’s religious beliefs emerged as an issue early on in the recent British general election when he was challenged on his attitude toward same-sex marriage in a TV interview and was asked whether he thought homosexuality was a sin.

His first reply was to say that “to understand sexuality is to understand we are all sinners,” but it only spurred more criticism, despite Farron’s eventually saying he accepted same-sex marriage.

Farron led the Liberal Democrats in June 9’s election from nine seats to 12, although the party failed to capitalize on the anti-Brexit vote, despite being strongly in favor of the European Union.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats Party, Tim Farron, speaks at the launch of the party’s general election campaign in Kingston-Upon-Thames, Britain, on May 1, 2017. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Peter Nicholls

But his leadership was called into question after Lord Brian Paddick – the party’s home affairs spokesman in the House of Lords and a well-known gay activist – said he was quitting because of the leadership’s views during the election.

Party members are said to have then acted against Farron, indicating he had to go.

The Liberal Democrat Party is Britain’s third largest, formed in 1988. It is a centrist party, usually closer to the Conservatives on economics and veering more toward Labour on social policy.

Lord David Alton at a summit on how freedom of religion or belief can help prevent violent extremism. The event was held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London on Oct. 19, 2016. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons/Foreign and Commonwealth Office

One of the notable Christian politicians in Britain, Lord David Alton, was among those who expressed dismay at Farron’s quitting.

“The old Liberal Party was a party of conscience and proud of its Christian foundations,” he said. “That Christian tradition was subsequently ridiculed by many Liberal Democrats, implacable in their hostility to faith schools and insistent on imposing policies, such as abortion, on their members. Inevitably, this has made it a hostile place for people of faith.”

The old Liberal Party and its successor, the Liberal Democrats, managed to accommodate people of differing views on personal moral matters for many years.

Others in politics were dismayed by what happened to Farron.

“His resignation reflects the fact that we live in a society that is still illiberal in many ways and is intolerant of political leaders having a faith,” said Sarah Latham, director of the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum. “This urgently needs to change. It will change only if Christians step up and get involved in all areas of life and change the rhetoric.”

On Twitter, Richard Chapman, adviser to the Church of England on Parliament and politics, said what had happened to Farron was “awful.”

“Mature liberal democracy shouldn’t be pushing religion from the public square,” he wrote. Paul Woolley, the deputy chief executive of the Bible Society, expressed fear that Britain’s liberal political culture isn’t liberal enough to include decent people such as Farron.

However, journalist Mary Kenny, who is a columnist for the Catholic Herald, argued that Farron’s problem was that he was not politically adept enough and that he should have made his point better by saying “what I believe is a matter of conscience but I respect the law.”

In recent years, gay issues have become the most neuralgic matter in the crossover between faith and politics in the U.K.

In 2007 a dispute arose between the Catholic Church in England and Wales and the government over whether Catholic adoption agencies should be exempt from the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which allowed same-sex couples to adopt children.

The Catholic Church argued that the legislation contradicted the church’s moral values. The church was unsuccessful in fighting the matter through the courts, and the Catholic charities either closed or stopped working on adoptions.

More recently, politicians and commentators criticized Prime Minister Theresa May’s proposed coalition partner, the Democratic Unionist Party, because of the DUP’s track record on opposing same-sex marriage.

The Conservative leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, who is gay and planning to marry her partner, demanded assurances from May that there would be no watering down of LGBT rights if the DUP deal went through.

Post 143—Prince Charles on Religious Freedom

It’s for almost 55 years that I have felt some sort of affinity with Britain’s Prince Charles. My wife and I are about to celebrate our 55^th wedding anniversary.

Now in most cases, the above two sentences might be found in different chapters of a book or in different articles. What could they possibly have to do with each other and be found in successive sentences like here?  Perhaps a bit far sought, but it so happens that my late father-in-law’s name was Charles Prins. It was not his birth name; that was a classic Frisian name “Tjalling,” but its closest English equivalent was considered “Charles.”  So, that’s the name he adopted upon immigration to the USA in 1948. I’m not sure anyone at the time thought about the similarity to that of the Prince. Perhaps it’s a mere sentimentality, but since I always was fond of my father-in-law, that somehow transferred to the Prince as well. 

So, I was very happy that my sentimental hero—“sentimental” referring to me, not the Prince!—gave such an interesting

speech on the BBC’s “Thought for the Day” programme. Part of it was politically correct to liberal ears, and part to conservative ears. Now, we don’t usually hear political incorrectness from the mouth of princes, but this time it was couched in a nearly politically correct framework. Leave it to British royalty to manage such a contradiction!                                      

The politically correct for the liberals was the need to protect and give freedom to all religions, but then religion as defined by them, not by the religions themselves, particularly the scope of religions. The Prince defended his position by referring to a speech by the queen back in 2012, in which she stated that the Church of England has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths. Charles himself at one time described his responsibility as “defender of faith” rather than “defender of the faith,” something that shocked traditionalists, who “were furious,” according to the writer of the article, Tim Stanley. To them this was totally politically incorrect, but it should be remembered that “a key part of British identity is religious freedom,” which is often the stated reason for Muslims to come to Britain.

I am an orthodox Christian of the type often described as “Reformational.” (If you want to know more about that, I encourage you to check out my website <  www.SocialTheology.com  >)  As a Reformational, I totally agree with a government that is neutral when it comes to religions; neutral, not secular, which is a different thing altogether. I am talking about a government that treats all religions equally, which is what Prince Charles is talking about. Correct as far as liberals are concerned; incorrect as far as most conservatives are concerned. 

But then he turns around and begins to explicate about religious persecution by Muslims of Christians and other religions, including even fellow Muslims. Now he’s politically correct for the conservatives, who are offended that such persecution gets so little public attention, but incorrect for the liberals, many of whom do not care about this or refuse to make it a special issue, as in the case of the Canadian Government.

Alas, British royals don’t seem to have much clout in the political sphere. If you keep up with British developments, you should be aware of the strong anti-Christian bias in the country’s political sector, a situation that hardly reflects the ideals of the Prince. One would almost get the impression that he is a “mere” member of the public whose only power is his voice, on BBC in his case.

The article in which I find this info is written by Tim Stanley, a fine article but one in which it is not clear where the Prince’s speech ends and Stanley’s report begins. Stanley describes his message as “grim.”  “Tolerance is evaporating; the wars of religion are back.”  “For millions ‘religious freedom is a daily, stark choice between life and death.’ As well as oppression of Christianity in Iraq, he referred to attacks on Yazidis, Jews, Ahmadis, Baha’is and other minority faiths in the Middle East, and the persecution in other countries that aims to wipe out religious diversity.”

Stanley adds a few more interesting comments that I am not sure whether they are his or the Prince’s. “It is religious literacy, not secularism, that will bring an increasingly diverse nation together.”  I would say there’s more than just something to be said for that!  The other, “How wonderful, what a testament to Christian civilization, that faithful Muslims now seek refuge in Britain.”  Indeed, so it is, but one seldom hears this declared as a Christian virtue. Liberals consider this as their achievement. Allegedly, they have overcome the intolerance of Christians and thus created an open door for Muslims to enter. Personally, I wager that liberalism would not even exist if it were not for the Christian soil in which it sprouted.

I encourage you to read Stanley’s article at: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=grim%2C+yes%2C+but+Charles+got+it+right.  (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 26, 2016, p. NP5)

Post 142--War on Christmas

Douglas Todd is one of my favourite Vancouver Sun columnists. You may have noticed that I quote him quite often in this blog. Well, he did it again with an interesting article on Christmas, this time about the “war on Christmas.”  

Though most of us think of opposition to Christmas, especially its public expressions, with the help of an Oxford don, Todd tells us about a war that’s been going on for centuries. It is inevitable, he writes, that there should be war of some kind against such a large global celebration with its public expressions. It is not the specialty of today’s secularists or atheists. 

To avoid copyright problems, I present you with Todd’s by means of its URL:

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-yes-virginia-there-has-always-been-a-war-on-christmas

This being “Boxing Day” in Canada or “Tweede Kerstdag” or “Second Christmas Day” in my country of birth, this will be my last post dealing with Christmas issues for this season.  However, the effect of Christmas, that is, the birth of Jesus Christ, will continue to permeate these posts. From beginning to whenever these posts are concluded, the reality of Christ will underlie every single one of future posts, though He will not be mentioned by name in most.

In distinction from secularists and liberals who want to reduce the scope of religion to the private and personal, I define religion “wholistically.”  Religion, in terms of faith and commitment, colours all I do. That, by the way, is true of everyone, including those secularists and liberals; they are just so ignorant about religion that they do not realize this about themselves and, very funny actually, deny this about themselves. Can you imagine someone being so blind to his own self?!

Well, be that as it may—and it is!—enjoy the Todd article and be enlightened about “war on Christmas.”

Post 89--Pegida—Germans and Refugees

            

           The following is about a German organization known as PEGIDA. I have taken            it over from Wikipedia and therefore cannot vouch for 100% accuracy. I realize            I am taking a great risk in posting this document, for PEGIDA has a bad name              in the media. But that media is mostly liberal, leftist in orientation and generally            condemns the sentiments expressed in this post without giving it a fair hearing.              Some of the statements below are purely local German politics for which I     

           cannot vouch either. Some of it is definitely questionable and would need    

           greater nuance before I would support it. Nevertheless, the document as a                      whole draws our attention to some refugee issues that the liberal mainline           

           politicians and media tend to hide, obscure or flatly deny, if not ridicule. 

I believe you, my readers, have a right to hear the PEGIDA folk themselves out and make up your own mind. And then see what you can take away from it and apply to Canadian refugee policy. You will note that in the document PEGIDA recommends Canada’s refugee policy. So that their perspective can’t be that bad, right?

Unfortunately, much of Canada’s policy is based on a totally inexperienced and quick-to-talk Prime Minister, who has forced himself into an unceasing process of chipping away at his questionable campaign promise of hauling in 25,000 refugees before the end of 2015. How could Canadians fall for such immaturity? 

It can only be explained in terms of the “monster” that Harper portrayed himself to be, a monster Canadians wanted to get rid of at all costs. Well, they did. I’m glad we got rid of the “monster,” but I’m not so sure we did not simply replace him with another type of monster, one who has shown himself either to be ignorant during his campaign or deceitful or, perhaps worst of all, populist; not sure which. Whether ignorant or deceitful or populist, as one who sought the leadership of a nation, any one of these three would turn him into a monster Prime Minister. Perhaps the jury is still out on that one.

I want it understood that I welcome refugees. A hundred of them are at the moment my next-door neighbours, having been put up in a hotel. I see them every day. I stop to welcome them and chat with them as much as language allows. Before long, an unceasing flow of refugees will be the neighbours of my church, the First Christian Reformed Church of Vancouver on Victoria Drive and Tenth Avenue. A welcoming centre is under construction next door to this church and I have voted for that church to support a chaplain cum social worker to help the Centre “process” refugees, a move the Centre itself welcomes with open arms.

But I do resist careless acceptance of refugees without rigorous due process.  Previous recent posts on this blog have indicated that it is often lacking in rigour.  I don’t need to repeat all that.

I do remember years ago, when I would visit friends and relatives in my “old country,”  The Netherlands, that I predicted that with the end of the Cold War, Islam would become the West’s next challenge. I warned my listeners that the guest workers they were importing at the time, would become serious problems for Europe in the future. They dismissed me as a “red neck.”  Some of them recall those discussions and no longer apply that epithet to me.

So, here then a brief Wikipedia introduction to PEGIDA and then its document translated from its own German words.  Read it. Think about it. Reject the inappropriate and then insist on policies for our own Government that are based on actual facts and have an eye for potential dangers.

Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident^{[note 1]} (German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a German anti-Islamisation^[1][2][3] political movement founded in Dresden in October 2014. The organisation team in Dresden usually holds demonstrations every Monday, at a location and time specified beforehand on its Facebook page, against what it considers the Islamisation of the Western world, calling for more restrictive immigration rules, particularly for Muslimswho refuse to integrate (see Item 16 of its Position Paper). Offshoots of Pegida have been formed in various countries.

10 PEGIDA Demands on German Asylum Politics

On 11 September 2015, Pegida posted 10 demands on German asylum politics on its Facebook page, as reported by heute.^[62] Although an official Pegida translation exists on its Facebook page, the following is an improved version that harks back to the original German:

1.) We call for an immediate stop on asylum seekers, and we call for a German asylum emergency law - now!

Our asylum laws were conceived after the war for the manageable quantity of approximately 2,000 refugees per year and not for the million we expected to reach in 2015!

2.) We call for strict border controls! We demand IMMEDIATE suspension of the Schengen Agreement - on all of Germany's borders!

Other EU countries already monitor their national borders again - even though the completely failed Dublin procedure is a burden rests mostly on Germany's back. The temporary reintroduction of border controls during the G7 summit has proven that border controls hinder illegal border crossings, the flourishing business of the smuggling mafia and the entry of criminals.

3.) We demand that the group of "safe countries of origin" be expanded to ALL Council of Europe member countries!

This Council of Europe has 47 member countries with 830 million citizens and over 1,800 European officials.

All member states have committed themselves to the preservation of democracy and rule of law as well as the recognition of fundamental human rights. That should be enough to count these countries as safe countries!

4.) We call for a TEMPORARYLY LIMITED right of asylum for war refugees!

Of course, real war refugees and accepted asylum seekers are to be granted temporary protection and full coverage on a MODEST scale. But once the situation in the home country improves, the refugees have to leave our country again.

5.) We call for a binding limit on the annual reception of asylum seekers, set namely by ourselves, the host country Germany!

This vital question about the future of our country must be carried out by means of direct democracy - through a referendum!

6.) We demand honesty, at long last, in the integration debate and the end of the red-green^{[note 3]} social-romantic tale of wanting to integrate masses of male, African asylum seekers here!

No one wants that. The green socialists use the refugees to create a red-green job wonder for bachelor graduates of chatter sciences here. The pathological altruism and do-gooders with feigned empathy are moral invisibility cloaks, which cover the highly lucrative migrant market.

7.) We demand that all rejected asylum seekers and hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants be deported at once, as logic would have it!

Again: We call for MASS deportations - and do it NOW!

8.) We demand that the refugee problem be resolved locally, in their own cultures!

Our so-called representatives of the people should show some backbone and take Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to task.

These wealthy, huge Sharia paradises are much better suited to accommodate the crowds of Muslim asylum seekers than a Europe of unbelievers! And we need, at long last, asylum audits right in the countries of origin. Applications for asylum in Germany have to be decided by fast-track procedure locally even in North Africa!

9.) We demand that foreign criminal, who stand in alliance with Islamic terrorist organizations be deported immediately!

This naturally also includes the adopted "sons and daughters" of German Minister of Internal Affairs de Maiziere, all these jihad returnees and all known and violent Salafists - these people also deserve to be deported from Europe immediately!

10.) The expected resistance from Brussels about any changes in German immigration and asylum policies must be answered with exit from this bullying dump EU.

The future French President Marine Le Pen has summarized it concisely in the demand for "the destruction of this EU"

It’s only this radical way which works! This EU will never be able to reform - who would rationalize away his own highly paid job?

Asylum seekers driven by nothing other than economic reasons are NOT welcome! Christian refugees, especially those who are oppressed by murderous Islamists, are absolutely welcome in Germany and we provide the shelter, food and life support they need, because this is a natural German trait. To all others: STAY OUT!

We, the people of the European nations, need to unite, to conserve and to defend our values, our culture, our freedom. We need to unite against the self-declared kings and queens in Brussels. We, the German people, need international support against our own politicians in our German parliaments.

Our politicians want to change the current form of government of the Federal Republic of Germany substantially, they want to abolish the German state and replace the German people with a multicultural society, they want to establish a multiethnic state on German soil - this behaviour is high treason!

Well, there it is. Plenty of food for thought.  You now have it directly from the horse’s mouth—from PEGIDA, not me!  Does the paragraph above this one not remind you of Trudeau Sr? And now of our current Jr?  I am not sure I'd call it "high treason," but we should ask what it is we are seeing—the inexperience of youth or populism or what? Are we sure we want to go there?  Do we know what that might look like?  Or are we just barging into the unknown and gambling with the future of an entire nation--of our children and grandchildren?

I’m off to one of the largest annual conferences in downtown Vancouver: Missions Fest Vancouver.  I’m on their Board and thus have plenty to keep me busy over the weekend. See you next week. Perhaps I'll give you a report.