Post 181--Getting Rid of Ants

A couple of months ago I was visiting a relative family in their home in Atlanta GA.  They have a nice brick townhouse that in terms of strength looked like it had it all. No weaknesses, no faults. Good for a hundred years. 

One beautiful morning, I was relaxing in the early sun on the front stoop along a very quiet street. No better way to start your day, provided God and  prayer are included.  Then I saw a couple of tiny ants on the front steps. I took a better look and there they were in the hundreds, marching fearlessly in line towards their goal. Ants may not be noisy, but my quietness was broken. I began to walk around and looked carefully to come to the awareness that this beautiful strong invulnerable brick house was under attack by these tiny beasties.

I called my hostess to show her what was going on. Yes, she and her husband were aware that there were some ants, but had been too busy to take them seriously enough to do something about them. I warned her of the real dangers of these little critters and that they should be serious about curbing the situation.  She agreed and said they would. 

Soon afterwards, I returned home in Vancouver and you know what? Only a few days later the Vancouver Sun featured an article by Scott Brown, who had consulted Mike Londry of Westside Pest Control for advice on the very matter!  I felt this was more than a mere coincidence, something I don’t really believe in anyhow, except in ordinary conversation.  Being a blog writer, I took this as a message, no, more than a message: an assignment to remind you, my readers, about this important subject that can be so easily overlooked or simply ignored and end up with sure regret over time. 

Londry’s advice is very interesting indeed and, hopefully, helpful.  He first of all put Brown at ease, saying ants are not the greatest problem in our lives.  Then he suggested a simple mixture of soap and water—yes, you read that correctly—and spray the area where they enter your house and follow their trail beyond that. It will confuse them and throw them off.  However, do not step on them and kill them, for the survivors will simply regard these “corpses” as fodder. You’ve just provided them with the wherewithal for a great picnic. They will drag them back into their colony to share. 

Another advice is to spread cinnamon liberally around the entrances to your house.

Well, you can read as well as I can write—and probably better. I don’t want to run into copyright issues. So, I leave you with the URL of the article and hope you will open it up and follow the rest of the suggestions. You will end up happy you’re one of my so-called followers. I prefer the term “reader,” but that’s beside the point. So, here’s the URL.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/youve-got-ants-in-your-house-here-is-how-you-get-rid-of-them .

Blog 180--What of Solar Eclipse?

The other day, on my way back from my weekly visit to the chiropractor in downtown Vancouver, BC, every sunny intersection had crowds of people on the sidewalks, all excitedly peering at the sun’s eclipse. Robson Square in downtown was host to hundreds of people, all equally peering—which is, as you probably realize, is not the same as “equal peers!” Now, in Vancouver we only saw it partly, but more than enough to get a good look at this interesting phenomenon. I had not prepared for it and so found myself without the required glasses. One little kid, perhaps eight or so, saw me standing there empty handed and generously offered me the use of his glasses. How generous and thoughtful—without even being asked!—and how mature.

Of course, a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to see it at its very centre. They didn’t just walk down the block to the nearest intersection; they traveled from afar to the very centre where the sun could be seen totally covered by the moon, somewhere in rural Oregon. Friends of ours from Seattle drove four hours to that epicenter to see it. They found themselves in the midst of such a large crowd camping on some farm way out in the country that the four-hour journey home stretched out to ten hours!  But they had seen it and gladly suffered the inconvenience of a ten-hour traffic jam. Well, each to his own.

But leave it to the enterprising Americans. The owners of that farm charged $170 for a camping spot of which there were 5000! If my math has not totally gone rusty, that amounts to $750,000!  Not a bad intake for a no-effort project that took only a couple of minutes.  Whether that money went to an individual owner or to the local community or some other cause, I have no idea, but enterprising it was for sure! Much more than mere curiosity. 

For still others, an eclipse can be much more than either curiosity or money: it can and has caused wide-spread social panic. Astronomer Derek Kief of the H. R. MacMillan Space Centre here in Vancouver, tells of the first recorded eclipse in China some 4,000 years ago.  “They actually thought it was a dragon eating the sun. It was a terrifying moment—apocalyptic.”  He continued, “Five minutes later the sun came back and everything was OK.”

There is this ancient Chinese story of an emperor who consulted his astrologists, but when they proved helpless, he had them all executed.

The above story was published in the Vancouver Courier of August 17, 2017.  Its rival, Metro, even has its own astrologer, Kelly Benson, She warns in her article “Electrifying time of change,” that the “eclipse may affect the course of our own lives.”  “Astrologically, the sun symbolizes conscious action while the moon reflects our moods and our emotional outlook.” The event “marks an electrifying time of change in leadership, power and influence.” “It invites us to review the ways in which we govern ourselves and communicate.” You are urged “to regain your personal strength and realign your purpose.”  Of all the world’s leaders, President Trump, Benson predicts, is the one who will feel the strength of this eclipse more than any other. Unfortunately, she leaves us in the dark as to how this will affect him in practice. “How it manifests is anyone’s guess.”

Benson is an astrologist and an astrologist practices the “art” of astrology, which comes from two Greek words that indicate “star” and “meaning.” One definition is “the study of the professed effect of heavenly bodies on human personalities and affairs.” Notice the doubt in this definition: “professed.”  In both the Bible and in Christian tradition astrology is basically seen as negative. In the book of Daniel, Daniel is able to make predictions at the request of the king, but he emphasizes very strongly that God alone is the source of the revelation and interpretation. This is in sharp contrast to the wisemen, probably astrologists, who could not make heads or tails of the king’s dreams. When Pharaoh asked Joseph for an interpretation of his dream, Joseph specifically insists that the answer will come from God alone.

The creation story in Genesis 1, specifically assigns the functions of the heavenly bodies to be that of giving light, nothing else. That, too, was in sharp contrast to the pagan nations around Israel who tended to attribute divine power and influence to the sun and stars.  Whether the stars and other heavenly bodies have any influence on our lives, I dare not answer, but the Bible expects us to put our trust in God, not in princes or kings, let alone stars.  We pray only to Him.

So, watching an eclipse just out of curiosity or for interest sake, no problem. Enjoy and perhaps learn some astronomy.  But astrology? That’s a different kettle of fish we should have no truck with.  

Post 179--Faith vs Reason?

Trying to catch up a bit after the long absence. So, another gem for you to ponder today, this time mostly my own.

Today’s subject is hardly new for me or, for that matter, for you. You’ve read similar stuff in earlier posts on this blog, but I return to the subject for two related reasons. One is that secular folks seem never to understand the point I am making today. Even secular friends with whom I’ve had long and deep discussions on this particular issue never seem to comprehend. I’ve been wondering whether this is simply because they cannot or because simply refuse to admit. The second and related reason for returning to the subject is that, because of what seems intransigence on the part of seculars, it has become one of my favourite subjects. I love to challenge seculars on this score, because their view on the subject is the dominant one in our secular society. Our whole society is run on basis of it. That is to say, our whole society is run on basis of a myth!

The subject?  The old saw of REASON VS RELIGION.  Now, you may not be philosophically inclined and kind of crinch at the sound of this topic. But, you know, whether you’re philosophical or not, your life is lived according to the stand you take on this subject. Your stand may be held subconsciously; you may not be aware of it, but it shapes your life.  And the fact that it most likely is subconscious, that makes it worse. In fact, it means you don’t know what you’re doing or why.

John Krakauer published a book back in 2004 by the title of Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. It’s a book about violence within the Mormon community.  He used this story as a demonstration of his conviction about reason vs religion. In his Prologue he wrote:

Although the far territory of the extreme can exert an intoxicating pull on susceptible individuals of all bents, extremism seems to be especially prevalent among those include by temperament or upbringing towards religious pursuits.  Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a crucial component of spiritual devotion.  And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the peace of God—as the actions of Dan Lafferty vividly attest.

There you have it: “Faith is the very antithesis of reason,” while “injudiciousness” is “a crucial component of spiritual devotion.” Well, I am a man of faith and of spiritual devotion, but none the people here in Vancouver’s West End who know me and have observed me have ever accused me of injudiciousness or of being unreasonable—except two.  And this West End, in case you don’t know area, is thoroughly secular in its culture and mentality. Secularism is the very air we breathe here.

Now I don’t know anything about Krakauer’s life, but I suspect he is pretty ignorant about the role of religion, that he has never spent much time with religious people or in religious institutions. He has never read serious religious books or listened to lectures, including dialogical ones.  If he has religious neighbours or colleagues, he avoids talking about it and, perhaps, avoids them altogether.

But, you know what the real and even more tragic problem is? It is that Krakauer does not even know himself!  He, like seculars in general, thinks that he is a person of reason and not of faith—but that is the grand myth of secularism. Who has ever proven that the philosophy that puts reason at the top is true?  Has been proven?  No one. That itself is a matter of pure faith.  A person living by reason is one living by faith in reason, believes as much and as fervently as the overtly religious person.  And indeed, with the fanaticism of secular believers in reason, all bets can indeed be off, such as the killing of the most vulnerable of all humans, namely babies. That’s the ultimate of extremes and of cruelty. Society’s having become accustomed to it does not make it less extreme or cruel.  And if extreme behavior is the product of religion, well Krakauer has just condemned his own faith in reason.

 I’ll try to get back to Krakauer and similar people over the next few days. In the meantime, ponder where you fit in this faith vs reason thing.

Well, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.   

Post 178--Five Facts About Alt-Right

Hello, I'm back from visiting kids and grand kids. The last visit was in Silicon Valley, where our oldest son and family live.  We were there for a good three weeks, sort of taking over the house, kitchen and all, at their request. Fun but busy, oh so busy, what with shopping, cooking and re-organizing their kitchen and warehouse.  I'll try my best to be more regular again, but when travel comes up, well, not much choice!

I pick up the  pieces with a blatantly American essay about the Alt-right. I do so, simply because Canadian media insist on its parallel(s) in Canada. In fact, tomorrow there will be some sort of demonstration or rally around Vancouver City Hall involving both them and their opponents. So, you're better off to understand the movement.  

This piece is written by Joe Carter of the conservative Acton Institute of Grand Rapids MI, a Catholic think tank with strong cooperative ties with Reformed groups in that city. Here goes Carter:

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

A rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia this weekend ended in violence and domestic terrorism, as white nationalist groups clashed with counter-protestors. The Unite the Right rally was intended, as co-promoter Matthew Heimbach explains, to unite the alt-right around the “14 words”: “We must secure the existence of our people and the future for white children’—as our primary motivating factor.”

The objectives of the alt-right movement are antithetical to the mission, values, and principles of the Acton Institute and other like-minded groups. Yet the movement is often associated with traditional forms of conservatism and libertarianism even though its supporters frequently rejects issues such as economic freedom and the dignity of all people that we consider foundational.* For this reason, you should know what the alt-right believes and the agenda they work to promote.

Here are five facts you should know about the alt-right:

1. The alt-right—short for “alternative right”—is an umbrella term for a host of disparate nationalist and populist groups associated with the white identity cause/movement. The term brings together white supremacists (e.g., neo-Nazis), religious racialists (e.g., Kinists), neo-pagans (e.g., Heathenry), internet trolls (e.g., 4chan’s /pol/), and others enamored with white identity and racialism. These groups seek to provide an “alternative” to mainstream American conservatism, which they believe is insufficiently concerned about the objectives of white identity, the defining concept that unites the alt-right. “Racial Identity,” said Arthur Kemp in March of the Titans: A History of the White Race, “can be defined as the conscious recognition that one belongs to a specific race, ethnicity, and culture and with that comes certain obligations toward their own welfare.” And the alt-right leader Jared Taylor of American Renaissance defines “white identity” as “a recognition by whites that they have interests in common that must be defended. All other racial groups take this for granted, that it’s necessary to band together along racial lines to work together for common interests.” In this video, Taylor answers the question, “What Is the Alt-Right?”

2. This association of the term alt-right with white identity politics first appeared in December 2008 when Paul Gottfried wrote an article for Taki’s Magazine titled, “The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right.” (The article itself does not use the phrase “alternative right,” and the editor of the magazine at that time, Richard Spencer—the current leading figure in the alt-right—claims to have added the title.) At the time, the “alternative right” was loosely associated with “paleoconservatives” (another term created by Gottfried). Paleocons were self-identified conservatives who rejected the neo-conservatism of the George W. Bush-era. While the group tended to be anti-globalist and anti-war (especially opposed to the Iraq War) it was not necessarily associated with white identity politics. But in his article Gottfried identified “postpaleos” as a “growing communion “that now includes Takimag, VDARE.com, and other websites that are willing to engage sensitive, timely subjects.” The “sensitive, timely subjects” Gottfried refers to are topics that had previously been the main concern of white identity groups, issues such as non-white immigration (“being physically displaced by the entire Third World”) and “human cognitive capacities” (i.e., the belief that certain racial groups are, in general, intellectually inferior to others). In 2010, Richard Spencer launched a website, AlternativeRight.com, to promote these views. Since then, the term has been associated with the white identity movement.

3. The alt-right is a mostly secular movement that frequently embraces leftist political views (especially on economics) and rejects traditional conservatism. As George Hawley, a University of Alabama professor who has studied the movement, toldThe Washington Post, “the modal alt-right person is a male, white millennial; probably has a college degree or is in college; is secular and perhaps atheist and [is] not interested in the conservative movement at all.” What puts the movement on the “right” is that it shares, along with conservatism, skepticism of forced egalitarianism. But that’s generally all it shares with mainstream conservatism. In fact, many on the alt-right (such as Spencer) hold views associated with progressivism (e.g., support for abortion and opposition to free-market economics). The confusion about the movement’s politics lies in thinking that extremist groups are on each “end” of the left-right political spectrum. It is more accurate to consider them through the lens of the horseshoe theory, a concept in political science that claims the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.

4. While generally secular, the alt-right sometimes embraces “Christendom” (their version of a white European cultural Christianity) and some (such as Vox Day) claim that Christianity is a “foundational pillar” of the movement. But what they mean by Christianity is often a heretical form (Day rejects the Trinity and doesn’t believe the races are “spiritually” equal) a racialized version of the faith (e.g., the Kinist movement), or “religion as culture” (Spencer says he is both an atheist and a “culture Christian”). The movement is also frequently embraced by neo-pagans. As alt-right leader Stephen McNallen has said, “I am a pagan because it is the only way I can be true to who, and what, I am. I am a pagan because the best things in our civilization come from pre-Christian Europe.” McNallen says he opposes Christianity because it “lacks any roots in blood or soil” and consequently can “claim the allegiance of all the human race.” The true religion of the alt-right is white identitarianism.

5. The alt-right embraces white identity politics and almost all of them embrace white nationalism. But not everyone on the alt-right embraces white supremacy. White supremacy is the belief that lighter-skinned or “white” racial groups are superior to all other racial groups. Modern advocates of white supremacy (such as the KKK) almost always advocate for white identity, though the reverse is not always true. As alt right leader Vox Day says, “The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.” White supremacy is also often conflated with white nationalism, the political view that merges nationalism with white identity. White nationalists are racial separatists who believe that to preserve the white race, other racial groups must be excluded or marginalized in “white states” (i.e., countries or regions that have historically had majority-white populations). White nationalists are frequently concerned about miscegenation and non-white immigration because it contributes to what they consider to be “white genocide,” i.e., the replacement of the “white race” by other racial groups.

*Many Christian conservatives and libertarians who do not agree with white identity politics have recently begun to refer to themselves as the “alt-right.” This is a disconcerting trend.

Some who do so simply do not understand the history of the term. They assume it means something akin to “paleoconservative” or is a synonym for “Trump supporter.” They aren’t aware it was chosen several years ago specifically to provide diverse groups who embrace the “14 Words” with a label to rally around. Others have adopted “alt-right” because the media has begun to use the term as a critique of all people on the political right, and so claim it as an act of defiance to the media. A smaller number of people understand what the term means but want to reclaim it for other uses.

But no one who is not a white nationalist, white supremacist, or white identitarian should ever use the label to describe their own views. Here are three reasons why.

First, it delegitimizes conservatives who do not embrace racialism. When decent people align themselves with a label like alt-right it gives the impression such views are considered acceptable within mainstream conservatism.

Second, it legitimizes racist elements within society. If you would not associate yourself with the KKK or neo-Nazis, you should not associate with the alt-right simply because they do not all wear hoods and chant “sieg heil.” (Though they sometimes do.) Conservatives and libertarians should be distancing themselves from fascist movements, not embracing them out of solidarity against the mainstream media.

Third, we can’t take back the term. Whatever legitimate uses the term “alternative right” may have had were destroyed long ago. Eight years ago Richard Spencer—the man who coined the term alt-right—started the website “Alternative Right.” Spencer used the site to flirt with Holocaust denial, promote racist and anti-Semitic views, and to champion the cause of white nationalism. He’s owned the term longer than anyone who now wants to adopt it. Attempting to reclaim the term is about as futile and unnecessary as attempting to reclaim the swastika.

Fourth, at the core of the alt-right movement is idolatry—the idol of “whiteness.” In building their identity on shared genetic traits the alt-right divides humanity and leads people away from the only source of true identity: Jesus Christ. The alt-right is anti-gospel because to embrace white identity requires rejecting the Christian identity. No Christian who loves Jesus should associate themselves with a label that is intended to promote racial separation and hate.

Post 177--Millennials and Political Correctness

Again, someone else's article with my comments attached. It seems that Scott Masson of Toronto does not wish to accord the transgender population their full recognition.  I feel very sorry for that group and do not think their condition was part of what God intended when He created humanity. At the same time, they are here and not be their own decision or choice. By birth, would be my opinion. As such, they do not have a lot of choice in the matter. I know a couple of them and know they suffer because of their condition.  It is my firm opinion that they must be given their full human rights same as I do, even though I do not think their condition is desirable and should not be considered standard.  So, it seems I disagree with Masson on this aspect.  

What interests and concerns me in Masson article below is that millennials seem to have lost the traditional freedoms and rights that families have enjoyed for centuries in our Western civilization. They are, in fact, quite prepared to trample on them and force their opinion on everyone else, even to the extent of disregarding the rights of families and of breaking them up when they hold opinions contrary to those of millennials. The sense of social justice, according to Masson, has gone completely topsy-turvey. That to me is a serious issue and does not bode well for the future of freedom and democracy. So, have a listen and see where you find yourself.

=========

A new survey was released in the US last month, and it showed just how far society has moved on the issue of gender confusion. The poll focussed on “millennials” – generally people under 30 – and it found almost half of them would be OK with the notion that the government should take children away from parents if those parents refuse to affirm those children’s gender identities. Scott Masson is an Associate Professor of English at Tyndale University College in Toronto. He says the survey shows that traditional views of family are starting to change, especially in a certain segment of society. “It says that those that are most animated by issues that we would call ‘social justice’ are in favour of breaking into the family and its historic freedoms in order to justify the ends of what they would call ‘social justice’.”

He says the survey shows that respondents don’t have “any notion of what we would call ‘sphere sovereignty’.” Masson says the poll’s focus on millenials shows the impact that political correctness has had in the education system over the past 30 years. “I’ve been living with that in the university system ever since the 1980’s, and certainly it’s the case that millennials (have) experienced nothing but that. They’re not used to freedom of expression. If they find a view that they don’t like, they’re gonna have no tolerance for it.” He says that demographic is not bothered by the loss of liberty that we’ve seen in recent legislation in Canada, because “they never really thought those liberties really ought to exist as long as social injustice was being done.”

Post 176--Hymns, Hymnbooks and a bit of Nostalgia

Hymns--you remember singing them?  And those thick books in the pew racks in your church, whatever may have been their colour.  Remember any of that?  If you're attending one of these independent churches that spring up a dime a dozen, especially in the cities, you may not even know what this article is talking about. You may not like them, but you know about them. You may consider them old fashioned used to cater to the older generation. Most of the songs you sing will be pop-up songs sung only from the screen with music so loud, you can't hear your own singing, let alone that of the congregation.If you're older, you may tolerate the latter and even sing along, but there's nothing that makes you happier than when a song is sung from that old hymnbook, harmony and all. As a member of the older folks, I tolerate that pop-up stuff, enjoy some of it even, but when singing one of these 19th century songs or even older, my heart races with joy and I sing it out, mostly in tenor, full blast. Just ask my wife sitting next to me or the neighbour on the other side or people in front of me. They will know I'm there!

Well, I will not argue that those old hymns and their books are the only valid style for a church. They are of a bygone age and culture and don't resonate with the younger folks as much as the loud  ad hoc songs. Some churches, like the Christian Reformed Church, a middle of the road type of church, and the United Church of Canada, a blatantly liberal and modern church, have recently published and are using new books that combine the two styles. As far as I am concerned, that's the best of both worlds.  

Below I treat you to an article that reminds or tells you, depending on your age, what has gone along with the hymn books, what we have lost. It's something you younger folks don't even know. You simply don't know what you've lost, but it's real and it's serious. So, have a listen.

What We Lost When We Lost Our Hymnals

Few memories are as synonymous with church in my mind, as the sight of my mother holding up a raggety old red hymnal and singing to the top of her lungs the songs of Zion.

Sadly, the number of children who are privileged to such memories in today’s world is dwindling with each passing hour; partly because church is becoming an afterthought to so many and partly because many religious establishments are “moving past” the golden era of hymnals.

The following is an article written by Tim Challies, in which he seeks to remind church folk what they lose when they give up their hymnals:

If we were to go back in time twenty or thirty years, we would find that most churches had hymnals. They had hymnals because it was the best way of providing each member of the congregation with a copy of the songs. You’d hear it in every church: “Take out your hymnal and turn to hymn 154…” And then hymnals went the way of the dodo and we began to look instead to words projected on a screen. Here is some of what we lost along the way.

We lost an established body of songs.Hymnals communicated that a church had an established collection of songs. This, in turn, communicated that its songs were vetted carefully and added to its repertoire only after careful consideration. After all, great songs are not written every day and their worth is proven only over time. Therefore, new hymns would be chosen carefully and added to new editions of the hymnal only occasionally. Churches would update their hymnals, and, therefore, their established body of songs, only once every ten or fifteen years.

We lost a deep knowledge of our songs. When we removed the hymnal, we gained the ability to add new songs to our repertoire whenever we encounter one we deem worthy. And we do—we add new songs all the time. As we add new songs with greater regularity, we sing old songs with less frequency. This reduces our familiarity with our songs so that today we have far fewer of them fixed in our minds and hearts. Few congregations could sing even the greatest hymns without that PowerPoint screen.

We lost the ability to do harmonies. Hymnody grew up at a time when instrumentation took a back seat to the voice. Hymns were most often written so they could be sung a cappella or with minimal instrumentation. For that reason, hymnals almost invariably included the music for both melody and harmonies and congregations learned to sing the parts. The loss of the hymnal and the associated rise of the worship band has reduced our ability to harmonize and, in that way, to sing to the fullest of our abilities.

It often seems like all we want from the congregation is their enthusiasm. We lost the ability to sing skillfully. As congregations have lost their knowledge of their songs, they have lost the ability to sing them well. We tend to compensate for our poorly-sung songs by cranking up the volume of the musical accompaniment. The loss of the voice has given rise to the gain of the amplifier. This leads to our music being dominated by a few instrumentalists and perhaps a pair of miced-up vocalists while the larger congregation plays only a meager role. In fact, it often seems like all we want from the congregation is their enthusiasm.

We lost the ability to have the songs in our homes. Hymnals usually lived at the church, resting from Monday to Saturday in the little pockets on the back of the pews. But people also bought their own and took them home so the family could have that established body of songs there as well. Families would often sing together as part of their family worship. It is easy to imagine a family singing “It Is Well With My Soul” after eating dinner together, but almost impossible to imagine them singing, “Oceans.”

It is probably too late to go back to the hymnal. I am not at all convinced we ought to. But it is still worth considering what we lost along the way and how congregational singing has been utterly transformed by what may appear to have been a simple and practical switch in the media. That little change from book to screen changed nearly everything.

Post 175--Introduction: ChristianRoots Canada

Although the celebrations of Canada 150 are not over, the climax of the July 1 weekend is history by now. I just took the button from my hat. Things are somewhat returning to "normal," whatever your normal is.  Now that the excitement is over, we can give ourselves the luxury of doing some reflection on our nation. Hence, I introduce you to a new website--  < www.christianrootscanada.org  >.  I just came across it and still wonder just where it will lead.  However, the issue it raises is significant enough for us to pause and consider the question: What happened to Christian Canada?  I invite you to read what appears to be a new effort, though built on an earlier one. If this initial one intrigues you, you may want to get yourself subscribed and follow through on it. I think I will do so. But do please remember: I do not know these people or their orientation. I'm just going to log in and see for myself. You might do the same. So, as so often in this blog: go to it and see....

Do you love Canada? Of course you do! How much do you know about its Christian foundations? A little? A lot? Do you want to know more? Visit www.christianrootscanada.org to get the right tools for learning more. First, you need to understand that Canada was NEVER a Christian nation. However, it was founded by people with a strong Biblical worldview, and others who were greatly influenced by that worldview through their upbringing in a Christian home. That was responsible for a Christian cultural outlook which pervaded the collective thought and actions of our early forebears well into the early 1980's. The Biblical virtues of truth, fidelity, diligence, perseverance, a strong work ethic, knowledge and respect for the guiding hand of God, all contributed to a culture that practiced (among other ideals) liberty without license, justice without coercion and equality before the law. These laws were rooted and grounded in British Common Law, most of which were derived from the Ten Commandments in the Bible. ChristianRoots Canada will help you to understand where we came from as a nation, to chart how our national culture got where it is today, and to figure out what we can do to lift up God's standard of justice, righteousness and truth. We plan to equip you by giving you the tools you need to educate and inform your family, friends and neighbours about our Biblical Christian heritage. Once you have those tools, we hope you will take the next step of impacting the culture, one home, one village, one Township, one Province or Territory at a time, until the Biblical Christian standard, God's standard, becomes the culture of Canada once more. Many Christians express the despair that David did in Psalm 10, (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+10) when they look at our current political climate and our leaders. If that describes you, then there is hope. YOU can do something about it. You can arm yourselves with information at: www.christianrootscanada.org.   Our journey first started as ChristianGovernance, seven or eight years ago, with Teaching Canadian History from a Biblical perspective. We have  hit the RESUME button as ChristianRoots Canada. There will be bumps and hiccups along the way. We hope that you will be patient with us. Our mission is to Educate, Equip and Empower our readers to take action. We hope you will be inspired by the stories of the Christian heroes that have gone before us and that you would boldly stand on their shoulders. If you think someone you know should be getting this information, then please share and forward. Arm Yourselves. Rebuild the foundations.  Remember Psalm 11:3 - If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?