My university, Carleton University, in Ottawa, is proposing banning student groups that are not in favour of a woman's right to destroy her unborn child. They would not be allowed to form clubs and receive funding.
Ah, the Tolerance crowd in action once again.
I remember during my days at Carleton there was a Communist Club. I always considered communists an esoteric bunch, so outside the mainstream of thought and society. I remember talking with one chap in particular. I was a newly minted Christian. He looked on me as a relic from a bygone age. He talked about what they would do when they assumed power.
I would rather talk about what is going to happen when Christ returns to reign in glorious moral, ethical, and holy power. How awesome that is going to be! And all the politicians and those scratching for power today and supporting every liberal cause from abortion to euthanasia to same-sex marriage, shunted aside by the Holy One ruling in awesome power.
At that time, the Bible says, the saints shall rule. "We shall judge angels!" the apostle Paul says.
Christ must reign until he has put every enemy under his feet.
Oh Lord, I want to be in that number, oh when the saints go marching in.
The key is to be on Christ's side on the great moral issues of our day.
It's not only the right side, it's the winning side.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
I'm dreaming of a lunar Christmas
The liberal west's tendency towards self-parody hit a high point recently -- you might say, in terms of lunatic, this was a full-moon.
According to reports, the City of Chicago has declared that a public festival celebrating Christmas is no place to promote a move about the Christmas story.
City officials are worried ads for the new film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.
Notice that no one has actually said they would be offended by this, the officials are just worried that it might offend.
It reminds me of when I saw an ad in a Toronto paper for a homosexual festival. The festival was sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada. One of the prominent persons featured in the ad was a gay porn star; the picture in the ad was suggestive of his occupation. I phoned in to complain that the Royal Bank was sponsoring and promoting pornography, without mentioning the gay angle. They were flabergasted. They simply saw it as supporting and marketing to homosexuals.
I pointed out to the Royal Bank person that we now live in a society where people are no longer free to wish someone a "merry Christmas", because it might offend someone, but it is apparently OK for a major corporation to support pornography in a public newspaper.
We cannot teach Christianity in public schools, because it might offend; however we must teach homosexuality in all its glorious details, regardless of who is offended.
That's how the liberal west's worship of the god of Tolerance works.
This Christmas, I'll be worshipping a Man who began life as a babe in a manger. Those who looked on him saw the face of God.
Wise men still seek Him.
Oh come, let us worship Him.
Christ the Lord.
"Merry Christmas to everyone."
Who ever thought that these would be viewed as seditious words?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
According to reports, the City of Chicago has declared that a public festival celebrating Christmas is no place to promote a move about the Christmas story.
City officials are worried ads for the new film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.
Notice that no one has actually said they would be offended by this, the officials are just worried that it might offend.
It reminds me of when I saw an ad in a Toronto paper for a homosexual festival. The festival was sponsored by the Royal Bank of Canada. One of the prominent persons featured in the ad was a gay porn star; the picture in the ad was suggestive of his occupation. I phoned in to complain that the Royal Bank was sponsoring and promoting pornography, without mentioning the gay angle. They were flabergasted. They simply saw it as supporting and marketing to homosexuals.
I pointed out to the Royal Bank person that we now live in a society where people are no longer free to wish someone a "merry Christmas", because it might offend someone, but it is apparently OK for a major corporation to support pornography in a public newspaper.
We cannot teach Christianity in public schools, because it might offend; however we must teach homosexuality in all its glorious details, regardless of who is offended.
That's how the liberal west's worship of the god of Tolerance works.
This Christmas, I'll be worshipping a Man who began life as a babe in a manger. Those who looked on him saw the face of God.
Wise men still seek Him.
Oh come, let us worship Him.
Christ the Lord.
"Merry Christmas to everyone."
Who ever thought that these would be viewed as seditious words?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Quebec a "nation"? What was the Prime Minister thinking?
The Conservative Prime Minister has presented a motion to Canada's Parliament to recognize the province of Quebec as a nation within Canada.
Can you imagine the United States declaring Hawaii or Alaska a "nation" within the U.S., thus reducing all other states to some kind of second-class status?
Unimaginable.
In Canada, however, this has widespread support among all federalist parties, who have been giving away the store for a generation now.
For years, arrivees have descended the escalator at Dorval Airport in Montreal and been confronted with a large illuminated sign that reads "Immigration Quebec". Newcomers must wonder what country they have landed in.
Can you imagine landing in Dallas and seeing a "Texas Immigration" sign?
Didn't think so.
I remember crossing by car into Quebec from the US at a border station where there was not a single sign or flag or symbol that indicated the country you were entering was in fact Canada.
Can you imagine a similarily unadorned US border crossing?
Didn't think so.
In Canada, we refer to our native Indian populations as "first nations".
I guess this makes Quebec a "second nation".
One thing that the first nations and Quebec share in common is that none of them are net contributors to the wealth of Canada -- each one of them, Quebec included, receives sizable subsidies from the rest of us plain-Jane Canadians who comprise the rump of Canada.
Canada should make it a condition of nationhood that a tribe or province or other organizational entity is a net economic contributor to the rest of the country.
The mighty nations of Alberta and Ontario, anyone?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Can you imagine the United States declaring Hawaii or Alaska a "nation" within the U.S., thus reducing all other states to some kind of second-class status?
Unimaginable.
In Canada, however, this has widespread support among all federalist parties, who have been giving away the store for a generation now.
For years, arrivees have descended the escalator at Dorval Airport in Montreal and been confronted with a large illuminated sign that reads "Immigration Quebec". Newcomers must wonder what country they have landed in.
Can you imagine landing in Dallas and seeing a "Texas Immigration" sign?
Didn't think so.
I remember crossing by car into Quebec from the US at a border station where there was not a single sign or flag or symbol that indicated the country you were entering was in fact Canada.
Can you imagine a similarily unadorned US border crossing?
Didn't think so.
In Canada, we refer to our native Indian populations as "first nations".
I guess this makes Quebec a "second nation".
One thing that the first nations and Quebec share in common is that none of them are net contributors to the wealth of Canada -- each one of them, Quebec included, receives sizable subsidies from the rest of us plain-Jane Canadians who comprise the rump of Canada.
Canada should make it a condition of nationhood that a tribe or province or other organizational entity is a net economic contributor to the rest of the country.
The mighty nations of Alberta and Ontario, anyone?
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Tell us something we don't already know
This will come as no surprise to Boopchile and frappeur:
It's in, and it's official: conservatives are more generous than liberals; those on the right are more generous than those on the left.
The book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
Here are some of the main points:
* Religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
* Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
* Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
Don't you just love the phrases: "irrespective of income", "by any measure", "in every way imaginable"!
The article, referenced in the Drudge Report, is written by a researcher with a liberal background who was surprised by the results. To read it go to:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
It's in, and it's official: conservatives are more generous than liberals; those on the right are more generous than those on the left.
The book, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
Here are some of the main points:
* Religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
* Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
* Liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
Don't you just love the phrases: "irrespective of income", "by any measure", "in every way imaginable"!
The article, referenced in the Drudge Report, is written by a researcher with a liberal background who was surprised by the results. To read it go to:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
The Big Bang is in the news again
The Big Bang is helpful to creationists because it demonstrates that the universe has a beginning (as recorded in the opening lines of the Bible). However, the Big Bang cannot explain the singularity which supposedly pre-existed the Big Bang, nor what caused the Big Bang to occur and upset the presumably eternal state of the pre-existing singularity.
If you suddenly heard a loud bang outside your home, you would assume it was caused. If someone said, "nothing caused it; it just happened", you would not believe them. And yet serious scientists suggest that nothing caused the Big Bang.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe is caused.
With our miraculous eyes we can see evidence of exquisite design and process this evidence with our remarkable minds.
It takes darkened minds to ignore this evidence and postulate an uncreated, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless, universe. The Bible also speaks about this: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'".
There is a moral dimension to life that non-belief in God allows us to skirt around in this life-time. However, when we stand before the uncreated One who stands outside of time and space, our efforts at avoidance will have come to an end.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
If you suddenly heard a loud bang outside your home, you would assume it was caused. If someone said, "nothing caused it; it just happened", you would not believe them. And yet serious scientists suggest that nothing caused the Big Bang.
Anything that begins to exist has a cause; the universe began to exist; therefore, the universe is caused.
With our miraculous eyes we can see evidence of exquisite design and process this evidence with our remarkable minds.
It takes darkened minds to ignore this evidence and postulate an uncreated, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless, universe. The Bible also speaks about this: "The fool has said in his heart, 'there is no God'".
There is a moral dimension to life that non-belief in God allows us to skirt around in this life-time. However, when we stand before the uncreated One who stands outside of time and space, our efforts at avoidance will have come to an end.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
France snubs Canada snubs China snubs Canada
Yesterday France suggested a tariff on Canadian goods because we are not walking lock-step with them and other socialist countries on climate change. The Canadian left sided with France.
Also yesterday, China supposedly rebuffed Canada's PM for making human rights an issue. The Canadian left sided with China.
Think about it --
The same people that oppose Canada standing up to China for fundamental human rights violations cheer France when it threatens Canada because of mere policy differences in climate change.
Perhaps this is as good an insight into the warped mind of the left as we are going to get.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Also yesterday, China supposedly rebuffed Canada's PM for making human rights an issue. The Canadian left sided with China.
Think about it --
The same people that oppose Canada standing up to China for fundamental human rights violations cheer France when it threatens Canada because of mere policy differences in climate change.
Perhaps this is as good an insight into the warped mind of the left as we are going to get.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Climate Change: France throws its weight around
France has proposed that those countries that don't fall in line with the socialist-led climate-change agenda be punished with tariffs.
Because things are getting scary: "Scientists attribute at least some of the past century's 0.6-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures...."
"At least some"?
What does that mean? The earth has always been warming and cooling.
Global warming, er, "climate change", is based on pseudo-science designed to advance the anti-west, anti-capitalist, socialist-environmentalist agenda. It's all about seizing power, not taking care of the planet. Count on it: it will require ever-more government intervention and control over people's lives.
France's latest pronouncement on the subject shows the intolerance and bigotry of this pseudo-scientific socialist movement.
I would suggest instead that countries simply boycott countries found to be in collusion with murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. That would take care of France.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Because things are getting scary: "Scientists attribute at least some of the past century's 0.6-degree-Celsius rise in global temperatures...."
"At least some"?
What does that mean? The earth has always been warming and cooling.
Global warming, er, "climate change", is based on pseudo-science designed to advance the anti-west, anti-capitalist, socialist-environmentalist agenda. It's all about seizing power, not taking care of the planet. Count on it: it will require ever-more government intervention and control over people's lives.
France's latest pronouncement on the subject shows the intolerance and bigotry of this pseudo-scientific socialist movement.
I would suggest instead that countries simply boycott countries found to be in collusion with murderous dictators like Saddam Hussein. That would take care of France.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Anglican Church advocates letting newborns die
The Church of England has come out in favour of allowing doctors to let seriously or severely ill newborn babies die.
Here's where I stand on this. First, babies should be fed and cared for; they should not just be "allowed to die" and starved to death. They should be cared for and comforted. However, I think there may be cases where going to extraordinary means to maintain life though artificial devices, such as being strapped to a machine, may not be warranted. [I am open to hear other views on this position; I may be wrong.] In some cases, just as at the end of life, it may be best to "let nature run its course".
From what I have read, the Church of England is advocating a more radical approach one that would not just withhold extraordinary medical interventions but which would, in effect, abandon a child and let him or her starve to death. This position would, in time, no doubt lead to active euthanasia of infants.
Here's my view on this;
We were all -- every human being -- disabled and malformed through sin. We may not see ourselves this way; but God does. Jeremiah said that the heart of man was "desperately wicked". Jesus spoke of a wicked and sinful generation.
God could just "let us die". He was just when he destroyed the world of old by a flood, and merciful when he spared eight souls. If God were to let us all die, he would be just to do so.
Those who favour euthanasia of the disabled should, logically, accept that it would be just as right for they themselves to be killed by God, since, in His sight, we are all disabled; we all fall well short of his original plan and intent for humankind. I suspect that most of them do not hold to this view, and would attribute wrong-doing if not wickedness to God if He were to execute destructive judgement upon us.
INSTEAD!
Instead, he paid an incalculable cost -- the death of His own Son -- to redeem us. We are of infinite worth because of Christ's saving love. This is the heart of of why Christians value all human lives. First, because we are created by God. Secondly, because we are created in His image as the highest expression of His nature and glory on this earth, and thirdly, because of the infinite worth of the blood of Christ which was shed to redeem us.
Secular liberals who tout human rights and dignity conveniently forget where the basis for rights and essential dignity come from -- they come from the Christian view of man created in God's image.
When people rebel against God, and reject the light of the gospel, God gives them over to a reprobate mind; people think that they can adopt select ungodly, "liberal" positions, and then stop. They can't. The Anglican Church is showing every sign of being given over, by God, to a reprobate mind.
Which means, left to their own devices apart from the sovereign grace of God, their views will become more and more heretical and ungodly.
Understood in this light, it can be said that the latest position by the Church of England is shocking, and sad, but understandable.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Here's where I stand on this. First, babies should be fed and cared for; they should not just be "allowed to die" and starved to death. They should be cared for and comforted. However, I think there may be cases where going to extraordinary means to maintain life though artificial devices, such as being strapped to a machine, may not be warranted. [I am open to hear other views on this position; I may be wrong.] In some cases, just as at the end of life, it may be best to "let nature run its course".
From what I have read, the Church of England is advocating a more radical approach one that would not just withhold extraordinary medical interventions but which would, in effect, abandon a child and let him or her starve to death. This position would, in time, no doubt lead to active euthanasia of infants.
Here's my view on this;
We were all -- every human being -- disabled and malformed through sin. We may not see ourselves this way; but God does. Jeremiah said that the heart of man was "desperately wicked". Jesus spoke of a wicked and sinful generation.
God could just "let us die". He was just when he destroyed the world of old by a flood, and merciful when he spared eight souls. If God were to let us all die, he would be just to do so.
Those who favour euthanasia of the disabled should, logically, accept that it would be just as right for they themselves to be killed by God, since, in His sight, we are all disabled; we all fall well short of his original plan and intent for humankind. I suspect that most of them do not hold to this view, and would attribute wrong-doing if not wickedness to God if He were to execute destructive judgement upon us.
INSTEAD!
Instead, he paid an incalculable cost -- the death of His own Son -- to redeem us. We are of infinite worth because of Christ's saving love. This is the heart of of why Christians value all human lives. First, because we are created by God. Secondly, because we are created in His image as the highest expression of His nature and glory on this earth, and thirdly, because of the infinite worth of the blood of Christ which was shed to redeem us.
Secular liberals who tout human rights and dignity conveniently forget where the basis for rights and essential dignity come from -- they come from the Christian view of man created in God's image.
When people rebel against God, and reject the light of the gospel, God gives them over to a reprobate mind; people think that they can adopt select ungodly, "liberal" positions, and then stop. They can't. The Anglican Church is showing every sign of being given over, by God, to a reprobate mind.
Which means, left to their own devices apart from the sovereign grace of God, their views will become more and more heretical and ungodly.
Understood in this light, it can be said that the latest position by the Church of England is shocking, and sad, but understandable.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The mighty nation of PEI
The "nation" of Quebec is in the news -- again.
As a member of the mighty nation of Prince Edward Island (population One Hundred and Forty THOUSAND), I must insist that Quebec is not the real nation-province; PEI is.
We are the only province whose land mass is entirely separate from the rest of Canada (ROC). That means that we, and we alone, are the true separatists!
Yes, and we're proud!!! (but, like the pretender province of Quebec, not too proud to accept hand-outs from the ROC).
We'll agree to remain in Canada, but only if the ROC panders to us.
Let the pandering begin!
As a member of the mighty nation of Prince Edward Island (population One Hundred and Forty THOUSAND), I must insist that Quebec is not the real nation-province; PEI is.
We are the only province whose land mass is entirely separate from the rest of Canada (ROC). That means that we, and we alone, are the true separatists!
Yes, and we're proud!!! (but, like the pretender province of Quebec, not too proud to accept hand-outs from the ROC).
We'll agree to remain in Canada, but only if the ROC panders to us.
Let the pandering begin!
The Episcopal Church's Dreamer-God
The Presiding Bishop-Elect of the Episcopal Church has been enthroned. She is now the Presiding Bishop, carrying on the work of Peter and the apostles. Or so she thinks.
Her latest sermon talks about God's "dream" of shalom that the Episcopals are now busy bringing to fruition. Here's a quote: "the episkopeis of the saints, their ministry, cleans the fields of that which cannot survive in God's dream of shalom, it burns away whatever limits that dream or cannot contribute to it."
During this latest sermon she carefully avoids male pronouns in reference to God.
I'm not really up on God's "dreams", but I'm sure His dreams include being referred to as He revealed Himself, i.e., as "Father", "He" "Him" and "His". Jesus did, and, guess what?, God was not offended! Well-pleased, in fact.
Of course, God didn't have really smart people like the present Episcopal leadership back then to help him out. Had He, He no doubt would have avoided all the problems associated with representing himself as Father and Jesus as Son.
However, with the Episcopal Church's help, God is evolving. Faced with "new information", "new knowledge", as they say, He's already completely changed his mind on the whole in-the-beginning-I-created-them-male-and-female thing. Now, He understands that same-sex attractions and sexual acts were all part of HIs original intention all along.
He's becoming a God even the devil could like.
Her latest sermon talks about God's "dream" of shalom that the Episcopals are now busy bringing to fruition. Here's a quote: "the episkopeis of the saints, their ministry, cleans the fields of that which cannot survive in God's dream of shalom, it burns away whatever limits that dream or cannot contribute to it."
During this latest sermon she carefully avoids male pronouns in reference to God.
I'm not really up on God's "dreams", but I'm sure His dreams include being referred to as He revealed Himself, i.e., as "Father", "He" "Him" and "His". Jesus did, and, guess what?, God was not offended! Well-pleased, in fact.
Of course, God didn't have really smart people like the present Episcopal leadership back then to help him out. Had He, He no doubt would have avoided all the problems associated with representing himself as Father and Jesus as Son.
However, with the Episcopal Church's help, God is evolving. Faced with "new information", "new knowledge", as they say, He's already completely changed his mind on the whole in-the-beginning-I-created-them-male-and-female thing. Now, He understands that same-sex attractions and sexual acts were all part of HIs original intention all along.
He's becoming a God even the devil could like.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
United Church Bobble-heads
The United Church of Canada (UCC) has come up with a ten million dollar solution to declining enrollments caused by its abandonment of the gospel: an advertising campaign.
One ad features an automobile bobble-head Jesus.
Another ad has a wedding cake with two men on top, with the tag-line "Does anyone object?". Apart from God, who makes it clear that he created us "male and female" (and not "heterosexual and homosexual"), apparently not.
The UCC 's purpose is not to convert anyone, however, just bring in Christians who are floating around in society, presumably unattached to any church. Or maybe their idea is to merely siphon off the converts made through other churches' hard-fought, hard-won, efforts.
Where does this leave Jesus, who commanded His followers to "go into all the world and make disciples of all nations"?
Outside the UCC. The Jesus of Scripture is far too narrow, far too exclusive, far too fundamentalist for the UCC.
Instead, it's "come as you are", and "stay as you are -- no conversion required!".
When you consider the UCC alternative, fundamentalism is looking better all the time.
One ad features an automobile bobble-head Jesus.
Another ad has a wedding cake with two men on top, with the tag-line "Does anyone object?". Apart from God, who makes it clear that he created us "male and female" (and not "heterosexual and homosexual"), apparently not.
The UCC 's purpose is not to convert anyone, however, just bring in Christians who are floating around in society, presumably unattached to any church. Or maybe their idea is to merely siphon off the converts made through other churches' hard-fought, hard-won, efforts.
Where does this leave Jesus, who commanded His followers to "go into all the world and make disciples of all nations"?
Outside the UCC. The Jesus of Scripture is far too narrow, far too exclusive, far too fundamentalist for the UCC.
Instead, it's "come as you are", and "stay as you are -- no conversion required!".
When you consider the UCC alternative, fundamentalism is looking better all the time.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Abortion and the Book of Revelation
Image by Getty Images via @daylifeThe juxtaposition of an article on the book of Revelation with one on abortion was probably coincidental. But one of the central tenets of Revelation, that the devil continues to deceive mankind, is surely found in the sulphurous statement quoted in the abortion article, which says, "for most women, abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby".
As the abortion article indicates, many women suffer terrible psychological effects after abortions. They increase their risk of breast cancer. They kill their unborn child [at least half of whom are female] and jeopardize their soul.
People would do well to pay more, not less, attention to the book of Revelation, and its message of a heroic battle between good and evil, truth and deception, destruction and redemption. In John's companion work, the gospel of John, Jesus says concerning the devil, "The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
Saturday, November 04, 2006
More on "Jesus is not the only way to God"
The presiding bishop-elect of the Episcopal Church in the USA continues to get a lot of flak for going on record stating that Jesus is not the only way to God. Here's my latest take on the matter.
This woman is not fit to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a denomination.
The fact that Jesus is the way, and the only way to the Father (not "God", because Jesus Himself is divine), is Christianity 101. Since Jesus is, Himself, divine, this woman is postulating that there are other ways to Jesus besides Jesus, and that religions which flatly contradict the words and teachings of Jesus can also lead to... Jesus.
The fact is, liberals find the plain sense of Scripture repugnant. I guess they think that Jesus the Word is at odds with the written Word of God. And that the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures is now inspiring them along different lines.
And these are people who claim to value reason over "mindless fundamentalism"?
At least when you think along fundamentalist lines there is a coherence to your beliefs, and an alignment with what Scripture actually teaches.
Liberals are hopeless. They disconnected themselves from Scripture in the 60s, and are now hopelessly adrift. They are heading for shipwreck.
If you are in a church lead by a liberal, it's time to abandon ship. Nowhere did Jesus command us to submit to false and ungodly leadership. Follow Him.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
This woman is not fit to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a denomination.
The fact that Jesus is the way, and the only way to the Father (not "God", because Jesus Himself is divine), is Christianity 101. Since Jesus is, Himself, divine, this woman is postulating that there are other ways to Jesus besides Jesus, and that religions which flatly contradict the words and teachings of Jesus can also lead to... Jesus.
The fact is, liberals find the plain sense of Scripture repugnant. I guess they think that Jesus the Word is at odds with the written Word of God. And that the Spirit of God who inspired the Scriptures is now inspiring them along different lines.
And these are people who claim to value reason over "mindless fundamentalism"?
At least when you think along fundamentalist lines there is a coherence to your beliefs, and an alignment with what Scripture actually teaches.
Liberals are hopeless. They disconnected themselves from Scripture in the 60s, and are now hopelessly adrift. They are heading for shipwreck.
If you are in a church lead by a liberal, it's time to abandon ship. Nowhere did Jesus command us to submit to false and ungodly leadership. Follow Him.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Healthcare and the Federal Government
If the federal government does have a role in a provincial matter such as healthcare, it is surely this: to ensure the complete transferability of services between one province and another; a PEI health card should be accepted in Ontario or Quebec without problems such as partial or even non-reimbursement of services.
Instead of advancing this clear federal role, the federal government has chosen rather to meddle in provincial matters such as private vs. public delivery of services. In doing so, it has demonstrated more interest in advancing an ideological agenda than in meeting the actual healthcare needs of its citizens.
For what it's worth, I have just returned from receiving an ultrasound test at an Ontario clinic, easily and conveniently booked a week ago. I've been waiting since August to receive the lottery-like letter from the PEI health authorities regarding the booking of the same test.
Thank God for the existence of privately run clinics that provide needed healthcare services.
Have I paid loads and loads of dollars into the PEI tax treasury in the last decade? Yes. Will I be compensated by the PEI government for the cost of these tests? I have no idea. They tend to look unfavourably at such extra-provincial forays. Sometimes they'll pay for half the cost or less.
One thing I do know: there is a sizeable bureaucracy that exists to determine whether this expense will be covered or not. Their salaries will definitely be covered -- by my tax dollars.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Instead of advancing this clear federal role, the federal government has chosen rather to meddle in provincial matters such as private vs. public delivery of services. In doing so, it has demonstrated more interest in advancing an ideological agenda than in meeting the actual healthcare needs of its citizens.
For what it's worth, I have just returned from receiving an ultrasound test at an Ontario clinic, easily and conveniently booked a week ago. I've been waiting since August to receive the lottery-like letter from the PEI health authorities regarding the booking of the same test.
Thank God for the existence of privately run clinics that provide needed healthcare services.
Have I paid loads and loads of dollars into the PEI tax treasury in the last decade? Yes. Will I be compensated by the PEI government for the cost of these tests? I have no idea. They tend to look unfavourably at such extra-provincial forays. Sometimes they'll pay for half the cost or less.
One thing I do know: there is a sizeable bureaucracy that exists to determine whether this expense will be covered or not. Their salaries will definitely be covered -- by my tax dollars.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)