This from Britain's The Independent:
"The point of no return will be reached within 10 years, the former vice president [Al Gore] says..."
I predict that within 10 years the world's understanding of climate change will be much better and different than it is today, and that there will be a lot of backtracking by scientists and politicians who "got it wrong".
The west is far more likely to perish from moral rot than climate change.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
I'll Pay Not to have to Watch It
Once again I am reminded of why I would pay not to watch the CBC. (Which is just about the case -- I am forced against my will as a Canadian taxpayer to pay for this wretched thing, but, thankfully, there is no law that forces me to actually watch it.)
I logged on to the CBC website to see if I could catch some breaking news about the Anglican Church of Canada's slugfest in Winnipeg, where they are meeting to decide how unfaithful they want to be. I figured the CBC would be first to trumpet any "positive" news about same-sex blessings.
What I saw instead was so incredibly staggering I thought (as I did when I first saw the ad for Little Mosque on the Prairies) that I'd somehow wandered onto a CBC parody site.
But, no. Once again, this was the CBC website. This was, regrettably, real.
What I saw staggered the imagination. A picture of a nude (from the chest up) David Suzuki, holding up the Earth, beside a cheery headline, "Welcome to Our New Look!" Do they really think that environmentalist David Suzuki carries the Earth on his shoulders, or that he somehow "has the whole world in his hands? Is He now to be equated with Jesus, or God?
That someone would conceive of this photo, that David Suzuki (who one can only assume has breathed in one too many cannisters of C02 and is now delusional) would agree to it, and that the CBC would actually take the time and effort to produce and publish it on their website, simply staggers the mind.
More and more I feel like I'm living in some alternate universe where common sense and balance have been suspended and replaced with environdementalist nutcrackers.
Please don't go to the site. The image you see there will quickly burn into your eyeballs and you'll want to go rinse them out.
OK, go if you must. But you've been forewarned. It's at www.cbc.ca.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
I logged on to the CBC website to see if I could catch some breaking news about the Anglican Church of Canada's slugfest in Winnipeg, where they are meeting to decide how unfaithful they want to be. I figured the CBC would be first to trumpet any "positive" news about same-sex blessings.
What I saw instead was so incredibly staggering I thought (as I did when I first saw the ad for Little Mosque on the Prairies) that I'd somehow wandered onto a CBC parody site.
But, no. Once again, this was the CBC website. This was, regrettably, real.
What I saw staggered the imagination. A picture of a nude (from the chest up) David Suzuki, holding up the Earth, beside a cheery headline, "Welcome to Our New Look!" Do they really think that environmentalist David Suzuki carries the Earth on his shoulders, or that he somehow "has the whole world in his hands? Is He now to be equated with Jesus, or God?
That someone would conceive of this photo, that David Suzuki (who one can only assume has breathed in one too many cannisters of C02 and is now delusional) would agree to it, and that the CBC would actually take the time and effort to produce and publish it on their website, simply staggers the mind.
More and more I feel like I'm living in some alternate universe where common sense and balance have been suspended and replaced with environdementalist nutcrackers.
Please don't go to the site. The image you see there will quickly burn into your eyeballs and you'll want to go rinse them out.
OK, go if you must. But you've been forewarned. It's at www.cbc.ca.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.
Friday, June 15, 2007
America the Not-So Beautiful
This from CNSNews.com:
During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.
& & &
A quarter million human lives sacrificed to abortion during one "fiscal year".
$300 million in taxpaper funding.
Profits of $55 million.
Pagan cultures that engaged in child-sacrifice or infanticide have nothing on America (or Canada for that matter).
In the case of infanticide, the intent is the same; only the technology has changed.
In the case of child-sacrifice, both have a religious component -- abortions are the devilish sacrament that goes with the feminist movement.
During its 2005-2006 fiscal year, the nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America performed a record 264,943 abortions, attained a high profit of $55.8 million and received record taxpayer funding of $305.3 million.
& & &
A quarter million human lives sacrificed to abortion during one "fiscal year".
$300 million in taxpaper funding.
Profits of $55 million.
Pagan cultures that engaged in child-sacrifice or infanticide have nothing on America (or Canada for that matter).
In the case of infanticide, the intent is the same; only the technology has changed.
In the case of child-sacrifice, both have a religious component -- abortions are the devilish sacrament that goes with the feminist movement.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Will the Courts Recognize Polygamy?
The Supreme Court of Canada recently recognized collective bargaining as a Charter right. Not that it's in the Charter, but don't let that stop anybody.
The courts interpret the Charter as they choose. We now have no idea what the Charter says or means until the courts tell us. Liberal PMs have stacked the deck with uber-leftist secularists and they are on a roll -- "we are woman hear us roar".
Will the courts recognize polygamy? Who knows? What we do know is that it won't be based on any grand or uplifting moral principle -- it will be based on nothing more than the subjective views of those who happen to inhabit the courts at the time.
If feminist power-politics prevails, the answer will probably be "no", even though there would be nothing stopping women from having multiple husbands.
If thinking rooted in sexual freedom prevails, or the fact that marriage is no longer viewed as a biological institution but one rooted in sexual preferences and politics, or the fact that polygamy might be useful in distancing the new Canada yet further from the bad-old judeo-christian one, as well as a way of accommodating (or appeasing) certain multicultural groups, the answer may be "yes".
Who knows?
And, if and when it happens, Canada may be so far gone that the question on many peoples' lips will be
"Who cares?"
After all, if a young girl can have two mothers as parents, why not two mothers and a dad?
And, if she can have two mothers and a dad, why not two mothers and a dad who are married?
& & &
Canada needs to return to its judeo-christian roots. If it doesn't it is finished as a free nation under God. It will one day find itself under an oppression much harsher than the soft Christian moral constraints it has so gleefully cast off.
Yes, God loves Canada. But, He is still God.
And he has solemnly declared that nations reap what they sow. A nation cannot reject the light of Christianity and expect to do so without consequences. The individuals who inhabit the Supreme Court and the Appeals Courts may feel that they can mock God's laws safely in the cocoon of secular ideology. But, the Scripture says that God is not mocked. The judges may believe that they are sovereign and secure, but one day they will stand before the Judge of the universe, and He will demand to know on what grounds they overturned his institution of marriage, why they made a mockery of His commandment, "you shall honr your FATHER AND your MOTHER and, why, in the name of tolerance, they insisted that Canada's schools teach its children the defiling knowledge of sodomy. The Scripture says, concerning those who cause offense to these little ones, that it would be better for them that a millstone were hung around their necks and they were cast into the sea.
The book of Revelation begins with a message about the One who loved us and washed us in his blood. But it also speaks of the wrath and fury of God against the wicked and the impenitent.
Canada needs to turn to God. It needs to do it NOW. A nation reaches a point where it has gone too far, its social structures and collective mind so reprobate that it becomes beyond God's redemptive call and ripe for judgment.
I'm not saying we're there (who knows?!), but I'm saying it's the direction in which we're headed.
May God save Canada, and strengthen and equip every little Christian who seeks, in his or her own imperfect way, to be salt and light in the midst of an increasingly wicked and perverse generation.
The courts interpret the Charter as they choose. We now have no idea what the Charter says or means until the courts tell us. Liberal PMs have stacked the deck with uber-leftist secularists and they are on a roll -- "we are woman hear us roar".
Will the courts recognize polygamy? Who knows? What we do know is that it won't be based on any grand or uplifting moral principle -- it will be based on nothing more than the subjective views of those who happen to inhabit the courts at the time.
If feminist power-politics prevails, the answer will probably be "no", even though there would be nothing stopping women from having multiple husbands.
If thinking rooted in sexual freedom prevails, or the fact that marriage is no longer viewed as a biological institution but one rooted in sexual preferences and politics, or the fact that polygamy might be useful in distancing the new Canada yet further from the bad-old judeo-christian one, as well as a way of accommodating (or appeasing) certain multicultural groups, the answer may be "yes".
Who knows?
And, if and when it happens, Canada may be so far gone that the question on many peoples' lips will be
"Who cares?"
After all, if a young girl can have two mothers as parents, why not two mothers and a dad?
And, if she can have two mothers and a dad, why not two mothers and a dad who are married?
& & &
Canada needs to return to its judeo-christian roots. If it doesn't it is finished as a free nation under God. It will one day find itself under an oppression much harsher than the soft Christian moral constraints it has so gleefully cast off.
Yes, God loves Canada. But, He is still God.
And he has solemnly declared that nations reap what they sow. A nation cannot reject the light of Christianity and expect to do so without consequences. The individuals who inhabit the Supreme Court and the Appeals Courts may feel that they can mock God's laws safely in the cocoon of secular ideology. But, the Scripture says that God is not mocked. The judges may believe that they are sovereign and secure, but one day they will stand before the Judge of the universe, and He will demand to know on what grounds they overturned his institution of marriage, why they made a mockery of His commandment, "you shall honr your FATHER AND your MOTHER and, why, in the name of tolerance, they insisted that Canada's schools teach its children the defiling knowledge of sodomy. The Scripture says, concerning those who cause offense to these little ones, that it would be better for them that a millstone were hung around their necks and they were cast into the sea.
The book of Revelation begins with a message about the One who loved us and washed us in his blood. But it also speaks of the wrath and fury of God against the wicked and the impenitent.
Canada needs to turn to God. It needs to do it NOW. A nation reaches a point where it has gone too far, its social structures and collective mind so reprobate that it becomes beyond God's redemptive call and ripe for judgment.
I'm not saying we're there (who knows?!), but I'm saying it's the direction in which we're headed.
May God save Canada, and strengthen and equip every little Christian who seeks, in his or her own imperfect way, to be salt and light in the midst of an increasingly wicked and perverse generation.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Globe Warming Strays Into the Delusional Realm
I picked up this gem concerning next week's G8 summit.
"next week’s G8 summit... would require leaders to agree to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius..."
More and more I feel like I'm living in some alternate universe where the world has gone mad.
World leaders are not content to merely control man's minor contribution to the temperature of the globe; the goal now is to control temperature in absolute terms. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "you shall be as gods".
* * *
The developed nations of the world will need to cooperate if they intend to meet this ambitious goal. Here are my suggestions for divvying up the responsibility for controlling world temperatures:
* The US will be in charge of controlling solar activity, including sunspots and flares
* The EU will be in charge of controlling world-wide volcanic activity
* Asia will be in charge of controlling El Ninos
* India will be responsible for putting a cork in methane gas levels produced by animals, especially cattle
* Canada's role will be to grumble and complain about anything/everything the US is doing while benefiting from US defense, US protection of international waters, US acting as an inhibitor to hostile nations aggression, US market proximity to Canada, etc.
"next week’s G8 summit... would require leaders to agree to prevent global temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius..."
More and more I feel like I'm living in some alternate universe where the world has gone mad.
World leaders are not content to merely control man's minor contribution to the temperature of the globe; the goal now is to control temperature in absolute terms. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "you shall be as gods".
* * *
The developed nations of the world will need to cooperate if they intend to meet this ambitious goal. Here are my suggestions for divvying up the responsibility for controlling world temperatures:
* The US will be in charge of controlling solar activity, including sunspots and flares
* The EU will be in charge of controlling world-wide volcanic activity
* Asia will be in charge of controlling El Ninos
* India will be responsible for putting a cork in methane gas levels produced by animals, especially cattle
* Canada's role will be to grumble and complain about anything/everything the US is doing while benefiting from US defense, US protection of international waters, US acting as an inhibitor to hostile nations aggression, US market proximity to Canada, etc.
Atheists and Reason
Atheists reason believe they believe the that reason is a reliable world makes rational sense.
* * *
The preceding sentence was strung together by random evolutionary word-forces. Give it time and eventually it will self-organize into a beautifully coherent sentence.
Meanwhile, it always strikes me as odd that atheists have such exuberant faith in reason.
First of all, why should something like reason, along with abstact thinking, and logic, even exist in an uncreated, purely materialistic universe? Shouldn't the universe just be chemical drips?
Secondly, why should an theist think that reasoning should make sense, be logically coherent, and be believed? Why shouldn't reason be just like the semi-random words strung together at the top of this post -- nonsensical, illogical, and without any grounding in or correspondence with objective, absolute truth (if there even is such a thing)?
Thirdly, even if atheists can reconcile their atheistic beliefs with this beautiful thing we call reason (which is close to the heart of who Jesus Christ is -- consider the book of Proverbs, and the doctrine of the Logos), how can they possibly trust anything that pops into or out of their undesigned, junkyard brains?
It is rational for Christians to make full use of reason -- we believe that the universe makes sense, that it consists of both material and immaterial realities, that God created us in His image, designed our brains, and is responsible for the existence of reason, logic, abstract thought, etc.
When atheists try to demonstrate the non-existence of God through the employment of reason, they're inadvertently supporting the other side of the argument -- the very fact that they believe in reason, which makes absolutely no sense in an uncreated, undesigned universe.
It's easy to be a logically coherent and consistent Christian; it is very difficult to be a logically coherent and consistent atheist.
They keep trying to snuff God out; they just can't seem to manage it because it would entail complete intellectual nihilism -- a complete denial that anything they're saying makes sense, has any relevance or importance to anything, or should be believed by others.
And that's the Ball the way the the drip drip bounces.
* * *
The preceding sentence was strung together by random evolutionary word-forces. Give it time and eventually it will self-organize into a beautifully coherent sentence.
Meanwhile, it always strikes me as odd that atheists have such exuberant faith in reason.
First of all, why should something like reason, along with abstact thinking, and logic, even exist in an uncreated, purely materialistic universe? Shouldn't the universe just be chemical drips?
Secondly, why should an theist think that reasoning should make sense, be logically coherent, and be believed? Why shouldn't reason be just like the semi-random words strung together at the top of this post -- nonsensical, illogical, and without any grounding in or correspondence with objective, absolute truth (if there even is such a thing)?
Thirdly, even if atheists can reconcile their atheistic beliefs with this beautiful thing we call reason (which is close to the heart of who Jesus Christ is -- consider the book of Proverbs, and the doctrine of the Logos), how can they possibly trust anything that pops into or out of their undesigned, junkyard brains?
It is rational for Christians to make full use of reason -- we believe that the universe makes sense, that it consists of both material and immaterial realities, that God created us in His image, designed our brains, and is responsible for the existence of reason, logic, abstract thought, etc.
When atheists try to demonstrate the non-existence of God through the employment of reason, they're inadvertently supporting the other side of the argument -- the very fact that they believe in reason, which makes absolutely no sense in an uncreated, undesigned universe.
It's easy to be a logically coherent and consistent Christian; it is very difficult to be a logically coherent and consistent atheist.
They keep trying to snuff God out; they just can't seem to manage it because it would entail complete intellectual nihilism -- a complete denial that anything they're saying makes sense, has any relevance or importance to anything, or should be believed by others.
And that's the Ball the way the the drip drip bounces.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Separation of Church and State -- A One-Way Street?
The PEI human rights commission is at it again. A while back that they ruled that a Christian couple's devoutly held beliefs concerning human sexuality would not be respected; they were fined and told to submit to Communist-style state propaganda films on the joys of men having sex with other men.
They declined, and closed down their bed-and-breakfast business instead.
Although they would deny it, the human rights commission effectively put them out of business. To them, the answer is simple: every one should bow down to the god they worship: Tolerance. What a great, swinging country we could become if only everyone would get with the program.
In their latest ruling, the rights commission has upheld the complaint of a defrocked minister who disobeyed the explicit injunctions of Scripture and took her grievance with the Presbyterian Church to the rabidly secular human rights commission. They unheld her unlawful dismissal case, granted her $600,000 (!), and, worse, demanded that the Presbyterian Church not only apologize and give her a good job reference, but also rehire her, and not just as an employee, but as a minister.
If this is not an intrusion of the state into the affairs of a religious organization, what is?
They could uphold the aggrieved woman's complaint, they could levy a fine, they could even insist that the Presbyterian Church provide her with employment, but when the secular human rights commission deems to know better than a religious organization who is fit and qualified and suitable to be a minister, they have crossed the line.
Once again, when push comes to shove, it is religious rights that are diminished by Canada's huge and growing state apparatus used to enforce its views on rights.
The Charter of Rights did not secure Canadians' religious rights, it put them under state control. And the state is using its power to diminish fundamental rights, not secure them.
$600,000 is a huge sum of money for any Island Church. The Church, and the cause of Christ, has been damaged. The Presbyterian Church is appealing the decision.
My prayers are with them.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
They declined, and closed down their bed-and-breakfast business instead.
Although they would deny it, the human rights commission effectively put them out of business. To them, the answer is simple: every one should bow down to the god they worship: Tolerance. What a great, swinging country we could become if only everyone would get with the program.
In their latest ruling, the rights commission has upheld the complaint of a defrocked minister who disobeyed the explicit injunctions of Scripture and took her grievance with the Presbyterian Church to the rabidly secular human rights commission. They unheld her unlawful dismissal case, granted her $600,000 (!), and, worse, demanded that the Presbyterian Church not only apologize and give her a good job reference, but also rehire her, and not just as an employee, but as a minister.
If this is not an intrusion of the state into the affairs of a religious organization, what is?
They could uphold the aggrieved woman's complaint, they could levy a fine, they could even insist that the Presbyterian Church provide her with employment, but when the secular human rights commission deems to know better than a religious organization who is fit and qualified and suitable to be a minister, they have crossed the line.
Once again, when push comes to shove, it is religious rights that are diminished by Canada's huge and growing state apparatus used to enforce its views on rights.
The Charter of Rights did not secure Canadians' religious rights, it put them under state control. And the state is using its power to diminish fundamental rights, not secure them.
$600,000 is a huge sum of money for any Island Church. The Church, and the cause of Christ, has been damaged. The Presbyterian Church is appealing the decision.
My prayers are with them.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
The Kennedy Airport Terrorist Plot -- Reuters vs. Associated Press
BEST REPORTING --------
"NEW YORK — Four Muslim men were foiled from carrying out a plot to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighbourhoods, authorities said Saturday." -- Adam Goldman, Associated Press (carried by CBS and the Globe and Mail)
GOOD REPORTING --------
NEW YORK — Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a "chilling" attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods. -- FOX News
NOT GOOD REPORTING --------
"Four men have been charged by U.S. authorities in an alleged plot to blow up New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, a law enforcement official says." -- CNN
"U.S. authorities arrested and charged three men and searched for a fourth suspect Saturday in an alleged plot that included blowing up fuel tanks and a pipeline line into New York's John F. Kennedy airport." -- CBC
BAD REPORTING --------
"Four people have been charged in the US over a plot to bomb John F Kennedy airport in New York, US officials said." -- BBC
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Four people, including a former member of Guyana's parliament, have been charged with planning to blow up New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, U.S. officials said on Saturday." -- Chris Michaud, Reuters (carried by the National Post)
AND THE WINNERS ARE --------
The winner for direct news reporting: Adam Goldman, Associated Press
The winner for sanitizing the news: Chris Michaud, Reuters and The BBC.
"NEW YORK — Four Muslim men were foiled from carrying out a plot to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighbourhoods, authorities said Saturday." -- Adam Goldman, Associated Press (carried by CBS and the Globe and Mail)
GOOD REPORTING --------
NEW YORK — Federal authorities announced Saturday they had broken up a suspected Muslim terrorist cell planning a "chilling" attack to destroy John F. Kennedy International Airport, kill thousands of people and trigger an economic catastrophe by blowing up a jet fuel artery that runs through populous residential neighborhoods. -- FOX News
NOT GOOD REPORTING --------
"Four men have been charged by U.S. authorities in an alleged plot to blow up New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, a law enforcement official says." -- CNN
"U.S. authorities arrested and charged three men and searched for a fourth suspect Saturday in an alleged plot that included blowing up fuel tanks and a pipeline line into New York's John F. Kennedy airport." -- CBC
BAD REPORTING --------
"Four people have been charged in the US over a plot to bomb John F Kennedy airport in New York, US officials said." -- BBC
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Four people, including a former member of Guyana's parliament, have been charged with planning to blow up New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, U.S. officials said on Saturday." -- Chris Michaud, Reuters (carried by the National Post)
AND THE WINNERS ARE --------
The winner for direct news reporting: Adam Goldman, Associated Press
The winner for sanitizing the news: Chris Michaud, Reuters and The BBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)