Hard of Hearing

A Canadian court has ruled that the deaf are entitled to expect professional sign language interpreters at all government-provided offices and facilities in the country.

This means that the government must now provide all services in English, all services in French, and all services in ASL.

And, since the court defined this as a right, it means that all Canadians have a duty to provide these facilities.

And that's what's wrong with this ruling.

The deaf community may have lobbied for these services, and our society may have democratically decided to provide them, and that would have been a good, even wonderful thing.

But when the deaf demand this as a right, and a court imposes it on the country, it becomes a bad thing.

If sign-language interpretation is a positive human right, then the rest of us become obligated to provide it; we are no longer free citizens, but slaves to the rights of others and to the Charter and its unelected, unaccountable judges.

Quote of the Day

William F. Buckley Jr. quoting a Viennese critic:

"The trouble with socialism is socialism. The trouble with capitalism is capitalists."

The United Church vs. Jesus Christ

Someone has suggested that if Jesus were Canadian, he would be a member of the United Church of Canada, because of its far-left social views (the latest being the idea of banning bottled water).

Would Jesus join the UCC? I doubt it. Firstly, I doubt he would be attracted to its watered-down gospel. Secondly, unless he "repented" of his fundamentalist mindset, I doubt that he would be welcome. Actually, I take that back. The UCC welcomes everybody, regardless of belief. But would he be welcomed into the corridors of power within the UCC?

Perhaps the the question should be, "would the UCC accept Jesus' application to be an ordained UCC minister".

Let's consider the UCC vs. Jesus Christ:

"My Father..." -- offensive

"Our Father..." -- still offensive

"I am the Way, no person comes to the Father but by ME" -- offensive

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; he who believes not shall be damned" -- offensive

"Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish" -- offensive

"I am THE Truth" -- offensive

"He who is angry with his brother without cause is in danger of hell fire" -- offensive

"Think not that I have come to bring peace on the earth" -- offensive

"This is the new covenant in my blood... -- offensive

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus just wouldn't be considered "Christian enough" to be ordained within the UCC.

Urination and the right to free speech

The woman who caused a US-bound plane to be diverted to Boston apparently urinated on the floor, as if this was some big deal:

"About 35 minutes later, when she tried to go to the bathroom, the flight attendants directed her to a different lavatory. Instead, she pulled down her pants and urinated on the floor..."

Given the context, she was clearly making a statement of protest. Surely urinating on the floor constitutes a form of speech, protected under the Constitution. Once again we see the Bush Republicans trampling on basic human rights by insisting that people use lavatories. Are we going to lose all our freedoms? Are we going to take this sitting down like women, or stand up like men?

I would just say to her, "Yer innately expressive, aren't you?

If we lose our Constitutional right to urinate on the floor of an aircraft, the Republicans and Terrorists have won.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

The Well-Meaning Stephen Lewis

I have been to a hospital in Africa. The squalor, the stench, the deprivation, are unimaginable. Relatives have to bring the sick food to eat, or they go without. There are no elevators, so you walk the stairs, trying to ignore the stench and the decades-old peeling paint on the wall.

Now, into this context of extreme and pervasive poverty, where there is virtually no medical supplies or facilities, we have well-meaning western groups wanting to flood impoverished HIV/AIDS victims with life-extending drugs. It is all out of proportion. They barely have enough to eat.

There are just as many people who are sick with other ailments -- TB, malaria, etc. who are equally deserving, and yet we apparently care little or nothing for them; only for those inflicted with one particular disease transmitted through sexual promiscuity -- which is absolutely rampant.

I saw one of my students die before my eyes, in a public ward with about 40 other sick or dying patients. There was no money for care or treatment. Facilities were practically non-existent. The aid being suggested by the West is out of all proportion to the situation.

The only message that will save Africa is one of sexual responsibility involving abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within it. Period. And, that's the only message they can afford.

Branded

When it comes to brand recognition, here are some that immediately come to mind:

Western Brands: Coca-Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, McDonalds

Asian Brands: Sony, Toyota, Samsung, BenQ

Muslim Brands: al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah

What a bunch of under-achievers! No wonder they're mad at their underachieving status vis-a-vis the West. Western civilization has rolled right over them and they're stuck somewhere in the middle ages, dreaming of achieving Islamic domination by force. So, they attack our buildings, they attack our planes, they attack our trains, they attack our subways, they attack our religion.

I wouldn't trade my religion, rooted in the warm love of God, for theirs, rooted in cold submission to Allah, for anything. I can sleep peacefully at night knowing that Christ, not "Allah" is Lord, and that He has reconciled me to God His Father through His death on the cross.

I wouldn't trade this for anything.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

The Authenticity of Christianity: Too good not to be true

There is a difference between asking for evidence of something and demanding proof.

Of course Christianity remains a matter of faith -- that's the whole point. Christ said, "The person who believes, and is baptized shall be saved, the person who does not believe shall be damned".

Christianity, at its core, is a message, than can be accepted or rejected or ignored. The Originator claimed that what one did with this message would determine their eternal destiny.

The "evidences" (not "proofs") that come to mind for the authenticity of Christianity include the following:

1. The superior moral/ethical nature of the Jewish Scriptures -- especially when compared to what was being written by contemporaries, as evidence that the Jewish Bible is an authentic revelation of the one true God. Contemporary dieties were often capricious and arbitrary. Yahweh is a God of scrupulous justice.

2. The prophecies in the Old Testament which predict a coming Messiah and the establishment of a new covenant.

3. The numerous OT prophecies which were fulfilled in Christ -- many fulfilled on the day of his fateful death.

4. The ring of truth concerning the NT stories, such as the conversion of Peter, of Paul, the arguments, the disagreements, the successes, the failures, the realistic view of shortcomings and failures among those professing faith in Christ.

5. The eyewitness testimonies concerning the resurrection appearances of Christ.

6. The fact that the NT scriptures were not written hundreds of years and hundreds of miles away from the events they purport to describe, but, rather, written in the very milieu and within the same lifetime of the events portrayed. In other words, if miraculous healings had not in fact occurred, if the body of Christ had not "gone missing", etc. contemporaries could have easily disproved and dismissed the spurious claims of the apostles.

7. The missing body of Christ. Given the historical events surrounding Christ's death, including the posting of the Roman guard, etc., no satisfactory alternative explanation has been given concerning what happened to his body. Obviously, if either the Roman or Jewish authorities had his body, they would have produced it, and it would have been "game over". If the Christians had it, you have to ask how they could have gotten it, given the Roman guard, and why they would bother suffering the social ostracization, the imprisonment, and even death, for a message that they themselves knew to be false.

8. The uniform and unchanging witness of the apostles to the resurrection of Christ, to the point of death. Being willing to die for a belief does not make it true. And people may be willing to die for a belief that the believe to be true but is not, but how many people are willing to die for a belief that they know to be untrue? Even secular historians today admit that the evidence supports the idea that the apostles themselves believed Jesus to have risen from the dead.

9. The apostles were not fanatical or even prone to being particularly religious (with the exception of the apostle Paul). They came from a variety of backgrounds, from semi-literate fishermen to members of higher social standing.

10. The apostle Paul's message and ministry was accepted and validated by the apostles who were direct eye-witnesses to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

11. The early Church fathers quote almost every verse of NT Scripture in their writings, which precede the formal canonization of Scripture. This shows that the Roman Catholic Church did not "decide" which books would be authoritative, as some like to suggest to today. Rather, the Church met and ratified the books that were already in widespread circulation and which already enjoyed, unlike the spurious gnostic texts, widespread acceptance within the Church universal.

12. There is about 1,000 times more manuscript evidence for the text of the New Testament than any other ancient writing.

13. Jesus said that in the last days the nations of the world would surround Israel. For 1,900 years this could have not been fulfilled, since Israel ceased to exist. This prophecy of Jesus is now fulfillable, in our generation. The book of Revelation speaks of believers from every tribe and nation being gathered. If Christianity had fizzled, this Scripture would have gone unfullfilled. In fact, the gospel has prospered, and now has adherents in most if not all countries of the world.

14. The New Testament speaks of sin, and not just sin in an outward kind of way, but sin going down to the deepest motives and misdirected desires of the human heart. Its authentic and accurate diagnosis of the condition of the human heart lends credibility to its prescribed remedies.

15. Unlike other religions which allow for human merit and effort, Christianity is humbling to man's pride. It says that there is nothing we can do to be worthy of a holy God, or to merit his acceptance. The good news is that there is a way to God. But it is His way, not ours. It is His provision, and not our efforts. So it is very humbling -- exactly what we need.

16. Unlike Islam, which demands submission to Allah, the NT record makes it clear that God honours the free-will that he gave mankind in the beginning. A message is presented. This message can be believed, and acted upon, or rejected. The NT record says that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance. But He is not going to force anybody to love Him or submit to His gentle yoke.

17. Moderns tend to think that they have a love for truth that the ancients did not possess. So we tend to think that we have a love for objective truth while the ancients were happy just to make stuff up. Reading the early Church historian Eusebius will correct this false idea. It is clear from his writings that Christians from the get-go were very concerned with the factual and truthful nature of their beliefs. Christianity is a faith that is rooted in historical events. The historical events are not just important to the Christian faith, they are indispensible.

18. For various philosophical and mathematical reasons, humans are stuck with the logical necessity for a Creator. The fact that we live in a space-time universe means that the universe had a definite beginning, a start-point, prior to which it did not exist. How do we know this? One "proof" is based on the logical finiteness of time. If time were eternal, that would mean that there were an infinite number of past points in time, meaning we could never arrive at the "present" -- there would be an infinite number of past prior moments which would preclude arriving at the present one. Anyone who believes that the present exists, logically must believe in a finite universe.

19. Another evidence is based on an argument first raised by Christian monks, but refined by Islamic thinkers. It goes like this. A) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. B) The universe began to exist. C) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause we understand to be God.

20. Whoever or whatever created the universe must logically possess certain attributes. These include eternality, existence outside of time-space; great power; personality (since it is illogical for a greater Creator to create a lesser creation that has attributes that the Creator Himself/Itself does not possess); creativity; and we could even infer such things as goodness, love, etc. as we see these to a lesser degree in the created creatures.

21. While this kind of Creator can be logically deduced, we see in the world around us evidence of discreation, of chaos, of blight, decay, cruelty -- evil. The Old Testament witness to the entrance of evil into the world, and the despoiling of it is accepted as an integral part of the Christian worldview.

22. The NT testifies of a divine corrective to the disorder that is presently seen in the world. Sin will be destroyed. Death will be destroyed. The rebellion will be quashed. And God's order and kingdom will be established. It even gives the name of the Person who is going to pull this off. Without this, sin wins, rebellion wins, evil wins.

23. The words of Christ. Even is completely false, they are fantastic. "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me". "I am the Bread of Life". "I am the Resurrection and the Life". "Before Abraham was, I am". "I am the Door, by me if any many enter in...". Where did these thoughts, these words come from? Collusion on the part of the apostles? Or did Jesus really say them? And, if he really said them, then who is he? Delusional lunatic? Demented liar? Or,... "Who do men say that I am"? "Who do you say that I am". And Peter's confession, "You are the Christ the Son of the Living God".

Please note that I am not trying to meet your demand to "prove" anything. I am simply trying to show that Christianity is a faith that, while remaining faith, is based on reason and evidences, and that, given all the facts of observable human existence, including consciousness (difficult to describe in purely materialistic terms), conscience, ingrained sense-of-justice, the reality of immaterial things such as mathematics and logic, the longings of the human heart for immortality, the existence of love, the logical necessity of a Creator, etc. etc., Christianity provides the best explanation of reality as it exists, of the human condition as it exists, and, if we accept that there is a God, the best revelation of His character, and HIs program with regards to humankind.

The fact that He would sacrifice His Son to win us makes Him just about irresistible in my mind. The fact that He would not only forgive the repentant rebels, but elevate us to the status of adopted sons and daughters for eternity, makes Him a God worthy of worship. And this message -- adoption through propitiation -- is so mind-blowing, it provides the final evidence that the gospel is something other than of merely human origins.

The gospel -- too good not to be true.

The five Israeli soldiers

The three Israeli soldiers who were killed by the initial incursion by Hezbollah remain firmly dead. And the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers remain in the hands of a vicious, murderous terrorist organization. It is incredibly generous and accommodating of Israel to agree to stop fighting on the mere promise of the return of these soldiers and the forced disbanding of Hezbollah. The eyes of the world are now on Lebanon, Hezbollah, and the UN, to see if they will fulfill their promises to Israel.

Canadians shouldn't feel so smug

An article came out today saying that a sizeable minority of Americans reject Darwinian evolution (which Canadians accept as established fact. So Canadians are feeling quite smug today. But should we be?

Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing. Scientists believed in evolution within species prior to Darwin -- and this is what people cite when they say that evolution has been observed and has been "proven".

Darwin lost his faith in God and sought to discover a natural, materialistic explanation for the teeming complexity of life on this planet. His theory arose from this viewpoint. So Darwinian evolution is not really objective science; it is driven by the philosophy of materialism and a desire to disprove the necessity of a Creator. So, when someone says they are a darwinist, they are really making a philosophical statement about themself more than a scientific one.

Even if the evolution of species could be proven, Darwin's central tenet, that random selection (rather than directed design) is the mechanism, would be completely unproveable. So, Darwinism is no more "scientific" than intelligent design, in the sense that neither can be "proven".

To settle the argument, you need to step back and consider the origin of the universe.

For various reasons, we are stuck with the conclusion that the universe -- time and space -- had a definite begininng. And that has us staring face to face with the likelihood, the probability that the world is in fact the product of an eternal Creator who exists outside of it. The design that we see in the present world confirms this. So, intelligent design becomes in fact more likely than random chance as an explanation for how we got to where we are today.

As it turns out, Americans are quite sensible to say that they reject darwinian evolution. Canadians shouldn't be so smug.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Live and Let Live?

The list is in. And, once again, we find the would-be perpetrators of the British bombing plot are Muslims.

Someone suggested yesterday on a G&M List that "if we got out of their countries, they wouldn't be doing this". Since these were all mostly British-born Brits, shall all non-Muslim Brits leave Britain?

The fact is, Islam has spread a poisonous ideology of hate and conquest world-wide. And let's be clear: their goal is not to avenge grievances; it is world domination.

This is not about live-and-let-live; this is about live-and-let-die.

Which Side to Cheer For?

Hezbollah vs. Israel. Still undecided? Here are ten guidelines to aid in your decision.

1. If you have to choose between one side that distributes candy to children when human lives are lost and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

2. If you have to choose between one side that puts up billboards facing the other country showing the decapitated head of one of the other side's soldiers (along with provocative commentary), and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

3. If you have to choose between one side that uses suicide bombers and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

4. If you have to choose between one side which seeks the annihilation of its neighbor, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

5. If you have to choose between one side controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other that isn't, choose the side that isn't.

6. If you have to choose between one side that warns citizens in advance that bombs are on their way, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that does.

7. If you have to choose between one side which locates offensive military weapons in residential areas and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

8. If you have to choose between one side whose combatants dress in civilian clothing and the other side which doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

9. If you have to choose between one side which teaches its children to hate their neighbour and instills in them the desire to be suicide bombers and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

10. Finally, if you have to choose between one side which treats dead children as photo ops and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

British Terror Plot to Blow up American Planes

The BBC is reporting today that a massive plot to blow up American planes leaving Britain has been thwarted. Arrests have been made. The good new is this: not one word in either the announcement by law enforcement officials or the press has even suggested that this plot might involve Muslim extremists.

Which would be great for the multicultural belief that all cultures, belief systems and religions are equal.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

The Ten Commendments -- How to choose which side to support

Still wondering which side to root for in the middle east dispute between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas? Here are ten tips to aid in decision-making for the undecided. I commend them to you:

1. If you have to choose between one side that distributes candy to children when human lives are lost and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

2. If you have to choose between one side that puts up billboards facing the other country showing the decapitated head of one of the other side's soldiers (along with provocative commentary), and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

3. If you have to choose between one side that uses suicide bombers and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

4. If you have to choose between one side which seeks the annihilation of its neighbor, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

5. If you have to choose between one side controlled by Muslim terrorists and the other that isn't, choose the side that isn't.

6. If you have to choose between one side that warns citizens in advance that bombs are on their way, and the other that doesn't, choose the side that does.

7. If you have to choose between one side which locates offensive military weapons in residential areas and one that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

8. If you have to choose between one side whose combatants dress in civilian clothing and the other side which doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

9. If you have to choose between one side which teaches its children to hate their neighbour and instills in them the desire to be suicide bombers and the other side that doesn't, choose the side that doesn't.

10. Finally, if you still can't decide: if you have to decide between one side which is God's ancient chosen people restored to the land of their forefathers, and the other side that isn't, choose the side that is.

The United Church weighs in...

The United Church is one of those Christian organizations that disconnected itself from its Christian roots in the 1960s. Since then it has embraced homosexuality and a very inclusive view of who gets to go to heaven, and busied itself with do-gooding. In other words, it has become profoundly irrelevant.

The UC General Secretary has written a rather long and self-important letter to the National Post, responding to some intemperate remarks concerning Israel, made by a UC minion.

A letter-writer lamented that these remarks could harm Judeo-Christian relations.

Here's my take on that:

Citizens need not be overly concerned that pronouncements by the United Church may hurt Judeo-Christian relations. The United Church, in abandoning hard biblical revelation for feel-good doism, ceased being a Christian voice some time ago. As for the self-important response from the General Secretary, someone should let him in on a little secret: what the United Church thinks is profoundly irrelevant to all but itself.

"Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?"

Time Magazine asked Episcopal Bishop-Elect Katherine Jefferts Schori the following question:

"Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?"

This is her response:

"We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box."

In fact the "box" that God placed Himself in order to secure our eternal salvation was even more narrow than she may have had in mind. It was hammered in place with cruel nails. And it was agonizing.

For her to suggest that this box -- the Cross -- was just "a way" of getting to heaven not only represents a complete heart-betrayal of the Lord she claims to represent, it makes God look like an idiot for asking His Son to submit to the degradation and suffering of the Cross, and then to say, "oops", not "the way", just "a way".

The other point I want to make is this: I've noticed that liberal Christians are self-centred in their statements, not God-centred. Notice the self-orientation of her statement.

"WE who practice the Christian tradition understand him as OUR vehicle to the divine. But for US to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, [FOR US] to put God in an awfully small box."

It's all about "us"; they don't worship God; they worship themselves.

I will do what they will not. I will publicly praise our God and Saviour for His redemptive work on the Cross. And belittle myself by saying that I have done, am doing, and can do absolutely nothing to either merit His redeeming love or to add to or improve upon what He did for me on the cross. And I will declare that it's all about HIM, and not about me, or "us", or what we think.

And I will state what they dare not because they would rather make themselves look good at the expense of truth than offend anyone: Jesus is not just some way, or a way, or "our" way, He is THE way. And He is not just our truth, or a truth, or a witness to the truth, or even just someone who spoke the truth: He IS THE TRUTH. And He's not just an example, or one among many witnesses to God, or a good teacher, or someone who points the way to eternal life; He is the life. If you have Him, you have life; if you don't have him, you don't.

And just so there is no mistake, I'll make it even clearer:

No one, and by that I mean no one, comes to the Father, except by Him -- the One whom the Father Himself sent, spoke about from Heaven at His baptism, and Whom the Father raised from the dead to gloriously validate His message and claim to be the Son of God.

Until this woman is willing to submit to this gospel truth she should get out of the business. She is not a Christian leader. She is a fake, as phony as a three-dollar bill, and, worse, a false prophet whose damnable opinions will lead to many going to hell instead of heaven.

I hope that was clear enough.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

1,000,000 Displaced in Lebanon and Israel

The big headline in the Huffington Post today is "1,000,000 displaced in Lebanon. Other liberal media outlets were harping on the same point yesterday.

There are also 1,000,000 Israelis displaced or living in bomb shelters.

Don't they count?

Apparently not.

I guess, despite the fact that Hezbollah started this conflict, in an unprovoked premeditated attack on Israel's security and integrity, that the world has decided that Israel is the aggressor.

Or maybe the lives of terrorists and those who harbour them count, but innocent Israeli lives don't.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Islam is on the move

Canada lost another four soldiers today in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the killing in Iraq continues, as does the suffering in Israel and Lebanon precipitated by Islamic madness.

It seems that the devils of hell have invaded Islam and are unleashing their fury on the world.

Perhaps Armageddon and the Day of the Lord is not as far off as we might think. It certainly seems that things are being maneuvered into position for some kind of major conflagration. Islam is on the move, and the West is weakening by the day; having abandoned the brightness of Christian revelation, it has fallen into a death-wish spiral.

Such sadness Islamic militants and terrorists have brought into our lives and the lives of so many -- including the Americans, Brits, Australians, Israelis, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Afghanistans, Iraqis, and others.

The theology and visions of world domination nurtured in the bosoms of Islamists are false, delusionary, and deadly; they must be opposed with resolute steadfastness.

And Christians should pray. It a duty and primary occupation of believers in the God who is Light, and not darkness, Truth, and not falsehood, Love, and not hate, Holy, and not profane.

In other words, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ -- the one and only true God, for whom Islam has substituted a pale, false inferior -- "Allah".

Just in case there's any doubt, let me make it explicitly clear: Allah is not the same person as the God of the Old and New Testaments. Muhammed, unlike the Jesus Christ and the prophets of the Old Testament, was a false prophet. And Islam, while it may include some truth, is a false revelation, one which denies Christianity at every critical point.

And because it is false, those who follow it ardently cannot help but be filled with delusionary ideas.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

The Ceasefire...

Israel's agreement to a ceasefire shows that they listen to world opinion.

Time and time again Islamic terrorist groups in the ME have violated ceasefire agreements. Their word is worthless. With the Lebanese government unable or unwilling to eliminate Hezbollah, Israel effectively has no one to negotiate with except terrorists -- who understand only one language -- the language of force.

Cuba: "Hugely Successful"

The headline struck my eye.

Cuba: The Accidental Revolution: A look at the country's hugely successful...

Quiz Time:

Do you think this headline about Cuba's huge success came from

a) FOX News

b) the National Post

c) the CBC

d) the Toronto Star.

Hint: I don't read the Toronto Star.

Scroll down for the answer.











Answer: The CBC, of course. It's the Nature of Things. As a bonus, the show in question features Canada's own David Suzuki.

Here's more, taken from the CBC's website.

"Without fertilizer and pesticides, Cubans turned to organic methods. [organic good; non-organic bad] Without fuel and machinery parts, Cubans turned to oxen. [oxen good; machinery bad] Without fuel to transport food, Cubans started to grow food in the cities where it is consumed. [trucking bad; growing in your back yard good] Urban gardens were established in vacant lots, school playgrounds, patios and back yards. As a result Cuba created the largest program in sustainable agriculture ever undertaken. By 1999 Cuba's agricultural production had recovered and in some cases reached historic levels."

Ah yes, oxen. Urban gardens. Can't wait. And what is it with this trendy "sustainable agriculture" thing? Haven't human beings been sustaining agriculture for millenia? And aren't western nations growing ever more food more efficiently than ever?

The blurb continues:

"In Cuba: The Accidental Revolution (Part 2) we learn that the country has been blockaded since 1961"

[really? - Cuba good; blockade bad, USA bad]

"but today Cuba has the highest quality of life in the region, the highest life expectancy, and one of the highest literacy rates in all of Latin America." [dictatorship good; freedom bad]

Higher than Florida, just off the Cuban coastline?

And, does living in a dictatorship with political oppression and religious intolerance and persecution contribute to or maybe even be the source of this high quality of life?

And, if the quality of life is so great, why are Canadian churches engaged in relief and charity to Cuba?

Just wondering.

But, in the skewered way that the CBC thinks, Cuba is an enemy of the USA, so it's a friend of Canada and the CBC. Plus, it's completely socialist -- they probably have their own CBC. Maybe they could do news anchor exchanges. They wouldn't even have to change their CBC logos.

Someday, the whole world will be socialist, if the CBC gets its way. The ideal would be for us to hand over all our earnings to the government, so they could redistribute it and do all kinds of good things. Oh, if only Jack Layton ruled Canada. I've even got a motto he could use: "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need".

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Proportionate Response -- the Terrorists were counting on it

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said the other day that he was surprised by Israel's response to its border incursion and the killing, kidnapping, and bombing of Israel. It never expected Israel to launch a war over just two kidnapped soldiers. He expected Israel to respond, but in a tit-for-tat kind of way, leading to a prisoner exchange.

In other words, he was counting on a "proportional response".

There was even just a hint of grievance in his words, suggesting that Hezbollah had been blind-sided by the Israeli response, that Israel wasn't playing fair, or by terrorist rules.

Terrorists favour binding a sovereign nation to a proportional response.

Knowing that a state is limited to a proportional response makes it safe for terrorists to do their work. It's a ground-rule they favour. It turns kidnapping and murder into a proportional game that can be safely played. It allows the terrorists to enjoy the continued support of the native population within which they reside.

What he was not counting on was a disproportionate response made on Israel's terms.

The nations of the world, with the notable exception of the Anglosphere (USA/Canada/Australia) immediately attempted to tie Israel's hands and restrict its response, as if they ought to be bound to the same scope and proportionality as the terrorists. What is needed is for aggrieved nations to be free to make an "unpredictable response" to an unprovoked attack. Sometimes take the blow, sometimes respond in-kind, sometimes, a massive retaliation. Terrorists should never know what the response will be.

Terrorists heartily endorse the dogma of proportional response.

Should we?

This just in...

From the Jerusalem Post --

"Leaders of American Muslim and Arab groups urged the FBI on Wednesday to be sensitive when scrutinizing activities by the Hizbullah on US soil."

This is the same bunch that bombed the US Embassy in Beirut -- an act of war against the US.

For their part, they are now demanding their "rights".

And what are they doing on US soil to begin with?

"PEI Voters Furious"

"PEI Voters Furious".

So says the headline in this morning's G&M, online edition.

I'm reporting on the ground here in PEI. The situation at the moment is calm. But hostilities could break out at any moment. People are congregating at the local Tims to decide the next course of action.

Greivances? Of course we have grievances. Sure we get federal equalization payments out the wazoo, but to show our appreciation we charge people "from away" double on their PEI property taxes. So it all equals out.

And PEI does not have 100,000 people as some have suggested; we are 140,000 strong -- but still a minority, a small, tiny, miniscule, powerless minority -- with minority entitlements and rights! Since entitlement rights are inversely proportional to the perceived powerlessness of the group, we are mightily entitled. So, get back to work, Ontario Steve, we need the money!

Don't forget, Charlottetown is the "Cradle of Confederation"; that means that the rest of the nation is eternally in our debt! Don't call us "just another province" -- like Quebec. We have 140,000 people. 4 federal MPs. 30 or 40 MLAs. Mayors, councillors, you name it. The Feds are building another huge building in the centre of town to show the power of taxation and the benefits of Confederation; there are federal-government-subsidized busses roaming the city -- empty!

But things could erupt at any moment. Will keep you posted.

Am taking shelter now.

From the depths of the Earth - the Word of God is heard

Boopchile will like this one.

Yesterday's news featured the remarkable discovery of a manuscript in an Irish bog. The manuscript contained the book of Psalms, or at least a section from it. It had been preserved for over a thousand years in the bog, uncovered by an excavator, and then miraculously noticed by the operator of the digging machine. It was in extremely fragile condition, but the supervisor sensibly covered it with moist earth until the custodians of such things could take responsibility for it.

The CBC described the find as a book of small-p psalms. They failed to indicated that these were in fact Psalms, i.e., from the Bible. The Globe and Mail did one better. Their headline referred to the find as a "Book of Songs", mentioned psalms in the text, but no reference to the Bible or the Christian context.

What is really remarkable beyond the miraculous preservation and discovery, was the particular text that the manuscript was found open to.

The manuscript was open to Psalm 83. The CBC noted that this is a psalm in which Israel pleads with God to protect it from its enemies. Pretty good, for the CBC. (But I suspect they had just copied the text over from the AP without giving it much thought. ) The Globe and Mail (G&M) excised all such references.

The text of Psalm 83 is remarkably relevant to today's world. Pretty good for the scribblings of an obscure middle eastern tribe that recorded what they said was the very words of the living God thousands of years ago.

Here's the text of Psalm 83, miraculously preserved for over a thousand years, and brought up from the earth at just the time that Israel is fighting for its life. Providence? You decide.

Psalm 83 [NIV copyrighted]

A song. A psalm of Asaph.

1 O God, do not keep silent;
be not quiet, O God, be not still.
2 See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes rear their heads.

3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.

4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more."

5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-

6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,

7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.

8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah

9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,

10 who perished at Endor
and became like refuse on the ground.

11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb,
all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,

12 who said, "Let us take possession
of the pasturelands of God."

13 Make them like tumbleweed, O my God,
like chaff before the wind.

14 As fire consumes the forest
or a flame sets the mountains ablaze,

15 so pursue them with your tempest
and terrify them with your storm.

16 Cover their faces with shame
so that men will seek your name, O LORD.

17 May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
may they perish in disgrace.

18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.

May God preserve His ancient people from their foes and fulfill His promises to them. May He bring righteousness to the earth through the return of the Prince of Peace. May the enemies of God be scattered and Christ exalted.

And that's the way the Ball bounces...

Killing 1,000 Australians to "please Allah"

Australia has its own home-grown Muslim terrorist cell -- just like Canada. This has not been widely reported in the North American media.

Accused cleric hoped to 'kill 1000'
Natasha Robinson
July 25, 2006
The Australian
[excerpted]

SUBURBAN Islamic cleric Abdul Nacer Benbrika wanted to kill 1000 Australians to "please Allah" and had the support of a blond recruit [Mr Kent] who had pledged violent jihad during a meeting with Osama bin Laden....

"If you kill, we kill here 1000," Mr Benbrika allegedly said in a conversation covertly taped by police. "Because if you get large numbers here, the government will listen."

====

There are 13 accused terrorists in Australia; Canada has 17.

It appears that radical Islam is becoming a world-wide phenomenon. It would be prudent and rational for western nations to restrict further immigration of Muslims, but that's not going to happen. That would favour one cultural view of civilization over another, and we can't have that.

And at this point, it may not make a difference, anyway.

But here's a thought. Which Canadian political party would Muslim extremists feel most at home in? Answer: not the Conservatives.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Dire Predictions from Downunder 2004

For some reason I'm on an Australian newsmedia jag.

This 2004 article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald online edition.

Bush threatens mankind, says Caldicott
By David Williams
smh.com.au
November 16, 2004
[excerpted]

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr Helen Caldicott fears US President George Bush's re-election will lead to Armageddon....

"This is the most serious election that has ever occurred in the history of the human race, without a scrag of doubt," she told smh.com.au.

[Hollywood stars certainly thought so -- that's why they all left for the south of France as soon as Bush's election was confirmed.]

"I don't know if we'll survive the next four years ....

.... it's not just the threat from nuclear war. It's the threat of what's happening to the environment, the global warming which is occurring rapidly now, to ozone depletion, to species extinction, to deforestation - it's the whole thing."

[What about the threat from malaria? Millions in third-world countries die because of first-world sensibilities regarding the use of malaria-fighting DDT. Based on junk science. Now that's a real crime against humanity, and it is laid squarely at the feet of leftist environmentalists.]
....

"But this is worse, these people are much worse than the Reagan people."

[Reagan oversaw the collapse of Communism, a very serious offense for which he has never been forgiven]

Mr Bush's win meant "endless war and I think it could mean nuclear war", she said.

[It hasn't yet, but leftists are still optimistic with over two years to go.]

"In January 1995 we got to within 10 seconds of nuclear war....

[And it was George Bush's fault!]

"They [the Bush administration] have been able to con the American people with their extremely brilliant propaganda and brainwashing, with the help of the media .... They don't know that Bush et al want to go into Iran next and that they want to dominate the world militarily and that they want to put weapons in space....

[They're slow on Iran, but we earnestly hope that the US does dominate the world militarily, and, if there are to be weapons in space, we'll all sleep better knowing these are in the hands of the Americans.]

It is a mandate for Bush to do absolutely anything he wants.

[Well, I hope Congress and the Senate realize this!]

I know people don't like me using this word but they're fascists."

Not firing all her ammunition at Mr Bush, she saved some for Australian Prime Minister John Howard. She said Australia was now the "51st state of the US".

[As a Canadian, I find that a very offensive comment; we reserve the right to refer to ourselves as the 51st state; then Israel, so, get to the back of the line, buddy, er, buddyess]

"I've always been so proud of my country, now I'm not just ashamed by what's happening and embarrassed ...

[You and the Dixie Chicks.]

All this from another Nobel prize nominee.

Kill Bush?

Peace prize winner 'could kill' Bush
Annabelle McDonald
July 25, 2006

A Nobel Peace prize winner recently commented -- to school children -- that she would "like to kill George Bush". Correction. She actually said she would "love to kill George Bush".

The Australian characterized her speech as "feisty", as in "Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday".

Interesting. You muse out loud in front of children about killing a sitting President, and the media uses a playful word to describe your behaviour. Not a word of condemnation or even criticism.

According to the report, her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

I think Mark Steyn is right when he writes about the self-destruction of Western civilization.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Quote of the Day

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

This from Mark Steyn (http://www.marksteyn.com), quoting Hussein Massawi, Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago:

Now, given this mindset, what would be a proportionate response?

Proportionate response and ants in your pants

If your house is invaded by killer ants, proportionate response would say you are entitled to kill the ants in your house. And, perhaps, one additional outside ant for every person killed (to "teach the ants a lesson"). However, this leaves the ants strong and ready to fight and kill another day. And the day after that. And the day after that.

So, over time, the number of deaths by ants in your household is going to continue climbing.

At some point, you might decide that a more sensible approach would be to go after the ant hill.

And that is what Israel is doing in Lebanon.

The CBC responds...

I received a response from the CBC, regarding my criticism of their soft portrayal of Hezbollah on this morning's This Morning.

Here it is:

Sir/Madam,

This is a difficult and emotionally charged subject. Our goal is always to balance comment from experts and politicians of ALL stripes, with questions that challenge accepted views. Our goal is to broaden understanding of what is happening. We do our best to address the concerns of all sides without fear of favour.

As you can see from the e-mail comments below received in the past hour, the SAME story can elicit remarkably different responses from viewers across the spectrum. I wonder who is right?

MT - TORONTO: "What is the reason for your double standards and outright bias FOR Israel? Might makes right?"

RK - TORONTO: "Your morning's efforts to present a sympathetic portrait of Hezbollah
as a legitimate organization with which Israel and the west should
negotiate were naive and soft-headed, but entirely in keeping with
you astonishing left-wing bias."

TS - "His liberal anti American agenda blended with a somewhat covert anti Israel sentiment permeated his response about why the M.E. is in turmoil.

JE - KITCHENER: "Mr. Forestall has to be given a great deal of credit in his attempts to put some balance in Mr. Kingstonâ€*s closing comments, trying to get some admission that Hezbollah truly has been terrorizing Israeliâ€*s.

PP - QUEBEC: Mr Forestell showed his bias in saying that it would be "distasteful" for either the US or Israel to talk to Hezbollah.
I would suggest it is equally distasteful to talk to the Israelis.

PS - I followed through on my last post. Fox News is on the air!

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

CBC's Hezbollah - a "quote-quote terrorist organization"

Watched CBC this morning. As they announced an "expert" in middle eastern affairs, you can imagine the thrill of excitement. Here's what I learned:

- Hezbollah is, and I quote, a "quote-quote terrorist organization", that, admittedly, does kill people

- Hezbollah provides schools and medical care to south Lebanon

- the so-called "war on terror" is a phantom pretext used by the US and its warring allies to advance its own military aggression.

The CBC host, in fairness, did counter some of the more outrageous statements of his guest expert, but without passion. At the first break, he told the expert what a great job he was doing so far.

I'm ordering Fox News immediately.

More on "proportionate response"

I was taken to task today by a G&M poster who argues that Israel ought to have made a "proportionate response".

Here's my reply.

JL - thank you for your post.

A proportionate response would do nothing to eliminate the ongoing threat that Israel faces. It would simply be retribution for retribution's sake. It would leave Hezabollah strong and ready to fight another day. Worse, it would leave Hezbollah with the idea that they can "win" this thing.

What is needed is a disproportionate response that is so overwhelming that Hezbollah concludes that it cannot win. And that is what Israel is attempting to do.

And it better do it fast. Down the road a bit Iran will have nuclear weapons, and then all bets are off.

Israel is doing what it needs to do to eliminate the terrorist threat.

Israel vs. Hezbollah - what's the difference?

A poster to the Globe and Mail writes concerning the Israel-Lebanon conflict, "This is absolutly disgusting. What difference is there now between Israel and violent non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas?"

Here is my answer:

Israel is a sovereign state defending itself against unprovoked attacks involving bombing, murder, kidnapping and violation of its border by lawless Muslim terrorist groups which wish Israel's extinction.

Israel, for its part, merely wants to exist in peace with secure borders.

Israel seeks to minimize civilian casualties; the terrorists seek to maximize them.

Israel warns civilian areas when attacks are imminent; the terrorists hope to surprise civilians.

The terrorists are motivated by the desire to terrorize and kill and maim; the Israelis are motivated by the desire to secure their borders and end the attacks on their territory.

If the Muslims disarm, there would be immediate peace in the region. If the Israelis disarm, they would be immediately annihilated.

Jack Layton is on the air

I'm watching Jack Layton, leader of the federal NDP Party, on CPAC.

He says that Canada under Stephen Harper has lost its vaunted neutral-broker status in the Middle East.

This is piffle. The Liberals/NDP clearly side with the Islamist extremists and terrorists against Israel. There is nothing neutral about their stand. They like to put terrorists on a par with a democratic state.

He is calling on Canada to urge an immediate mutual cease-fire. In other words, reward the terrorists by denying Israel the right to fight back.

He demands a ceasefire by Israel and adds Hezbollah too, almost as an afterthought.

He talks about the suffering in the area as if it were confined to Lebanon and Gaza and caused only by Israel. No mention of the unprovoked raid by Hezbollah that included invading Israel's sovereignty, killing and kidnapping its soldiers, and extensive bombing.

The Liberal/NDP mind is truly a wonder to behold.

I thank God that I am not a liberal.

I'll let you decide...

Here are some excerpts from a diary of one of the present middle eastern combatants.

Do you think the diarist is an Israeli or a member of Hezbollah?

I'll let you decide...

"X walks into the room, still in his jeans. He's been called to come ASAP. What's happening? He asks me. I update him, and we brief for our mission quickly. He is concerned about making mistakes, and bombing the wrong targets. He is experienced, and has been around long enough to see mistakes happen and innocent civilians killed. A friend of his... once mistook a letter in a target's name, and ended up shooting at the wrong target, killing a whole family. X does not want the same thing to happen to us. He emphasizes that there is no rush, that we must check and recheck every coordinate we receive, make sure we understand EXACTLY what we are supposed to target.

m o r e ...

It's strange how the focus in these missions is not to succeed, hit the target precisely, but rather - not to make any mistakes. The message is clear. Hitting the target is expected, no misses are acceptable. There aren't any congratulations for a well-performed mission. Only a hammer on the head if something goes wrong.

Sign of the times (1): "Money can't buy the thrill of saving"

"Money can't buy the thrill of saving".

It can't?

This sign is splashed across the wall at one of my favorite liquidator stores - Winners.

I must confess, I enjoy a bargain. But, I'm also an English major with an analytical bent.

So I'm stuck with trying to deconstruct this sign.

"Money can't buy the thrill of saving".

Let's see. Saving here means saving money. Money can't buy the thrill of saving. But isn't money precisely the thing needed to buy the thrill of saving? In order to save, don't you have to buy something? And in order to buy something, don't you need money? (Even if you buy it on your credit card, you have to pay eventually.)

"Money can't buy the thrill of saving".

There are two possible interpretations that would render this nonsensical slogan sensical.

The first is that the sign means "Save your money and don't buy anything -- the thrill of saving (by buying nothing) outweighs any pleasure you may experience from buying something here".

The second is that the sign is advocating shoplifting. Under this scenario, the sign wishes to state that the thrill of shoplifting (with 100% associated savings) outweighs any satisfaction achieved by buying the thing with money.

Or, perhaps the sign-writer was aiming for something more like "having money in your pocket can't compare with the thrill spending it on a bargain".

But still, it takes money to do this.

So, it still doesn't make sense.

But, in our present post-modern deconstructionist society, perhaps it doesn't need to. Words mean everything and nothing. We shouldn't expect them to always make sense. Perhaps it is sufficient that the slogan conveys some kind of emotion that suggests you will be happy buying stuff here.

Still, I would like to know what the sign-writer thought he or she was saying.

I've got an email inquiry into Winners. I'll let you know what they say.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

The Dutch lead they way...

The Netherlands has led the way in liberal-rights matters for years; Canadian Liberals have looked with unabashed admiration as the Dutch embraced homophilia, euthanasia, and prostitution, three subject areas that Liberals earnestly hope to transform into unnegotiable "Canadian values" in our lifetime. (They've already got "Susie has two Daddys" and "Johnny's got two Mommys" taught in kindergarten, but they will not rest until "Mary's Mom's a sex-trade worker, so's her Dad!", and "Grandpa just checked out", are also standard kindergarten fare. Under Court order, if necessary. Because, in Canada, "it's never too early to teach our children tolerance".)

So it is interesting, and, perhaps, instructive, to see the Dutch leading the way in perhaps what will become the last frontier, namely, pedophilia.

According to the AP:

A Dutch court has refused to ban a political party whose main goal is to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12.

One of the party's three known members was convicted of molesting an 11-year-old boy in 1987.

In the Netherlands, the party has been dubbed the "pedophile party". (In fairness, it should be mentioned that the party is given no chance of success.)

In Canada, that party, or, at least, the one that seeks to keep the age of consent at the already discounted age of 14, is dubbed "the Liberals/NDP", who join with their friends at EGALE, the Liberal-funded militant homosexual-rights group, in trying to keep the age of consent low.

This raises a question.

Can a mere two years separate the ugliness of depraved pedophilia and the enlightened loftiness of "Canadian values" so cherished by the Liberals and NDP?

Militant Islam and the beginning of wisdom

I recently watched a video of a London-based Islamic rally to protest the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons.

The protesters chanted and placarded their desire for the annililation of Europe (and the taking of European wives as war booty). They chanted that Europe's 9/11 was on its way, and cheered Osama bin Laden, a "real man".

You might think that the police arrested the protesters for, oh, I don't know, genocidal hate-speech, treason maybe.

And you would be wrong.

Instead, the police, are you ready for this, arrested two non-Muslims for displaying the Mohammed cartoons.

Advocating the annihilation of a continent is OK; displaying a cartoon that might offend certain religious sensibilities, is not.

And this on the streets of (once) Christian Britain.

More and more it is looking like miltant Islam is God's chosen agent to chasten and/or punish apostate Christendom. He shows mercy upon whom He wills, and judgment upon whom He wills. And none can stay His hand.

He is to be loved, revered, and feared.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

In praise of disproportionate response...

Proportionate response.

It's a modern buzzword.

The idea is, if you are attacked, you must respond in kind. So, if someone invades your territory, and kills or kidnaps a couple of citizens, you must limit your response to killing or kidnapping two or three of their citizens, even if you possess overwhelming military superiority . Otherwise, your response would be disproportionate. Which is evil.

More evilthan the original act of aggression; that is explainable, excusable, inevitable really, caused by legitimate grievance against the West (all grievances against the West are legitimate). So, when the "bad guys" bring down the World Trade Centre towers, our PM of the day, Jean Chretien, says, "well, what did you expect?", or words to that effect. In other words, when attacked, we are to blame. When we respond, we are to blame. In short, we are always to blame, and attacks against us are always justified.

The problem with the disproportionate response doctrine is it doesn't work. The west thinks in terms of right and wrong. The Arab/Muslim mind thinks in terms of strong and weak. By making a "proportionate" response, you maintain the illusion that it's an evenly matched contest; you give the aggressor a continued hope of winning.

A good example of this is the Gulf War, Original Edition™. The allies limited their advance to the original UN Charter: they drove Iraq out of Kuwait, but stopped short of Baghdad. Right vs. wrong at work -- right to boot them out, wrong to invade their country and depose their ruler.

Wrong.

Saddam did not conclude that the west was reasonable, or compassionate by this act of generousity on our part; he concluded that we were weak (it would not have occurred to him that we might be strong but stupid).

No wonder he played the UN for years, weaving and bobbing around UN Inspection teams.

At the start of Gulf War, Redux™ Saddam thought he could win. Emboldened by Bill Clinton's cut-and-run in Somalia, he expected the West to fold as soon as the first photos of troops with bandaids reached the hometown newspapers.

Western media outlets certainly were willing to prove Saddam right. I remember the CBC starting their "things-are-getting-bogged-down-is-it-going-to-be-a-quagmire coverage just days before Saddam's troops crumpled and the allies marched unapposed into Badhdad.

Probably the best example of the effectiveness of a "disproportionate response" (as horrendous as this is) was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. It hurts me to say this because I feel deeply for the Japanese people and their suffering. But the dropping of the two bombs quickly and efficiently drove out from their minds thoughts that they could win, and replaced them with the deep conviction that they could not win. Peace soon followed.

That peace has been a lasting peace. And, rather than breeding resentment and further cycles of violence, the Japanese are our friends today.

If the proportionate response people had had their way back then, the Allies would have sent in wave after wave of troops; the war would have dragged on, and many more Allied lives would have been lost. Worse than this, even assuming that the Allies would have eventually won, an "honorable loss" may have left the Japanese thinking "maybe we can win the next one" (as happened with Germany in the Great War, followed by WWII.

"Maybe we can win the next one". Killer words.

What is needed in the face of aggression and evil is a disproportionate response. One that allows two thoughts to take hold of the aggressor's mind: a) our aggression triggers a costly response, and b) we cannot possibly win this.

In the present conflict in the Middle East, Israel should not give undue heed to the "appropriate response" crowd. Not to say that they should just carpet bomb the Islamic agressors, but they should feel to take a military response that they believe will achieve their objectives as soon as possible, with the fewest possible casualties. They need to drive home the following thought into the minds of the Islamic atackers "we cannot win this."

"We cannot win this".

The thought that brings peace to a generation.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Too good to be false

Christianity is sublime.

Just think.

That God would love his fallen creation so much that he would wrap himself for eternity in humanity, bear the punishment our rebellions deserve, and offer adopted status as God's very own, His sons and daughters to all those who choose to enter by His narrow gate.

It is too good to be false.

And all those who "think they're smarter than God", or insist on trusting in their own efforts, get left out.

And it's too God-exalting and humanity-humbling to have originated in the mind of man.

As the stunned, amazed angels said, as they began to grasp the honour bestowed upon mankind, and the awesome extent of God's saving love, "Glory to God in the highest!"

Yes!

Someday, all creation will join this chorus of praise, and all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord.

Someday, every knee, even the knees of the most ornery and stubborn, will bow; and every tongue, even the tongues of the most vile and blasphemous, will declare "Jesus Christ is Lord".

He won that right when the nails were pounded in the wood.

The world showed its true colours when it crucified the Lord of glory.

God showed the extent and depth of His love in the very same act.

He turned an act of unspeakable evil inside out, turning it into an act of inexpressible love.

Love so amazing

So sublime

Simply too good to be false.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.

Child Suicides and political correctness

A National Post article today reported a rise in child suicides in Canada. Not a huge number, in absolute terms, but a concern, nonetheless.

The article offered safe, politically correct reasons for this rise: increased societal pressures to grow up quickly, increased pressures to excel at school, etc. No mention whatsoever was made of the disintegrating family unit.

Rather than the politically correct reasons offered in this article, the rise in child suicides is more likely explained by the meteoric rise in Canada of adult-centered sexual rights, all of which come at the expense of a child's natural right to be born into a stable home consisting of the child's mother and father.

All these rights -- abortion, divorce, single-parenting, same-sex marriage -- indirectly violate the Commandment "thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother", because, implicit in this command is the understanding that a child is brought to birth to be raised by its father and mother.

God, in his wisdom and kindness, in the natural order of things, has provided children with mothers and fathers. Our society, by elevating sexual freedoms, has shattered this convention.

Should we be surprised when violating God's laws and provisions come at a destructive price?

Oh so soothing (but completely false)

There are many soothing, comforting ideas "out there". One of them, found in new age mysticism, is that God is in all of us.

This idea has found its way (surprise!) into Anglicanism.

A recent article, published in The Diocesan Times of Nova Scotia and PEI advocates meditation based on the notion that the Spirit of Christ inhabits every person; all you have to do is "tap in"!

Here is my response to this article:

This article contains the idea that the spirit of Christ dwells in every human being.

This comforting idea may fit the views of Hinduism or new-age enthusiasts, but is completely foreign to Christianity and its salvation imperative. Several passages of Scripture explicitly contradict it. From John's "you must be born again", to Paul's, "if anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His", the witness of Scripture is uniform and emphatic: man, in his natural state, is not inhabited by God.

The fact that this false universalistic notion finds a home within the Anglican Church today perhaps explains why present-day evangelistic efforts are so anemic. If, in fact, the Spirit of Christ dwells in every human being, there is scarcely the impetus let alone the urgency to preach the gospel "that by all possible means I might save some" as the apostle Paul put it. It is Churches that believe that men and women in their natural state are perishing and need to be saved that engage in healthy and productive evangelistic efforts.

The positive confession highlighted in this article, "I honour the place of love and light, of peace and truth, that is inside you, and inside me", would be right at home with new-age beliefs, but not Christianity. How unlike the confessions of the saints when found in the presence of a holy God: Job ("now I see Him face to face, and repent in dust and ashes"), or Peter ("depart from me, Lord, I am a sinful man!), or Paul ("oh, wretched man that I am!"). And how unlike Jesus' own estimation of what proceeds out of the human heart! As for the human heart inevitably being a place of love and light, Jesus warned, "If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!"

Christian meditation? By all means, for "my sheep hear my voice" and this is the privilege of every born-again believer in Christ. But first make sure that you have come to Christ by faith, and have received His Spirit. And don't expect his voice to echo the soothing platitudes of new age mysticism, but rather the comforting as well as discomforting admonitions of holy Scripture, for the Spirit you seek is its Author.

A Starter Kit:

I am the way, the truth, and the life

No one comes to the Father but by Me

Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish

You must be born again

He that believes on me shall never die.

Mother Jesus, part 2 (I told you so...)

In a previous post, I noted how the new Presiding Bishop-elect to the Episcopal Church referred to "our Mother Jesus" in her inaugural sermon.

I also said,

"... such language defies traditional Christian formulations. But that is what liberals do. And, if you call them on it, they respond by saying, "of course, I was speaking metaphorically and not concretely". Trouble is, they view all the language of the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical; none of it has actual substance. So they feel free to embellish and improvise."

Here is an excerpt from an article which addresses the controversy that followed her statement.

"I was trying to say that the work of the cross was in some ways like giving birth to a new creation," she said. "All language is metaphorical, [There it is -- ALL LANGUAGE IS METAPHORICAL - so, God is not really Jesus' Father; Jesus is not really God's Son, etc.]

"and if we insist that particular words have only one meaning and the way we understand those words is the only possible interpretation, we have elevated that text to an idol," [In other words, if you simple-mindedly believe what the Bible clearly declares or plainly states, you are an idolator; you are sinning by so doing].

"I'm encouraging people to look beyond their favorite understandings." [In other words, believe sophisticated me, and you'll be OK; believe what the Bible plainly states, and you're doomed.]

Such speech goes beyond mere foolishness; it is evil.

Who could follow such a foolish, misguided woman; or believe that her words carry even a drop of apostolic authority?

Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldier..

The G&M bloggers are having a field day with Israel's military response to the kidnapping of one of its soldiers on Israeli soil. Here is my response:

Israel wants nothing more than to exist and live in peace.

It has already lost too many of its precious sons and daughters to war.

The surrounding Arab nations want nothing more than Israel's annihilation.

The only thing that Arabs seem to understand is brute force; they view concessions as a sign of weakness. If force is the only language Arab nations understand, then Israel must speak loudly and clearly.

Israel's military response to terrorism on its soil is justified.

Our mother Jesus?

The Episcopal Church in the USA has chosen Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader.

The new Presiding Bishop-elect, Ms Shiori, in her homily at the Convention's concluding Eucharist, referred to Jesus as mother. Her exact words were: "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation".

Needless to say, such language defies traditional Christian formulations. But that is what liberals do. And, if you call them on it, they respond by saying, "of course, I was speaking metaphorically and not concretely".

Trouble is, they view all the language of the Bible as symbolic or metaphorical; none of it has actual substance. So they feel free to embellish and improvise.

When God is referred to as Father, their response is, "he is not of course really our Father, that's just language used to convey something about God". But God really was Jesus' Father, and we really have been regenerated by his Spirit, and we really have been incorporated into Christ. So, if God is Christ's Father, he is our Father also -- which is precisely what Jesus said the morning of his resurrection (which they also would deny, or, at least, not take literally).

Words matter. And that is why conservatives fight for the inspiration of the Bible, declaring that its inspiration extends to the actual words used, and not merely to the thoughts expressed.

Jesus is declared to be the Word of God, not the Thought of God or the Mind of God.

He is declared the Son of God, and our Saviour, but not our Mother.

Even so, her theology is bad. It is not Jesus who gives birth to a new creation. It is the Holy Spirit. He is the One who washes and regenerates us.

Still, the holy Spirit is not our mother, either!

If anyone or anything is to be viewed as our mother, it would be the church, the instrument created by God as the vehicle and vessel for salvation, via the preaching of the saving message of Christ and the prescribed sacraments of baptism and holy communion.

I realize that Anglicans value unity above all else. But, for me, I think the sooner that faithful Anglicans break all ties with the unfaithful and apostate leadership, the better for all.

Jesus said, "let the blind lead the blind; follow Me!"

And that's the way the Ball bounces

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic Succession is the doctrine that God has passed early apostolic authority from the original Apostles through the office of bishop in an unbroken chain of continued authority.

Under this view, there are twin authorities in the Church; the Bible, and the office of bishop.

So, when a bishop speaks, the Church should listen.

But what about when a bishop speaks in contradiction to the Bible, which the faithful continue to believe as the revealed word and will of God, while modernists view as an entirely "negotiable" collection of human writings which may or may not be inspired?

Insofar as the overseers of the early Church were men "filled with the Holy Ghost", and insofar as most present day bishops in the Episcopal Church are not, the present leadership of the Episcopal Church are imposters, and, I suspect, many know it in their hearts.

In one sense they are to be pitied. They are, like many of us, weak, relying on their own strength and resources, rather than on Him who is the Source of all life and spiritual authority, and without whom we can do nothing. What an awful thing to be elevated to an office where one is supposed to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and, instead, you are filled with all kinds of liberal nonsenses, with doubt and unbelief.

The fact is, most of these people are bishops -- divinely appointed and equipped overseers -- in name only.

The true office of bishop is functional, and not merely symbolic. In other words, one functions as an overseer of the Church of God -- but in a humble, not an "enthroned" way. This office is occupied today by many in various denominations, many if not most of whom do not actually bear the title "bishop". And who cannot claim the pedigree of apostolic succession.

As for the legitimacy of the doctrine of apostolic succession, the present crop of leaders in the Episcopal Church are all you need to know that this doctrine, which is not found in the Bible, is seriously flawed. The evidence clearly indicates that our God overlooks and overrules this conventional doctine in favour of men who know his heart, know his mind, submit to his righteousness, and obey Him.

Most of whom are found outside of the decrepit and decaying walls of the corrupt Episcopal Church.

Father or Mother?

The Presbyterian Church in the USA has developed a proposal for coming up with substitute language for the traditional "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". So, here we have a Church that is ashamed of its Father and its Saviour. As for the Holy Spirit, I can only assume they are offended by his name because He is holy.

"Father, Son and Holy Spirit" will now be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services.

What idiocy. If God cannot even manage to reveal Himself in terms that He chooses, then what kind of God is He and why would we want to serve let alone worship Him?

The fact is, He has revealed Himself to us as Father, not least because He is the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; Son, because the Son is an exact replica of the Father, not a compementary image, and because Jesus Christ in his incarnation was in fact a male person; and Holy Spirit because holiness describes the essence of perfections.

The apostle John says that if we walk in the light, our fellowship is with the Father and the Son.

God is not ashamed to call me his son; I am not ashamed to call Him Father.

Jesus: A way, or THE way?

The Episcopals are having at it down in the USA. A motion was presented to affirm the Church's belief that Jesus is exclusively the way, the truth and the life.

It got shot down. Too controversial.

This is a Church that finds the exclusive claims of Christ offensive. It finds the Old Testament moral law offensive. It finds God's demand for holiness -- "without which no man shall see the Lord" -- offensive. It finds the idea that Scripture is authoratative, the Word of God written, offensive.

Themselves -- they do not find offensive. They like the positions of power they hold. They like the authority of their office.

God's a bowling ball
Unrighteous leaders are the pins
I hear him rolling down the lane -- I wonder who's gonna win?
Still they stand their ground, they don't hear the sound
But his Word is rolling, rolling, rolling, it's gonna knock 'em down
It's time to repent; get out of the way; get down on your knees and pray; let Jesus have his way
©rkb excerpted from "Prayin' Man"

I predict, at the end of the day, Jesus will be the last man standing.

King of kings and Lord of Lords!

Caledonia update

Finally, the Ontario Provincial Police have arrested three persons and plan to arrest seven more -- after an OPP officer was hurt and a U.S. Border Patrol car swarmed in the latest acts of lawless intimidation and violence by native Indian protestors.

Assaults by Indians have been ongoing for some time now, under the watchful eye of the non-intervening OPP. Presumably the Ontario authorities thought it was OK for Indian protestors to assault ordinary Canadian citizens, but not an OPP officer and an American border patrol car.

(U.S. Border Patrol members were visiting the area to observe how provincial police were handling the standoff. Presumably they were there to find out "what not to do".)

What an amazing display of the suspension of the rule of law in Canada -- we are just a few fragile steps away from anarchy and open defiance of the law by more than just the privileged few.

There ought to be one law for all Canadians applied to all equally.

Stop the jihad!

I was reading today about the 72 virgins that Islamic blowhards (and I mean this term literally) are counting on.

Turns out that the number 72 is not in the Koran -- that's a later embellishment. So, the number you get may be less.

Even more disturbing, a Muslim scholar suggests that the Arabic passage in question could just as well be translated white grapes or raisins!

Now, that would be a problem!

It's gotta be hard to keep the motivation level up when the reward is a six-pack of Sunkists.

It was only a matter of time...

A Canadian judge has recently ordered the province of Ontario to show two mothers on a baby's Statement of Live Birth. Not to do so would cause bad feelings on the part of the lesbian partners, and the judge says it violates Charter equality rights.

The case stemmed from the fact that Ontario's Vital Statistics Act sensibly specifies the terms "father" and "mother" when it comes to filling out a Statement of Live Birth.

It's too bad that when Charter judges feel in the mood to identify new rights, they don't think of the natural rights around children, rather than around out-of-control adult sexual self-determination. Farthest thing from their minds.

Children have a natural, God-given right to know the love and nurture of both a mother and a father. This right is rooted in biological fact, the deepest longings of a child's heart, and Scripture: "thou shalt honor thy FATHER and thy MOTHER".

By declaring that having two mothers is "equal" to a child having a natural mother and father, the state is arbitrarily declaring that a child has no intrinsic right whatsoever to a mother and a father. This flies in the face of nature, revelation, and the entire history of mankind. But, hey, when you're on a roll, you might as well keep going.

Canada's on a roll, and its all downhill.

But why stop at two? How long do you think it will be before a case is brought before the courts seeking to declare two moms and a dad the parents of a child?

I'd give it less than two years.

And if two women can be declared the parents of a child, why not a mother and the child's grandmother? Why can't they be declared the parents of a child? Then, the mother could also be the child's sister. What could be more chummy than that?

Who would have ever thought we would be contending for the fact that a child ought to have both a mother and a dad? How far we have fallen, and how quickly.

What we are seeing at work is what the Bible refers to as the reprobate mind. Having rejected the knowledge of God, our minds are given over to darkness. With the light of God gone, the chaos of darkness enters like a flood.

How astonishing (and tragic) all this is.

We are reaping what we have sown, and we shall reap what we are sowing.

Still, the Lord is good, and good to all who call upon Him.

I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised.

So shall I be saved from mine enemies.

The Lord liveth; blessed be my Rock!

And may the God of my salvation be exalted!

Amen.

Boopchild, if you are reading this, please pray for Canada.

Alleged terrorists arrested in Toronto

The shocking part is -- they're Muslims! (just kidding).

Reaction:


Shouldn't cultures that embrace terrorism be applauded and welcomed in a country as multiculturally diverse, welcoming, and tolerant as Canada?

After all, who are we to impose our values on others?

And, isn't "thou shalt not kill" a distinctly religious notion?

We all know that religious values have no place in the secular laws of secular Canada.

No less than leftist/liberals have told us so.

How do I phrase this diplomatically?

Everybody says something intemperate or ill-advised or stupid at some point in their lives. So we should go easy on someone who does, realizes their mistake, and apologizes.

The latest example of foot-in-mouth disease is a US Democrat. Here's the story:

NEW YORK -- State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a "beyond dumb" remark about a fellow Democrat putting "a bullet between the president's eyes."

According to a videotape of his speech, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi said: "The man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it. The toughest senator, the best representative. A great, great member of the Congress of the United States."

If "put a bullet between the President's eyes" represents diplomatic speech, I would hate to be around when Mr. Hevesi was speaking candidly!

Mr Hevesi apologized and referred to his comments as "remarkably stupid" and "incredibly moronic." 'Nuff said. You're forgiven.

The apostle James says the tongue is a world of iniquity, set on fire from hell. And, he added, "who can tame it?" The apostle Paul says our speech needs to be seasoned with grace, which would give us gracious speech. That's my aim. I'm not there yet. But at least I know the way. Jesus said, "I am the way". By the grace of God, I'll get there.

Indonesian Earthquake

A serious earthquake has struck Indonesia, with reports of over 3,000 killed. On the Globe and Mail website, a discussion has started. The first poster, Patricia, noted the reported escalation in the frequency of earthquakes over the past century and gently suggested that this might be a sign pointing to the end of the age. The posters pounced. They denounced her for her deluded Christian thinking, and openly mocked her faith. I thought they were a bit rough on her, so this is the counter-post that I submitted to the site.

* * *

Everybody seems to be ganging up on #1 for her comment. However, it was based on a statement made by Jesus Christ. The One who preached peace and calmed the sea by his word also stated that as end of this age approached there would be "earthquakes in divers places". So, it is pretty hard, when an earthquake occurs, for a follower of Jesus not to be reminded of this saying. Of course, those who choose to mock such statements are perfectly free to do so; the Bible speaks clearly that the last days would be characterized by such persons.

(The Globe and Mail declined to post my submission.)

* * *

Having said that, what should a Christian's view of natural disasters be? When the tsunami and when Katrina hit, people asked, "where was God?". I heard well-meaning Christians state that God was in the hearts and hands of the Christians who rushed to the scene to provide relief, suggesting he was in no way responsible for the event itself.

This is an inadequate apologetic.

To suggest that when a natural disaster strikes God is nowhere to be found suggests that either a) God is indifferent and/or uninvolved in Earth's activities, or b) God is impotent to prevent such disasters. Neither of these assertions give adequate glory to God.

The fact is, God is sovereign, and, whether God directly causes a disaster, or simply permits it to happen and fails to prevent it, God is the sovereign ruler of this planet.

Some people suggest that if God were behind a disaster, it would make him cruel and unrighteous. But this would be wrong. The facts are these: A) mankind, as a race, has turned its back on God, and has rebelled against Him. B) Natural disasters are one of the effects of this corporate rebellion. The apostle Paul makes it clear that nature itself is in bondage because of sin. C) All men and women are sinners before a holy God, deserving of punishment.

The Old Testament does not hesitate to attribute natural disasters to God. In the New Testament, however, a natural-disaster-in-the-making (the storm on the sea of Galilee) was abated by the intervention of the Son of God.

So it is certainly fitting to cry out to God for mercy, for forgiveness, for grace, and for the alleviation of suffering from natural disasters.

The problem is, the notion of judgment is simply out of fashion in today's world. People have rights, not righteousness. They view the Bible as fairy tale, when in fact its message is "the power of God unto salvation to all that believe". They believe that there is no divine accountability, no eternal judgment, that people can sin and cheat and steal and kill in this life and there will be no eternal consequences, no God to make things right. There is no fear of God before their eyes. And, since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, it means that the world is, collectively, descending into foolishness.

"Lord, have mercy on the people of Indonesia, whom you love in Jesus Christ. May the gospel be preached to them, and may they reach out to you in this time of affliction. May many souls be won to Christ. May signs and wonders accompany the preaching of the gospel. In judgment, remember mercy. Amen."

* * *

And, while mockers may predominate the Globe and Mail post, no doubt it will be the Christians who come through with charitable aid to the people of Indonesia.

Thank God for the gospel. Thank God for grace. And thank God for Christians. Amen!

Caledonia: A branch is extended...

It's being reported today that the natives blockading Caledonia have offered the locals a branch, as a sign of goodwill. (Canadians, for their part, pass the natives eight billion dollars each and every year. Imagine each dollar is a branch. That's a lot of branches.)

The passing of a branch from the Indian protesters to the law-abiding citizens of Caledonia is a nice gesture, but it is like kidnappers passing an olive branch to their captives.

It doesn't undo the lawless behaviour. It doesn't undo the destruction of property. It doesn't undo the economic, psychological, and social damage inflicted upon an innocent community.

An apology and offer of economic reparations would be more appropriate. Even if it were paid with dollars given to them by the taxpayers of Caledonia, and other Canadians.

For less than the price of a cup of coffee...

Gwyn Morgan, former President and CEO of Encana, is a decent man and a great Canadian. He offered to serve his country for one dollar -- less than the price of a cup of coffee. He assembled a team of volunteers, and was ready to go.

For this, he was grilled and vilified by a parliamentary committee stacked with Liberals and NDP partisans, who ruled that he was unfit to serve his country.

His crime: he is not one of "them"; he does not share their inclusive, ultra-tolerant left-wing head-in-the-sand social idealism. Anyone who does not fit their tolerant, inclusive view cannot be tolerated and must be excluded. He simply stated the obvious fact that certain classes of immigrants contribute disproportionately to crime. And for this, he was rejected.

When I heard of his rejection, I dashed off a short letter to the National Post. It was published, along with another one, as the featured Letters of the Day. It simply said:

"The rejection of Gwynn Morgan, Encana CEO, by the Champions of Inclusion and Tolerance™ who grilled him says more about the committee's narrow-minded intolerance than it does about any supposed shortcomings on the part of Mr Morgan."

Mr Morgan offered to serve his country for a dollar -- less than the price of a coffee. This fact escaped at least one contributor to a Globe and Mail list who complained that he was just another Conservative "at the trough". I think she was right. Serving for a dollar is, unlike a Liberal, a Conservative at the trough -- serving. Another, in a fit of delusionary excess than surely only those on the left are capable of, stated that by the Liberal and NDP committee members' vote against Mr Morgan, "Canada has spoken".

Can you believe such delusionary arrogance?

Another poster suggested that PM Harper and the Conservatives remind him of Hitler. And he actually meant it. Left-wingers have really worked themselves into a frothy mental state. If being disconnected from reality constitutes a form of mental illness then being an extreme-leftist thinker surely qualifies.

The letter was published this morning. This evening I received an unexpected phone call from Bill Phillips in Halifax, who asked me if I was the Richard Ball who wrote letters published in the National Post. I said I was. He thanked me for writing them. I appreciated his call.

I've also received calls from Wayne Eyre, an excellent letter-writer from Saskatoon, and another local fellow, who was moving away, who wanted to let me know he appreciated my letters to both the National Post and the local Guardian paper. All appreciated.

Still, it's a sad, shameful day for Canada.

But I admire PM Harper for sticking to his guns and refusing to send another candidate for the committee to consider.

Of Moose and Men...

For years humans have been maligned for extinguishing the wooly mammoth.

All the while, moose stood quietly by.

Now, it turns out, the moose were responsible for the wooly mammoth's demise.

On behalf of the human species, I expect a full apology from the moose community, as well as significant reparations (which they can just pop in the freezer).

Earthism: the new frontier

We've had racism. We've had sexism. We've had ageism. We've had speciesism (at least, I think we have). Are you ready for another "ism"? How about "earthism"? People who focus on Earth to the exclusion of other globes. It appears there's a lot of earthists out there.

Take global warming. You know -- the earth is warming, AND IT'S ALL OUR FAULT. Well, studies indicate that not only is Earth warming, but so is Mars, and so is Jupiter. To care about the earth but not jupiter or mars is discriminatory, biased, narrow-minded, prejudiced, mean-spirited, and bigoted. It's earthist, that's what it is.

Frankly, I don't want to have anything to do with earthism, or earthists, for that matter.

I just hope that all the earthists clanging about global warming and climate change will raise their sights and consider the Big Picture.

Let's end the scourge of narrow-minded earthism.

Global warming now a proven fact...

For those head-in-the sand conservatives who continue to deny the consensus of the liberal political-media complex and the taxpayer-funded scientific community, global warming has now been conclusively demonstrated.

The globe I am talking about is Mars.

Yep. The planet Mars. Warming. Ice-caps melting.

(Source: Astronomy, January 2006 issue, etc. -- via www.SteynOnline.com)

In response, proponents of man-made global warming now argue that this proves that Mars is inhabited by human-like abusers of the environment, probably driving big SUV-type vehicles and burning carbon-based fuels.

(And they probably vote Republican, too.)

"It's the best evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life yet discovered", a female spokespersonwoman for the Equivocation Foundation reportedly said.

Apparently Prime Minister Stephen Harper has offered to send former Prime Minister Paul Martin along with NDP leader Jack Layton on a fact-finding mission to study a remote region of Mars known as the Keeohtoe Protocol.

A response to Richard Cohen...

Richard Cohen published an article recently in the Washington Post in which he praised darwinian evolution and ridiculed those who believe in Intelligent Design. Here is an expanded version of my response to him. It is a Christian apologetic for the existence of God rooted in philosophy and logic.


Dear Mr. Cohen,

Time and space must have had a beginning, because if time were eternal, there would be an infinite number of moments preceding the present, and the present could not be reached. If you believe in the present, you must believe in a finite universe.

Once you understand that the universe had a beginning, you must face the observed fact that all things which begin to exist have a cause. There is no known exception to this rule.

From this point it is not hard to realize that it is God who caused the material world to burst into existence.

Once you understand that God is behind the origins of the material universe, it is not hard to expect, and indeed find, design in his creation.

What really takes faith is to be presented with evident and obvious design in creation -- the specialized cells which constitute heart, lungs, liver, eyes, all nicely and symmetrically arranged, the fact that fruit such as apples and oranges just happen to fit nicely in a man's hand, that horses just happen to be suitable size for a man to ride, that sheep just happen to provide wool, that flowers just happen to be pretty, that sunsets just happen to be beautiful, etc., and to deny that there is any design behind it.

Consider the incongruity of darwinism. If this world is strictly materialistic, if our brains have simply randomly evolved into their present states, then what faith can an evolutionist have in the integrity or reliability of his thoughts? They must be nothing more than meaningless chemical interactions. And why should non-material things like logic, love, conscience, consciousness, speculative thought, and mathematics exist? To the materialist, they can be nothing more than ultimately meaningless chemical reactions. To the evolutionist, the universe shows every sign of making sense, but doesn't; it's just a happenstance of ultimately meaningless random permutations. The very quest of a darwinist to classify, order, and "make sense" of the universe is contradicted by the darwinist's conclusion that the universe is random and meaningless.

Darwinian (materialistic, non-directed) evolution is a comfortable faith for many; it allows them to escape the Biblical witness that there is a God who has stamped his moral imprint upon our hearts, and to whom we must one day give an account.

As far as man evolving beyond war [a point made in Mr. Cohen's article], if a man evolved to the ultimate moral and ethical pinnacle, you would have Jesus Christ.

He lived two thousand years ago, and there hasn't been a man like him before or since. A "one-off"? A random mutation that unfortunately didn't catch on?

Or, as he himself proclaimed, the son of David, and, indeed, the Father's son?

A Russian teenager adopted by an American pedophile

A Russian teenager was adopted by an American pedophile. She endured years of Internet-distributed sexual torment. She is currently pleading with U.S. legislators for laws to govern cyberspace. But, liberals should ask, what about a pederast's equality rights?

Overriding the wisdom of Canada's Parliament, the judge-amended Charter of Rights asserts the legal equality of all Canadians regardless of sexual orientation. So, it would be illegal for authorities to discriminate against even known pederasts by denying them adoption rights based on their unchosen sexual orientation.

As Liberals all the way up to Prime Minister have gleefully chanted, "you can't cherry-pick rights", "a right is a right is a right", and "you can't just support the minority rights you happen to approve of".

The only question is, would the judges have the guts to equally uphold the right that they themselves created? Or, would they contradict themselves, and make a moral distinction between one sexual orientation and another? Which is exactly what moral conservatives do between heterosexuality and homosexuality. If the judges choose to discriminate, then the only difference would be where the line is drawn -- and surely that would be a matter of moral, and not rights-based, debate.

If one sexual orientation can be viewed as unnatural and disordered, then so can another.

And that's the way the Ball bounces.