Archive for October, 2006
Posted on October 31st, 2006 by Paycheck in Violent Crime
You know, we must live in a very stupid culture. How many times have you heard the same old crap about how family issues are not as important as economic ones? That people don’t want to talk about moral issues because it’s not a winnable election issue, like the economy is, for instance?
Well, having run three times for political office, I am rather convinced that the electorate does indeed think this way, but that does not mean that the electorate is right. As you may have guessed from my musings, I don’t subscribe to the stupid idea advanced by most politicians that the “electorate is always right”. Far from it.
Take the issue of crime, for instance. How many times have we heard the left and the right talk about what can solve this problem. They both talk about “solutions” that don’t stand a snow ball’s chance in hell of succeeding, simply because these solutions are simply window dressing. The Left talks about more social spending on community centers and the right talks about more cops to walk the beat. They are saying the same thing: the State will fix your problem.
No, the State won’t fix your problem at all. In fact, it’s going to get a lot worse. What the electorate and the public at large needs to understand is that THEY NEED TO FIX THE PROBLEM THEMSELVES BY TAKING ON PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THEIR OWN PERSONAL LIVES.
Yes, that’s right. I said it. Your personal life does indeed have an impact on what happens on our streets. It’s a mind blowing, revolutionary idea, Buckwheat, but it’s true nonetheless.
Want to get a handle on crime? I have a solution that doesn’t cost a public dime, but costs a lot more in personal sacrifice and responsibility:
Start parenting your children, and stop shoving your responsibilities on to the State.
The State in turn should support policies which encourage parental responsibility and punish deadbeats who are not doing their job. Revolutionary idea, I know, but that’s what is necessary. That is, if you want to get serious about crime.
Read ‘em and weep……….
CRIME – FAMILY BREAK DOWN
Ø Students from broken homes were 30% more likely to miss school or cut class. These children were also at a much higher risk for smoking, drugs, alcohol and premarital sex. [U.S. Centre for Marriage and Family released a Study entitled “Family Structure and Children’s Educational Outcomes”]
Ø Children coming from families without a father at age 10 more than doubles the odds of a child being arrested at 14. [U.S. Centre for Marriage and Family released a Study entitled “Family Structure and Children’s Educational Outcomes”]
Ø Children of divorced parents are 12 times more likely to engage in activities which result in incarceration than their intact counterparts. [Source]
Ø Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. [Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.] [Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.]
Ø Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household [-- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.] (Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991)
Ø Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contrast, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married. (Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.)
Ø Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America’s rapists grew up the same way. Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.
Ø Even in Finland, that mecca of socialist utopia itself, criminality was more common among both males and females from single-parent families compared with the traditional family. The results showed that the risk of violent offending and recidivism was increased up to 8-fold if the cohort male member had been born and raised in a single-mother family over most of his childhood.
Ø Many of these kids are coming from broken families. The vast majority of them don’t have a mother and a father so they don’t get an ordered sense of authority, discipline, responsibility, and respect. And because of that, they turn to gangs where, in a very perverted sense, they get all those things but it’s in the service of violence instead of in the service to society and the common good which the traditional family points them to. And so, you know, people some time ask me how does the issue of marriage affects them. Well, considering the statistics you have just heard, I think you all now understand that the strength of my marriage is directly proportional to your safety on the street.
Ø At least one-third of children experiencing a parental separation “demonstrated a significant decline in academic performance” persisting at least three years. Source: L.M.C. Bisnairs (et al.), American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, no. 60 (1990)
Ø Fatherless children — kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father — are twice as likely to drop out of school. [Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)]
Ø Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988
Ø Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity. Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.
1 Comment »
Posted on October 31st, 2006 by Paycheck in Marriage
Équité-Famille is looking to finance two very important projects. The first is to translate their very popular booklet on homosexuality into English from French. It is a quite expensive work (around $4 000). The book will be ready for November and distributed to several MPs to help them deepen their knowledge about homosexuality. The book brings recent scientific evidence that nobody was born homosexual, that homosexuality is not a fatality, that there is not more than 1 or 2% of the population in that condition, and that between 40 and 80% of those who seek help to quit homosexuality and reach heterosexuality have success. They are also preparing a one hour DVD in French about homosexuality. It should be ready within a year (October 2007). EF is looking for financial support to help them cover the costs of these two very worth projects.
No Comments »
Posted on October 26th, 2006 by Paycheck in Contraception
Major U.S. Study Shows Oral Contraceptives Increase Breast Cancer Risk 44 %
By Gudrun Schultz
PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, October 25, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Oral contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer by an average of 44 percent, a comprehensive analysis of world studies on the link between breast cancer and contraceptives has found.
Published in the journal of the Mayo Clinic this month, the key article examines findings from a careful analysis of international studies conducted between 1980-2002. Entitled “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis, the article finds an increased risk for breast cancer of 44 percent, in pre-menopausal women who took or were taking oral contraceptives prior to their first pregnancy, compared to women who had not used oral contraceptives.
Of the twenty-three studies examined, twenty-one showed an increased risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptive use prior to a first pregnancy in pre-menopausal women. The combined results showed an over-all risk increase for breast cancer of 44 percent.
Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, lead author of the report, said his entire team believes the standards of informed consent demand that women must be warned of the potential risk of pre-menopausal breast cancer before they take oral contraceptives, in a press release from the Polycarp Research Institute.
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women worldwide and the most common cause of cancer death in US women between age 20 and 59, the report stated, pointing out the breast cancer rates have risen steadily over the past four decades worldwide, and have risen even faster in developed countries, especially among young women.
The study re-enforces the 2005 classification of oral contraception as a Type 1 carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) to humans by the International Agency for Cancer Research.
Researchers have increasingly warned about an additional link between breast cancer and abortion, found to be significant in multiple studies throughout the world. The abortion/breast cancer link has been consistently ignored or denied, however, by leading cancer institutes in Europe and North America.
Want to stop “gay marriage”? Stop providing the foundation for it to run ramroad over our culture. Say no to contraceptive sex.
Contraception provides the basis for gay marriage. Once our culture said yes in principle to sterile sex, then it was only a matter of time before sodomy would be accepted.
This is a hard truth. Who can accept it?
No Comments »
Posted on October 25th, 2006 by Paycheck in Marriage
Tuesday’s National Marriage Caucus at the National Press Club was a very useful and important day for Social Conservatives across this country. There were representatives from B.C. to New Brunswick. Various press crews were there throughout the day as well as about 10-12 Members of Parliament most notably, Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney, Maurice Vellacott, Art Hanger, Pierre Lemieux and others. Senator Anne Cools showed up and gave a quick cameo appearance and speech, and Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, and Dr. Conrad Wyn, the president and CEO of COMPASS, gave some really great speeches at lunch time.
Dr. Wyn provided insightful and humorous examples of how social conservatives can win the media battle with only slight changes in approach and delivery, while Stockwell Day provided some much needed encouragement to the troops gathered at the Club. He made a very telling comment near the end of his speech when he recounted a radio interview between him and Jack Layton on the issue of Bill C-38. At one point in the interview, Jacko was very impressed with himself that he was able to silence his fellow caucus MP from Manitoba, Bev Desjarlais. Stock pointed out the obvious double standard in today’s media. Indeed, if Stephen Harper were ever to even consider doing such a thing with a social liberal in the Conservative caucus, the media would be thrown into hysterical convulsing that would make Regan McNeil from The Exorcist look like she was having a slight cough.
Before I had arrived I admit that I was questioning whether this would be the best use of my time, but it turned out to be a great event for networking with social groups and prominent individuals across the country. I sensed that many of the groups will be collaborating more closely in the future on the marriage issue and other family related issues.
I did my best to pass out my “business card” and push Spoeth Production’s great documentary: C-38, the Search for Marriage” which no mainstream media outlet has yet to touch, even though it is a first-rate production.
I must have handed out about 20 DVD copies of this documentary to various social conservative and church groups. I even gave one copy to a CBC reporter. As I explained the even-handedness of the production to the reporter, the cameraman was very quick to remind me that by giving a copy to them, I was not to assume it was going to be played on the CBC. Uh, I know that Gethro, but just watch it just the same.
However, one of the participants gave me hope that the CBC might, in fact, consider showing it. He had inside contacts with the CBC that would give it serious consideration. I won’t hold my breath, but if you don’t try, nothing ever gets accomplished.
I also came up with an idea to galvinize the movement during the prayer vigil on Parliament Hill, but it needs to stay secret for now. I need to sell the idea to the relevant parties first. If, however, I am successful, look out Canada. We could be on the edge of a social conservative revolution!
Besides all of the official events organized at the National Marriage Caucus, I had the privilege of meeting a true prophet of God. As my colleague and I were descending the steps on Parliament Hill, and walking towards the Peace Flame, I happened to notice this sign:
I almost wee’d my pants. As many of you know, I have been involved in a movement to highlight the destructive aspects of contraception and the obvious link to “gay marriage” (i.e. both involve contraceptive sex as their foundation). Check out The Rosarium.
When I saw the sign, I just had to meet the person who would have the guts to do something like this. It turned out to be Fr. Tony Van Hee himself, the quiet and humble priest who has been on Parliament Hill every day that Parliament was in session for the past 18 years. That translates into about 135 days a year, folks. He was just completing a forty-day fast on bread and water.
You know, many of us “activists” think that our activism is really what moves God. It is not. It is the selfless and unknown sacrifices of the righteous men of God like Fr. Tony Van Hee. The unknown, the forgotten, the supposedly insignificant. This is what moves nations and cultures back to decency and the love of God and neighbour. Meeting him was like meeting a real and true Saint.
Anyhow, the National Marriage Caucus was a big success for me personally and for many of the attendees. The numbers were not huge, but then again, David didn’t need huge numbers. He just needed 5 small, smooth stones.
Here are some other pics…
Joseph Ben Ami of the Institute of Canadian Values addresses the Prayer Vigil.
Tristan Emmanuel of the ECP Centre looks on.
Senator Anne Cools addresses participants at the National Press Club.
Prayer Vigil at Parliament Hill for Caucus Attendees
Impromptu Singing of O Canada
1 Comment »
Posted on October 25th, 2006 by Paycheck in Media Distortions
MSM Shakedown Awards
For some time now, the Blogging community on the internet has shown its power and influence in keeping the mainstream media’s (MSM) news reporting in check. Famous cases like Rathergate and Easongate prove that the liberal MSM can no longer receive a free pass on their reporting or lack thereof. This past summer the CBC even received their own dose of medicine for their shameless coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other foolish stunts. Even slick and savvy politicians like Garth Turner have felt the sting of the vigilant new kids on the block.
No reporter or public figure – even the notoriously liberal ones – want to be branded as biased and lose their credibility. (Just look what happened to Dan Rather!) Truth and fairness in reporting, despite the general lowering of moral standards brought about largely by the same media, still carries a heavy stick.
Many conservatives – especially social conservatives – have been given the proverbial shaft by the MSM. And while the internet has provided conservatives with an invaluable weapon against media distortions, it would help our cause even more if we were able to single out and focus on the worst of the perpetrators and “honour” them with an annual “award” for their biased and misleading news coverage. It would be yet another way of keeping the MSM accountable to the truth and accuracy that they purport to represent in their reporting.
The MSM Shakedown Awards seeks to achieve this objective by uniting Canadian conservative bloggers across the internet to help expose not only the top 10 offenders but also the systematic and virtually universal leftist bias in the mainstream media.
Click above to read more. I hope the blogging community will participate.
Time to start the shakedown and continue the blogging revolution!
No Comments »
Posted on October 23rd, 2006 by Paycheck in Secularism
For the past 35 years, religion has been treated as the proverbial door mat in Canadian politics. Catholic politicians and prime ministers, in particular, have received a whole lot of political mileage from professing their “closet Jesus” with their lips. Being the masters of political ventriliquism, they can show their counterparts in show business a thing or two about simultaneously speaking out of both sides of their mouths. It’s almost worth the price of admission to see the rhetorical gymnastics these fools go through in order to keep their religion safe. It’s not just about safe sex, after all. It’s about safe religion too. If you must practice religion, make sure you wear a political condom to keep the damage to a sustainable level. Above all else, keep that Jesus in the closet and make sure the door is locked when it comes time to legislate.
The duplicity of our elected officials and their supporters in this regard is nothing less than suffocating. The suggestion that religion should have no voice or active participation in the laws of a civil society is a secular and absurd construction with absolutely no historical basis in western democracy. It even lacks the most basic and rudimentary principles of logic or objectivity.
What is religion? One can define religion, in its broad sense, as merely a set of beliefs accepted by a group of people. This understanding would encompass all forms and structures of thought, and therefore there would be no cogent objection to keeping ‘religion’ out of civil legislation since, quite obviously, everyone who participates in public life has some kind of religion – whether this religion is expressed through a political, social, or cultural ideology. Most of our secular opponents, however, do not have this idea of religion. Their idea of religion is much more restricted to a defined set of theistic beliefs. This imposed restriction, however, is merely an artificial, boorish attempt at semantic hide-and-seek. Some secularists seek to assign “religion” exclusively to theistic beliefs. They appear to be completely oblivious to the fact that they are merely transferring divinity from God to themselves as the end of being. As such, there is no real distinction between a ‘secular religionist’ or a ‘theistic religionist’ except on where the object of divinity rests. For the secularist, man is the end. For the theist, God is the end.
In his desperate attempt to isolate and ostracize his theistic counterpart, the secular religionist absurdly claims that he is not “religious” at all. And then goes on to confidently dismiss “religion” as irrelevant to the public. What he fails to appreciate, however, is that he is JUST AS RELIGIOUS as his theistic counterpart – except that instead worshipping another being as God, he worships himself and orders his life toward that end. This, then, is the first case of secular, atheistic fascism: only those who profess themselves as god are capable or worthy of participating in the political process of a civil society. The Theist is a second class citizen who need not apply for membership.
For these secularists, then, there are two simplistic, competing ideologies – the secular and the religious. As long as there is no appeal to a divine or supernatural order in the political or legal world, there is no danger to their established world view. Everything is just swell. Once legislation is proposed which seeks to use a supernatural, theistic basis for its existence, however, the familiar howls of indignation can be heard from miles away. Proponents of such legislation will be deemed “religious zealots” by the secular establishment – religious fanatics who seek to impose their morality on others. Unbeknownst to these people, of course, is that they are in the business of “legislating morality” everyday of their lives. It is just that they do not like it to be overly theistic. Remember the rule, now, secular morality yes; religious morality no.
The bankruptcy of this position is clearly evident for all to see. Only the willfully blind refuse to see it. It is an atheistic fascism pure and simple. If you believe in God and use that belief as a basis for public policy, you will be deemed unsuitable for public life – irrespective of the other merits of your position. As long as the secular and religious objectives are in line with one another, there is no problem. Once there is a divergence between the two, those holding religious convictions are suddenly thrust into the political desert. Never mind that the theist may appeal to cultural, social, anthropological, scientific, philosophical or historical reasons for his position. Never mind all that. As soon as the “R” word is mentioned, one can see the political leprosy begin to grow, and there will be no political messiah to cure it either. Say the “R” word and all bets are off.
There is another group of secularists who are nothing less than a walking contradiction, and amazingly, they comprise a large part of the political establishment in the western world. I am speaking, of course, of that bastion of logic and cogency himself: the Catholic politician. Here is a man who can profess, as being objectively true, his belief in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, but then turn around and sell his faith down the river in order to get elected because, after all, there is no place for religion in secular politics.
This abdication and apostasy, of course, is simply a smoke screen for his own cowardice. In truth, he is more willing to run from the faith of his baptism, than he is to stand and accept the ridicule for believing in his Lord. That’s really the bottom line, and everyone knows it. This silly hermeneutic of separating faith from participation in the political life of a nation is an excuse for political expediency. If this politician were a man of integrity and an authentic democrat, he would offer the convictions of his faith as an alternative to his constituents. And let them vote on it. Instead, he panders to the secularists, atheists, and fascists. He is a useful idiot for them; a slave of the culture of death. A good son of Pontius Pilate he is.
Like a good Clintonian, he foolishly thinks that he can separate his personal convictions from his public ones. If he is dishonest in his personal life, then quite obviously this duplicity would never ever migrate into his public life. Everyone knows that. There is this clear line in the sand that no politician would ever dream of crossing, you see. If he is an immoral recalcitrant in his personal life, that doesn’t affect his public duties. It’s part of his political nature to lie in his personal life but be completely honest to his electorate. Of course. It’s soooo obvious – don’t you see it? He lives in two separate worlds. They are separate. He can cheat, lie, manipulate and blaspheme his God in his personal life by the public positions he takes, but his weakness, cowardice, and wickedness are not permitted to influence any other decisions he makes in public office. Right.
Let us be frank: what our bankrupt culture really wants is a smooth liar to sell them smooth lies.
And if the media professes him to be a “staunch” Catholic? Not to worry – that too won’t impact his duties to “the people”. He’ll leave Jesus in the closet where He belongs, except on Judgment Day perhaps where he might find Him somewhat useful. And speaking of judgment, he is quick to inform us that God will only judge him in his “personal faith life”. God will certainly not hold him accountable for the perverse and immoral legislation that he promotes in this world. After all, God is not a religious fanatic. More than anyone, God understands that when you put on that three piece suit and sit in that leather chair in Parliament, you’re no longer subject to the moral law you professed just 24 hours previously. You are now above it all. He understands. Really, He does.
And what about all of those politicians who used their religion as a basis to better the human condition? What of them? Tommy Douglas was a Christian minister who championed universal health care in Canada. He became the father of medicare in this country. I don’t see many leftists telling him to check his religion at the door. No one with an ounce of dignity would suggest that his religion had nothing to do with views on universal health care. Consider also former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. While not exactly a faithful Roman Catholic during his life, his warped Catholicism had a profound role in shaping Canadian society. He was a big fan of “Catholic” theologian Theillard de Chardin. Yet, you won’t hear nay a word of this little uncomfortable fact by the secularists. Mums the word here. ‘Cause they like that kind of religion. I wonder if our opponents would be so open to repealing the liberalizing influences of de Chardin. After all, we don’t want religion influencing public policy. And that brings us to what this is really all about. This is not about religion per se, but a particular kind of religion. Everybody knows it. Let’s all just have the courage to come out and say it.
This, then, represents the second case of secular, atheistic fascism. This fascism is supported by the “Catholic” politician who has contempt for himself and for his constituents by refusing to stand for his faith. He has become a symbol of capitulation and abdication. He is true neither to himself, nor to his constituents, nor to his God. The first kind of fascism was dominated by persons who revile theistic religion as a principle. This second kind of fascism serves, and is a slave to, the first kind. While not having the integrity to stand for the convictions of their faith in the public sphere, they become political schizos professing Christ with their lips on Sunday and denying Him with those same lips on Monday. This way, they can have their proverbial cake and eat it too. Their masters have already told them: if you must practice your religion, remember to do it safely. Keep your political condoms on.
With the Vatican’s recent directions to Catholic politicians to fight the culture of death, the gloves have come off. There is no more room for pretenders. There is no more diplomatic mumbo jumbo. Every Catholic must decide where they will stand. Either you are with the Vicar of Christ or you are not. In the past, a Catholic politician could dance around his faith, but those days are now gone. If he continues his dance, the public will no longer tolerate his intellectual dishonesty. Even our opponents are beginning to tire of the dance. It’s time for a different tune. So what’s it going to be, Mr. Catholic Politician? “Ave Maria” or “Sympathy for the Devil”?
1 Comment »
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
P.O. Box 500 Station A,
Toronto, ON, M5W 1E6
As you are no doubt aware, the CBC’s journalistic standards and objectivity have been seriously compromised in recent years. A quick Google search with the search string text “bias at the CBC” inserted provides ample proof that the CBC has serious ideological leanings towards the left side of the political and social spectrum. In fact, some of the reporting borders on fraudulent and manipulative. And because the current programming’s biased slant is becoming more and more common, the CBC can no longer really be considered a credible news agency.
Furthermore, this credibility gap has adversely affected the CBC’s financial health which in turn is symptomatic of the level of satisfaction Canadians have with the CBC. Since there is simply no political will for more public money to prop up leftist ideological news outlets and since the commercial market sees no real opportunity at the CBC – at least not enough to ensure its long term financial sustainability – we can safely say that it is time for a change.
Speaking as conservative minded individuals, we are appealing to you to save our public broadcaster from possible collapse by expanding the current ideological spectrum at the CBC to be truly representative of the Canadian public. MacLean’s magazine, for instance, has been able to address their leftist bias by bringing on Mark Steyn as a regular columnist because someone there was prudent enough to read the writing on the wall. It is time that the CBC, which is publicly funded by our tax dollars, expand its scope and breadth as well.
If more balance is not forthcoming at the CBC in the near future, the political and cultural pressure could eventually threaten the CBC itself. We believe that this would be most unfortunate since there is a definite place for public broadcasting in Canada. As conservatives, we do not wish to see public broadcasting eliminated, but only presented with a more fair and balanced approach.
To that end, as citizens of Canada who represent a large minority – if not majority – of this country’s population, we are once again asking you to reconsider your programming. We are therefore respectfully suggesting a one hour program with a conservative host to discuss various political and social issues facing the country.
The CBC boasts on its website that “balanced viewpoints must be presented through on-the-air discussions. As it is for other public and private journalistic undertakings, credibility in the eyes of the general population is our most valuable asset and must be protected.”
It is time for those words to reflect the reality on the screen and not remain simply the official line of the nation’s public broadcaster.
For forty years, the CBC has propagated the liberal viewpoint. That translates into over 250,000 hours of forming public opinion in the leftist tradition – a tradition which is no longer readily accepted by this country. We are asking for a mere one hour per week to express our views to the nation. We don’t think this is unreasonable.
The culture of tenured ideological entitlement must give way to the only entitlement that really matters to a public broadcaster…our tax dollars.
Yours very truly,
c.c. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
c/o Vincent A. Carlin, Ombudsman
P.O. Box 500, Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6
2 Comments »
Posted on October 20th, 2006 by Paycheck in Marriage
If you are a Social Conservative, sign this Declaration in the comments section….
DECLARATION OF RESOLVE TO DEFEND MARRIAGE
WE SOLEMNLY PROMISE TO DEFEND AND PROMOTE MARRIAGE AS THE EXCLUSIVE UNION BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.
WE DECLARE OUR FIRM AND UNEQUIVICAL COMMITMENT TO BIND OURSELVES TO THE CAUSE OF OVERTURNING THE CURRENT LEGISLATION IN RESPECT OF SO-CALLED SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE”.
WE PLEDGE TO OUR INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE NECESSARY LEADERSHIP AND COURAGE NECESSARY TO OVERCOME THIS DARK PERIOD IN OUR NATION’S HISTORY.
WE PROMISE TO SHAKE OFF OUR LETHARGY, COMPLACENY, AND INACTION TO TEACH THE BEAUTY AND GOODNESS AND NOBILITY OF MARRIAGE, AND TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO INSPIRE OUR CONSTITUENCIES TO BE APOSTLES OF MARRIAGE.WE PLEDGE TO UNITE WITH ONE ANOTHER, PUTTING ASIDE ANY DIFFERENCES WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST, TO SHARE, COMMUNICATE, AND ASSIST ONE ANOTHER IN DEFENDING THE NOBLE BOND OF MATRIMONY.
WE ASK FOR FORGIVENESS FROM GOD AND FROM ONE ANOTHER FOR OUR SINS AGAINST THE HOLY BOND OF MARRIAGE AND VOW TO MAKE AMENDS.
WE PLEDGE TO SACRIFICE AND SUFFER, IF NECESSARY, ANY HARDSHIP THAT IS DEMANDED OF US IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A FAITHFUL WITNESS TO THIS SUBLIME INSTITUTION.
WE RESOLVE TO STALL, THWART, DELAY, DEFY, AND REJECT ANY LEGISLATION WHICH ENCROACHES ON OUR HUMAN RIGHT TO WITNESS TO MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS.
WE PLEDGE TO PRAY FOR GOD’S MERCY ON OUR COUNTRY.
WE RESOLVE NEVER TO GIVE UP ON MARRIAGE, THE CANADIAN FAMILY, OUR NATION’S CHILDREN, OR OUR CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED DO SOLEMNLY DECLARE BEFORE GOD AND OUR COUNTRY.
Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam: ad imaginem Dei creavit illum, masculum et feminam creavit eos. Benedixitque illis Deus, et ait: Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram – Gen.1:27-28
OCTOBER 13, 2006 A.D.
1 Comment »
Posted on October 19th, 2006 by Paycheck in Contraception
Contraception debate rises again Birth control stirred decline in morality
By DEBORAH GYAPONG Canadian Catholic News, OttawaAs much as North Americans – including a majority of Catholics – may hope modernity has driven a stake through the debate on artificial contraception, it’s back. “With a vengeance,” said Ottawa Catholic John Pacheco, who organized Humanae Vitae 2006 conference held May 12-14 in Ottawa. “It’s the elephant in the room.” For Catholics, the teachings against contraception have been “one of the most well-kept and embarrassing secrets of the Church,” said Janet Smith, a keynote speaker at the conference. Smith, an expert on Church teaching on life ethics, said a 1995 study showed 80 per cent of Catholics used some form of artificial contraception. In 1960, before the advent of the birth control pill, about 60 per cent of Catholics practised natural family planning. Chances are most Catholics have never heard a homily on the issue, nor have new converts received any instruction, she said. The modern world no longer sees babies as blessings but burdens, she said. Interest in the issue is changing, Pacheco said in an interview.
Not only Catholics but also an increasing number of evangelicals are re-examining whether artificial contraception is a good thing. For Smith, the devastating consequences of artificial contraception are numerous: the facilitation of sex outside of marriage; a huge increase in the number of sexually transmitted diseases and infection rates; increased levels of abortion as a back-up; and higher divorce rates. These effects create negative social change leading to more poverty, crime and drug abuse, she said. Pope Paul VI, who wrote Humanae Vitae, the encyclical laying out the Church’s teachings on birth control, said sexual acts had two functions – the expression of the lifelong exclusive love between a husband and wife and an openness to new life. “This particular doctrine . . . is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act,” the pope wrote in 1968. “The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age – and one of the most ominous.”- Albert Mohler, Jr. Smith said Paul VI predicted that artificial contraception would result in a general lowering of morality, a decline in respect for women, more coercive control by governments over sexuality and rise in the perceptions that human bodies are merely machines. Demographic decline is another factor spurring renewed interest in the debate. Fears of a population explosion propped up arguments in favour of contraception but Smith said demographers now predict rapid population declines not only in the developed world but in the developing world as well. In fact demographic decline led to the theme of this year’s National March of Life: Abortion is Killing Canada’s Future.
Pacheco looked like Don Quixote when he booked a venue with 1,800 seats, the best audiovisual equipment, including two big screens, and invited top notch speakers, including Smith, who teaches at Detroit’s Sacred Heart Major Seminary. His attempt to bring the issue back to the fore didn’t look so “out of touch” though when the New York Times magazine did a take-out entitled “Contra-Contraception” May 7, the Sunday preceding the conference.“As with other efforts – against gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide – the anti-birth control campaign isn’t centralized,” wrote Russell Shorto for the magazine. “It seems rather to be part of the evolution of the conservative movement.” The article quotes Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Albert Mohler, Jr. who wrote in a December 2005 column: “The effective separation of sex from procreation may be one of the most important defining marks of our age – and one of the most ominous.” Teachings on contraception also lurk behind the ongoing debate about whether condoms should be used to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDs or whether the Church should permit condom use when one married partner is infected. That led CBC’s Sunday Edition host Michael Enright to interview Moira McQueen, the director of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute May 14. In that interview, McQueen laid out in detail the Church’s teaching on contraception. The New York Times Magazine and the CBC Radio interview bookending the conference made Pacheco’s conference on this highly controversial subject look almost prophetic.
Only about 300 people attended, far fewer than Pacheco had hoped for, but he had the conference professionally videoed. DVDs and CDs of the conference will be available through the website www.therosarium.ca._______________
Upcoming Ottawa Conference on Contraception and Humanae Vitae Will Address Social Consequences of Birth ControlOTTAWA, Ontario, March 10, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Rosarium, a new Catholic organization dedicated to increasing respect for life in Canada, is hosting a May 2006 conference in Ottawa that will discuss the value and beauty of Christian teaching on sexuality and the negative social impact of contraception. The conference, called “Humanae Vitae 2006 – A New Beginning,” took shape in the context of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae. “The first thing we aim to do is to highlight and celebrate the beauty and dignity of the human body and the act of natural conjugal love as God had intended it,” John Pacheco, who co-founded The Rosarium in August of 2003, told LifeSiteNews. “And the second is to point out the dangers and harm that contraception has inflicted upon our culture. Everything from morality, to family disintegration, to the loss of the dignity of women, to the serious health consequences of contraceptives will be addressed.”
Mr. Pacheco said the conference name “A New Beginning” reflects the need to begin looking at the cause of social ills, in particular abortion and same-sex “marriage,” instead of simply concentrating on addressing the problems. That cause, he believes, is contraception and the “contraception mentality.” “In the case of same-sex ‘marriage’, for instance, if a society accepts the notion that contraceptive sex is licit, then whether it’s a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple, they are both committing the same moral act: an act closed to human life. In short, sterilized sex.” “In the case of abortion, the statistics don’t lie. Where contraception is introduced, abortions skyrocket because we foster a mentality of ‘no’ to human life. When a couple is consciously prohibiting the conception of human life through artificial means, they have made a conscious decision to reject life. When a pregnancy results, this ‘mentality of no’ does not magically go away. More often than not, people simply follow through on the ‘no’ they started when they had sex, and seek abortion.” Held at Ottawa’s Lansdowne Park May 12-14, the conference will feature author and lecturer Dr. Janet Smith, an expert on contraception issues and the teachings of Humanae Vitae, along with other noted speakers on life issues. Conference organizers emphasize that the material will have universal significance for all Christians and “people of good will.” Theological differences will not be a factor, since the issues discussed will encompass basic morality, science and other disciplines.
Visit our product’s page to order great audio and visual resources from The Rosarium’s Humanae Vitae 2006 – A New Beginning Conference held in Ottawa, Canada, May 12-14.
Also, don’t forget to sign our petition to Retract the Winnipeg Statement
No Comments »
Posted on October 18th, 2006 by Paycheck in Social Conservativism
The So-Con Manifesto
by John Pacheco
In regulating and governing human societies, the practical policies of governance need to rest on fundamental, philosophical or theological maxims which guide the design and implementation of laws. All too often social conservatives are often accused of “forcing their religious beliefs” on the culture at large. We reject this obtuse idea that social conservatives are more prone to doing this than any other group. We consider this an argument to be advanced by the unstable and incoherent. We all have a religion which we try to “foist” on to the public. Christians want to see Christian principles applied to public life, Muslims have the same, and Secularists (who worship themselves) have them too. This very quaint idea of how only “religious people” or “social conservatives” “force their religious views on society” is absurd and beneath contempt. Citizens of democratic States will always work to see the laws changed so that a certain moral code is backed up by the law. That moral code may indeed be degenerate – as is the case in our current Western culture – but it is a moral code nonetheless. And that is why the central questions of human existence necessarily drive and serve as a foundation for the policies which all governments (both left and right) legislate in practice. Therefore, it seems fitting that to understand the so-con view on policy issues, we must turn and learn the rationale for them in the foundational issues.
Belief in God
We believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. We believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again; he ascended into heaven, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again to judge the living and the dead. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic (universal) church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. + AMEN. 1
Belief in God has its advantages. A man who really believes in God is ultimately accountable to Him when his final hour comes. As the Bible says, “after death comes the judgement” (Cf. Heb. 9:27). Indeed, for a politician there can be no greater “check” than someone who believes that He will be judged according to what he has done in this life. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” St. Paul reminds us, “that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” (2 Cor. 5:2). In this way, by inculcating this responsibility in man, a politician is more inclined, and indeed has more of a reason, to live a life of integrity. This was truer in times past than it is today, of course, when the Christian faith was still taken seriously by the elites of our country. In those days, political life was seen as more of a vocation to serve the public. Today, such an approach is rarely if ever accepted by our political leaders. Instead, the politicians who represent the “culture of self-satisfaction” have embraced practical atheism where no one but they are the highest power. And being the highest power, with no one above and many below, they are not subject to any accountability either. If the Prime Minister is pontifex maximus of the worship of man, then what real motivation has he to bend the enormous power that he wields to conform with God’s holy will? Not much, we assure you – which explains why our political leaders have “god complexes”, why our democracies are falling apart, and why, correspondingly, totalitarian influences are being rudely introduced into the latte capitals of Europe with uncomfortable vitesse.
Dignity of the Human Person
The foundation of liberty rests on recognizing the inalienable dignity of each human persons. The So-con world view does not see the dignity of the human person in terms of utility or action. Rather, we believe that “the dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God.” 6 Consequently, any movement which seeks to reduce human persons to a commodity which can be sold, manipulated, distorted, destroyed, or harvested is degenerate and wicked. In fact, one of these abominations, embryonic cloning, represents, for the ingratiated and perverse capitalist, a huge economic opportunity of unlimited wealth potential. Unfortunately, most people today, especially those who are blinded by their disordered sexual appetites, profound stupidity in materialism, or their wholesale abandonment of simple decency, fail to see that today’s embryonic cloning is yesterday’s brutal slave trade. It’s just been repackaged and marketed for a profoundly stupider generation.
And this is merely a symptom of a much greater problem, for the secular world view sees man as a means to an end. The end, of course, is self-gratification, whether expressed sexually or otherwise. The secular view is necessarily selfish. It does not seek the good of the other, but demands the natural right to gratify itself at the expense of others and human dignity itself. In order to establish this concocted right, the secular order seeks to sustain its propositions of license under the guise of “liberty” or, incredibly “service to humanity”. In a twisted form of logic, they believe that by harvesting or destroying human life for the “good of humanity”, they can serve society (and their pocketbooks as well, no doubt). But, in truth, all that they end up doing is destroying one stage of humanity at the service of another. Even the most simplistic of them should see that accepting this notion will end up destroying the entire human race. “Stage warfare” will end up pitting the younger generation versus the older generation and that is a sure recipe for disaster. We already see this “stage warfare” being played out in the euthanasia debate currently being waged in the Western world.
In opposition to this lethal ideology, the so-con view is the most sensible. It recognizes the inherent and inviolable worth of every human being from conception to natural death. The human person, because it is created in the image of God is an end in itself, representing the greatest of God’s created ends. As such, it cannot be violated or manipulated in anyway. Because man did not ultimately create himself, he does not “own” another human being. Yet, ownership of another human being is the basic foundation of the liberal ideology in regards to the great moral issues of our time. For if you truly own something, you can do as you please with it. Conversely, at its most fundamental level, the so-con view protects man from himself. It does not permit the objectivization of persons by other persons. So, whether that objectivization is couched in terms of classes (communism), genders (feminism), sexual orientation (homosexualism), or stages (abortionism), the so-con view rightfully rejects all of it as an attack on authentic human dignity which finds its foundation in the created objective natural order.
In order to arrive at a basic objective truth which all peoples must acknowledge in order for a civilization to even exist, it is absolutely necessary that the natural law be respected and adhered to. Simply put, natural law is a system of norms inherently held in common among all humans, deriving its principles from nature rather than constructed rules of society. Natural law stands in contrast to positive law which denies any validity to metaphysical or normative questions, instead basing knowledge on science alone. Positive law is a human construct, subject to continual change and conditioning by historical circumstances. Natural law, on the other hand, is immutable and unaffected by historical events. It is so basic and fundamental to human existence that it is discoverable by reason without reference to any legislative pronouncements by a civil authority. Neither is natural law, being a constituent element of the human person, restricted to any religious creed but claims jurisdiction over every human person.
Of course, natural law being part of the Divine ordinance is reflected in Christian tradition. For instance, St. Paul alludes to it in his Letter to the Romans:
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:14-15)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also recognizes the existences of the natural law:
“The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.” 7
Dr. J. Budziszewski explains how conscience plays a role within the natural law: “I am referring to “deep conscience,” which used to be called synderesis—the interior witness to the foundational principles of morality. We must distinguish it from “surface conscience,” which used to be called conscientia—what we derive from the foundational principles, whether correctly or incorrectly, whether by means honest or dishonest. Deep conscience can be suppressed and denied, but it can never be erased. Surface conscience, unfortunately, can be erased and distorted in numerous ways—one of several reasons why moral education and discipline remain necessary.In fact there are at least four ways in which we know the natural law. Deep conscience, the First Witness, is the one primarily responsible for “what we can’t not know.” The others concern “what we can’t help learning.” The Second Witness is our recognition of the designedness of things in general, which not only draws our attention to the Designer, but also assures us that the other witnesses are not meaning ful. The Third Witness is the particulars of our own design—for example, the interdependence and complementarity of the sexes. The Fourth Witness is the natural consequences of our behavior. All four work together.” 8
Respect for Human Life
One of the most fundamental, basic rights human persons are entitled to is the right to life. All human rights are derived from the respect for human life. This respect must be given not only to those who have a legal recourse in their own person, but to those who are innocent, helpless, and voiceless in our political system. Unborn children deserves the protection of the State from those who seek to destroy them. Without recognizing the most basic of human rights, our society will not be able to protect other rights all Canadians have come to expect from living in a democracy. By reducing the humanity of the unborn child to a “product of conception”, thereby objectifying human life into just another commodity for consumption, all human life – whether inside the womb or outside of it – suffers. Once a culture accepts the premise that human life is something less than sacred, then its collective subconscious cannot deny the “humanity” of a child inside the womb while concurrently conferring this same humanity on a child outside of the womb. This collective contradiction does not exist, and because it does not exist, our society is forced to either declare all human life sacred or all human life expendable. It cannot be both. It cannot be a combination, either. It has to be one or the other. Consequently, the respect that citizens of our nation have for one another begins to rapidly diminish. Indeed that is precisely what has begun to happen in Canadian society.
In Canada, Tracey Latimer was killed for being disabled by her own father. Although he is serving time, the forces which seek to deny the dignity of disabled people are seeking to overturn legislation which prosecutes people who wish to destroy take innocent human life. In the U.S., there is a monumental battle over the life Terri Schiavo, the disabled woman whose life hangs in the balance of a demented judiciary who seek to place a value on human life, and dispose of it if their eugenic standard is not met. The elderly too are in the crosshairs of our brave new world. It is not safe to be elderly and sick in many parts of the world. That situation will no doubt present itself very soon in Canada as well. All of these instances are only the tip of the iceberg which, because we have failed to protect the humanity of our most vulnerable within the womb, will soon attack our humanity outside of the womb so that taking life will be nothing less than an arbitrary act by the perverse and avaricious. Our culture and civilization will descend into open barbarism.
Today, the great secular sacrament of abortion is pushed by profit-hungry abortion providers, financed by weak politicians, and protected by a fascist media who do not allow an honest dialogue on the question. If the media is so open to criticism and transparency, for instance, why do they not show a partial birth abortion on national television? Because they are hypocrites and cowards who refuse to face the truth of the great euphemism of “women’s rights”. Social conservatives decry the media hegemony that the social leftists have imposed on this country, and we demand that the voice of the unborn be heard and respected. The Canadian media have done more to prevent the emancipation of the unborn than any other group. This needs to change.
Traditional Marriage [Traditional Marriage section by Pete Vere]
In Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II draws this connection between the conjugal communion of a man and woman and the stability of the family. “Conjugal communion constitutes the foundation on which is built the broader communion of the family, of parents and children, of brothers and sisters with each other, of relatives and other members of the household,” he states. “This communion is rooted in the natural bonds of flesh and blood, and grows to its specifically human perfection with the establishment and maturing of the still deeper and richer bonds of the spirit: the love that animates the interpersonal relationships of the different members of the family constitutes the interior strength that shapes and animates the family communion and community.” In other words, marriage exists to serve the traditional family structure. It exists to initiate and educate children in the deepest interpersonal relationships. This is the reason why marriage has survived throughout the centuries, while others have not; this exclusive union between a man and a woman reflects a natural order around which society preserves, propagates and nurtures itself.
Throughout history, where society has attempted to socially engineer some other form of relationship as equal to marriage, either anarchy or authoritarianism ensues. Such alternate unions do not fail because of their introduction into an intolerant or repressive society. Rather, as history repeatedly shows, societies that undermine the traditional marriage simply die out. Unable either to propagate or sustain themselves, their focus shifts from self-preservation and growth to selfish hedonistic pleasure. Thus the failure of sexually permissive societies is neither political, social, nor ideological.
Rather, the failure of sexually permissive civilizations lay in the refusal to accept the consequences of sexual promiscuity. A most fundamental and intrinsic part of our human nature, when expressed sexually, is to create, nurture and protect our young. This requires the stability of traditional marriage. A culture consumed by sexual hedonism will neither accept the procreative consequences of the conjugal act, nor provide the necessary stability to nurture its children. Thus a nation that asserts individual liberties over the stability of the traditional family will soon find its culture intrinsically disordered, as the culture of erotic hedonism is diametrically opposed to the culture of self-sacrifice for one’s spouse and one’s family.
And thus, in the cultural battle over marriage, religious and social conservatives must stand firm as signs of contradiction. “In the context of a culture which seriously distorts or entirely misinterprets the true meaning of human sexuality, because it separates from its essential reference to the person,” we read in Familiaris Consortio, “the Church more urgently feels how irreplaceable is her mission of presenting sexuality as a value and task of the whole person, created male and female in the image of God.”
In keeping with the Natural Law, marriage cannot simply be reduced to a mere sexual act in which both parties derive physical gratification. Rather, the conjugal act is a noble thing. It must be a mutual act of total self-giving, through which one spouse lovingly accepts the gift of the other. This also means that one accepts the natural consequences of the act. To manipulate or arbitrarily pull apart this conjugal relationship through unnatural unions will destabilize both the family in particular, and society as a whole.
Church & State
We believe in the distinction between Church and State. This means that in a multi-religious, pluralistic society where the number of religions are legion, the State cannot represent, or act for, one particular religion. The word distinction was consciously used above because we reject the common misconception that the State is separate from the Church. While it is true that the two entities operate separately from one another on a formal level, men and women of faith are still involved in governing a State. It is therefore a misnomer to say that both parties are “separate” from one another. A devout and sincere Evangelical Protestant, for instance, does not check his faith at the door when discussing public policy, but rather uses the principles of his faith and applies them to the job at hand. When discussing an issue like euthanasia, for instance, he should not be asked to jettison his Christian belief in the dignity of every human life for a crass utilitarianism. That would be to simply abandon one religion (Christianity) for another (Liberalism). Indeed, those who clamor for the separation of Church and State invariably want a separation from Christian principles from public policy. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, no coherent liberal (if one does actually exist) seems to demand that the Heathens leave their Hedonistic religion outside when it comes time to draft public policy.
Since authentic religion, in its true sense, is a call and invitation for a voluntary submission to the truth in faith, it is not within the scope of its mandate to compel belief or submission to its doctrines on the general populace. Provided the doctrines in question do not encroach on the natural law, but remain restricted, in a sense, to divine revelation only, the Church cannot (and, indeed does not) seek to impose her views on other people. Moreover, since divine law, in this restrictive sense, cannot be accepted without the guidance of the Church and faith itself, it would be destructive, counter-productive, and foolish for the Church to even attempt such a thing.
However, in such instances where the natural law has been breached by certain destructive movements within society, it is permissible and even obligatory for the Church to call for the government to suppress such movements. For instance, leaving aside some of the more controversial topics in our current culture, if there was a movement which was advocating mass suicide, it is clear that the Church (and all groups within society) have a grave moral obligation to condemn such a movement and seek to suppress it – by force if necessary. Ironically, many so-called “liberals” often chide the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII for not doing enough to save the Jews during the World War II. (This position is, of course, the exact opposite one they take when they want the Church OUT of their pet issues like abortion and gay “marriage”. The Church, they say, doesn’t belong in the bedrooms of the nation but, apparently, it is acceptable to get involved in its gas chambers.) Apart from the veracity of these (baseless) claims, this is precisely the area where the Church has a right and obligation to insist on State intervention.
Religious Liberty [from Humanae Dignitas]
The human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others. The right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person as known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right. 2
It is through his conscience that man sees and recognized the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters. The reason is because the practice of religion of its very nature consists primarily of those voluntary and free internal acts by which a man directs himself to God. Acts of this kind cannot be commanded or forbidden by any merely human authority. But his own social nature requires that man give external expression to these internal acts of religion, that he communicate with others on religious matters, and profess his religion in community. Consequently to deny man the free exercise of religion in society, when the just requirements of public order are observed, is to do an injustice to the human person and to the very order established by God for men. Furthermore, the private and public acts of religion by which men direct themselves to God according to their convictions transcend of their very nature the earthly and temporal order of things. Therefore the civil authority, the purpose of which is the care of the common good in the temporal order, must recognize and look with favor on the religious life of its citizens. But if it presumes to control or restrict religious activity it must be said to have exceeded the limits of its power. 3
From this it follows that is wrong for a public authority to compel its citizens by force or fear or any other means to profess or repudiate any religion or to prevent anyone from joining or leaving a religious body. There is even more serious transgression of God’s will and of the sacred rights of the individual person and the family of nations when force is applied to wipe out or repress religion either throughout the whole world or in a single region or a particular community. 4
The right to freedom in matters of religion is exercised in human society. For this reason its use is subject to certain regulatory norms. In availing of any freedom men must respect the moral principle of personal and social responsibility: in exercising their rights individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have regard for the rights of others, their own duties to others and the common good of all. All men must be treated with justice and humanity. Furthermore, since civil society has the right to protect itself against possible abuses committed in the name of religious freedom the responsibility of providing such protection rests especially with the civil authority. However, this must not be done in an arbitrary manner or by the unfair practice of favoritism but in accordance with legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These principles are necessary for the effective protection of the rights of all citizens and for peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights. They are also necessary for an adequate protection of that just public peace which is to be found where men live together in good order and true justice. They are required too for the necessary protection of public morality. All these matters are basic to the common good and belong to what is called public order. For the rest, the principle of the integrity of freedom in society should continue to be upheld. According to this principle man’s freedom should be given the fullest possible recognitions and should not be curtailed except when and in so far as is necessary. 5
June 24, 2004
1. The Symbolum Apostolorum was developed between the second and ninth centuries. It is the most popular creed used in worship by Western Christians. Its central doctrines are those of the Trinity and God the Creator…The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 215). The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542). The creed was apparently used as a summary of Christian doctrine for baptismal candidates in the churches of Rome. Hence it is also known as The Roman Symbol. As in Hippolytus’ version it was given in question and answer format with the baptismal candidates answering in the affirmative that they believed each statement. (Source: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm)
2. Declaration on Religious Freedom, Second Vatican Council, 2
3. Ibid., 3
4. Ibid., 6
5. Ibid., 7
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1700
7. Ibid., 1956
8. The Natural Law Is What We Naturally Know, Religion & Liberty, Vol. 13, No. 3, http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/print_interview.php?id=460
No Comments »
Posted on October 18th, 2006 by Paycheck in Canadian Politics, Homosexuality
Former London mayor Dianne Haskett will announce today she’s seeking the federal Conservative nomination in London-North-Centre.
Supporters were trying to keep the news under wraps until a reception for her today, but the buzz about her candidacy was so strong yesterday that it was confirmed last night.
She was at the same time one of London’s most popular and unpopular mayors.
Haskett was adored and vilified during her two terms as mayor, but even in the most tempestuous moments, which included a slap from the Ontario human rights tribunal in which she and the city were fined $5,000 for her refusal to issue a Gay Pride proclamation, she won re-election by a two-to-one margin over her nearest rival. (Source)
These uppity Christians just don’t know their place in Canadian society. With a 2-1 winning margin for standing up to the Gay Agenda, she is obviously on the outer fringes. Obviously.
I can hear the shrill screams of the progressives already and she isn’t even official yet. Oh well, just in time for Halloweeen, eh?
Go for it, Dianne. We’re behind you 100%.
Annoy the media, and vote Dianne Haskett for MP in London North Centre!
No Comments »
Posted on October 18th, 2006 by Paycheck in Social Conservativism
This whole blog burst idea is really pretty spectacular. I got over 400 hits yesterday which is 10 times the normal traffic for my recently started blog. That might be small potatoes for some of you but not for me
Anyhow, Suzanne and I thought it would be a great idea to keep the momentumgoing with this Blog Burst idea to increase the membership and get the word and arguments out on the Blogosphere for our causes. That’s why we need a central page where Socon Bloggers can register with the Blog Burst and not simply remain outside on the fringes. We need some kind of loose organization to direct traffic.
Some of you have already signed up, but I hope that many more will join us byregistering.Here is the page which details the parameters of this thing. Suggestions arewelcome as we try to harness this wonderful avenue: http://www.socon.ca/forum.html
If you are not registered or you know of Socon Bloggers who would be interested, please let them know! We’re hauling some major butt here guys.
We gotta keep the train going!
No Comments »
Posted on October 17th, 2006 by Paycheck in Liberalism
Socon BlogBurst Contribution on
the Court Challenges Program
Queer lobby group Egale Canada has joined a loose coalition of legal and minority-rights advocates opposing the Conservative government’s surprise axing of the Court Challenges Program… “This really compromises our ability to move forward with legal cases,” says Egale’s executive director, Gilles Marchildon. “It means we’ll just have to be more aggressive with our fundraising. It means we’ll have to plead a bit more for legal counsel to work for free. It may be possible to continue with some cases, but not with others. In some cases we may have to take a pass.”…Last week community groups representing women, disabled people, Chinese people, African Canadians, legal clinics and several other minorities announced a campaign to lobby MPs to reinstate the program…The organization is currently involved in Jane Doe Versus Attorney General Of Canada, a case concerning a lesbian couple who want to use sperm from a gay man for artificial insemination. Canadian law prohibits a man who’s had sex with another man since 1977 from donating sperm. Marchildon says Egale is involved in five to seven legal cases at a given time …If we don’t have funding for challenges, it means we understand it less.” Rudyk believes the loss of the Court Challenges Program will spur more lawyers to take on pro-bono work. “I would hope that there’s a ripple effect. Lawyers realize how important test cases are,” he says. (Source)
Isn’t it interesting how Egale buries themselves under the cloak of “minority rights” and “multiculturalism” to advance the gay agenda? Isn’t the gay subculture or rather dominant pseudo culture (as it is fast becoming) part of our great Canadian multicultural mosaic? After all, there is such an obvious parallel between Chinese, African, and disabled people on the one hand, and the right to parade down main street and force churches to host their homosexual weddings on the other. The two are the same. Really they are.
Check it: if Egale wants to whine and complain because public money is not going to be used to expedite the destruction of Western civilization any more, then the government should be funding ALL groups who have a stake in “human rights” – including Christians who are fast becoming the real minorities in this country.
Anyhow, here is the website for The Court Challenges Program. This is one of the proud accomplishments it boasts of:
One example where funding was given to individuals and to a group is the Egan case. In the Egan case, a gay couple, Mr. Egan and Mr. Nesbit, challenged a law that gave government benefits to couples of the opposite sex, but refused those benefits to same sex couples. They argued that this law violated Section 15 because it was unfair to gay men and lesbians. The Program’s funding helped Mr. Egan and Mr. Nesbit pay the costs of taking the case to court.
The Program also gave funding to a group called EGALE for the Egan case. EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) is a national organization that promotes gay and lesbian rights. Because EGALE represents the interests of many lesbians and gay men across Canada, the court allowed it to present its own argument in the case. EGALE’s argument showed that many gay men and lesbians are treated unfairly by this law, not just Mr. Egan and Mr. Nesbit.
So let me get this straight. On the one hand, as long as two men ejaculate on one another, they are entitled to economic and social benefits. On the other hand, two men who prefer not to explore such orgasmic heights are denied the same rights, if they have a mere platonic relationship.
Why is that?
Considering the latter will have no chance of contracting AIDS or HIV, and therefore will avoid the emotional and financial stress that this will cause to both them and the society at large, I see no reason to discriminate against two chaste men. Do you?
You see, there are always 2 sides of the story. Everyone thought Trudeau was waaaaay sexy for titilating the nation with his famous “The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”. What he didn’t tell us is that the State (that means you and me, friend) would be throwing in a bonus and picking up the tab for treating our collective diseased genitals too. Ain’t it typical liberal idiocy? – you must accept my behaviour and you must pay for the consequences of it too.
It is a mystery to me why contraceptive ejaculation is so worshipped in this country. I can see how procreating kind of keeps the civilization going and all that, but how exactly do cheap and sterile orgasms benefit anyone else other than the condom manufacturers, pill producers, and abortion providers!?!
Beats me, but that’s the way it is, Buckwheat.
Besides, why should Egale get money to challenge the government while Christians groups and churches, who have been the target of the gay political agenda for close to a decade now, not be given the same instrument to advance their cause? Does anyone believe that The Court Challenge Program which, let’s face it, is stacked with liberal idealogues, will take up the challenges of social conservatives to defend religious rights and freedoms? If you think so, then you’ve been in the closet for far too long.
The fact is that Canada is not a free and equal country at all. It is a country which extols the virtues of certain groups who believe in sexual license over those groups who do not. There is the gay-friendly citizen who enjoys first class status, and then there is everyone else who better watch their step, lest the rainbow jackboot fall on them, as it has on many hard working and decent Canadians.
The Court Challenges Program is the leather boot in Egale’s closet that stomps on this country’s Christian heritage and the traditional family. It’s a leftist front for radical and destructive notions of equality in many of its endeavours with no foundation in natural law or common sense. Check out the background of some of its members and star chamber lawyers (who moonlight as human rights commission appointees and these Commissions’ recent focus, of course, is to attack anyone standing in the way of the gay political agenda) and you will see what I mean. So, in the morning they are handing down decisions bankrupting Christian businessmen, while in the afternoon they are arguing before their judicial budies in the rainbow coalition to overturn basic morality.
In other words, there are lots of lefty power brokers in this program and not one apparent social conservative. Ya think if they wanted to maintain the air of fairness and objectivity, you’d see one Uncle Tom, no?
We socons should select our own Board of like minded individuals and clamour for government money too. We can call our organization something innocuous and egalitarian sounding, just like this program. How about “The Centre for Righteous Justice and the Canadian Way”?
When I was twelve years old, I figured out that the name of the “Americal Civil Liberties Union” didn’t exactly flesh out with reality. What is ostensibly an “fair and objective” program is nothing of the kind.
The Court Challenges Program has no business being funded by the government, when that program has been highjacked by rank social leftists bent on destroying our social fabric.
The Gay and leftist political agenda is an agenda of political, economic, and legal entitlement. It seeks to muzzle dissent and criticism. If gay sex is so great, then let that political constituency, who is so highly “educated” and so financially well endowed, fund their own court challenges program from their own damn money. I think it’s only fair that they use their own money to advance their cause, instead of leeching off the taxes of working families.
Get off the gravy train, guys, and work like everyone else.
No Comments »
Posted on October 17th, 2006 by Paycheck in Islam
The Dynamic Duo of (Catholic) Ryan Prong and (Evangelical) Joe Boot will be teaming up once again to defend Christianity and put the tough questions to their Islamic opponents on The Michael Coren Show on CTS at 6PM EST.
If Round 1 was any prediction of Tuesday’s show, you won’t want to miss Round 2!
Good luck, guys.
Shameless plug for the Catholic Legate here.
No Comments »
Posted on October 16th, 2006 by Paycheck in Islam
“Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the new Testament through His Son. In Islam, all the richness of God’s self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.
“Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the god of the Koran, but he is ultimately a god outside of the world, a god who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God with us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the the tragedy of redemption is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.” (from JP II’s book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, 1994.)
No Comments »