Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Most people seem to have decided that yes, those dam Quebeckers are as backwards as can possibly be. Comparisons have been drawn, almost immediately too, to the KKK, the Know-Nothings, and all the other sad examples of race/culture based prejudice. Jean Charest, the premier of Quebec, publically denounced the town and defended the rights of immigrants to express themselves.
The 'edict' or whatever is silly. It is heavy handed and it is offensive. But it is wrong? Canadians seem to forget that integration and inculturation are the most beneficial things most immigrants can hope to achieve. By this I mean following and respecting the norms of the society you find yourself living in. Japanese Canadians, for example, are the most successful non-white ethnic group as whole in Canada, far ahead of Indian, aboriginal, black, and other Asian groups. Why? Because after the Japanese ghettos were broken up post-WW2, Japanese people had to integrate into the larger, non-Japanese society.
Rather than condemn the residents of Horouxville, Canadians should really take this moment to stop and ponder what multi-culturalism really entails.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Perhaps the most frightening part of the report is that doctors diagnosed the boy as a 'transsexual' 2 years ago, or better yet, when he was only 10. 10! Dare I suggest to this boy that he may have a massive future malpractice case on his hands if ever he recovers from the barbarous and inhumane 'treatment' being pushing upon him?
The entire situation reeks of something nastier than simply a confused boy (and ergo confused parents) making some unrealistically poor decisions. It's little more than a hypothesis, but from the surface, it looks as if a group of very zealous and very morally-detached researchers preyed upon this boy and his family. Guinea pig is hardly the term I would want to use, but what else can I say?
Prayers for this boy, his family, and the doctors.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
So anyway, during the homily, the deacon accused made a comment that parishoners upset with the latest anti-life developments in Washington could take it up with Brian Higgins, the local representative who happened to be present during the Mass. After this, Higgins took his family and left Mass, apparently shocked and disgusted by the deacon's behaviour. The pastor and bishop rushed soon after to apologize to Higgins, and to public announce their intention to remonstrate the deacon.
Until the facts of the event come out in more detail, I won't comment.
Catholics for a Free Choice.
The Anglican/Episcopalian Church.
Each of these claim to represent Catholicism, each in differing degrees. Call to Action claims to represent the disaffected, disillusioned, and disenfranchised Catholics turned away by the Church's refusal to amend Her ways. DignityUSA claims to support those with homosexual tendencies who cannot (a) live as a faithful Catholic and (b) leave the Church. Catholics for a Free Choice claims, like Call to Action, to lobby for a 'liberalization' of the Church's eternal teachings, and also claims to represent a large number of people. Finally, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church defines itself as Catholic, sometimes with a capital 'c' and sometimes with a lower case 'c' - clarity not being one of its most noticeable features.
Of all of these groups, the only truly honest one is, !quelle surprise!, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church. Sure, every Catholic is well aware of the history of the Anglican Church, and has a right to disagree with my opinion, but at least the Anglicans formally left Catholicism when its leaders couldn't find the energy to hold fast to the Catholic (notice the large 'c') Church. The other groups, thus, while claiming to belong to the Catholic Church, don't really in reality.
By separating oneself from the Church on certain dogmas (which strangely enough, always seem to have something to do with sex), one begins to enter into the realm of Protestantism. Protestants, you see, are the honest Catholics who once upon again for whatever the reason decided that life was better when you cooked up your own recipe for eternal salvation and realised that such a philosophy was incompatible with Catholicism, and left. Call to Action, DignityUSA and CFFC on the other hand, are sort of Protestants in transition. They believe Protestant things, but don't believe that they're Protestants.
The problem lay Catholics face when approaching people involved or snared by these groups is that there is, or at least there has been, little support from local Church hierarchy. As I'm sure many Catholics will agree, most bishops appear more concerned with stepping on people's toes and PR than working to improve the spiritual health of their diocese. But this is beside the point, for these groups are lay run and in some cases lay funded. It is the role of the laity to make sure these groups are not able to put any more people in jeopardy.
How can we do this? Discussion and prayer.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
ROME: The Vatican's rigid opposition to euthanasia has come under fire from within its own ranks after it denied a religious funeral to a paralysed man who had asked to be removed from a life-saving respirator.
The influential former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, said on Sunday that terminally ill patients should be given the right to refuse treatments and that the doctors who assist them should be protected by law.
Now the case in questions concerns a Italian man suffering from muscular dystrophy who was being kept alive by a respirator. The Church denied him a Catholic funeral, saying that he had frequently publicly expressed a desire to end his life, and thus clearly opposed Catholic doctrine. Since many people, and I'm assuming that also means most Italians, don't know the Church's stance on end of life questions, some clarification is in order. But let's organize the facts first:(1) A man was suffering from a terminal illness.
(2) The man was being kept alive by a respirator.
(3) The man had frequently requested that his life be ended.
(4) Death was procured by the doctor removing the man from the respirator.
Catholic doctrine, according to the Catechism, clearly states that no person man make an act which results in definite death. Such an act not only endangers our soul, but it also endangers the soul of any person who participates in the death, such as the doctor in this case. The Catechism however also states that a person may refuse 'extraordinary' treatments which prolong death. Can a respirator be considered 'extraordinary' treatment?
The respirator question, I think, is something of a red herring. The key to this problem is, once again, intentionality. It is clear from the news reports and the reaction of the Church that the suffering man had made it clear that he sought to end his life. This is akin to suicide, and thus the Church made the correct, however unpopular, decision to not afford this man a Catholic funeral.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Well they can now considered themselves shocked. A recently leaked document from the Burmese government calls for the eradication of Christianity, ergo Christians too, from the country. The article I've linked states that this is part of a larger agenda of the Burmese government to make a 'pure' country, which doesn't sound at all unsimilar to those of us with good memories. The VainGlorious Fuhrer wanted to do the same thing, and did, in Germany 70 years ago. Prayers for all those living in Burma.
Seriously, the more I read about Obama, the less and less I think he is suited for the top political position of the Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern World. Going back to what we know about him:
- He's a deep blue Democrat, though not as radical as the current party leaders
- He's from a Muslim background, but is a Christian Congregationalist
- He entered politics back in 1996, but has only had noticeable success since 2002
And that's it. Obama has less than 10 years experience working in the public office, never in a position of any authority, and he's expected to be the Democrat's best hope for retaking the presidency?
My final reaction is this: If Americans elect Obama, it will be because of some sort of reverse racism which is clouding their judgement. American are so eager to prove to the world that they are no longer racist, or better yet, that they as a nation are actually just as progressive as the media, academia and elite cliques wish they were, that they will elect a man with little experience or knowledge of global, or even domestic, politics to the presidency.
GW Bush was/is a bad president. Obama will be worse.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
The last time the CBC spent so much money advertising a show, it had to do with Canadian things, like rubber pucks, gritty tape, thin ice and Swedish millionaires. But this is the latter half of the first decade of the new millenium, and being as cutting edge as CBC naturally is, we have Little Mosque on the Prairie instead. Korans, abrogated verses and polygamy are not Canadian things, however they are destined to grab people's attention until the Islam vs. Everybody war is finally settled.
For that reason alone, Little Mosque on the Prairie isn't a poor choice as a flagship show for an increasingly embattled and irrelevant TV-station. The CBC hasn't drawn serious audiences for any of its programs, other than Hockey Night in Canada, for many years. A solution had to be found, and fresh off the foiled homegrown-Islamist attack of the past summer, and the 249 or so reported Islamist attacks which occurred in December 2006, the 'clever' heads at CBC had the perfect environment to run Little Mosque.
Now a television show depicting the lives of Muslims in an overwhelmingly Christian nation would be fun, since Islam demands so much of its adherents that alienates them from their surrounding culture. Imagine the hilarity of a Muslim boy accidently eating goat or pig at a birthday party! Or the smiles to be had after Upajj, the 2nd wife, finds her husband, Muhamed Mohammad Muhamad, in perverse coitus with Faturash, the 8th wife!
According to cbcwatch, Little Mosque pulled in 2,100,000 viewers for its debut 2 Mondays ago, a good showing for a Canadian program. But then this past week, the CBC decided to rerun the debut show on Monday, rather than the next episode as promised. The rerun still gathered about 600,000, which is pretty good, considered that the much hyped The Hour with George Strombo didn't even top that for its net ratings of 2006.
But anyways, the problems with Little Mosque became readily apparent after the first five minutes. The Muslims you see, are simply portrayed as misunderstood people. Typical Canadians are rascist, xenophobic, hypocritical and bigoted people whose pedantry prevents them from realizes who joyfully wonderful these Muslims really are. The message is, Muslims don't have a problem integrating into Canada, Canadians have a problem integrating Muslims into Canada.
For many Canadians, he seems like the best thing since Bill Clinton (most Canadians are shamefully unaware of Bill's personal involvement and financial profit in the tainted blood scandal of years back, nor are they aware of Clinton & Gore's scuttling of Kyoto). For many Democrats, he is the small 'em' messiah, the one candidate who offers respite and hope from the crustiness of the old guard of Kennedy's and Kerry's and the gilded feminazifuhrer who goes by the name of Hilary Rodham Clinton.
For many conservatives, Obama is something of an enigma. He is charming and he is the first non-white Democrat in a long while to have a shot at leading the party's presidential bid. It is known that he is a born-again Christian, and that he has worked with social conservative heart-throb Sam Brownback on at least one occassion.
But what is Obama really like?
He's pro-choice: NARAL and other pro-abortion groups have consistently found him to be a reliable ally. He voted against a bill which would have offered medical support to surviving babies of botched abortions, and has voted against a ban on partial birth abortions (the ones where the baby is halfway born, then the 'doctor' cuts its spin in half).
He's anti-marriage: He has said that he personally believes that marriage is between only one man and one woman, but then voted against any constitutional entrenchment of marriage. This either makes him forgetful, or the perfect example of a hypocrite. You decide.
He's anti-war: Well who isn't? The problem is Obama hasn't made it clear how he sees the West protecting itself from its enemies. Hoping for reconcilliation is one thing, but believing that it is the Democrats of America who are the ones to foster it is dangerously close to hubris.
So is he a better choice than the other Democrats? Probably not, but he will have much more success selling himself to the public than the others.
Back at work. Back at blogging. Back in Victoria.
Some things have changed, and some things haven't. I'm now married and I now spend all of my non-work time (which is a lot) with another person. I now sleep in a bed with someone who gives new meaning to the term 'blanket hog'. It's said that you can never really prepare yourself for the trials and joys of marriage. That's true - you can't prepare yourself for waking up every morning at 5am without any covers. There is no subsitute for experience.
Christmas was unfortunately quite a rush. My family and I are the types who enjoy a prolonged, relaxed Christmas. 12 days usually isn't enough, particularly when there is a wedding right in the middle of it. The wedding however was a success by all accounts. People seemed to have enjoyed themselves, and ate and drank well. I only wish I could remember more of it.