[. . . . ] I will not reveal the name of this individual.
[. . . . ] an Anglican clergyman and sometime academic.
[. . . . ] He was writing on the gay marriage issue, and he wanted the world to know that, even though he is "a church-going, Bible-reading, creed- affirming Christian," he is whole-heartedly in favour of gay marriage.
All through his life this man has watched the advance of the "common good," he writes.
Things like the decriminalization of contraception back in the '20s, the legalization of Sunday sports in the '40s, the easing of the divorce laws in the '60s, the legalization of abortion in the '70s, and now with the new century, the crowning achievement, the legalization of gay marriage.
"Canadians have learned to live with successive changes in lifestyle, each one feared as the first step on a slippery slope," he writes. "Yet we have remained a peaceable kingdom... Laws in a pluralistic society must embrace everyone. This country is a better place to live for all of us when we acknowledge we can be different without fighting about it. Or repressing it."
Now the fascinating aspect of all this is that while the man knows that great changes have occurred in our society, he does not realize that equally great changes have also occurred within himself.
[. . . . ] Put the right spin on some new "freedom," support it with editorials and columns in the "authoritative" newspapers, furnish it with the respected academic credentials, let the judges loose on it, and in 30 years you could have a man like this swinging from the trees with a banana in his mouth, all the while gibbering: "This country is a better place to live for all of us, when we acknowledge we can be different."
What, I wonder, is the basis of this thing he calls "the common good?"
Where does it come from? What is its authority?
Is it merely whatever the majority favours?
If the majority approve of, say, slavery, does that mean slavery must serve the common good? [. . . . ]
What is the authority for the common good? Have you asked lately?
Check the Calgary Sun poll results-- definition of marriage
Question: Should a national referendum be held on changing the traditional definition of marriage? Yes 78%
No: 22%
Time: Dec. 23, 04, early afternoon
Cdns feel there's too much gambling in the country: poll
OTTAWA (CP) - Most Canadians agree there's too much government-run gambling in the country and the boost in tax revenues isn't worth the social cost, a national poll suggests.
Most of those polled - 58 per cent - say increased opportunities to gamble have led to an increase in problem gambling, says a study by Decima Research released Wednesday. Only one in four respondents - 23 per cent - say the benefit of increased tax revenues offsets the negative impact of gambling.
Half of the people polled believe provincial governments should cut back on advertising and promotion of lotteries and gambling, and 40 per cent say governments should not permit construction of casinos.
[. . . . ] Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty admitted before a caucus meeting last month that the province has come to rely on gambling revenue. [. . . . ]
He is not the only one. It is a cash cow for governments -- and for those with other connections to it. Of course, governments should not be involved. I consider it a tax on the poor and the stupid -- a terribly old-fashioned view. Nevertheless, I have yet to buy my first lottery ticket -- and I am satisfied with that.
I want governments out of the gambling business; furthermore, I don't want to see another ad stating "do ***** and get a chance to win that" from any business, but especially those purporting to be handling people's life savings. How can you take a bank seriously that offers a chance to "win"? Banks are supposed to be realistic, sober, cautious -- and other similar descriptive terms -- not promotors of "chance" and "free". I expect even more from our governments. Gambling is a curse upon the poor and the foolish.
Have we become such a nation of gamblers?
Sex scandal in Congo threatens to engulf UN's peacekeepers -- They should be rebuilding the country, but foreign workers face serious accusations
HOME-MADE pornographic videos shot by a United Nations logistics expert in the Democratic Republic of Congo have sparked a sex scandal that threatens to become the UN’s Abu Ghraib.
The expert was a Frenchman who worked at Goma airport as part of the UN’s $700 million-a-year effort to rebuild the war-shattered country. When police raided his home they discovered that he had turned his bedroom into a studio for videotaping and photographing sex sessions with young girls.
The bed was surrounded by large mirrors on three sides, according to a senior Congolese police officer. On the fourth side was a camera that he could operate from the bed with a remote control.
When the police arrived the man was allegedly about to rape a 12-year-old girl sent to him in a sting operation. Three home-made porn videos and more than 50 photographs were found.
The case has highlighted the apparently rampant sexual exploitation of Congolese girls and women by the UN’s 11,000 peacekeepers and 1,000 civilians at a time when the UN is facing many problems, including the Iraqi “oil-for-food” scandal and accusations of sexual harassment by senior UN staff in Geneva and New York.
The prospect of the pornographic videos and photographs — now on sale in Congo — becoming public worries senior UN officials, who fear a UN version of the scandal at the American-run Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. “It would be a pretty big problem for the UN if these pictures come out,” one senior official said. [Perhaps the UN should be more concerned about the child-victims involved rather than in the UN's reputation which is in tatters anyway?]
Investigations have already turned up 150 allegations of sexual misconduct by peacekeepers and UN staff despite the UN’s official policy of “zero-tolerance”. One found 68 allegations of misconduct in the town of Bunia alone. [. . . . ]
How could they? Where is the pleasure in bedding someone hungry, deprived or with any number of poverty's reasons? What leads men to be aroused by debasing the poor benighted child females of the world and photographing the act? They are not men -- nor are those men who salaciously view the product. Any man needing this for arousal lacks the first quality of a real man--understanding of and empathy for another. Sick.
Don't they ever think of their own children and the quixotic nature of fate? It would not take much for the middle class 'haves' to slide into being 'have-nots' -- and a run of misfortune (which several seem ready to bring the West) could result in who knows what for the children of present good fortune.
Thinking individuals should be storing up good karma for the bad times. The gods have a way of visiting horrors on all of us when we least expect them; it would be wise to prepare the soul--not in a Christian sense--but in the sense that cultivating one's humanity toward one's fellows might help one face one's own inevitable adversity. It might even bring kindness in return. The high ideals with which the UN began have fled if the activity described above could take place at all amongst those tasked with aiding and protecting.
It seems to me that we might as well admit that the UN is not working at all -- and start small building something better, less venal. The UN has become an unwieldy bureaucracy comprised of some unfit to help or to lead anything. The activity described is despicable -- but so were Rwanda, the oil-for-food program kickbacks, the inability of the UN to see the evil of any but Israel, the rise of thug states to positions of prominence in the UN of all bodies, et cetera.
Is it Time to Bring Back that Old-time Religion -- Do you think too many are not reasoning out how to behave as decent human beings?
Consideration of the evil inherent in men or women who would look at or enjoy pornography brought to mind the wavering moral compass in the West today. I am thinking also of our own society's bullying, violence, drugs, criminality--all the evils to which our children turn, perhaps the result of our own generation's example of laxity and too much "understanding". I have puzzled as to why what was considered unethical, immoral, or plain evil just a generation ago became acceptable under our watch. Always, I returned to the influence of the religious teachings of the past--in my case a Christian past. There were firm rules to live by, not situational ethics, nor discussion of your "values" vs someone else's. There was a right and a wrong. Today, there is nothing deemed so evil that it deserves society's rage and extreme censure, not understanding. It will be our downfall.
Has tolerance, understanding, moral relativism a life-span beyond which it results its own civilization's demise?
Think of our PM's lack of what should have been rage on Canadians' behalf in allowing an admitted Al Qaeda family, the Khadrs, to return to Canada. What he was saying is that our citizenship means nothing -- that it will accept anything. Think of the Walkerton Koebels, the hockey thug Bertuzzi, Homulka and others whom the courts have not, in most eyes, punished adequately, I suspect. Think of the community or communities who have allowed their personal fear of retaliation or their hatred of police to allow them not to turn in those committing violent and dangerous acts, thereby protecting and prolonging evil. When it turns out that this is the case, will society show its fury by punishing them? Not likely. The justice system through the courts send a message with their inadequate meting out of society's punishments against evil; they are simply reflecting the tendency of society to excuse most behaviours. Society must demand the meting out of justice by those who represent their interests, if our society is not to collapse and evil is allowed to prosper.
This is a time for some introspection, if Christianity means anything at all to those of us who believe Christmas means something other than shopping--though not necessarily holding a belief in Jesus Christ as God. Many of us fled organized religion because it was forced upon us and we believed we could reason on our own. Finally, full circle, it seems, and based upon reason--not necessarily belief--many of us have come to see the need for a God and organized religion. I suspect most of mankind needs to believe in something outside the self to provide direction when they cannot reason for themselves to a body of rules for living a decent, ethical and moral life. At least the religion of the past brought fear of the consequences of one's evil actions -- if reason were lacking in the individual.
Furthermore, do we really believe that in all human history, our good fortune in the West derives from some innate superiority on our part? Hardly. We have been blessed with this Judeo-Christian tradition which has allowed much that is good to thrive--though our society is beset now by a foolhardy tolerance for everything except this tradition. It would be well for us to remember that good fortune may be replaced by its opposite. We may be beset by complete evil--and little warning; 9/11 comes to mind. Sometimes, sweet reason is futile in the face of evil; we are seeing it more and more.
God and the various Jewish and Christian mediators for God did not reason. God's representatives or intermediators pronounced, directed, gave orders, did not seek to understand. Believers were forced to admit errors--sometimes true evil--try to make amends, live better, or face the justified wrath of homes, communities, and whole societies. Societal pressure to coerce right behaviour brought about the required action on the part of most who could not reason it out and who had a snippet of conscience. Today, in the face of true evil, our society "understands"; conscience is out but understanding is in. Enough! Religion did not pat evildoers on the back with understanding; it gave certainty, a certainty our society needs desperately today -- for the continuance of the best in Western society.
Whoever took part in the activities mentioned in the UN article above is undoubtedly beyond the certainties of a god; our society's children and youth are not. I am suggesting we need to give example in the hope of bringing back that old-time religion -- whether in our hearts we are certain about the existence of God or not. Short of belief, how can we know? But we can see the good that belief has accomplished -- belief in an all-knowing God, a harsh taskmaster, but One whose teachings have stood us in good stead in the West. I know there was evil done in the name of God, but, on balance, more good resulted for the society. It seems that too few families are teaching their children to reason their way to what is right -- based even on long-term self-interest if necessary; now, perhaps, those of us who think we have reasoned it out should help families by returning to the certainties and teachings of organized religion's certainties for the good of all our children.
Now is the time to admit that if there were no God, humans would have had to invent Him -- for Western civilization to survive and thrive. I do not touch on the rest of the world's beliefs. It would be enough to start with ours. Fear of a wrathful God is a powerful motivator where evil exists in the unreasoning individual.
Or is that too . . . . . old fashioned?
Blessings upon all. May you give and receive the gift of family and friends along with the spirit of goodness which is a God whose birth we celebrate. Merry Christmas.
