Medefind: 10 Questions

In the latest (June 2009) issue of Comment magazine from Cardus, Jedd Medefind - a former Special Assistant to George W. Bush - answers the following question from a reader:

... My friends and I often wonder how to hear over the rhetoric and angry name-calling that often surfaces in political discussions... What would you say we should think about when we want to interact with our government?

In response, Medefind lays out 10 questions he has used to guide his political choices:

1. Is my political stance a reflection of the heart of God or merely a product of my own culture?
2. Do the goals I seek to achieve flow from a vision for common grace, or merely the narrow interests of my own group?
3. Will the tactics I use make it more difficult to influence hearts and lives positively in the long run?
4. Is government really the best way to address this issue?
5. Am I willing to be unpopular?
6. Do I sincerely love my political "enemies" as Jesus taught, not just in theory but in action?
7. Am I falling off the other side of the horse?
8. Is my political stance reflected in my private choices?
9. Have I embraced disciplines that will sustain me for the long haul?
10. What is my ultimate goal?

Medefind fleshes these questions out in more detail in the magazine article. Great questions to consider for our Christian political activity.

Ezra Levant: Shakedown

I attended a fund-raiser for Rod Bruinooge's EDA at which Ezra Levant was the keynote speaker. Somehow the lady at the event registration desk mistook me for Levant. I told her that Ezra is taller than me and a much better speaker. Today the folks at Bruinooge's office were kind enough to send me this proof of the former:



I just finished reading the pictured (and signed!) copy of his new book, Shakedown. It is a great survey of the whole topic of HRCs. Levant's forceful criticism of HRC abuses and vigorous defense of basic freedoms is easy to read and contagious. A lot of the book's material is familiar to those of us who follow his blog closely. But there are several cases that never featured on the blog, and which serve to bolster the argument he has made all along. As a matter of fact, they just make one even more disgusted at the incredible corruption of the HRCs and their obvious incompatibility with democratic freedoms.

Highly recommended. This book has to be read by many Canadians. The word has to get out that the HRCs are far from the defenders of rights - quite to the contrary, they're tramplers of those rights.

Any Argument Will Do

Federal Science and Technology Minister Gary Goodyear came under attack recently when a Globe and Mail reporter suggested that he does not believe in evolution. Yes, it was an attack. In a National Post article today, David Asper writes:

A couple of days ago, federal Minister of Science and Technology Gary Goodyear gave a brief interview to a reporter from The Globe and Mail that was supposedly about reductions in funding for scientific research. However, the entire Globe story allegedly chronicling the interview actually contained only a few sentences dealing with those cuts; one in which the Minister defended the actions being taken by the government, and another whereby he suggested that there needs to be a focus on commercialization of research. The bulk of what Globe readers got was a set of sensationalized non-sequiturs under the headline "Science minister won't confirm belief in evolution."

Asper goes on to describe a pattern of attacks on Christian Conservatives.

In July, I noted that Charles Johnson, whose blog Little Green Footballs I have read and appreciated for several years, had begun to attack young-earth creationists. Since then, it has gotten worse, to the point that many of his readers have given up on him. The problem is not that he disagrees with young-earth creationists. It is the aggressive campaign to maintain the atheist/evolutionist monopoly in education. It is the tireless dredging up of misleading and false information. And, as in this case, it is the acceptance of fallacious arguments.

Johnson affirms arguments at a blog by Phil Plait as "some good points." Here is an excerpt of Plait's post that Johnson chose to highlight:

But tell me, how would you feel if the head of your federal science department told you he believes the Earth is flat? Or the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or that he thinks the sky is a great crystal sphere, and he lies awake at night worried that the Voyager probes will smash it and let all our air out?

Those beliefs have just as much basis as young Earth creationism: they are faith-based only, and have no evidence for them, and about a billion solid pieces of evidence against them.

This is a disingenuous argument that has all the impressiveness of demolishing a straw man. Plait declares that believing that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth have as much basis as young-earth creationism. But what's the difference? Science - at least as it used to be understood. It can be observed - here and now - that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun. Molecules-to-man evolution, on the other hand, can not be observed. It can not be scientifically proven. So you have to build a framework into which the evidence fits, and then believe it. Johnson's faith is as blind and his approach as religious as those religious fanatics he believes he is opposing.

I find it interesting to read all the references to "believing in evolution" and "believing in creationism". Bible-believing Christians should never accept the latter. In the Apostle's Creed, we confess that we believe "a holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." We believe these things, but we don't believe in them. We believe in God. Similarly, young-earth creationism is not a religion or an object of faith. It's a belief grounded in the Word of God, and consistent with scientific evidence.

After Section 13

Much attention has been given in Canada - and across the world - to the systemic problems with Human Rights Commissions and their outrageous decisions. In particular, the sections of the federal and provincial Human Rights Acts that deal with speech and communication "likely to expose a person or person to hatred or contempt" have come under the spotlight. Ever since Ezra Levant went public with his fight against the Alberta Human Rights Commission a little more than one year ago, a movement to abolish Section 13 and its provincial counterpart has been gaining momentum. Canada itself has been exposed to ridicule for allowing such Orwellian courts and laws to thrive in the True North strong and free.

Human Rights Acts and Commissions are certainly the most dangerous and most immediate enemies to the freedom of speech of Canadians, particularly Christian Canadians. But what would happen if the movement to abolish the Acts and/or Commissions achieved its goal? Would the problem be solved? Could Christians sit back without fear of being silenced?

Not at all. Section 13 and its administrators are but the tip of the iceberg, a symptom of a problem that is much more widespread. In Canada, freedom of speech is under attack in other ways. Another government agency, the CRTC, has long been actively preventing Christian TV and radio programs and channels from being established.

Examples abound in public schools and universities. Chris Kempling, a counsellor in the B.C. public school system was disciplined by the B.C. College of Teachers for public criticism, on his own time, of curriculum that promoted homosexual behaviour. (The B.C. College of Teachers recently withdrew a subsequent complaint.) In February 2006, the Cape Breton University Human Rights office accepted a complaint against professor David Mullan for a letter regarding homosexuality that he sent to his local Anglican archbishop and a subsequent discussion of the letter with a student. More recently, it was reported in November that Queens University in Kingston had hired several students whose role includes monitoring private conversations and intervening when issues of "social justice" are being discussed. (This program has since been dropped.) And in the last few weeks, the University of Calgary pressed charges of trespassing against pro-life students who took part in the Genocide Awareness Project. It is particularly distressing - though not altogether surprising - to see freedom of speech especially under attack at institutions that purportedly promote open dialogue and free debate.

American colleges are not much different. Many of them have "speech codes" effectively prohibiting the expression of certain opinions. But at least in the case of our neighbours to the south, the right of free speech is protected under the First Amendment.

It's not that simple. Take John McCain, who recently ran for President. McCain was a supporter of McCain/Feingold, and obviously had no qualms about limiting freedom of speech when it was politically expedient.

And what of Barack Obama, the new President? There is evidence that Obama and his campaign used legal and organizational tactics to silence his critics. It didn't take long after his inauguration for Obama to suggest that Americans should stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, a popular conservative radio talk show host. And Obama's policy aligns closely with the Fairness Doctrine, which practically would give the government power to push certain broadcasters out of business.

True human rights are granted by God, and are therefore outside the jurisdiction of our governments. They are the positive aspect of the negative commandments. When God commands us not to bear false witness, he also declares the inalienable right and duty to bear true witness - to freely speak the truth. Christians are further called to speak the truth in love.

But often the truth - even when spoken in love - is confrontational and unpleasant to those who hear it. Their natural reaction is to prevent themselves from hearing it or to prevent others from speaking it. That is why we see many different efforts in our free societies to silence speech that is intolerable or inconvenient. In practice, it is often Christians who are being muzzled, and often at the hands of "human rights" Commissions. But we must fight these efforts regardless of their form or target; otherwise our freedom too will be in jeopardy. Let us encourage our society and government to uphold the God-given right and duty to speak the truth in love.

And So It Begins

Less than a week into his term as President, Barack Obama has come out in full support of the abortion industry. While calling for "common ground" in the debate, he praised the Roe vs. Wade decision on its 36th anniversary, and signed an executive order revoking the Mexico City Policy, allowing US funds to be used by overseas organizations involved in abortion or its promotion.

I am amazed at the number of Christians who aligned themselves with Obama during the election campaign. From my vantage point, it seems many still do. During the election campaign, one commentator pointed out the bizarre fact that there were a fair number of people who supported Obama but actually hoped that he wouldn't keep his promises. Hope and change for them meant that they hoped Obama would change his own policies. Perhaps many of these Christians fall in this category.

But the fact is, Obama's legacy should have spoken for itself. At one point on the campaign trail, Obama indicated that he wouldn't want his daughters punished with pregnancy and motherhood if they made a mistake.



Then there was the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection bill. Obama insisted on amendments to the bill to align it to a very similar federal bill. Even the large pro-abortion group NARAL did not ultimately oppose the federal bill. But when the bill, amendments included, came up in Illinois, Obama voted against it. These were two of many more clear indications of Obama's position on abortion. He was very much beyond the mainstream on the issue.

I have heard of far-left supporters of Obama who are already feeling disenfranchised by the fact that Obama is carrying on with some Bush-era policies and personnel. There were clear signs that he shared (some of) their views. Their hope for change has been disappointed.

Christians have no such excuse. Obama is keeping his promises on the abortion issue. If we are surprised, it is due to naivety or ignorance. In any case we should do away with the idea that this is a man with whom we can or should align ourselves.

Christ Jesus told Pontius Pilate:

You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.(John 19:11)

Paul exhorted Timothy:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone — for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.(1 Timothy 2:1-2)

And David showed restraint out of respect for God when he had two chances to kill a man bent on his death, but who was also the king.

We must likewise show respect for those God has put in authority. We must pray for them, perhaps especially when their actions show them to be ungodly. Yet there is no contradiction when we speak of a loyal opposition. We should not ignore or hide from the truth. Our prophetic task with respect to those in authority, as was Elijah's, is sometimes to respectfully and boldly oppose them.

Breitbart: Hollywood Celebrities Not Citizens, But Serfs

Andrew Breitbart rightly takes Hollywood celebrities to task for their on-again-off-again take on patriotism and citizenship, after several of them put out a celebrity-filled "Presidential Pledge" video. I Pledge to Ridicule Celebrities Who Refuse to Recognize We Are At War With People Who Want to Kill Them, Too:

This video illustrates that the current celebrity class are not citizens but serfs. They need a leader to put their minds in the right place to do the right thing. They are not heroic individualists seeking to extend America’s promise but conformists who chose to sit out and complain during the tough years in order to ensure their guy got in the next go-around.

Read the whole article. Breitbart's final sentiment is not the right approach, but his criticism are bang-on.

Another Political Union

Some time before Sunday, all of Canada's postal workers sat down and, after careful debate, hammered out a mutually agreeable and acceptable statement regarding the crisis in Israel and Gaza. Wait. No they didn't. Maybe they took a vote? I doubt it.

On behalf of the 56,000 members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, I am writing to demand that the Canadian government condemn the military assault on the people of Gaza that the state of Israel commenced on December 26th, 2008.

That's right. Denis Lemelin, National President of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW), took it upon himself to speak on behalf of 56,000 union members. Guess what? They all agree that

• Israel's largely pinpoint destruction of Hamas weapons and strongholds is a "military assault on the people of Gaza"
• Israel was the party that started the fight "on December 26, 2008"
• Israel's operations are a "siege on Gaza"
• "the root cause of the violence" is "Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories"
• Israel's current actions are totally out of proportion with any notion of self-defense."

(Incidentally, the CUPW president fails to write the name 'Hamas' even once in his letter. Even if he had, I'm sure his spell-checker would have corrected it to 'oppressed freedom-fighters'. You can read the full letter here.)

This is the consensus of 56,000 out of 56,000 Canadian postal workers. Or that is what Mr. Lemelin would have us believe. Perhaps it's a healthy 42,000 out of 56,000. Three out of four is a solid majority. Perhaps it's 40,000. Perhaps it's 28,001 - a slight 50-percent-plus-one majority, but a majority nonetheless. Perhaps it's 14,000 of 56,000. (One can only hope.)

But what does it matter?

Last month I wrote about how today's unions have long lost sight of their original cause and purpose. One aspect of this overreach was political action:

Today's unions are political. It can be argued that it is for the good of the workers to support a political party that is likely to be sympathetic to union demands. But do political contributions represent the diversity of political support among the union members? And what can be said, for instance, of the CAW boss Buzz Hargrove's official letter to Prime Minister Harper taking a political stand during the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006? Did his recommendations represent the majority view of union members? Even if it did, what business is it of CAW's to make political pronouncements?

Regardless of what numerator you throw on top of 56,000, by what authority does the CUPW or its executive "demand [emphasis mine -ed.] that the Canadian government condemn the military assault on the people of Gaza"? What business does it have to "strongly urge the Canadian government to condemn the serious violations of humanitarian and international law by the state of Israel"?

It's bad enough that the CUPW pretends to speak on behalf of all its members on controversial political issues. But it says something about the audacity of today's unions when they are happy to abuse their power and influence in domains in which they have no business.