FANATICAL FEMINISM

Red Deer Express, March 5^th, 2014. Even as early as the mid-seventies, feminism was rearing its ungodly head in classrooms in Canada. I remember it well. Now boys and men are being elbowed out of the way as if they were imposters to humanity.

If, out of deference to women, men stepped to the side, that would be okay. But what, other than coercive, plaintive feminism, resulted in all three flag-bearers being women? I don’t care much for sports, and did not watch more than a few minutes of Olympic coverage. But this news clip furnishes one more example of feminist fanaticism. Notice that it is not enough to figure out how well Canada did for medals won. No, there must be a ‘gender analysis’ to figure out that Canadian women did better than Canadian men. This kind of focus is what divides the genders and occasions backbiting between the sexes. It is, to speak like a feminist for a second, sexist.

There are so many other examples of fanatical feminism in Canada, especially via CBC Radio, our national broadcaster. On Canada Reads 2014, the yearly forum during which the merits of Canadian novels are debated, CBC was careful to give women participants and authors a fighting chance. Out of five debaters, three were men; out of five books debated, three were authored by women. Nice and even. Isn’t it pathetic that CBC has to yield fifty percent or more to women in order to keep the feminists from bellyaching? But does it work? Does it prevent the feminists from squawking? At some point during the debate one of the women complained of sexism when it didn’t go her way. It is always sexism to a feminist when women are not on the winning side. Incidentally, the man who won Canada Reads 2014 was an Indian defending a book that was written about Indians and that was authored by an Indian. He used the word ‘Indian’ as if it is still normal and appropriate to do it. So white persons may do it too. I will continue to do so no matter what. 

Here is another example of what I’m talking about, from CBC’s The Current, March 21^st, 2014. Only politicians, pundits, and feminists would be keeping count of how many women premiers there are in Canada. I learned on The Current that this country, up until recently, had six premiers governing eighty-five percent of the population. Who but fanatical feminists would keep track of exactly what percentage of the population is being governed by women? Normal people would not even think about doing so. Now that the number of women premiers are down to three, the fanatical feminists are out with the numbers, and complaining about the feminist drop. One of the politicians who balked at Premier Redford’s governing style said that she’s not a nice lady. According to CBC Radio, that statement must be full of gender discrimination. He said what he said in the most inoffensive way imaginable, yet because he opposed a woman he must be against her gender. It is not possible to criticize a woman without feminists yelling sexism and misogyny. What could he have said to avoid the accusation? Should he have said ‘not nice’ and left out ‘she is’ and be perceived as an imbecile speaking nonsense? As soon as it is a ‘she’ who is said to be ‘not nice,’ it must be a misogynistic statement.

Here is another example, from Eleanor Wachtel’s Writers and Company. On March 16^th, 2014, she hosted a panel of women who were invited to discuss George Eliot’s Middlemarch. One woman pointed out that both George Eliot and her husband were adulterous. A second woman pointed out the double standard that was in effect at that time: the adulterous husband could show himself in high society, while his adulterous wife could not, which is what gave her more time to write. To this point, one of the women returned something like, “Of which we can all relate.” Let’s examine that statement. First, it is not true that such a double standard was in effect for all women in the Victorian scene. Second, the quip that the women on this panel can all relate is an admission that these women must be adulterous also, or something comparable thereto. Feminists don’t mind labeling themselves today, as long as the label is about the subversion of traditional mores.

Feminists are bitter against every segment of society that they are not the rulers of. On the extremely gay-friendly, feminist-leaning program called Q (which letter I think secretly stands for queer), a discussion was opened up on November 18^th, 2013 regarding women sports reporters. The discussion was prompted by a critical comment by a male newscaster about women not belonging in his ‘sandbox.’ What was he objecting to? He was objecting to women asking irrelevant questions to male athletes like, “If you were an animal, what kind of animal would that be?” The opinion on the Q panel was that more women sports reporters are needed, and that those in charge of hiring reporters should, if they lack female applicants, go out and rustle them up. Do you see how fanatical feminism is? Feminists will be bitter until they take over. And even if they take over, they will remain bitter, for it is the nature of a feminist to be bitter, mad, militant, nasty, unfair, and mean.

Examples of fanatical feminism are not lacking from CBC Radio. I could come up with at least one example per day, I think. And it is the CBC, probably more than any other medium in Canada, that pushes for the dominion of women over men.

Militant feminists operate like so: they collaborate; they fabricate lies; they segregate whoever they can’t recruit; they ignite a cause; they litigate; they celebrate; and they congregate anew to rehash their bitterness.

It is said by the Lord that he has this against the church of Ephesus: “thou hast left thy first love.” This concerns the spiritual wellbeing of a congregation. In an earthly sense, feminists are those who have, like Eve did, left their first love, man, and they have not returned and are not looking back. They are against man even while they confess their love. They are making war even while they are on the make. They are angry, malicious, vengeful, and determined to get man’s portion in addition to their own, and to go on madly demanding more than man has left to give. Every person who leaves his or her first love will end up in a bitter spirit until a return to first love is commenced. Feminism is a bitter religion because it goes against the grain of what woman was made for and what can make her happy (in the natural, not spiritual, sense): being ‘an help meet for him’ (Genesis 2.18.) 

Here is an example from March 20^th, 2014 of how women feel their biblical need for men so much that they will risk their hearts and fortunes in order to get one. I don’t remember what show I heard this on. But I heard it on CBC Radio. The topic was middle-aged women frequenting Cuba in search of romance and love with desperate Cuban men (men who are desperate for a better class of life.) Of course, liaisons like that are likely to end in women being used. But even after confessing to being dumped after spending much time, effort, and cash to get her Cuban interest into Canada, the woman would not admit that she was tricked. When asked about what the chances are that she was used, she replied, ‘fifty/fifty.’ And the CBC feminists did not correct her on that. Why not? Because they are fanatics who refuse to admit that women are so desperate for men that they will risk being used on the outside chance that they might land one. Why are the women at the CBC so willing to do a story on this topic? Because they think it is a sign of liberation that women would launch out like that in order to gain a man. But it is also because the women at the CBC are continually experiencing this felt-need for men as well, which is a biblical need right out of Genesis 2.18.

CBC'S RADICAL FEMINISM

Many Canadians are feminists. But few Canadians, or Americans, for that matter, are radical feminists. In fact, I can’t say that I know even one. I know of some, however, even of many. And they work at CBC Radio, our public broadcaster. Should taxpayers who don’t even know what radical feminism is be made to pay for radically feminist propaganda? Taxpayers are obliged to pay 1.1 billion dollars per year to fund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Public broadcasting, if it should exist at all, ought never to be used for promoting hatred.

CBC personalities regularly denounce misogyny: the hatred of women. This is good, except that it is done while the other side of each mouth spews misandry: the hatred of men. That is what radical feminism always contains somewhere in its message: the hatred of men. What could be more contrary to the mandate of a public broadcaster than to promote hatred toward half the public? Isn’t public broadcasting supposed to represent everyone and bring everyone together? Should taxpayers be paying big money to listen to feminists putting men down?

Here is an example of the kind of content that taxpayers are obliged, by law, to pay for. To discuss CBC’s favorite topic: the ascent of women at the expense of men, a debate was moderated by Jian Ghomeshi on his quaint program called Q (November 15^th, 2013.) The debate was about whether or not men have become obsolete. Imagine if a church moderated a debate on whether or not women were obsolete? or maybe on whether they should get back in the kitchen in order to solve the unemployment problem? Probably the church in which the debate happened would be burned down and the pastors involved would go to jail. But the CBC gets a free pass to preach radical, man-hating feminism. It won’t get a free pass in this article!

Soon after the sinister debate began, one side actually told the truth by calling it an ‘agreement-fest.’ As if discussing such a topic were not wicked enough, CBC was careful to stack the deck to ensure a one-sided conversation, or attack. And so the moderator and the two debaters had lots of fun engaging in their man-hatred. A diatribe against men by a trio of feminists must have been CBC’s proudest moment on that day. The ‘end of men,’ the ‘end of patriarchy’—these are the golden calves that CBC cows are so often nursing. I use the word ‘cows’ intentionally and without apology. “Their cow calveth, and casteth not her calf” (Job 21.10.) This verse seems suitable enough. Feminists are continually calving feminism in different forms, and then nursing these unnatural offspring with all the care that is necessary for their growth. And like cows do, these feminists are always regurgitating their old cud to chew on and be self-satisfied by. To be fair, they did say that it should not be taken literally that men might be obsolete. But you see, they could not resist the title they had chosen because they are in love with the idea that the title signifies. Radical feminists cannot conceal the provocative canker that grows out from their hating hearts.

The man who moderated the debate (I use the word ‘man’ loosely) was Jian Ghomeshi, whose chief characteristic might be uxoriousness: excessive submission to a wife (the CBC girls being his spiritual wives.) What kind of man is willing to moderate a feminist-slanted debate on whether or not men are obsolete? He must be, not only uxorious, but, if we take Jezebel’s husband for our model, excessively immoral also. He will pretend to blush at an obscene remark made by a conservative mayor, and yet not blush at all to discuss the propriety of gay sexual intercourse on the stage of a theatre!

[Since the Ghomeshi scandal broke, it seems that Ghomeshi might be a reincarnation of Jekyll and Hyde. His Jekyll side hits balls out of the park for feminism; his Hyde side just hits and chokes.] 

There are other examples of radical hatred of the male sex at the CBC. Feminists claim to be striving for equality: equal rights, equal opportunity, equal pay, etc. But, in truth, they strive for inequality. For example, in a lecture on blood, the lecturer complained about targets in the form of women over at the National Rifle Association somewhere (CBC Radio, Ideas, November 14^th, 2013.) Supposing that such targets exist, should feminists not be glad about it? Since radical feminists are the ones mostly responsible for getting women into combat roles, and since they claim to believe that women and men should be equally treated, why the madness against these targets in the form of women? Must all the targets look like men? Not if equality is the aim.

Yet one more example of misandry at, and from, CBC Radio. Examples must not be lacking considering that I gathered the three used in this article over the course of a few hours in the space of one week. Piya Chattopadhyay filled in for Ghomeshi on Q, November 7^th, 2013. What’s been on Piya’s mind? Well, Piya would like to see Canadian women on Canadian currency: ‘on every last bit of it.’ Where is the sense of equality in that? This was no playful remark. The comment was unleashed in a tone not unlike what one would expect to arise from an embittered heart. What appalling, radical, man-hating misandry over at CBC Radio! Anyone who would laugh her comment off and be okay with it is so cowed by that monster regiment called feminism that there is little hope for him or her to stand upright, ever. What percentage of Piya’s personal currency is paid by manly taxpayers? Since men are supposed to be obsolete, maybe we should minus that amount from her salary. Would Piya be relieved, or stressed, I wonder, at the prospect of no longer being supported by men? Is it not worth a big salary cut, Piya, to have your feminist dream come true? Come to think of it, maybe Ghomeshi’s salary should be reduced to whatever sum gay persons will give. 

Why are radical feminists so entirely shrew-like? It is because they suspect that the superiority of women will never be realized to their satisfaction. No matter how much they try to rewrite history through historical fiction and try to fashion a fantastic future by the novel, the ghost of patriarchy past is always appearing to them like a foreboding specter, and they are haunted by it. They know that women have never dominated the world and that their dream, therefore, has no precedent from which to launch itself into reality. Their hearts, because estrogen rules there instead of testosterone, persistently remind them that they are not made to rule. To some degree, or just enough to unsettle, the prophecy from Genesis 3.16 must be written on every feminist heart, no matter how radical: “He shall rule over thee.” In the end (and this must the most galling thing of all to feminists who are not comatose to Scripture), no woman can be admitted into heaven without submission to the ‘Son of God,’ the ‘Son of man,’ the ‘Man Christ Jesus.’ Heaven will be comforting and blissful for an infinite number of reasons, not the least of which is: no feminist will be suffered to rear a stubborn head there. “The head of the woman is the man” (1 Corinthians 11.3) will one day, beginning at judgment day, be the rule everywhere. Can I hear an Amen to that? Amen, and Amen.

INDIAN AFFAIRS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

In the late 1800s in western Canada, the principal source of food (buffalo) for Indian tribes living on the plains terminated. The white man was beginning to occupy and settle the best land. And the transcontinental railway was being laid to provide the means of making those settlements permanent and comfortable. Recognizing the impossibility of continuing their traditional, desired way of life, and seeing that the white man’s plans could not be resisted, the Blackfeet, the Bloods, and the Sarcees put themselves at the mercy of the queen through her representatives, and signed a treaty. Chief Crowfoot: “I hope you look upon the Blackfeet, Bloods, and Sarcees as your children now, and that you will be indulgent and charitable to them” (Hugh A. Dempsey, Crowfoot, Chief of the Blackfeet, p. 103.) Parcels of land were then agreed upon for the Indians to occupy, to hunt on, and to work. Allotments of food, money, and tobacco followed, along with a long train of abuses by the Crown and demands by the tribes. The relations between these two parties are far from salutary over a century later. The dealings between the government of Canada and the Indian tribes are framed historically by an educated Cree woman, Judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She divides the negotiations into four periods and approaches: 1840s-1900, assimilation; 1910-1950, segregation; 1950s-1970, integration; 1970s-present, reconciliation (CBC Radio, Ideas, Human Rights Lecture, October 16th, 2013.) It is not my purpose to judge the merits of this rough outline, but to consider the nature, and assess the aim and merits, of the present period and approach. 

Hostility between guilty parties calls for mutual reconciliation. The white man brought diseases, liquor, and death into Indian territories. Then he began to settle the land that the Indians had been crisscrossing upon unhindered for centuries. The final two singular insults were the attempted obliteration of Indian culture and the multi-faceted abuse of Indian children by vile persons in religious orders and government institutions. Reconciliation must come about through penalties and amends for these wrongs. Because most of the abusers are in the ground awaiting judgment, and because Roman Catholic priests are above the law until judgment, the only recourse left for reparation is financial compensation. Monetary atonement will continue for as long as there are taxpayers to keep the subsidies flowing into reserves. Probably every Canadian agrees that some measure of pecuniary penance ought to continue indefinitely. 

We have come to a point in time, however, when Indians ought to be attempting some reconciliation of their own for the wrongs done by them. A person doesn’t have to be ahead of his time to know that it is high time for the attempt to begin. The white man may be making much profit from the resources being drawn from the land once solely occupied by the Indians. But the Indians have been grossly guilty of squandering their share in these profits. When I was a boy, we took a trip to a place called Matachewan, Ontario to do some camping. While traveling through the town, I asked my dad and his friend what the reason was for all the new houses there being empty and abandoned. It may seem impolite of me to relate the reason because the truth is that the Indians were not civilized enough to occupy these homes. They had made their new lodgings unfit for human habitation by using their furniture for firewood and by dismantling the accessories that a modern home depends on in order to work. New houses had become condemned houses in very short order. Monetary compensation made our lives more difficult, says Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond in her speech. I wish that she had elaborated. When money is placed into irresponsible hands, the outcome will always be a tendency toward poverty. “Without the civilizing force of universal moral standards, particularly honesty, trust, self-respect, integrity, and loyalty, the marketplace quickly degenerates” (Warren Brookes, Goodness and the GNP, in Is Capitalism Christian?, p. xvii.) Correct, marketplace degeneration is hastened on by degenerate behavior, as in the ungrateful demolition of donated homes. “He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster” (Proverbs 18.9.) 

Increasing the subsidy supply will be a wasted effort until a greater level of morality is attained by our native recipients. This fact, I think, is well known, but working people are too afraid or embarrassed to acknowledge it out loud and openly. Rather, liberal CBC talkers speak like so about Indian affairs: “There’s a lot more we need to do” (Jian Ghomeshi, CBC Radio, Q, October 17th, 2013 or thereabouts.) By the context in which this comment was couched, it is clear that the more that needs to be done, in Ghomeshi’s mind, comes down to reconciling more by giving more. The reconciliation is always stressed for the one side to effectuate, and this reconciliation that needs to happen always gets reduced to more giving. I recently heard a guest/lobbyist on CBC Radio proposing our mistreatment of the Indians to be labeled a ‘genocide.’ There is no just reason to call it that, which is evidenced by his method of convincing us of his opinion: by ‘engaging the passions,’ he haplessly admits (CBC Radio, The Current, October 17th, 2013.) You see, never mind what arguments might be forwarded in favor of the proposal. Bypass the intellect, fire up the passions, and you may get enough people to ignorantly agitate and to press the government to acquiesce! About a second after the man presented his exaggerated label idea for native mistreatment, it flashed upon my mind that money must be in it somewhere for someone. And about a second after that, he stated that a certification of the new label could involve treaty rights and finances. If certain persons believe that our ill-treatment of aboriginal people amounts to an essay to exterminate, why don’t they call it genocide amongst themselves and leave it at that? It is because a political ratification of the lie would be tied to payments. A ‘hyperactive guilt reflex’ (Franky Schaeffer, Is Capitalism Christian?, p. xxiii) will cause persons to admit more guilt than they are responsible for, and they will give a great deal more than they ought to give in order to alleviate the sense of guilt that haunts them. Or, a lobbyist who proposes that a confession be made may be looking to how he, not just the victim, might gain by a ratification of it.   

When human rights are spoken of in the context of Indian affairs, responsibility should be the connecting link between the two. Any rights that are accorded, either by God or government, must be connected with responsibility or else anarchy and shame will result. Because Indians enjoy so many privileges without the stability that responsibility would impart, reserves are disordered districts descending further and further into moral degradation. Money cannot counteract immorality. The imposition of responsibility can. A Christian ethic would take responsibility upon itself. In her speech, Doctor Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has a lot to say about native history and culture, and she throws in some anecdotes that are calculated to elicit compassion for her people. But she says absolutely nothing about the native responsibility that should coincide with Indian rights. Her anecdotes, moreover, prove the opposite of what she alleges: that aboriginal women are poor. Some of them have to raise their children in motel rooms, they are so poor, she pitifully exclaims. The truth is, anyone raising kids in a motel room has more than enough money to do it in an apartment, for motel rooms are let at dearer rates than apartments are. I know this from personal experience. Do you see how out of touch some academic types are with reality on the ground of common life? Without checking their facts, their anecdotes, and their expressions, they parrot whatever string of words that they think will most fire up the passions of their listeners. “I know you’re not going to be able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps,” she says to an imagined abused native, as if to suggest that one should be able to do so if only one had more money to attempt it with. Reader, get yourself some boots that have bootstraps on them, and then pull the boots on by pulling hard on those straps. Then, after your feet are driven downward and you are not pulled up, look up the expression to find out its meaning, and you will discover that the figure of speech was never intended to illustrate a possibility. We can’t expect judges to judge aright these days. Why should we expect them to speak reasonably? Aboriginal mothers are such good caregivers, she says. Well, I would not go so far as to generalize like that. How many of these mothers are on something like OxyContin unnecessarily? How many of them are addicted to Scope? How many of them slept around, got irresponsibly pregnant, continued to drink alcohol while pregnant, and then brought forth babies afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome? Is a biblical lifestyle not a better ideal? “She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her” (Proverbs 31.27, 28.) I have an Indian aunt who may come close to the ideal stated there. Sadly, I believe that she is an exception. Here is a personal anecdote from second hand, not just a general anecdote like the one the judge gave out. I once had a friend who shacked up with a native woman who had visiting rights with her son. My friend had to resist her efforts to have sex with him on the couch in front of that son, who was about ten years of age at that time. Children who are exposed to lewd acts are more apt than otherwise to become dangerous, sexual deviants, as documentaries about serial killers do show. Why doesn’t Judge Turpel-Lafond mention a story in her speech like the one I just told? If, in spite of my limited associations with natives, I know of one such story, how many stories just like that might she come up with? The immoral, irresponsible side of Indian affairs in Indian communities must be met, not with augmented allowances, but policies of accountability. Neglecting to make chiefs of Indian bands account for the money they are given does no good for the members of Indian communities who are lower down on the totem poles. As for those who do see some of that money, how about some accountability for how that money is spent? How about some penalties for wasting money?  

The Crown holds land in reserve for the First Nations. Several years ago, the Nisga’a people were given actual possession of a large tract of land in the Nass valley in British Columbia. Along with this deal, this tribe was given 200 million dollars outright, with a promise of another 33 million per year indefinitely. The Nisga’a president then said this about it: “We are no longer wards of the State!” (CBC Radio, The Current, This Land is my Land, Laura Lynch, November 4th, 2013.) Oh yes you are, Mr. President. As long as you receive money from the State, you are a ward of the State. You cannot be autonomous and a ward at the same time. Genuine self-government must be self-sufficient. Your statement is more infantile than presidential. Like an ungrateful teenager, you want power but you want someone else to provide the fuel for it. Revealing sound bites from other persons occur on this program as well. A squaw wanting to build her own restaurant complains about the money having to come out of her own pocket, for instance. What a shame! She might have to pay something out of her own pocket like a real taxpayer does! And the money out of her pocket probably comes from the taxpayer already! In the late 1800s, Chief Crowfoot of the Blackfoot Nation “made an impassioned plea for more rations for his destitute people and more help to make them self-sufficient” (Hugh A. Dempsey, Crowfoot, Chief of the Blackfeet, p. 137.) Over a century later, after billions and billions of dollars in aid, peoples who want to be called Nations are not even close to becoming self-sufficient! Self-sufficiency is not their goal.    

When was the last time you saw an Indian at Tim Hortons at seven in the morning? And if you did, was he on his way to work? Those who line up there before the workday begins are working people, too few of which are from the Indian community. Seeing more Indians there at the break of dawn would be a good sign.

THE LOOMING LIVING WAGE

Something called a ‘living wage’ has been coming up on the news a lot lately. It’s another liberal idea on how to ‘cure’ poverty, an additional welfare tax for the taxpayer to righteously oppose. If citizens get too careless about who they vote into office, this tax proposal will become a reality, to the looting of checks, pay stubs, wallets, and bank accounts everywhere. I have heard the living wage being proposed federally, provincially, and even municipally. If implemented federally, the living wage would cost taxpayers, bottom line, thirty billion dollars per year. That is the estimate given by Conservative Senator Hugh Segal (CBC Radio, October 13^th, 2013.) He says that the cost would actually be less than that because this tax would offset other welfare taxes already in force. But since tax figures are always low-balled, we might as well dismiss the opinion by Hugh Segal that the living wage would cost less than thirty billion. It would cost much, much more. Tax proposals usually overrun. 

The living wage is explained by Senator Segal as a top-up plan that will bring everyone up to a certain wage (Ibid.) Really, this is just an evil kind of Robin Hood scheme that will take away the proceeds of hard-won success and deposit them, through a tax, into the hands of those who have succeeded less or don’t even try. Redistribution of money not only robs people of their right to self-made wealth, but in doing so, it slays personal industry by killing incentive. Incentive to be industrious is in peril when the gain that would accrue from industry is swiped off the top by government strong-arming. And redistribution of wealth without replenishing production is death to an economic system.

The living wage, or something comparable to it, is forwarded as a solution to poverty by persons in high places. That is the reason why we should especially fear the proposal. Senator Hugh Segal seems to be the chief advocate in Canada for it. And not only does he want the living wage idea enforced, he does not want the recipients of the money to be scrutinized in any way! (Erin Anderssen, Globe and Mail, November, 19^th, 2010.)

He sees the government as some sort of mother, I suppose. He does not want this mother to negotiate money to her kids through plexiglas, he says (Ibid.) He would like the money to be given unconditionally. Throw away the notion of imposing a burden of responsibility on the recipients of this money. This is what he is getting at. But listen: “Dr. Karl Menninger suggests that one of the principal reasons for the rapid rise in mental illness in our society is the decline in a sense of individual responsibility and personal worth…He argues that people have always learned more from their mistakes than from their success; but when the ‘price’ of mistakes is eliminated, the result is confusion and a loss of motivation to ‘do better’” (Warren T. Brookes, Goodness and the GNP, in Is Capitalism Christian?, p. 35.) Think about all the people on Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped in Alberta on account of mental disorders. Some are faking it, some are not; but all would do better if they were held responsible for what they do with their time and what they spend their money on. What have we often heard from persons who suffered want in the dirty thirties or during WW2? They say that they never considered their want to be poverty, and that this want helped them become stronger, wiser, more appreciative people. Even Alice Munro, a liberal who was raised in the thirties, confesses that she did not think her lack in childhood to be particularly unfair and that that kind of background is good for writers (Interview from 2004 by Eleanor Wachtel.) If a person is always bailed out, he will not become a responsible person. That is usually the way it goes. It is not Hugh Segal’s sense of reality that if you give people money they will be lazy (Erin Anderssen, Globe and Mail, November, 19^th, 2010.) The reality on the ground, however (far below the ivory tower called the Senate), is that the laziest persons in our society are welfare recipients. I’m not saying that all welfare recipients are all lazy, but that the laziest citizens may be found in the welfare ranks. Just come to Red Deer, Alberta, where jobs are so plentiful that bodies are lacking to do them all. Compare this situation with the following substantiating evidence: “In Massachusetts, for example, where 55 percent of the population in 1980 was directly dependent on government (up from 41 percent in 1960), and where a nearly $3-billion welfare budget barely kept over 500,000 recipients from starving or freezing, the most serious impediment to the future of the state’s economy was not energy but severe and chronic shortages of both skilled and unskilled labor!” (Warren T. Brookes, Goodness and the GNP, in Is Capitalism Christian?, p. 36.) In downtown Red Deer on any day of the week, you may encounter dozens of healthy welfare recipients doing nothing but one of the following activities: getting high, coming down, begging for more free dough, or ungratefully glutting their bellies on free food. It is not poverty that fills our prisons and hospitals, as Hugh Segal asserts (CBC Radio, October 13^th, 2013.) It is bad behavior. Giving people money unconditionally is already the rule to a large degree. Hugh Segal does not want people to be forced to eat cat food on account of being poor (Ibid.) Did anyone ever have to eat cat food in Canada? When have our supermarkets ever been short on rice? Wholesome rice is far cheaper to buy than cat food, and probably a little tastier to eat. Who are these people who choose to eat cat food instead of rice? They don’t need more money. They need to take a little advice or use their common sense.

With more welfare money, Hugh Segal believes that people will be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (Ibid.) Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, has that not always been impossible even for rich persons to do? We should have reason to hope that a senator would at least learn his figures of speech before proposing another tax by the use of one. The figure, properly understood, does not illustrate a possibility. If you pull up on your bootstraps, your feet are driven downward. That is why your boots go on by the use of them! If we campaign for people to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that will prove to be a fool’s errand indeed, for the thing is impossible to do. And if it is an impossible thing to do, be sure that it will be even more impossible to do with all those extra loonies and toonies weighing down the pockets! I am making much of this mistaken use of a figure of speech for a reason. This kind of mistake calls attention to the non-critical, follow-the-herd mentality that liberal ideologues are so often guilty of. A Dr. Hanlon uses the same trope to support the same kind of tax as Hugh Segal lobbies for: “You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots” (Erin Anderssen, Globe and Mail, November, 19^th, 2010.) The learned doctor does not realize that one could not pull one’s body up by one’s bootstraps even if the straps were attached to expensive boots. Here is another person who does not stop to consider if the figure that he uses answers the purpose that he has decided to use it for. People like Segal and Hanlon adopt the same figure of speech, and after falsely apprehending it, fling it out there to stir up the passions for another tax. Do they adopt philosophies as unthinkingly as they do their figures?

Mr. Hanlon believes that the people to whom we give the extra money will choose wisely what to do with it (Ibid.) Are doctors any more in touch than senators are with what goes on downtown on street corners? It was doctors, was it not, who prescribed enough oxycontin to enough natives to addict whole villages? Maybe Dr. Hanlon is not clueless enough to do something like that. But his use of the bootstrap figure doesn’t convince me. This living wage idea is about as clueless as using the bootstrap trope in the wrong way.

“In Britain, an experiment was recently conducted with a small group of people who had been living on the streets for more than five years. They were given a budget that they could spend however they wished” (Ibid.) It is reasonable to assume, though Erin does not say so, that enough money was given so that housing might have been procured in short order because otherwise there would have been no test to the experiment. What were the results? Even with counselor supervision and guidance, just nine out of fifteen participants ‘were moving to some form of housing’ within a year. Is that a positive outcome? Housing should have been procured by more than nine within three months or so. And what if there had been no counselor supervision, like in the ‘no strings attached’ giving that Segal and Hanlon advance?

Financial inequality is not an evil that we need to fix; financial equality is a utopian fix that there is no need for. And even if inequality were evil and equality could be achieved, would it be right to do so by appropriating money from unwilling taxpayers? Moreover, if appropriation of taxpayer money were attempted in a more intensive way than is already being done, equality would never result, especially considering that those who propose gross appropriation do not want to hold the recipients accountable in any way. Give people even more money than you already give them, these people whose sense of responsibility is already eroded down to almost nothing, and lay on them no accountability whatsoever, and something remotely approaching to equality is guaranteed impossible, no matter how long you continue the program. Why doesn’t Hugh Segal experiment with his own money if he believes that people will do so well on their own with a more luxurious free ride? A senator has lots of money. Why not just give lots of it away just to equal matters out at least somewhere? Surely, the people to whom he gives it will do so well and be so responsible and thankful that they will become high achievers who will prove the program that he proposes even before it starts! Should we continue to increase taxes with a view to making things even for everyone? Or is it not right that those who contribute more to society should also have higher incomes to enjoy?

It is true that many persons on higher incomes do not contribute much and deserve much less than they are paid. Senators and doctors come to mind. But this does not mean that persons on lower incomes deserve more than they get. It may be impertinent to exhort lower income workers and benefit recipients to be as content as the apostle Paul was in whatever state he happened to be in (Philippians 4.11, 12.) The apostle was an extraordinary man, not to mention a mature saint by the time he made that statement. The word of John the Baptist to inquiring soldiers comes closer to the mark of what we may, with pertinence, advise low wage earners to do. “Be content with your wages” (Luke 3.14.)

A DARK NIGHT RISES

Red Deer Life, July 22^nd, 2012. At least twelve people shot dead, sixty or so others injured by tear gas and bullets, a theatre full of moviegoers traumatized, families of victims in shock, a nation wondering why, the world looking on in horror: another mass shooting has occurred.

The main attraction on this night was not the movie, but the stage upon which the movie was playing. The shooter interrupted the main event in order to become the main attraction. The Joker is not in this Batman film, I hear. But from the shooter’s perspective the joke must be that the Joker showed up and stole the show. I looked at some of the stills of this film. The genius of this type of film seems to be its ability to transport cartoon-like apparatus into the real world. We should not be surprised that a media addict would reverse this feat and try to transport himself into a cartoon. When virtual reality becomes confused with reality in a world that refuses to moderate and distinguish between right and wrong, acts of violence like what happened in the Century 16 theatre in Aurora are inevitable. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5.20.) The virtual world that the shooter fused with his own is called, ‘The Dark Knight Rises.’ Until I saw the title in print, I thought it was ‘A Dark Night Rises.’ When our heroes are dark knights, dark nights will follow as night follows day.

About a week after the massacre, we drove up to the marquee on the local theatre playing the accursed film. Batman appears on the outside of this building as a dark figure looming down. The horns on his cap are prominent as if to emphasize a sinister character. If persons from generations preceding the advent of Batman were to see this dark fellow on the wall, they would point him out as some sort of devil. 

The title is written down below the Batman figure. Just above are written the words, ‘A Fire Will Rise.’ In hindsight, does that assertion not strike us like some kind of apocalyptic prophecy? “The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble” (Proverbs 4.19.)

Yes, I get the fact that Batman is supposed to be a force for good against evil. But this film, so they say, is unusually violent. You might argue that the public likes what’s right more than it likes what’s wrong on the basis that a film like this draws viewers who come to witness right prevail. But why are films like this popular? Is it because people crave righteousness? Or is it because they love looking at violent sights? And do they mind very much how tainted with evil their heroes might be? The public is not completely ignorant regarding right and wrong. And it instinctively tries to protect itself from evil to some degree. PG-13 is a hint that it knows that virtual violence is unsafe entertainment; the age restriction is proof that it tries to protect kids from seeing evil and being traumatized, desensitized, and pleasured by it. The age restriction exists because the public knows that sights of evil must not be too promiscuously unleashed. Because people love to watch evil, they try to harness the dragon in order to ride it and enjoy it up to a point. Truly, they overlook the fact that evil sights affect adults too. Riding this beast is not that easy even for adults. What is the difference between a film like this and a sober documentary on the holocaust? In the former, violence is glorified; in the latter, it is reprehended. I don’t go to the movies. But I watched the two-minute trailer for this Batman flick. “Even after 9/11,” I thought, “people continue to glory in sights of chaos and carnage. What will God’s response to that be but a negative one?” 

“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22.6.) Children properly trained will grow up in a world distinct from that which is merely virtual; then with clear heads and moral fiber they will shun virtual violence and be saved from many a snare. You step right into the devil’s snare when you enter a theatre to watch violence being celebrated on a screen. That snare closes on you when the fiend who lurks nearby decides to celebrate violence in his own way. 

Some pundits are upset that a ‘black cloud’ has descended upon ‘The Dark Knight Rises.’ A black cloud of disapproval should have descended upon the movie as soon as the violence it contained was advertised. This kind of ‘entertainment’ trains us up in a bad way. Other pundits are discussing whether the shooter’s rampage was caused by nature or nurture. The truth is that men are natural born sinners and that when they are nurtured with virtual violence they will act out sins of violence on the stage of reality. Few will become mass murderers. The acts of each watcher will vary. Some will sin on a small scale. Others will cultivate evil plans to play out on a large scale. Sin natures that are nurtured in darkness must act out at some level. This Joker acted exactly in the way of a screen character that movie watchers revel in. In fact, what happened in this theatre is precisely the kind of scene that moviegoers would flock to the theatre to see. If what happened in this theatre were a piece of fiction released in a trailer to advertise a movie, people would love it, rave about it, and make plans to see that movie. They would eat it up. Why? Because they love to play with evil, wickedness, and sin. They love to play with fire, but foolishly believe that they can do so without ever getting burned.

The governor of Colorado said this to the victims of USA’s latest mass murder: “We will honor you by celebrating life, by living our lives a little better.” Will this honor come to pass? Is watching ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ a celebration of life? What is it to live ‘a little better?’ Is it to go to more dark movies? By fearing the LORD (Psalm 112.1), “there ariseth light in the darkness” (verse 4.) This is how you honor the victims: by stepping into light. This is the answer—the way of prevention against the consequences of blurring reality and glorifying darkness. Kick at it all you want, but the truth will not change. Addictions to virtual realities confuse the mind; darkness breeds violence; and the saving reality is the LORD of light. 

THE YOUTH PASTOR

Red Deer Life, February 21^st, 2010. Your typical youth pastor is the buddy of those under his care, drives a coupe, plays the drums, and knows more about sports than about any book in the whole Bible. He comes up with zany ideas on how to ‘reach the lost.’ And his own peers and leaders are themselves too ignorant to guide the man into some proper station in life.

The last person you want in charge of church youth is a young, handsome, dynamic man who’s more full of the world and testosterone than spirituality and wisdom. The first principle looked for when recruiting a youth pastor, it seems, is his ability to ‘connect’ with church youth. His knowledge of the Bible, his unusual holiness, his aptness to teach, what are these for qualifications? It is enough for the local church if he is a ‘nice young man.’

What does a youth pastor do to further himself in the ministry? What’s his next move? This one will go and play hockey on foreign ice, and convey, between periods, with the help of a translator, how God has worked in his life! That he packed his belongings into ten hockey bags to make this move gives you a pretty good idea of how much gospel he must know!

Do we hear of youth pastors in the New Testament? Are the youth even segregated in New Testament churches? Did anyone reach the lost through participation in games in the New Testament era? This youth pastor phenomenon, with all the silly, sensual baggage that the youth pastor carries into the lives of the youth and the lost, is outside any biblical mandate, usually unholy in character, and frequently streaked with immoral practices and faults.

A youth who is truly qualified by God to preach or teach will know enough to not be a pastor for youth. He will (as in Spurgeon’s case) be a pastor. Do we read of the apostle Paul instructing Titus to ‘ordain youth pastors in every city’? (See Titus 1.5.) Do we read of any qualifications in the New Testament regarding such an office as youth pastor? The office of youth pastor is a useless, even deleterious, modern invention. And it frequently leads to other unbiblical ambitions. Should a youth pastor move on to a hockey ministry? Are there any sports ministries mentioned in the Bible? Playing games will undermine any serious message from the Bible (assuming that the youth pastor will even bring a Bible to preach from.) A player of games is not likely to have for his message, the gospel of death for the life of man. Conveying how God has worked in a player’s life—is that the gospel? Telling someone about how ‘relationships fizzle’—is that the gospel? No, this is what is called ‘connecting’ or ‘relationship building.’ There is usually no gospel at all in discussions like that. And these discussions usually lead to nowhere.

“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop [not youth pastor], he desireth a good work” (1 Timothy 3.1.) Ice hockey as a platform for the gospel? That is a typical youth pastor initiative. No man desiring to actually work as a bishop would still be hockey-bound. Hockey is a boy’s game played by immature men; it cannot be the work of a bishop! “For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come”(1 Timothy 4.8.) And “no man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier” (2 Timothy 2.4.) Hockey is a youthful lust, if anything is. “Flee also youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 2.22.) A Christian youth who is full of sport instead of gospel will do more damage than good. A youth pastor is not biblical; a minister who is a youth is rare, but acceptable and possible (1 Timothy 4.12.) Playing hockey is a bad example, and will only lead to sins through which the youth pastor is disgraced and despised and through which youth group members are hurt.   

Objection: but this youth pastor really felt that God spoke to his heart in a miraculous way. Answer: he should have had those feelings checked out by a Bible consultant. Being an example in hockey is not mentioned in the apostle’s list to Timothy in the last verse I cited.

GOD'S PLAN FOR YOUR LIFE

Red Deer Advocate, January 16^th, 2010. Tragedy strikes all around. But our life is spared. What do we conclude? That God must have a purpose for our life. This conclusion begs a few questions. Did God have a purpose for our life before the tragedy? If we had died in the tragedy, does this mean our life never had purpose? Janell Steeves was spared. Another nurse, Ivonne Martin, was not. Does one life have a purpose while the other one doesn’t?

“A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee” (Psalm 91.7.) This promise is for the saints of God. Until God’s purpose in the saint has been fulfilled on earth, nothing can kill his body. Taken more deeply, this verse is a promise that says the soul, because God is his refuge, will be delivered from the unending wrath of God.

As far as the preservation of the body is concerned, Psalm 91.7 is true for all persons, in some way, though only the saints should take comfort in the truth. Though Pharaoh was not elected for glory, he was raised up for the purpose of God showing power over him (Romans 9.17.) Pharaoh had to be raised up to prominence and then preserved for the purpose appointed by God for him. Only then did he fall by the side of the standing elect of God. God does not create without a purpose. Every person is created with a purpose in mind. A person cannot be stopped until that purpose of God for his life comes to pass.

‘God has a wonderful plan for your life’ is a promise we hear promiscuously given out in our churches. The promise is carelessly thrown out to all, albeit with good intention: in the hope that each person told it will make God his focus. The plan God has for your life will be good for God in the end. He will be glorified by showing mercy or by showing power. But it will not go well for you if God has chosen you for the purpose of showing his power over an unrepentant rebel. What was purposed for Pharaoh may be purposed for you. Do not presume that God has purposed to show you mercy, that ‘God has a wonderful plan for your life.’ “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth” (Romans 9.18.) Look to Jesus Christ as your Saviour from sin and woe. Then the purpose of God for you may be pronounced ‘wonderful’ (which word is now used to convey something ‘unusually good.’) Christ has suffered on the cross for the sins of many, but not all. Did he suffer for yours in particular? Do not presume a yes; neither despair by concluding no. Focus here: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord” (Acts 3.19.)

AN UNGRATEFUL VETERAN

By the snippet I pasted in, my title might seem surprising. You might expect my title to be, ‘Ungrateful Toward Veterans.’ In some cases (though very few) injured veterans miss out on the medical care and financial aid they deserve. But some government program or other comes to the rescue to relieve the wants of afflicted citizens in Canada. 

This major, however, did not miss out. He received a quarter of a million dollars for his trouble, and gets 75% of his salary until he is rehabilitated to the point of being able to make it on ‘civy street.’ I like the policy of monthly pension for life. But this New Veteran’s Charter seems pretty liberal. The remuneration the major got is a munificent emolument! It is so generous as to be nearly excessive! Yet he has the nerve to say, ‘Show me the money.’ How much would be enough for this ungrateful soldier? No amount of money would satisfy this guy! We should be grateful to injured veterans. But they should be grateful right back when generous compensations are handed out.

Let’s suppose that the major, or some other soldier, is so injured that he can never get back to work. Then, in addition to his quarter million or so, he would get about $2000.00 per month plus 75% of his salary for life. Who would kick and balk at such lavish recompense?! This major would, and did. The man is a disgrace to the uniform and badge I used to wear myself! What should the man be given? A castle? A yacht? An island of his own? Bags of gold are not enough? What could this major want to do in life that even more money than he will get is demanded by him? “Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it” (Proverbs 25.16.) With the money that the major says is not enough, he could take a trip to an exotic place every month of the year, and do nothing the rest of the time but sip cocktails and get fat! Yet he calls the payment plan that could fund such a lifestyle an ‘abject betrayal’ and ‘grotesque travesty’! What will he do with the money he has already been given? Is it wise to give a large lump sum to someone with PTSD?

The article I clipped the snippet from comes with a picture of this major in his wheelchair. Some role model! Not because he is in a wheelchair do I say so, but because of the dejected, pouting, poor-me look about this man who’s been so hugely rewarded! Steady up, Major! Come to attention! You make the soldiers look bad! The sulking discontent on your face is a poor piece of press for the PPCLI! You are not an infantry soldier to look up to because ingratitude and greed must be looked down upon! Where is your sense of dignity, man? Ingratitude and dignity are hardly found together! 

To give someone a dressing-down, in military lingo, is to jack him up. I have just jacked-up a major. That is a tall order for a low ranking private like myself to do. So I will call in some air support from the holy ether of heaven.

What does the major want a super-abundance of money for? Does he envy those who are even richer than he is? “Envy [is] the rottenness of the bones” (Proverbs 14.30.) Do not envy your superiors: the rich generals and the politicians. It will not go well for them in the end, generally speaking. “Riches profit not in the day of wrath” (Proverbs 11.4.) Listen here: “Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom” (Proverbs 23.4.) To lose one’s legs is a hard go. But what if, by such a loss, one has money enough to spend time on the most precious work of all?—: the acquisition of wisdom leading to righteousness. Is that not wonderful? The fruit of wisdom is “better than gold, yea, than fine gold” (Proverbs 8.19.) Why is it better? Because “whoso findeth me [wisdom] findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD” (Proverbs 8.35.) Life may be exchanged for wrath by the way of wisdom. God is “a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Proverbs 30.5.) Trace wisdom, through the Bible, to her source, and you will come to an eternity that points to the cross of Christ as the avenue to glory for every man who repents. “Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus] name” (Luke 24.47.)

AMANDA'S IMPUDENCE

Red Deer Express, August 24^th, 2011. Amanda Lindhout is considered a hero in central Alberta. No doubt she has tenacity, resilience, compassion, ambition, and fortitude. But I think she is a misguided woman on a mission that is doomed to fail. In fact, I know this because impudence is not an avenue to success. It is a good deed to point out her fault: the woman ought to be dissuaded from causing trouble to the people she aims to help; and she should be saved, too, from having to be redeemed, at great cost, once again.

She had little reason for being in Somalia as a journalist when she got kidnapped there. If women should leave the more dangerous assignments to men, how much more hazardous for a woman to jump into the furnace of Somalia as a freelancer! It cost donors around a million bucks to get her out of there.   Then she had the gall to return to the country of her captivity, which many would call a courageous act, but which, in fact, is an act impudence: cocky boldness and disregard. To go back there, in provocative Western attire, no less, is to tempt fate in the face of having been redeemed once already. Since she speaks in churches, she must consider herself to be a Christian. She ought to know, then, that redemption should cause meekness, not impudence, to abound. But churches like Crossroads are not in the habit of teaching doctrines like redemption and meekness to its congregation and guests.

Amanda’s impudence may be further shown by her choice of title for a certain program to help African women: ‘SHE WILL.’ Can one think of a more impudent title than this? Can one think of a title more apt to raise the ire of African men? Is that a good motto to guide women by? Put that motto beside the “meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price” (1 Peter 3.4), and be stunned by the glaring contrast. It is the difference between the spirit of impudence and the meekness of Christian spirit. The spirit of Miss Lindhout’s mission has an unchristian ring and feel to it. How far will African women get by adopting a ‘SHE WILL’ attitude? They will get themselves mowed down by oppressive men who fear, more than anything else, the Westernization of their women. In Scripture, women are not taught to overcome oppression by impudence, but by the ‘hidden man of the heart,’ the ‘meek and quiet spirit.’ Do you think the education that Miss Lindhout is raising money to provide includes such teaching as that? A program called ‘SHE WILL’ will tend to provoke, rather than win over, African men, and therefore it is bound to cause trouble. Many women could lose their lives by opting into a program with a title like that tacked on to it. This mission of Amanda’s is of the wrong spirit. And so no matter how much money is poured into it, failure is guaranteed. The ‘SHE WILL’ program was created to provide survivors of rape with medical attention, therapy, and education. Medical attention and therapy are necessary and good. But instruction that is steeped in a ‘SHE WILL’ attitude is a feminist spirit that we should not be planting on foreign soil. This ‘in your face’ approach will only serve to make more angry the abusive men that African women have suffered by. Let trained missionaries bring the gospel in. Then education will be allowed as grace mollifies the spirits. This is the way.

When you are on a misguided mission, the spirit of it, and perhaps your own, will be unbiblical, as I have shown. And then you will contradict what the Bible says. It is not possible to end, in our lifetime, ‘the very worst forms of poverty,’ as this woman claims. Jesus said, “For ye have the poor always with you” (Matthew 26.11.) Did Jesus speak this concerning his generation alone? That is a coincidence, then, that the poor have continued with us until now! I’m all for feeding hungry, starving bodies. But let’s get these stars out of our eyes and our eyes into the Scriptures. Then, by having a biblical objective instead of a romantic ideal, our spirits will not fall into despair. The ointment poured upon Jesus’ head might have been cashed out instead to feed the poor. We are to take the lesson: do not lose sight of Jesus while you stare at the suffering in this perishing world. From what I’ve observed, read, and listened to, churches like Crossroads and missions like Amanda’s aim at relieving the body while they forget the soul.

Giving money for the education of African women through a Western woman exhibiting impudence cannot be wise. ‘SHE WILL’ is a provocative attitude that will endanger the women that the program aims to help. And this attitude is being pushed by a woman who seems, and must be, frankly, quite ignorant of what the Bible says and what the gospel is.