Video: An atheist professor converts to Christianity.

It's always interesting to watch how, when a person is willing to be honest with themselves, logic and reason renders it impossible to deny the existence of God.

How to Refute Christianity: A Handy Guide

How to Refute Christianity: A Handy Guide

The Bible makes many claims that can be scientifically and philosophically tested – and if these claims are falsified, Christianity will crumble. So here is a handy guide I’ve developed for those who would like to refute Christianity.

This guide highlights the major testable Christian beliefs and provides suggestions on how the skeptic should go about the refutation process.

 One of these days, I'm going to have to write a post about my own journey from believer to non-believer to wishy-washy believer to being utterly and completely convinced of the Truth of Christianity.  When I finally took the time to examine Christianity through evidence, logic and argumentative reasoning, I simply could not come to any other conclusions and still be honest with myself.  I've applied the same standards to other ideologies and religions, and none have stood up to them.

I've had many try to confront me with claims that anyone who is religious is illogical, anti-science, etc.  Interestingly, while I learned to respond with rational arguments, evidence based claims and critical thinking, those who attack religion seem capable only of bombastic claims with no evidence to back them up (like saying that Jesus never existed, or that religion is the cause of all or the worst suffering in the world), derogatory insults and mocking statements (seriously, folks; can you not come up with anything more original that the Bearded White Guy in the Sky, Sky Fairy or Imaginary Friend?).

For a group that claims to have logic, reason and evidence on their side, they don't seem to know how to use any of it.

h/t The Poached Egg

Apologetics Makes a Comeback Among Youth: Youth ministry sees the return of reasons.

Apologetics Makes a Comeback Among Youth: Youth ministry sees the return of reasons.

Challenging the cultural climate is a major component of the new apologetics, said Sean McDowell, head of Worldview Ministries. "The apologetics resurgence has been sparked ultimately by teens who are asking more questions about why people believe the things they do," he said. "Those who thought that kids in a postmodern world don't want an ideology were wrong."

 I've have been seeing some interesting cultural shifts of late, including among our youth and young adults.  It's something I've described seeing to people I've had debates with on various topics, but those I've mentioned it to do not see it.  I'm not surprised by that.  What they are seeing is what the mass media and certain alternative media that they follow want them to see.  They are seeing the results of popular polls and superficial trends.  In their eyes, religion is being destroyed by "science" and "rationality"; they see opinions towards SSM going in their direction, which they describe as "the right side of history" and other such meaningless catch phrases; they see the abortion issue as decided and beyond debate.  Everything around them is telling them that "their side" has won.

I follow enough of popular media to know what they are seeing - and who is telling it to them.  However, I follow both sides, and what I'm seeing is something very different.  Even as the mainstream media claims that the abortion debate is no debate at all, painting pro-lifers in the worst possible light, I am reading the blogs and articles and watching the videos of those who were there.  I am seeing the astonishing increase in people who are now openly and unwaveringly pro-life, even in the face of sometimes violent attacks from pro-abortion supporters.  In popular and social media, I see the assumption that people of science are all atheists, and the claims that religion is anti-science and ignorant.  The verbal attacks on those who hold religious views by those who claim to be "rational" and "scientists" are inevitably rude, crude, vile and completely unreasonable and unintellectual.  Meanwhile, I am seeing people of faith make polite, rational and evidentiary defences in the face of these attacks.  I read the papers, articles, books, blogs and reports written by men and women of both science and faith, and their careful claims blow away the irrationality of their attackers.  I am also seeing, in complete contradiction of the claims made by those who support SSM, a rise in support of traditional marriage - a rise based on logical argumentation, rationals discussion and evidence based claims.

In all cases, this shift that I am seeing is very much a grassroots thing, and the demographics are completely at odds with how the opposition portrays anyone who disagrees with them.  They are not the "old, rich white men of privilege" or "Christian bigots" and so on.  No, I'm seeing this shift happening across the board.  Men and women, rich and poor, of all colours, religions (or lack of them!), cultural backgrounds, even sexuality.

Most of all, however, I am seeing this shift increase among youth.  For all the social experimentation of our public schools, some youth are still managing to be exposed to both sides of issues.

And when they are, they are seeing through the politically correct shadows and lies, recognising truth for what it is, and taking a stand.

Letter To An Atheist

Letter To An Atheist

Maybe you’ve had bad experiences with Christians. I would think it’s quite likely. Join the club. I, and every Christian, has had bad experiences with Christians. I and every Christian is guilty of being part of, of causing a bad experience. We’re human, with all the faults and frailties that come with being so. We call it sin, or having a sinful nature. To say otherwise is to let our ego lie to you and to ourselves. And to God. Make no mistake, those lies have been told. To say otherwise is, again, to lie to you, ourselves and God. If you were to tell me you have not been the cause of someone’s bad experience, I would not believe you. I think it’s fair to believe that our human nature is on equal ground; that is, that we’re both far from perfect. Our imperfections will have similarities, and we also will have our own unique imperfections; the point is we have them nonetheless.

I'm offended ...

... by Islam
Pat Condell



I've found the use of the term "I'm offended" to be one that only certain groups are "allowed" to use, but is denied others.  Those same groups are also "allowed" to offend others, but if their targets object, they are told they are being too sensitive, or simply further attacked.  Because they deserve it, apparently. 

Ah, the hypocrisy of the "tolerant" and "progressives."

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

The brilliance of this book lies in its careful distinction between two rival views of marriage — the conjugal view which defines marriage as “a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond” which sustains the world through the creation and nurture of children, and the revisionist view, which defines marriage as “a loving emotional bond, one distinguished by its intensity, with no reference to a duty beyond its partners. The conjugal view, based in the function of the family and the nurture of children, points to lifelong fidelity. The revisionist view points to a relationship based on emotional intensity in which the partners remain “as long as they find it.”

This argument is vitally important, even essential, to any conversation about marriage in our modern context, for it points far beyond the issue of same-sex marriage to the prior assaults on conjugal marriage brought by no-fault divorce and the replacement of personal responsibility with mere personal autonomy. Sadly, the revisionist view of marriage is embraced by millions of heterosexual couples, married and unmarried, but it is essential to the very idea of same-sex marriage.

The Bible vs. the Heart

The Bible vs. the Heart

The other modern substitute for the Bible is the heart. We live in the Age of Feelings, and an entire generation of Americans has been raised to consult their heart to determine right and wrong.

I've heard too many people justify their positions based on their feelings, to the point that they refuse to even consider logic, reason or evidence.  The irony is that these same people are frequently also atheists, who hold themselves to be morally and ethically superior to people of faith because they claim they are the ones who are rational, logical and reach conclusions based on evidence.

So you think Homosexuality is a sin...

So here's my first post of the New Year.  I had hoped for something a little more cheerful and uplifting, but other stuff beat me to it.  Still, I'd like to say first that I hope everyone visiting had a wonderful Christmas season (which isn't over for us until the 6th), that your New Year's celebrations were safe and happy, and that 2013 is a year of peace, health and prosperity.

For those of you in the US, I hope you somehow manage to survive what your president is doing to your country.  You have my hopes and prayers.

And now, off to controversial things!!

Recently, someone on my facebook friends list (someone I know through a group, so not a close friend) posted a graphic that I've seen a few times.  I find that, as the years go by, I have far less tolerance for stupidity, so I responded.  I would have posted the entire conversation as a screen cap, but it was disappeared before I could respond to the final comment.  I have my facebook set to email responses to me, so I have her comments, but my own were no longer accessible, so I will have to fill in as best as I can remember.

First, the graphic.

 Now, there are so many things wrong with this, it's mind boggling, but it's a popular one I've seen a few times.  Usually, it's shared as part of a group or something, with so many responses, I don't bother commenting because it would just be like spitting in the wind.  However, when I saw it again shared by this person (whom I've had conversations with on the topic of SSM in the past), I just rolled my eyes and left a comment.  To the best of my memory (and that of Eldest, who is my handy editor), I wrote:

"Wow.  There are so many misinterpretations/revisionisms of the Bible here, it's embarrassing."

I also made a comment about how this was a typical way of attacking the "enemy."

Being in a facebook comment, I didn't bother trying to tackle individual points, though I was willing to, if challenged.

To which she responded.

 Now, when I post something contentious on my newsfeed, I know that there are people who might disagree with me.  I know I am opening myself up to be challenged.  If I'm not up to that, I don't post it.  Full stop.  The idea that people post contentious things, expecting only to have people agree with them, then getting upset when someone doesn't, always startles me.  If you're not willing to defend what you've said or shared, why post at all?

So I responded (again, as best as I can remember):

"But you're still willing to post it.
Wait.  Are you actually justifying sharing something that misrepresents two major faiths and millions of people (not everyone who disagrees does so for religious reasons) because those faiths have already been misrepresented in the last 2000+ years (6000+, since it also references the Talmud), and that makes it okay?  Sharing something that insults such a large portion of the world's population should not be taken lightly, even on facebook. :-/"

Well, I guess she didn't appreciate that, because I soon got...

Obviously, she had some technical difficulties at the end, there.

I actually found this response hilarious.  She's accusing *me* of being judgemental, after sharing a graphic like this?  It is, however, a very typical response.  Rather then address the issue (misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says), she excused it ("...a little humorous"), justified it ("anything that gets people thinking..."), upped the emotionalism to attack ("...get off their judgemental asses..." etc.) and basically told me that, if I disagree, I should just shut up ("You don't have to read my post...").

I made a fairly long response after this.  I wish I could remember it better.  I pointed out that it was laughable for her to post something that is so judgemental and insulting of anyone who holds a differing point of view, takes all who disagree and shoves them under one umbrella, regardless of their actual reasons for disagreeing, then turns around and accuses the victims of said judgemental attitude of being judgemental.  I also wrote that 'I have long noticed that the most intolerant people are those who scream the most for tolerance.  This graphic is just another example of that.'  I'm paraphrasing as best I can here.  Somewhere in there, I also commented that it's possible to accept people for who they are, without agreeing to redefine our core institutions.

Her response?  Sadly, also very typical.

Yup.  She just leapt to equating disagreeing with her with being a racist.  Disagreeing with her means I'm delusional - though how that's supposed to make me feel better about anything, I have no idea.  Then, she projected all sorts of things onto me that had nothing at all to do with my original objections to the graphic.

As I said, typical.  Rather then address the actual objection, demonize the person objecting.

I had started to respond with a comment along the lines of how amazingly judgemental and intolerant her assumptions were, but I suddenly had to leave the computer.  Eldest asked if she could respond, as we had been discussing this together.  As she was writing, another comment appeared... this one.

So my daughter responded to both at once.  When I came back, I read over what she'd written, agreed with it.  She was kind enough to reproduce her response here.

 "It seems to me like you are very passionate and not particularly well studied on the subject at hand. If the beliefs you oppose are so horrible, what need is there to lie (or at the very least post a deliberately dishonest graphic) about them? The idea that the sinfulness of homosexuality is based on one line out of one book next to the virulent anti-shellfish rhetoric is just as silly as the idea that Christianity not accepting homosexual behavior means we want to relegate all the scary gay people into closets."

She never received this response.  When I hit post, it failed.  Yup, in the time it took to write the above, she unfriended me and, from what I could tell, removed the entire thread from her timeline.

Again, very typical.  I can't say I'm going to miss having her on my friends list, but I suspect it will make getting conversations in this group we're both a part of rather interesting.

While this is quoted from one person, her responses and reactions are so common, she could be any of a number of people I've seen try to justify their support for SSM.  They do it by first misrepresenting the "enemy".  For those who claim to be Christian, as this person does, they do it by redefining God (sorry, hun, but God specifically tells us to stand up against sin and, yes, be judgemental.  More on that later).  From past conversations, I know she holds to the version of God as a God of sunshine and butterflies that's really popular right now.

So let's deal with what this graphic is actually saying, point by point, without - hopefully - running on for too long.

The problems start right at the very top, with the double question.

"So you still think homosexuality is sinful?  And therefore gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?"

This is two different issues forced into one.  First, there's the sin part, with the word "still" in there.  Because apparently, that's not something anyone is supposed to believe anymore.  Then there's the use of the word homosexuality.

Let's be very clear about this.  When SSM supporters talk about homosexuality, they are not talking about the same thing as those who say homosexuality is a sin.   In the first part, they are talking about an identity.  In the second, they are talking about a behaviour.  This gets confusing, because people rarely add the word "behaviour" in there when talking about the sin of homosexuality.  This makes it easy for their detractors to turn around and say they "hate gays" - namely, people with same sex attractions, rather then people who engage in a specific sexual behaviour. (more on this later)

Then there's the second part - that thinking homosexual behaviour is a sin is the sole reason anyone objects to SSM.  In truth, people disagree with SSM for all sorts of reasons.  There are atheists, agnostics and gays who disagree with SSM, while there are religious people who believe homosexual behaviour is a sin, but do not think the state should prevent SSM.  There is no black and white, here.

Let's see if I can draw a parallel here.  Lying is a sin.  People who lie are called liars.  We do not define people who lie by their lies, unless their behaviour becomes excessive.  There are consequences to behaviour.  It is not against the law to lie EXCEPT in cases where lying has far ranging effects.  It is illegal to lie under oath in a court of law.  Such lying can land you in jail.  Similarly, homosexual behaviour is a sin.  It does not become a matter of law until people try to change those laws to validate their behaviour, and force the rest of society to condone said behaviour.  This is not a matter of equality.  The laws defining marriage applied to everyone equally.  One man, one woman, legally adult, not close blood relations.  This did not stop people from having relationships with each other.  This did not stop people from having sex with each other.  This did not stop people from loving each other.  The state recognised marriage as different for a purpose.

So the question itself is a problem.  The graphic then gives two choices; yes or no.  If you say no, you get a lovely "congratulations on being part of civilized society."

Here is the most in-your-face judgementalism of the graphic.  Either you agree with whoever made this, or you're not part of civilized society.  This sort of ad hominem attack is really common (right up there with equating people who disagree with racists).

If you say yes, it asks why, then sends you through the flow chart.

The first one is "because Jesus said so!" (complete with exclamation point!!!).  The graphic then claims:

"Not true.  Jesus never uttered a word about same-sex relationships."

 Of course he didn't.  He didn't have to.  What he did way was things like "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'  and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6) 

Jesus very clearly specified what marriage was.  He didn't need to spell out anything about "same-sex relationships."  That was already understood.

Which leads to another problem with the answer.  It says "same-sex relationships."  We're not actually talking about relationships between people of the same sex.  We are talking about a specific, sexually defined relationship that is recognised by state, society, religion and God as uniquely different from any other relationship. 

As for homosexual relationships, that is a modern invention that did not exist as a separate, labelled category, based on attraction rather than behaviour, until about 150 years ago.  People who say Jesus never said anything against homosexuals are being dishonest and misleading.  Yes, people engaged in what we now call homosexual acts, but until relatively recently, these acts were part of a long list of sexual acts that scriptures said were sinful, such as incest, adultery, fornication and bestiality.  The only non-sinful sexual behaviour was between a married couple with each other.

Let's move on to the next "why" response.  "Because the Old Testament said so!"

The graphic answers:

"The O.T. also says it's sinful to eat shell-fish, to wear clothes woven with different fabrics, and to eat pork."

It then asks:

"Should we still live by the O.T. laws?"

This part demonstrates common ignorance of what Leviticus actually says, and is quite misleading.  That's not even the beginning of what's wrong with it.

First, it avoids the "why" by distractions.  Rather then address whether or not that's what the OT actually says, it throws up other restrictions of what it defines as sinful behaviour, out of context, then says, "see!  If you do any of these, then you're a hypocrite, picking and choosing what sins are acceptable."  Assuming they are actually right about this, how that makes the sin of homosexual behaviour any *less* of a sin because people sin in other ways is illogical, but it scores emotional points, and people fall for it.  Mostly because they don't know what that part if the OT actually teaches.

First of all, the book of Leviticus was a book of laws for the Levites.  They were basically the Rabbis and teachers of Israel, and had specific duties to fulfill.  Some of these restrictions, such as wearing cloth of mixed fibres, were purely ceremonial.  A number of these sins had no punishment for disobedience at all.  They were largely a way for Jews to remain separate from the pagans that surrounded them   Laws regarding diets and sanitation applied only to Jews - if you weren't Jewish, they didn't apply to you.  They did, however, lead to Jews having life spans that were triple their gentile neighbours.

The laws put down in Leviticus covered three categories: moral, civil and ceremonial.  What the response in the graphic does is equal civil and ceremonial sins with moral ones.  This is dishonest and misleading.

For Christians, Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, thereby some of these laws no longer applied, such as the dietary laws, which he specifically mentioned.  However, Jesus also said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17)  So if you're a Jew, all the OT laws still apply (choosing to obey them is something else).  For a Christian, all the laws apply except those where Jesus specifically said otherwise, such as when he responded to criticisms that some of his disciples were eating without having gone through the ceremonial washing by saying "There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." (Mark 7:15)

With all this, the graphic is being completely dishonest, rendering its question "should we still live by OT laws?" irrelevant.

On to the next "why" response: "Because the New Testament so!"

Their response is"

"The original language of the NT actually refers to male prostitution, molestation or promiscuity, not committed same-sex relationships.  Paul may have spoken against homosexuality, but he also said that women should be silent and never assume authority over a man."

Then they ask (as if they satisfactorily responded to the objection in the first place) with:

"Shall modern-day churches live by all of Paul's values?"

Here, they've done the same thing as before, except with the added appeal to authority by saying "the original language," as if they've actually studied this.  Yes, the NT refers to male prostitution, etc., but to leap from that to saying there are NO objections to "committed same-sex relationships" is dishonest.  The NT is clear that marriage is between a man and a women, so there is no need to specify against anything else.  It then goes on to attack Paul (again, out of context, as it was referring to the structure of leadership within the fledgling church - Christianity actually played a huge part in elevating the status of women and children as being equal to men, since it taught that all humans were of equal value in the eyes of God), as if his writings about women has anything to do with SSM.  Also, it should be pointed out that Paul was not a prophet.  He was a theologian.  This renders the final question purely rhetorical and irrelevant.

Now, in the flowchart, if you still answered "yes" to the above statements, it takes you to final response:

"Have fun living your sexist, chauvinistic, judgemental, xenophobic lifestyle choice.  The rest of culture will advance forward without you."

See?  If you disagree with the maker of this graphic (and anyone who agrees enough to share it), which is full of false claims and misrepresentations, you are sexist, chauvinistic, judgemental and xenophobic!  How tolerant!  How non-judgemental!  How open minded and loving!

Yeah.  Right.




So what's next?  Ah, lovely.  "Because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!"

That's a handy little catchphrase that I really wish people wouldn't use, but it does make the point that God created us, male and female, as partners, with the admonition to go forth and multiply.  Obviously, SS couples can't do that.

If this catchphrase is silly, their response, however, is even sillier.

"That was when the earth wasn't populated.  There are now 6.70 billion people.  Breeding clearly isn't an issue any more!"

 Wow.

Just...

Wow.

So here we come to a place within gay activism that many people try to pretend isn't there.  This is the place where heterosexuals are derided as "breeders."   It also reflects an increasingly common anti-human attitude that sees us as a virus; a plague on Mother Earth that needs to be cut back and controlled is Gaia is to survive.

I notice something else about it that's amusing.  The response tacitly agrees with Genesis creation of two humans, from whom we are all descended.

Either way, this statement saying that, because there are already so many people, breeding isn't an issue anymore, is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not homosexual behaviour is a sin (according to the Bible, at least; they don't touch non-Biblical religions that also object to homosexual behaviour at all).  Their response is another distraction and irrelevant.

What's next?  "Because the Bible clearly defines marriage as one-man-one-woman!"

Their response:

"Wrong.  The Bible also defines marriage as one-man-many-women, one man many wives and concubines, a rapist & his victim and conquering soldier & female prisoner of war."

*sigh*

Okay.  Let's point something out here.  The Bible isn't just a book about Things We Ought to Do.  It's also a record of when God's chosen people messed up.  Horribly.  It records people doing nasty, nasty things to each other.  It also relates specific instances where people were commanded to do certain things.  Those commands were not things to be applied generally, to all and future generations, but to those specific instances.

One of the things that defined whether or not a couple were married was consummation of that marriage.  It was the sex act itself, not any ceremony of priestly blessing, that decided if a man and woman were married.  The roles of men and women were defined.  Part of that was the responsibility of men to provide for and protect their wives.  Let's take the rape victim for an example.  In the ancient world, technically, the sex act meant they were married, voluntary or not.  Meanwhile, the victim would be less valued and have difficulty finding a husband to provide for her in the proper way.  She would be damaged goods.  Sadly, this attitude is still with us today.  The victim suffers for the rest of her life, while the man gets to go on his merry way.

Most people see this demand of men to marry their rape victims as some sort of punishment for the woman, and a boon to the man.  What they're missing is that this is actually a punishment for the man, while ensuring his victim is provided for for the rest of her life.  The man, forced to marry his victim, is the acknowledged perpetrator of a great crime.  He will be required to provide for his victim for the rest of his life.  It's hardly an ideal situation for either of them, but at least the victim will not suffer the cultural consequences of the man's crime.  Meanwhile, couples are admonished to love each other - this is a behaviour, not an emotion. 

Likewise, with prisoners of war, the men would have been killed.  That left the women without providers and protectors.  Again, not an ideal situation, but better then slow death by starvation, animal attacks or attacks from other humans.

The ancient world was a brutal, bloody place. 

This is a good time to remind everyone that the purpose of marriage has never had anything to do with being in love or acknowledging loving relationships. 

The point, however, is that the Bible does indeed define marriage as between one man and one woman.  It's also a record of people who were constantly disobeying God.  I mean seriously; we're talking about a world where God had to explicitly and repeatedly tell His People to not have sex with animals, stop sacrificing their children to Molech and oh... Ladies?  When you're on your cycle, it's really a good idea not to bleed all over the place.

The Bible defines marriage very clearly.  That people didn't obey doesn't change that definition.  If we are going to examine the Bible and what it says, we have to look at it through the time period and context it deals with, not project our modern sensibilities and interpretations onto it.

And now, finally, we reach the final "why" response.  "Because it just disgusts me, dangit!"

Throwing in that "dangit" was a nice, not-at-all-trying-to-influence-the-reader addition.

Their response?

"Props for being honest.  However, a whole population of people shouldn't have their families discriminated against just because you think gay sex is icky.  Grow up!"

Riiiiggghhhttt.

First, that "whole population" is a tiny minority, and those who support SSM are an minority within a minority.  Did you know that, early in the gay rights movement (back when they fought against real discrimination, like being fired from their jobs for being gay, or being violently attacked, etc), when people suggested that someday they would be demanding gay marriage, early activists scoffed at the notion?  These early activists didn't want SSM.  Some because they acknowledged the role of marriage in society and agreed that it was a heterosexual institution.  Others because, being a heterosexual institution that was increasingly being attacked on all sides (such as from militant feminism), they wanted nothing to do with it.  Marriage, they claimed, should be left to the breeders.

Oh, how things have changed!

Where else does this statement go wrong?  By saying this minority "shouldn't have their family discriminated against..."

Excuse me, but if the requirements of marriage apply to all people, equally, how are homosexuals - and their families - being discriminated against in any way that's different from, say, siblings who want to marry?  Or underage children?  Marriage is an institution that has qualifications.

This is where the attempt to equate objections to SSM and racism falls apart.  The definition of marriage is based on gender and blood relation (or lack of it), not race or ethnicity.  Race is irrelevant to the basic purpose and role of marriage within society, therefore, laws that restricted marriage based on race were, obviously, racist and rightfully overturned.  SSM, however, runs counter to the basic purpose of marriage.  Its existence in those places that have legalized SSM has caused mind boggling new problems that no one ever expected, ranging from rendering biological parenthood extremely complicated (recent court cases include 3-parent laws in the making, and a sperm donor being forced by the courts to provide child support, even though the lesbian couple involved have never asked for it and are fighting in his defence against it) to rendering marriage and parenthood itself, and by extension, all married couples and parents, married or otherwise, genderless (we are no longer legally husband or wife, but spouse 1 and spouse 2; we are no longer mother or father, but parent 1, 2, 3 or 4).  The problems with legalizing SSM are just beginning to show, and it may take a full generation or two before the damage is fully realized.

Which brings me to a final point about this graphic.  In its attack on defining homosexuality as a sin (without differentiating between identify and behaviour), it never fully answers the second part of its double question, which deals with "allowing" SSM.  What the maker of this graphic is skirting around is that it's not just a simple matter of "allowing" SSM or not.  It does nothing to explain why we should legally redefine marriage to validate the SS relationships.  It does nothing to explain why believing homosexual behaviour is a sin has anything to do why we should or shouldn't "allow" SSM at all.

This graphic attacks those with opposing opinions, first by misrepresenting the objections, then through responses of misrepresentation, mockery and judgemental insults.

Now, tell me again; which side of the debate is being judgemental and intolerant?

Oh, wait... in order for there to be a debate, both sides have to be willing to put forward arguments and rebuttals.

Never mind.

Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her child | LifeSiteNews.com

Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her child | LifeSiteNews.com

Adam Hood's Journey From Homosexuality To Jesus Christ

Boycott to Buycott - or game changer?

Starting a post at 1:30 am is probably not a good idea, but I wanted to take a moment and post about some observations I've noted in the past few months.  We're still in the busiest time of year for my family and it won't slow down for a couple more months (at least I hope it will!), and I haven't been on top of things like usual.  Even so, I've still managed to hear about some of it.

I haven't been living under a rock enough to miss out on the Chick-fil-A fiasco, and it's been fascinating to see how things have played out.  Being in Canada, we have no Chick-fil-A's, so it's has no effect on us, but there's no shortage of Canadians weighing in on the whole thing anyhow.

What I find the most interesting is comparing the Chick-fil-A boycott is comparing it to others I've seen. Especially after I saw someone sharing this on Pinterest.

My first thought when I read this was along the lines of "that's not quite how things unfolded."  It's a pretty typical strawman response, though; portray an alternate to reality, then attack the alternate as if it were the reality.

Right off the top, in the above example, whoever made this used the term "anti-gay rights organizations", which in itself is a strawman.  Gays have the exact same rights as everyone else in Canada and the US.  What gay "rights" activists and their supports want are for the restrictions of granted rights to be removed so as to accomodate a tiny sub-group - plenty of whom disagree with the activists that claim to speak for them - forcing the rest of society to redefine it's foundational institutions while at the same time endorsing their proclivities.  This isn't about equality - we have that.  It's about special treatment and recognition.

Now, let's take the list at the top.  Right off the top, we can write off the Electronic Arts one, which was faked.   The end statement is accurate.  They (whoever "they" are) are indeed exercising their free speech.

Let's use the JC Penny example, simply because I'm more familiar with it.  JCPenny hired Ellen Degeneres (or, uh, "Degeneress").  Personally, I don't see understand what the big deal is with her; my few attempts at watching her show left me decidedly unimpressed, but so does most TV.  I don't find her funny or interesting.  Actually, I find her boring and bland and, quite frankly, I think more people watch her show because she's a lesbian and want to prove they're not haters then out of any real interest, but that's just me.

Now, JC Penny can hire whomever they want.  They are free to do that.  The One Million Moms (OMM) group made a statement and called for a boycott.  I thought that was a rather bad idea, but again, they are free to do that.  You know; freedom of speech and all.  What was interesting was the fall out from that.  The level of pure, head exploding hatred levelled against this group was pretty amazing.  Of course, anyone who disagrees with anything gay activists demand are labelled "anti-gay", "homophobe", "bigot", "intolerant" and "haters."  Which is really funny to see, considering the terrible things they themselves were saying against the group or anyone who doesn't cave in to their demands.  Now, if someone actually called for gays to be hung (as in one of the images above), I would have a problem with that.  For someone to say that gays are "possessed by demons," well, that's free speech, too, and I'd just laugh and think they were idiots.  I don't actually see the context of any of the images across the top of that graphic, though, except for the first one with Ellen, and the use of the term "anti-gay moms" is just another illustration of what I'm talking about.

The point is, however, people who support traditional marriage are allowed to say so.  Doing so doesn't make them "anti-gay" or "haters," but hey, that's free speech, too.  One group can call for the boycott, others can condemn them for it.  And condemn them, they did, with a level of hatred far exceeding the perceived hatred coming from the OMM, and that's when things started to cross the line.

JCPenny, however, seemed to enjoy their notoriety and went a step further.  Hiring Ellen, after all, had nothing to do with her being a lesbian.  For Father's Day, they were more blunt.  Sort of.  That's when they put out an add featuring two guys with kids.  When I saw the add, I actually just assumed it was a couple of male models posing as dads with their kids.  The image I saw was difficult to read, so I completely missed the bit at the end that revealed that the two guys in the photos were a couple, posing with their own children.

At this point, I think JCPenny was counting on OMM, or some other group, to object, because of the surge of support they got with Ellen.  I saw plenty of people condemning OMM, and again, the level of pure hatred aimed at them was startling.

I also saw plenty of people claiming they would shop at JCPenny to support them.  I'm not sure that that actually translated into increased sales for JCPenny.  I've read claims that their sales dropped significantly as a result of the boycott, but I've also read claims that their sales soared.  I don't think either is true.  I expect they got a modest increase, and then everyone promptly forgot about it.

Then there was Oreo.  This was interesting, because the ONLY reason I found out about the rainbow Oreo cookie ad was from people who posted about it or shared the image, slagging "homophobic" groups that were calling for a boycott of Oreo because of their support of gay activists.  I actually had not seen any of these calls for boycotts at all.  I'm sure they were there, but whoever they were, they got more publicity from those condemning them then they ever would have otherwise.

As soon as I saw the ad, though, my thought was that the marketers at Oreo saw what happened with JCPenny and figured publicly stating they supported gay activist causes, inviting controversy, would result in a surge of supprt - and sales - from gay activists and their supporters.  I don't know how well that worked out for them.  The people I saw voicing their support for Oreo say they planned to buy more Oreos, but there were so few of them, and I didn't see anyone claim they already had, because of this.  Personally, I think Oreos are kind of gross, unless they're in ice cream. ;-)

Now lets go to the second part of the graphic, where is points out the percieved hypocrisy of how the call to boycott Chick-fil-A is "infringing on... free speech."

That's where the maker of this little bit of catch phrase activism gets it wrong.  Gay activists are free to call for a boycott.  Likewise, others are free to condemn them for it, just as the activists were free to condemn OMM for wanting to boycott JCPenny.

Calling for a boycott was never the problem.

The first problem was that the boycott was based on a lie.  Many lies, actually. The owners of Chick-fil-A are well known for being supporters of traditional marriage.  This is not news.  Of course, the activists translate this as being "anti-gay" and "hate speech," etc.  This recent controversy, however, was based on the CEO of Chick-fil-A saying "guilty as charged" in an interview, which was re-written as him saying he was against gay marriage.  The thing is, he was never even asked about gay marriage.  The conversation had nothing to do with gay marriage.  If anything, it was anti-divorce.  No one it going around saying he was "anti-divorcee", however, or that he "hates divorced people."  Becuase that would be a lie, too.

So the whole thing was a manufactured controversy, right from the start.

The other problem is the claims by pro-gay activists that Chick-fil-A - the company - was discriminatory.  It was claimed that their policies were discriminatory and anti-gay.  That's just plain slander.  If, as a company, Chick-fil-A refused to hire gay people, they'd have a case, but they *do* hire gay people.  If, as a company, they refused to serve gay customers, again, they'd have a case.  Of course, they do no such thing.  What these activists and their supporters have done was not just twist around the actual statements made by the CEO of the company into something else entirely, but they're outright lying about the company itself.

That still isn't quite restricting the free speech of the CEO.  What *is* restricting free speech is the demands of activists to punish the company for the personal beliefs of the CEO.  When politicians promise that they will not approve new restaurants in their areas because the personal beliefs of the CEO is not what their own personal beliefs demand, it's actually illegal.  Yes, even fascist.  This is government officials abusing their powers to force private individuals to change their beliefs, or keep those beliefs to themselves.  Many of these activists, who so loudly claim they are for "equality", "equal righs" and "tolerance" not only fully supported this abuse of power, they demanded it. To them, this dictatorial behaviour was "noble" and "brave."

To be fair, I saw some people who started out supporting the boycott of Chick-fil-A draw the line here.  This, however, is where the gay activists lost the game.  This is on top of the most vile and hateful attacks being aimed at Chick-fil-A, all because of something the CEO didn't actually say.  Foul language is pretty standard for these sorts and, unfortunately, so is wishing death and all manner of terrible things (Rosanne Barr's tweet being the most infamous) on the CEO, his family, his employees and their customers.  There have even been bomb threats.

It was the same level of vitriol aimed at OMM, but this time, the attackers were the ones calling for the boycott.

So, first was have the "anti-gay organization" calling for a boycott of a company because of their corporate level support of gay marriage (I have no idea what the private beliefs of anyone involved are).  Yes, that's free speech.  Then we have the pro-gay activists and their supporters condemning the boycotters, while claiming they are haters, bigots, homophobes, etc. for supporting traditional marriage.  That is also free speech.

Now we have the pro-gay activists calling for a boycott of a private company because of personal opions of the CEO, which were misquoted and misrepresented, in the process declaring him anti-gay, homophobic, a hater, etc.  It is falsely claimed that the company discriminates against gays.  When people step up to support the company, they too are called haters and bigots and homophobes, along with wishes of illness, pain and death, even though the people supporting the company and its CEO includes gays.  These people absolutely tried to infringe on the free speech of the CEO through bullying tactics, and some were willing to do so illegally through dictatorial abuse of political power.

What's the fall out?

Well, the calls to boycott JCPenny and Oreo seem to have fizzled out of the limelight, as have the calls for a buycott to support these companies for their support of gay activist demands.

The Chick-fil-A boycott seems to have backfired completely!  The bullying tactics used by the pro-gay activists were stood up against.  I began seeing comments everywhere from people saying that they had gone to Chick-fil-A to support free speech.  I saw people saying they'd never gone before, and even some who said they'd spent the last of their money before payday, to support the company and stand up to the attacks against it.  I read people describe how they went several times a week - some every day - when they had only occaisionally gone before.  I heard from others saying that they were gay, but they still went to Chick-fil-A because of the what the boycotters were saying and doing.  Over and over again, I heard people describe restaurants packed, some so full they couldn't get in at all, with drive through line ups that wrapped around the block.



(h/t Blazing Cat Fur)
Then there was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and the response is out of this world!

Watching all this has served to confirm some of my other observations.  For all that SSM is legal in Canada now, and polls in the US supposedly show that support for SSM has increased over the years (this despite the fact that ever state that put it to a vote has maintained the definition of traditional marriage), the tide may be turning.  Just as the abortion issue, which was supposed to be a done deal, is now seeing a resurgance of opposition as more and more people recognise the damage it does to society, people are starting question the notion that accepting SSM is benign.

It had been my belief that SSM would eventually be accepted in general, though at the cost of personal and religious freedom for anyone who dared challange it.  I thought it would follow the typical pattern I see elsewhere.  After acceptance, it would take years - probably a generation or two - before the damage we were told would never happen would be recognise, and then eventaully a backlash would begin.  That is the state the abortion issue is at now.

Oddly, I think the Chick-fil-A fiasco has become a game changer.  There is an unexpected momentum in the backlash to the gay activists.  We've already got evidence showing that SSM hasn't resulted in sunshine and roses for all, and that there is, in fact, quite a lot of damage resulting from even the most stable of SS relationships.  Now, as the totalitarian behaviour of pro-gay activists crawls out into the open, people have noticed, and large numbers are standing up to it.  Not by protesting or becoming angry, but by going out, having fun and buying chicken.

Is it possible that the humble chicken sandwich can become the final straw that revealed the hypocrisy of activists who are trying to redefine our society into their own image?

update:

Check out Bigotry and Chick-Fil-A

Give this a watch, for those still under the delusion that allowing gay marriage won't affect everyone else.



Also, When hating on Chick-fil-A, try to hide it better.

The Marriage Debate: Why marriage?

I've been slowly working on this for some time - long enough that I can't even remember what originally triggered the whole thing - made several false starts and deleted some draft versions.  In the end, my problem was that there was just too much I wanted to cover.  So now I start again, but will be splitting things up into specific topics.

For this post, I will focus on one thing.  Why marriage?  In other words, what is the purpose of marriage?  Why do we bother to get married, and why has marriage been elevated and recognized throughout human history?

First, I want to make clear that when I use the word "marriage," I am referring to marriage between one man and one woman; the so-called "traditional" or "Judeo-Christian" marriage.  When discussing other types of marriage, I will be more specific and use terms like SSM (same sex marriage) or polygamy, etc.

So what is the purpose of marriage?

This is a complex question to answer, since the purpose of marriage is both public and private, religious and secular.  Many of the reasons for marriage are also intertwined, and cannot really be separated, one from the other.

Marriage has been viewed as many things throughout the millenia.  It has been a rite (both religious and a rite of passage), an obligation, a responsibility.  It has even been mandated by secular law, as well as by religious decree.  It has long been an expectation, and those who never married were often viewed with pity, while those who deliberately chose not to marry were often viewed with derision.

Marriages around the world continue to take place by choice, arrangement and even by force.  At times, people could only marry with permission, either from family members or from rulers.

One thing marriage has never been, however, is a right.  It can be a privilege to be earned or qualified for, an obligation that had to be met, but never a right.  At most, it is a granted right, like the right to vote or the right to drive.  Granted rights have qualifiers.  There are many, many granted rights.  Human rights are rights we have simply because we are human, and there are very few of those.  The problem is, too many people are demanding granted rights as though they were human rights.  I will discuss rights more later on.

Another thing marriage has never been about is love.  Oh, we have been admonished to love our spouses.  Love is a verb; it's something we do.  What has never been a requirement is to be "in love" - a passive term that makes for a rather shaky foundation for marriage.  Either way, love itself has never been a requirement of marriage.

So after looking at two things marriage is NOT, what is marriage about?

The primary reason for marriage, however, is procreation.  More specifically, it is a recognised institution dedicated to the creation and protection of future generations, connected largely (with recognised exceptions) by biology.  When you have a single wife and a single husband, you are pretty much reassured that the children born of that coupling are genetically related to those two individuals.  Adoption, of course, is a necessary and recognised exception.

But what about those marriages that don't produce children?  Are they less valid?

Well, historically, yes, they were.  If a married couple did not have children, this was considered something shameful.  It was also generally assumed to mean something was wrong with the female, so it was extra shameful for her.  Lack of children was considered a valid reason for divorce, and some couples went to extremes to produce the required children.  What those were depended on the culture of the time.

The need to procreate was so vital, that in some (usually patri-linial) cultures , if someone died childless, they considered truly dead.  If a person died with progeny, then they still lived on through their children.  To die without children was a greater tragedy then death itself.

Procreation within marriage served other purposes.  It ensured the continuation of the family line, as well as the continuation of the community.  Inheritances and lineages were assured, often through complex rules, customs and negotiations.  It also served the communities.  It was not unusual for cultures to restrict marriages within the village.  Instead, marriages had to be arranged between neighbouring villages.  This not only prevented intermarriage (for those cultures that saw intermarriage as a bad thing), but ensured ties between neighbouring communities.  One was far less likely to cheat or go to war with your neighbours when you had family there.  Kinship ties could be incredibly complex, and custom required special behaviour and treatment of those ties.  Such recognisable ties could not exist without the recognition of genetic relationships, and those relationships could be determined with assurance only through marriage.  Infidelity was a scandal as much for its effect on these kinship ties as it was for the betrayal involved.

In essence, marriage between one man and one woman attaches children to their parents and each other.  It ensures that those children belong to those parents, and they are responsible for those children.  That recognition and responsibility is a nucleus within the community that expands outward, connecting the community through expanding, concentric ties.

Which leads me to another, overlapping, purpose of marriage.  The joining of families and communities through recognised ties.  Nations could be built and wars ended on the marriage bed (or the other way around, I suppose).  Kinship through marital ties often accompanied elaborate ritual recognition that established responsibility between groups.  People could be complete strangers, but if it was found that they had kinship ties, there were proscribed ways that they had to treat each other, ranging from care of children, care of the elderly, inheritance, gifting, and ensuring that those kin who were undergoing hardship would be assisted by those who could, even if they lived far apart.

Another important part about marriage is that it is absolutely and necessarily exclusive and discriminatory. 

First, what does it mean to discriminate?  From Merriam-Webster, we have:

transitive verb
1 a : to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of 

   b : distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>
2 : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; especially : to distinguish from another like object

intransitive verb
1 a : to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> 

   b : to use good judgment
2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

What about exclusive?  The Free Dictionary give us:

adj.

1. Excluding or tending to exclude: exclusive barriers.

2. Not allowing something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive conditions.

3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.

4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function.

5. Complete; undivided: gained their exclusive attention.

6. Not including the specified extremes or limits, but only the area between them: 20-25, exclusive; that is, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an exclusive club.

8. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops.

9. Linguistics Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that excludes the addressee, such as we in the sentence Chris and I will be in town tomorrow, so we can stop by your office.

These days, when people talk about discrimination and exclusivity, they tend to use the terms as entirely negative.  Discriminate, in particular, is mostly a positive term - it's choosing the best; making good judements, etc.  One would hope people would be discriminating when it comes to choosing spouses!  If anything, we need more discrimination in marriage, not less.



Exclusivity is another important part of marriage.  When a couple marries, they are publicly stating to all that they are now exclusive to each other.

Which brings me to the next purpose of marriage.

Sex.

Yup, marriage is about sex.  Married couples have exclusive sexual access to each other.  This is important and related to the expectation of procreation, since without exclusive sexual access to each other, the assumption of paternity cannot be made.

Of course there's more to marriage then the sexual relationship, but that does not change the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to show, to the entire community, that this couple has sexual exclusivity.  This is a public statement, not a private one.

This leads to another reason for the exclusivity of marriage.  The more sexually active people are outside of monogomous marriage, the greater the risk of contracting and spreading disease. 

Now for the recognition of marriage.

With few exceptions, marriage has restricted to one man, one woman.  Even when, in the interests of procreation, other sexual relations were condoned, the marriage itself was the official, recognised relationship.  Even in cultures where homosexual relationships were mandated by the state, marriage itself was limited to one man, one woman.

State recognition of marriage, however, follows community recognition of marriage, and community recognition of marriage has its foundation in religion. With few exceptions, regardless of what god or gods or spiritual beings were worshiped, marriage was a religious rite.

So when people tell me that oppostion to various alternative types of marriage is religion forcing itself on everyone else, they have it backwards.  It is those groups who demand recognition of their alternate marriages that are forcing their version of marriage on everyone else.

State recognition of marriage tends to take on two forms; it either reflects the religious and community recognition of marriage, or it tries to control its populace through marriage.  Therein lies the danger of the state imposing marital law on the populace, rather then the other way around.  I will leave that topic for now, however, as that will be discussed in another post.

For now, let's look at the secular side of marriage.  Secular, by the way, is a word rooted in religion and meant "in/of the world."  Specifically, medieval Christianity.  When men and women reached the end of their religous training, they had a choice.  They could continue to live a "religious" live of academia, or they could chose to live "in the world."

Today, the word is defined as

adjective
1.of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2.not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3.(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4.(of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows ( opposed to regular).
5.occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6.going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.

noun
7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.

 However, whem people use the term these days, it tends to be anti-religious, rather than non-religious.

Secular or state recognition of marriage reflected religous and community recognition of marriage, and that includes its restrictions, and like religious recognition of marriage, what is recognised is not the same everywhere.  Canada, for example, now allows first cousin marriages, but other countries still do not, so a first cousin marriage in Canada would not be recognised in those countries, even though it's legal here.  Likewise, Islamic countries recognise polygamous marriages, while Canada does not.  The issue of polygamous marriages among immigrants is starting to cause all sorts of problems in Canada, but that's a discussion for another time.

Meanwhile, not only are there cultures and states that recognise polygamous marriages, there are those that recognise marriages to non-humans and objects.  In some Indian cultures, a man who's astrologer told him his first marriage would be a failure, but his second a success, could marry a dog or a doll, and that marriage would be recognised.  He would then divorce his "wife," and what would be seen as satisfying the astrological prediction.  

So why did countries like Canada recognise "traditional" marriage, but not polygamous marriage?  In essence, it's because Canada is a Christian country, whether people are willing to admit it anymore or not.  The state reflects the people, and the foundational culture of Canada was based on Judeo-Christianity, even if individuals may not have been.  

State recognition of marriage has its own purproses outside of religion.  Once again, procreation plays a large part.  The state recognises that children within a marriage as being the product of that marriage, and that in turn affects such things as the rights and responsibilities of the parents over their children, and influences laws of inheritance, property, etc.  

  

Though Judeo-Christian history included polygamous marriages, it is the union of one man and one woman that holds special status.  Why?  

Because the union of one man and one woman has been found to be the most beneficial to all, whether on an individual basis to society as a whole.  Polygamous marriages almost always devalue women.  The rare cultures that practice polyandry have the problem of breaking paternal recognition.  We always know who the mother is, but which husband is responsible for which children?  It also tends to devalue women, as it often takes the form of brothers "sharing" a wife, who gets passed around to various male relatives for sexual purposes.   

"Traditional" marriages have also been found, through centuries of experience, to be the most stable unit for the upbringing of children and the strengthening of society, as well as for the individuals involved.  Mental and physical health, for parents and children, is improved, they tend to be more stable, the children raised have better outcomes, including education and mental, physical and even financial health.  

Ah, but what about all those divorces?  Infidelity?  Abusive relationships?  etc.  Traditional marriages are badly flawed, so preventing people who love each other from marrying is wrong and denying them their equal rights, right?

The problem of that particular argument will be the subject of my next post. 

What people see

An atheist friend shared a graphic recently.  It portrayed what people see when they first get to know someone (nice words like kind, friendly, etc surround a line drawing of a person), then what they see when they find out that person is atheist (nice words replaced with nasty ones, as well as words like depressed, lost, confused, etc.).

I don't doubt her experience.  It's unfortunate that it happens, though when I showed it to my daughter, her response was "people don't necessarily think that *because* they are athiests."  She has a point, too.  There are atheists like my friend, and then there are ... the other kind.

I get what she's saying, though.  I get it, too, though obviously not because I'm atheist.

Then, my wonderfully talented daughter drew this for me to illustrate.

*snerk*

Extra snerk when we were adjusting the image on the computer and she added a potential caption of, "I'll bet those kids are home schooled!"

Oh, and in case you have trouble reading the text, the book reads "Sky Faerie Handbook," the big sign read "G*D HATES FAGS and foreigners are taking our jobs" with "Science is SIN" taped to one side and "1%" taped to the other.  Taped to the older daughter is a sign that reads "Future Mom."

The pistol dangling out of her pocket was a nice touch, as are the melon boobies on the little girl's doll. 

LOL!  Thanks, Sweetie.

update:  Wow!  Thanks, Blazing Cat Fur, for the plug and the traffic. :-)  I hope you all have enjoyed your visit.

If anyone would like to see more of my talented daugther's work, you can see some of it here, including her new online comic.

What was that again? (new link added)

Oh, right... Christians aren't being persecuted.  We're just playing the victim.



Right?

Right?

Tell me again?

For all those people telling me that there is no persecution against Christians, and that we're just playing the victim card, read this.  Then try to tell me that Christians aren't being persecuted.

Watch if you dare.

A brief emergence (correction edit)

Well, I suppose it's time for me to briefly emerge and reflect events of the past while.  Specifically about Jack Layton's death and the fallout.

I first heard about Layton's death when my husband sent me a text from work about it.  He had just arrived at the office and heard.  Eldest was on the computer at the time, so she quickly checked the news and we read more about it before she went back to her work.

I can't say I was surprised to hear of his death, and only slightly surprised at how soon it was after he stepped down.  The contrast between how he looked during the election and how he looked when he stepped down was so dramatic, it was clear he was fading fast.  I have, in the past, reflected on how I thought he should have stepped down when he announced his fight with pancreatic cancer, so that he could devote all his energy to his health and loved ones.  For some people, that would just make things worse - when my own husband was on medical leave, being stuck and home and not working caused more problems with his health than it solved.  When Layton didn't step down then, I could see that as being part of why.

Since becoming Leader of the Opposition, my dislike of Layton just intensified.  He kept making pronouncements about how he was going to  make PM Harper and the Conservatives do this or that or whatever.  For someone who had no power to do much of anything, his arrogant and adversarial attitude irritated me.  Layton was one of those politicians who, the more I saw him in action, the more he made my skin crawl.

When I heard of his death, I could only feel sympathy.  I didn't know him outside the political arena, so there was no sadness on my part.  I could empathize with his family and friends, and with the difficulty of facing a losing battle against whatever cancer it was that took him so quickly.  That's about it.

Then things at home took precedence.  I ended up getting a call from my husband to come get him, as he was in too much pain to stay at work.  He hasn't been back since.  Though every now and then he has seen some improvement, the pain keeps coming back.  Right now, he's pretty much worse than when this whole thing started.  Aside from the pain in his back, we are now thinking it's his sciatica.

With all that's been going on, I've only briefly been on the computer.  A quick check of my email, but not usually long enough to actually answer anything.  A quick run through my news, but mostly scanning headlines.  And, of course, checking my facebook.  The tv pretty much never got turned on, so anything there I missed entirely.  By the time I got uninterrupted time on the computer, it was late at night.  Sleep has been on the short side, and writing while sleep deprived is just not a good idea.  The only reason I'm able to write now is because Dh has gone to lie down again, and I am ignoring my usual online activities to write this post. 

Meanwhile, since I've been unable to access the computer for any length of time, and there's nothing I can do to help Dh other than stay out of his way, the girls and I have headed out a fair bit, so I just haven't been home much lately, either.  On top of that, I've got a course I need to finish, so I've been working on the unwritten portion of that (I'm doing to have to find some way to get enough computer time to do the written portion soon).

Yeah.  It's been an interesting week.

With all this in a swirl around us, I've missed most of the hysteria surrounding Layton's death.  The few times I popped onto facebook, I could see it escalating.  The first sign was when someone posted the hope, love optimism thing on their facebook status.  At first glance I though, "oh, I recognise that.  Who's it from?  Ghandi or something?"  Then I saw the attribution to Jack Layton.  Hmm.  I guess I was wrong.

Then another status changed. Then another.  And another.

Between one quick glance at my newsfeed and another, I saw all sorts of people changing their statuses to that line, repeating it in comments, and going on about this letter that Layton wrote.

Things went downhill from there.

Suddenly all these people were going on about how touched they were by Layton's death.  How they cried when they read the letter.  How moved they were by it.  How inspired they were by Layton's life.  Much public grieving, accolades, sackcloth and ashes.

Seeing all this in bits and pieces, I made note of two things.  One, who it was I was hearing this from.  I had no surprises there.  Two, out of all these people going on about how much they missed Layton, how much they loved him, and so on, only ONE of these people actually met him, was an active NDPer, and someone who, before Layton died, had spoken highly of him as someone they looked up to and admired.  ONE.

All those people who were going on about crying on hearing his death, planning on going on candlelight vigils and so on?

Riiiggghhhttt...

As far as I could see, it was just another example of people inserting themselves into some celebrity's life, making themselves feel better by being part of something bigger than themselves.  As far as I am concerned, there is no psychological difference between these outpourings of public grief over a famous person they have no connection with, and those rioters who were just "good kids" doing something stupid.  Everyone wants to be part of something bigger.  Everyone wants to say "I was part of this."  Whether that something is helpful, harmful or something in between is the only difference.

Then I caught Christie Blatchford's NP piece.  This is where I first learned that the now famous letter wasn't actually written by Layton.  Now, as someone who is dying, I can see wanting to write a letter to friends and family.  Since Layton was also a public figure, I can see wanting to extend that to a larger sphere.  I can also see, being sick and probably in pain, needing help to write such a letter.  Who better than his own wife for that?

But the help of two NDP spin doctors?

Blatchford's column was about the over-the-top response to Layton's death.  Even with what little I saw of it myself, I completely agreed with her.  Unlike her, I think this sort of thing started much earlier than with the death of Diana.  I think it goes back to Elvis, who's death saw an outpouring of  public grief.  Elvis, however, touched many lives with his music, so it was more understandable.  Then there was the assasination of John Lennon, which also saw an outpouring of public grief.  Again, like him or not, John Lennon touched a lot of lives with his music, both solo and with the Beatles.  Both these deaths made the public expressions of grief over a famous person much more acceptable and, in a way, it was understandable.

Then there was the death of Diana, where the outpouring of public grief went over the top.  Yes, Diana had touched many lives during her time as Princess, with her campaigns against landmines and the like.  She was genuinely loved by the public for her kindness.  As her personal life fell into shambles, people could sympathise.  Even so, the response to her death was well out of proportion, and even today there are people who haven't got past that (as demonstrated by the crass man holding a "Diana Forever" sign on the street while Prince Charles and Camilla drove by after their marriage).

This happened again when Michael Jackson died.  By then, these public and excessive outpourings of grief over the death of a celebrity had become expected.  I found it distasteful then and, like Blatchford, I found it distasteful now.  These public demonstrations are not about the person who died.  I find them extremely selfish and self serving.  When people who had never even heard of Jack Layton before start talking about how they cried over their death and, in one case at least, travelled to another country to take part in his funeral, you know it has nothing to do with Layton, and everything to do with themselves.

"I cried when I heard of his death" says someone who's never paid attention to politics before.

Translation: "lookit-me-lookit-me-lookitlookitlookit-memememe!!!!"

"I was so touched by his letter!" says the person who only read the last couple of lines.

Translation: "lookit-me-lookit-me-lookitlookitlookit-memememe!!!!"

"I'm going to the candlelight vigil" says the person who has never been politically active before in their lives.

Translation: "lookit-me-lookit-me-lookitlookitlookit-memememe!!!!"

"I made a chalk drawing in memory of Jack in Toronto," says the person who drags their little kids along to do chalk drawings as well.

Translation: "lookit-me-lookit-me-lookitlookitlookit-memememe!!!!"

No surprise that Blatchford immediately got attacked for her column.  No surprise that these attacks were vile and hateful beyond belief, and aimed towards her personally.  No surprise that when I saw a few of Layton's new fans bring it up on facebook, it was to share an article that compeletely misrepresented what Blatchford wrote, while expressing disgust at her personally for daring to not worship Layton and questioning their own motives.

It was like some sort of mass hysteria.

Thankfully, I missed out on so much of it, for what little I did see was more than enough to disgust me.

As for Layton and co's letter (and yes, it has been confirmed by the NDPers involved that Layton didn't actually write the letter himself), I didn't get a chance to read the whole thing until the day of his funeral.  I didn't watch the funeral myself because 1) I had no interest in watching the funeral of someone I didn't particularly care about and 2) I spent much the day with a friend.

When I finally read the letter, I was horrified and disgusted.  This letter was a campaign speech.  After his preamble, he talked about the NDP, telling them what he thought they should do after he died.  Then he made his "no one left behind" blurb (yeah... didn't Bush try that with the US school system?  Didn't that fail spectacularly?).  Then he tried to rewrite history.

To my fellow Quebecers: On May 2nd, you made an historic decision. You decided that the way to replace Canada’s Conservative federal government with something better was by working together in partnership with progressive-minded Canadians across the country. 

Uhm, no.  They voted for the NDP because the Bloc screwed up and the NDP was the only choice for people who weren't pissed off enough at the Bloc to vote Liberal or Conservative.  Nobody expected many NDPers to actually get elected - including those running for the NDP.

You made the right decision then; it is still the right decision today; and it will be the right decision right through to the next election, when we will succeed, together.

Translation: vote NDP in the next election!

Then he starts into the collectivist shilling.

We can build a prosperous economy and a society that shares its benefits more fairly.

And we all know what the NDP's view of "more fairly" is.  Wealth redistribution - take from the rich to give to the poor.  Except, of course, the NDP elite, like Layton himself and Chow, who have lived very well on the public dime for decades.

Of course, there just has to be a dig against the feds!

We can restore our good name in the world. 

Yeah.  Our current government is doing a good job of that right now, thanks.  Of course, that's depends on who's good opinion "in the world" you want.

We can do all of these things because we finally have a party system at the national level where there are real choices; where your vote matters; where working for change can actually bring about change.

Earth to the NDP - our votes matter now.  We have real choices now.  We are working for change now.  That's why we not only have a Conservative government, but in the last election, we gave them a majority.  That's how democracy works, and if people are unhappy that someone they didn't like got elected, they should be mature enough to accept that maybe, just maybe, the rest of the country doesn't agree with them.

Give them a careful hearing; consider the alternatives; and consider that we can be a better, fairer, more equal country by working together.

Why am I suddenlty thinking of Animal Farm?

Okay, so that's the letter.  Then there was the funeral.

A state funeral?  What on earth for?  Aside from being against protocol (after all, protocol is not written in stone), what did he do to earn one?  What did he accomplish that was so great?  Come in second place at an election?  Make a lot of speeches?  Hang out at gay pride parades?

Not watching the funeral myself, I still caught many people commenting on it.  So many went out of their way to watch in on tv and talked about how moved they were by it, how they cried, and so on.

Then I started to get hard details.  Like the fact that there were three religions represented.  Actually, only two.  Jewish and Muslim.  The "Christian" representative?  A gay, married cleric.  Layton, it turns out, was a member of the United Church of Canada. 

In structure, the United Church has a "bottom-up" governance, where the congregation selects its clergy, rather than clergy being appointed by a bishop or other body. The policies of the church are inclusive and liberal: there are no restrictions of gender, sexual orientation or marital status for a person considering entering the ministry; interfaith marriages are recognized; communion is offered to all Christian adults and children, regardless of denomination or age.

In other words, it's a church that doesn't stand for anything and falls for everything.

Let me point something out here, and I'll paraphrase someone else's excellent metaphor in the process.  Being part of a religion is like being a member of a club.  Clubs have rules.  If you don't like the rules, don't be part of the club.  Christianity, like Judaism and Islam, views homosexual activity as a sin.  I can't speak for Judaism or Islam, but in Christianity, we believe in the forgiveness of sins, so if someone sins but repents, we believe they are forgiven.  However, for a CLERIC to be gay AND married - in other words, this is someone who actively engages in a behaviour Christianity views as sinful - they are living a life that is counter to Christian teaching.  There is no repentance of sin, since they clearly reject the notion that their actions are sinful.  One cannot be a Christian while deliberately acting against Christian beliefs (and this would apply to any behaviour recognised as being sinful by Christian faith).

So having this cleric representing Christianity isn't about being open or tolerant.  It is a slap in the face to all people who are faithful Christians.  A very deliberate slap, too.  It wasn't about faith.  It was about politics.

Since then, I've had a chance to view videos of the funeral, and I was thoroughly horrified.

This wasn't a funeral.  It was a political, NDP campaigning, event.  Now, I'm not one for sombre funerals and believe they should be celebrations of a person's life, not just mourning their death.  Even so, I was disgusted by the sight of people clapping, cheering and giving standing ovations to the so-called eulogy given by an NDP hack.  This sort of behaviour during a funeral and in a church was highly disrespectful, but respect for such things doesn't seem to be very high on the list of the far left, who reject religious beliefs and those who hold them, even as they take advantage of such beliefs to further their own ends.  Cheering of the idea of negotiating with terrorists?  There's a reason he was called "Taliban Jack."  And no, it's not "conventional wisdom," no matter how you want to spin it.  It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.  Terrorists should not be negotiated with.  Ever.

Yet this obnoxiously partisan speech had people cheering and clapping.  In a church.  During a funeral.

No, not a funeral.  Layton was just an excuse for more campaigning.  That his flag draped casket was next to the man while he spoke made it just that much more mordid, creepy and disgusting.

I find myself wondering.  Just how lucid was Layton near the end?  Just how much of this did he approve of?

I doubt we'll ever know.

In the end, though, this whole thing has left me thoroughly disgusted, not only by the people who took advantage of Layton's death for political grandstanding, but by those who mindlessly, herdlike, played along with it.

I wish I could extend my sympathies to Layton's family.  Had I not seen any of these, I probably could have.  As it stands now, any such sentiments would smack of hypocrisy, which I loathe.  Not even for his widow, for allowing his funeral to be highjacked like this.  I think the only person I really feel sympathy for is his daughter.  She and her toodler daughter seemed to be the only ones not taking advantage of Layton's death for their own personal, political ends. 

I find the whole circus has been disrespectful, distasteful and hypocritical beyond belief.

RIP Jack.  As much as you can, with your followers dragging your corpse into the muck with them.

Me?  I'm going back into my cave to try and help my husband with his health issues as much as I can.


correction: Layton's funeral was not held in a church, but at Roy Thomson Hall.  Somehow, that seems fitting for the psuedo-funeral.