tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19289506202147820512024-02-20T11:23:57.298-08:00Worldly ChristianityThis blog expresses Christian opinions on political, economic, religious issues. Opinions are generally informed by my Calvinistic version of Christianity, but the religious underpinnings are usually not expressed. Features include a wholistic view that rejects secular privatization of religion; emphasis on love, compassion and justice; coupling human rights to human responsibility. Compassion may be tough love and rights may be denied where shorn of responsibility.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-30013197333940363272011-10-25T17:59:00.000-07:002011-10-25T17:59:06.061-07:00The Canadian Charter of Rights vs FreedomPost 47--: <br />
<br />
<i>New Arrangements</i> <br />
<br />
Hi! Yes, I’m back with considerable embarrassment. I just cannot seem to muster the necessary pace to keep up with three blogs on a part time basis, while also working on my current major project, namely the writing of our memoirs, the “our” here referring to my wife and myself. So, I have decided that for the next few months I will write only one post per blog and quit pushing myself beyond reasonable limits. Heh, I am in my 70s. Though I may now have the time, I no longer have the energy with which I was brimming not so long ago. If somehow here and there an extra bit of unexpected time should become available, well, I may just try to squeeze in an extra read for you. But don’t forget, there are three blogs for you to peruse, not just one. Three a month does not sound so bad, does it? Almost weekly! You think I should simply join them together?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Need for Citizen-Friendly Legal Environment</i></b><br />
<br />
Today I present you with some musings on the Canadian Charter of Rights. Again, remember, I write as an ordinary citizen for ordinary citizens. Of course, the professionals are free to join us and even to comment. I would be happy with that, very happy. My lay status means I will not get bogged down in technicalities that so often derail court decisions and, hence, justice, causing delays reasonable only to the professional, but irking the citizen to no end. Justice is not a matter of technicalities. It is something that must be experienced by the citizen. Go ahead, professionals, and tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. Do you?<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Introducing Selick and Smith</i></b><br />
<br />
Karen Selick of the Canadian Constitution Foundation had an interesting article in the Vancouver Sun recently (“Courts Milking Their Power,”Oct 17, 2011) about Farmer Michael Smith. Smith was told by an Ontario Court of Justice that he had no right to sell raw or unpasteurized milk via a system best described as “cow-sharing.” Initially he was acquitted by a justice of the peace, only to have the judgement reversed at the next level. Well, what do you know. Ever heard of such a thing before, a judgement reversed, overruled or denied by a higher court? Smith and his customers were once again subjected to that mixture of a mismash of conflicting laws that pass for our legal system and the personal worldviews and values of judges that constantly lead to contradictions and overrulings. A citizen never knows where he’s at, not even when a judgement has already been handed down. Someone higher up will overrule and undo it. Let’s not even talk about the money the system and the wolves called lawyers suck out of the hapless citizen’s pocket. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Right to Brush My Teeth</i></b><br />
<br />
The issue as Selick explains it is whether I have the right to brush my teeth in the morning. After all, it is not listed among my human right and is therefore not a protected right. The same is true for everything we do routinely and on a daily basis. Do I have the right to go to the bathroom? Do I have the right to choose between an apple or a pear? And does Smith have the right to sell his raw milk? None of these daily activities are listed in the Canadian Charter of Rights. Are they therefore unprotected and illegal? <br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Who Needs to Be Reined in?</i></b><br />
<br />
If that is how our rights and freedoms are to be protected, then, Selic argues, the Charter would be “a zillion pages long.” Everything people do would have to be stipulated to be protected and legal. This is nonsense, of course. Actually all these mundane activities in our lives are all bundled together under “the right to liberty.” And then Selick declares what I would consider a very profound and important principle, namely that the Charter does not aim to “rein in individuals” so much as “to rein in governments.” It does not “grant us our rights,” so much as to recognize “that those freedoms already existed.” <br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Need for Citizen Plain Legal Understanding</i></b><br />
<br />
There are more revelations in the Selick article, but I will let it go at this today. Possibly I will discuss her article further in the next post, but this is enough to chew on for the average citizen. I hope you will chew on it, for I, frankly, like her arguments and believe citizens will profit from a sharper awareness of these issues. We need to be freed from the lawyer regime and start developing an independent understanding of law, rights, freedom and responsibility. At one time the Catholic church prevented people from reading the Bible. Muslims on the whole cannot read the Qur’an, except perhaps to recite it in a language few of them understand. Similarly, citizens are largely prevented from understanding or even reading the law by the obscurantist jargon in which everything is expressed. It is time we make everything plain. Perhaps we need an “Occupy the Courts” movement. Game anyone?Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-42342691321172656802011-09-30T22:07:00.000-07:002011-09-30T22:15:01.933-07:00Ian Mulgrew vs Harper Crime Billcontribution to Western Christians. We needed it and deserved it. Thank you.<br />
<br />
=============XXXX<br />
46--: <br />
<br />
<b><i>Failed Plans</i></b><br />
<br />
When I first returned to Canada ten years ago, I had hopes to start a movement to civilize the legal profession and to conscientize especially Christian lawyers and judges about the demands of the Gospel upon them. Due to a number of reasons, I was not able to get that off the ground, though I did make an attempt, ill-formed as it was. Then I was hoping to start a whole series of posts on the BC legal system. I have not been able to do the research to get a series started either, though I have on my shelf hundreds, if not thousands, of newspaper clippings on all things relating to the law, to the courts, to judges and to lawyers. So, with both of these projects having failed, I will for now be satisfied with writing occasional posts about these subjects. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Introducing My Main Characters</i></b><br />
<br />
For those not living in Vancouver or Canada, Ian Mulgrew is a Vancouver Sun columnist; Stephen Harper is Canada’s Prime Minister. Mulgrew recently wrote a column discussing BC Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Bauman’s criticism of Harper’s crime bill as “a strain on [the] system” (“Judge Deems Harper’s Crime Bill a ‘Strain’ on System,” Sept. 28, 2011, p. A6). <br />
<br />
<b><i>A Raging Controversy</i></b><br />
<br />
Bauman’s critique and Mulgrew’s column aimed at the Harper are by no means the first. A veritable tradition has arisen complaining about crowded prisons and, more recently, about the Harper bill that will increase the number of prisoners so much that more prisons will need to be built—and that at a time of economic scarcity and reduction of crime. Mulgrew refers to a raging controversy. <br />
<br />
<b><i>The Critique</i></b><br />
<br />
Bauman warns that it will strain every aspect of the justice system, the courts, the judges, the prisons. Correctional officers complain about prisons already overcrowded. In BC, the system is plagued by shortage of personnel and of “dockets so clotted you can’t get a trial date in less than a year.” Cases are thrown out of court simply because it has taken took long for them to get to trial. Many serious cases take too much time for prosecution—three to five years, and sometimes even longer. Mulgrew notes the “absurd anomaly” that under the proposed new law, “pot growers are …penalized more harshly than child molesters.” This crime bill, according Mulgrew and many others, will make all problems worse, not better. And with each prisoner now costing up to $120,000 per annum, the predicted outcome of the new legislation will be a huge increase in the citizens’ tax bill. <br />
<br />
<i>Alternative Tethering System</i><br />
<br />
Please recall a suggestion I made back in April of this year in Post 33. I suggested that, instead of putting all criminals in prison, most of them should be placed in qualified homes and severely tethered. For details please go back to that post, for I am not about to repeat what I wrote there. Of course, such an arrangement would not be appropriate for violent and other dangerous offenders, but, it would seem to me it would keep most criminals out of prison while still having their movement severely curtailed. The savings could be phenomenal and no additional prisons would need to be built. <br />
<br />
Not only would the proposed system save tons, but it may also prevent new offenders from being further contaminated by fellow prisoners. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Not Based on Leftist Ideology</i></b><br />
<br />
This is a very sketchy and incomplete proposal from a legal and correctional layman that would need serious fleshing out. But I do assure you, my reader, that this proposal is not another hair-brained idea from some leftist ideologist. I am hardly leftist. In fact, I am a card-carrying member of the federal Conservative Party. I agree with the Prime Minister’s emphasis on doing away with the slapped wrist so many judges are seen to be dishing out. People, including yours truly, have become impatient, not to say furious, with leftist judges who seem to regard criminals as misguided angels and who leave the victims of crime to their own lot. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Elected Judges</i></b><br />
<br />
Perhaps an additional change needed is to turn judges into elected officials. That would make them respond to the people instead of ignoring them as legal imbeciles.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-59811033786652369922011-09-13T10:21:00.000-07:002011-09-13T10:34:35.339-07:00A Second Pre-emptionPost 45--: <br />
<b><br />
Wonderful Summer Weather<i></i></b><br />
<br />
It’s been a wonderful summer here on Canada’s West Coast, though it was unusually slow in coming. I have loved it and spent a fair amount of time—weeks in fact—away from my desk and, hence, away from this blog. Visiting our kids and families in WA and near SF in CA with days of RV-“camping” in between. Since then, “backyard” RVing in southern BC—with more to come. If you like a moderate climate without extremes of heat and cold, then BC’s south-west coast and much of Vancouver Island is the place to be. So a bit of a lull, but one you can understand, I believe. But, while it’s still great summer stuff in the middle of September, here I am, once again slogging/blogging it out. This morning the temperatures are pleasant but the sky is cloudy, something we have not seen for a while—and have not missed. Welcome to Fall.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Writers about Secularism</i></b><br />
<br />
I told you in the last post that I have a second pre-emption to share with you, a good thing about secularism. Secularism did not just pop up out of the West’s woodworks; it took centuries to develop, the story of which is told in great detail by Canada’s philosopher Charles Taylor in his tome A Secular Age. Kuyperians, among them “Father” Abraham Kuyper himself as well as the movement’s primal philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd and others, have also traced its historical development and exposed its roots, origins and influence.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Secularism as a Chastener</b></i><br />
<br />
Secularism has lured many Christians into its trap and thereby seriously reduced the scope of their faith to the private, the home and the church, but it has also served as a corrector and chastener of Christianity. In volume 5 of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations, I wrote that “secularism is at least partially the result of an aggressive and intolerant version of Christianity that needed chastening.” Of course, Christians were not the only ones to practice intolerance; it was a major human characteristic down through the centuries; it marked all civilizations. Tolerance and its child, pluralism, are of rather recent vintage everywhere. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Jonathan Chaplin</i></b><br />
<br />
The British Kuyperian scholar Jonathan Chaplin, a one time faculty member of the Institute of Church & Society in Toronto, a Kuyperian tertiary institution, wrote,<br />
<br />
<i>Let me make it clear that the anxieties shared by many secular liberals about the impact of public religion are real ones. Some of them are mine too…. And let me alswo r3ecord that the response of early modern liberalism to public religion was compelling and necessary. In the 17th century religion was not only public, it was backed by force of arms. In such circumstances, we can see why moves to confine the public expression olf faith seemed so necessary. In time, Christians who had stoked up religious warfare were humbled and had to allow liberalism to teach it again what its own deepest principles had always implied: that authentic faith cannot and may not be coerced. So, a religious response to contemporary liberalism must begin by appreciating liberalism’s vital historical contribution to religious freedom and democracy. </i> <br />
<br />
In spite of my constant anti-secular bias in my writings, including this blog, I want this contribution of secularism recognised and remembered as we go along. Honour to whom honour is due!<br />
<br />
Of course, since then, secularism has gone far beyond its original form and can now be legitimately described as intolerant, more so than most North American Christians. That’s the reason I frequently write negatively about it. But may I never forget their original chastening contribution to Western Christians. We needed it and deserved it. Thank you.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-73239715450479624532011-08-30T11:48:00.000-07:002011-08-30T11:53:40.911-07:00Fixation on Secularism?<b>Post 44--:</b> August 30 2011<br />
<br />
<b><i>Tim's Complaint</i></b><br />
<br />
Tim is a good friend of mine and a long-time lecturer in theology. Under most other circumstances, what with his doctorate and many years of experience, he should have attained professorial status. As it is, he is teaching in a theological college in Nigeria that does not have provision for such rankings, though its academic level is fully equal to that of Nigeria’s public universities, if not higher. Tim recently commented to me that I seem to have a fixation on secularism. According to him, whenever I write, it is about something related to secularism. Whenever I open my mouth, the term “secularism” or some derivative comes out. A slight exaggeration, Tim, but only slight! <br />
<br />
<b><i>Complaint Accepted</i></b><br />
<br />
Yes, I am deeply concerned about secularism. Putting his comment in a broader context and as I myself once remarked in a seminary chapel speech, we Kuyperian Calvinists seem to find a secularist or dualist behind every tree. Tim is thus not far off the mark. No matter what I write about or in what context, whether an entire 8-volume 2700+- page series on Christian-Muslim relations, magazine article, blog or public lecture, I just about always bring in the topic of secularism and often identify it as the main or basic culprit of whatever problem I may be writing or speaking about. And now you have this whole new blog with “secular” in its very name!<br />
<br />
<b><i>How This Works Out in Practice</i></b><br />
<br />
Of course, I could counter Tim’s remark with the observation that, no matter what he writes or lectures about, it is almost sure to be about theology. It is not that Tim knows nothing but theology or I nothing but secularism, but Tim, for reasons of his own, has decided to specialize in theology, while I have picked on secularism as a major issue in many social problems that I write about. I may write an article or a blog without a singular overt reference to secularism, but you may find it lurking just around the corner—and usually seen from a negative perspective.I usually write about the general negatives or refer you to other discussions of mine on the subject in past or future posts.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Pre-Emption No. 1</i></b><br />
<br />
But before I proceed with that, I want to pre-empt a couple of questions or objections to my negative stance towards secularism. I am not suggesting that all secularists are (potentially) bad or evil people, except in the general sense of being members of a fallen human race, of a race of creatures that somewhere in early distant history broke its covenant with God and since then is partially crippled in spirit, mind and body and thus potentially capable of every kind of evil. Even the generally humanistically inclined columnists in the Vancouver Sun, the people with whom I often respond to in my blogs, in response to the recent Vancouver hockey riots and to the Norwegian home-grown terrorist attack, are admitting that, given the right circumstances or stimuli, most of us, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or secular, can turn vicious, violent and downright evil. You don’t have to look far for examples; history is full of them. <br />
<br />
<b><i>My Secular Friends</i></b><br />
<br />
But most of us also have the potential for good, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, religious or secular. Though I regret their secularism, I have some very good secular friends for whom I have the highest respect and in whose company I delight. They are the finest humanists you can possibly find: decent, kind, compassionate, cultured, tolerant and a whole lot more positives. But as much as I appreciate them and delight in their company, there is always a deep chasm between us that we have agreed to acknowledge and accept. This covenant makes for challenging discussions of which we seldom tire. I thank them for this unique opportunity of rich human experience and sharing. Thus, when in these blogs and other writings I strongly disagree with secularism and its adherents and, not infrequently, become somewhat harsh, let these friends remember that, though they adhere to the worldview I attack repeatedly, I am also aware that not all secularists are proud and antagonistic to the worldview I represent in these blogs. One of them has often referred to me as an exceptionally tolerant Christian, but not quite. My tolerance is not so exceptional; it is typical of many Kuyperian Christians with our strong sense of pluralism. And from what they tell me about the reaction of their fellow Humanists to our joint project, I deduct that these friends are exceptional among their peers. <br />
<br />
The second pre-emption will be featured in Post 45.<br />
Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-17371098256496944922011-08-11T15:14:00.000-07:002011-08-11T15:14:09.196-07:00Scientific Explanations of ReligionPost 43--:<br />
<br />
<i><i>Wired for Religion</i></i><br />
I have a promise to keep: to deal with scientific explanations of religion. Remember Anderson Thompson and Clare Aukofer (A&T), co-authors of the book Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith from the last post? <br />
A&T summarize for us attempts by scientists to unravel religion’s “DNA.” Backed by empirical evidence, scientists “have produced robust theories…that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around. And the better we understand the science, the closer we can come to ‘no heaven… no hell…and no religion too.” The mechanisms within us that support faith developed over the ages. Scientists have identified around “20 hardwired, evolved ‘adaptation’ as the building blocks of religion.” They go on to argue that “the better we understand human psychology and neurology, the more we will uncover the underpinnings of religion.” “We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind’s greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>Skepticism</i></b><br />
Now, going by what I wrote in the previous post, we have good reason to be skeptical about the ideas A&T have about religion. Please review them, if you’re vague. That should put you on your guard with respect to this scientific stuff as well. If they misunderstand the inside of religion, how will they understand the “outside” of it? <br />
<br />
<i><i>Children's Altruism</i></i><br />
OK, so, for the sake of argument, let us grant that those various scientists have indeed uncovered some significant physical, psychological and other factors within us that support our religious lives. Not being a specialist in any of these areas, I would be the last to argue with the veracity of their findings, which real scientists always regard as tentative and open to correction or even rejection. However, when they tell us with all the assurance in the world that science has demonstrated with “a wealth of research” children’s “capacity for altruism” and that “we are born altruists, who then have to learn strategic self-interest,” I do begin to wonder about the value of non-scientific, pre-scientific or anecdotal knowledge. I am well into my 70s and member of a large international clan. My parents both had many siblings—in the 10-12 range; I am one out of ten. Between my wife and myself, we can count something like 70+ nieces and nephews, never mind the size of the next generations. So, through the decades I have seen many children grow up in my own nuclear family as well as in the larger clan. My decades of non-scientific anecdotal observation and experience is that babies are concerned mainly if not only for themselves and that as they grow up, especially in the family context with other children, over the years they learn to become less egocentric and more altruistic, a process that takes them into young adulthood before it somewhat matures. I have experienced myself slowly becoming less egocentric and more altruistic as a life-long process and I am very conscious of the fact that I have not yet arrived, not even with a strong dose of my Christian faith encouraging me along this path. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Science and Adherents of Religion</i></b><br />
Be that as it may, T&A are thus arguing that we are hardwired to be religious. In other words, that it is natural for us to be religious. In a way this seems a case of rediscovering the wheel, except that this time around it is supported by secular scientists. Non-secular scientists have long recognized this along with philosophers and theologians, while there is nothing in science itself to deny it. In response to debates around the 9/11 horror, Leonard Stern wrote in 2008 that “religiosity is hard-wired into the human condition” and that the secularist expectation—and hope-- shared by T&A, that religion is going to disappear and be replaced by reason has proven totally unreal. Stern also noted that the alleged hostility between religion and reason has little basis in fact, since the percentage of highly educated adherents is striking. For example, leaving the Christian majority religion aside, a quarter of US Buddhists have post-graduate degrees; Jews, 35%; Hindus, 48% (“Religion Isn’t Going Away, but It Needs Examination,” Vancouver Sun, March 25, 2008, p. A11). I will resist the urge to present you with an extensive bibliography of published writers who affirm the human hard-wiredness of religion, of belief systems, of faith, of worldviews and satisfy that urge by referring you to Volume 5, Part 2, of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relations (See Islamica page in my < www.SocialTheology. Com > or type in < Jan H Boer > on < www.lulu.com >. It is especially the Kuyperian Christian school of thought, including its numerous scientist adherents, that has affirmed this view for nearly a century and a half.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Twisted Logic</i></b><br />
What I find very strange and twisted logic is the assumption that if science can prove that we are hardwired by nature to be religious, then religion is proven false! This is absolutely absurd! If, as Christianity and Islam both affirm, the human race is created to be religious, then one should not be surprised if science found physical evidence supporting this. On what basis would such scientific hunches prove their opposite?! It is the same logical distortion applied to miracles: If you have a scientific explanation for an event interpreted as a miracle, then it cannot be a miracle! There is a decided antithesis between this kind of “science” and Christianity. Behind this strange “science” of A&T is an ardent anti-religion attitude shared by many secularists who just hope that religion will go away and not constantly call them to account. And then there is a deeper layer that consists of a dichotomy or dualism between religion and the world, including science, between the spiritual and the physical, that has been central to the major western secular worldview for centuries and, in fact, constitutes the western “common sense.” Few scientists, not being inclined to philosophy and other abstract ways of reasoning, are aware of this dualism. Why waste time on “common sense?” Again, at this point I can only refer you for details here to that same series and that same < lulu.com >, Volume 5, Chapter 5, especially pp. 151-157. One day I will devote a post or two to this subject.<br />
<br />
A sneak preview: next post will deal with my alleged fixation on secularism. <br />
Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-60295985758969965892011-07-30T08:43:00.000-07:002011-07-30T08:54:51.162-07:00The Old Secular Saw: Reason vs Faith/Religion<b>Post 42—:</b><br />
<br />
<b><i>Why Again on This Stuff</i></b><br />
If you’ve been following this blog, you will know that a major emphasis has been the relationship between Reason and Faith and/or Religion. (I capitalize these words to emphasize their centrality in this post.) I am putting you on notice that I don’t get tired of this subject and I won’t in the future as long as spokesmen/spokeswomen of the secular establishment don’t get tired of the subject and keep foisting their vision as the only reasonable one on the rest of us. As long as they unload their secular old saw about Reason vs Faith/Religion on us, so long will I counter them with my Kuyperian Christian guns about Faith/Religion and Reason or, better, Faith/Religion in and underlying Reason.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The "Sensible" World of the Secularist</i></b> <br />
This time the subject is triggered by an article the Vancouver Sun borrowed from the Los Angeles Times by Anderson Thompson and Clare Aukofer (A&T), co-authors of the book Why We Believe in God(s): A Concise Guide to the Science of Faith (“Imagine: Man Created God,” July 22, 2011). The article begins by declaring upfront that they strongly wish for a world without religion. To clarify their religionless utopia they pit a number of things against each other. In a world cleansed of religion, “mistakes like the avoidable loss of life in Hurricane Katrina, would be rectified rather than chalked up to ‘God’s will.’” Or take this gem: “…Politicians would no longer compete to prove who believes more strongly in the irrational and untenable.” They long for a world “where critical thinking is an ideal. In short, a world that makes sense.” <br />
<br />
<b><i>"Scientific" Caricatures</i></b><br />
Since I am an openly religious person and a missionary at that, those scenarios are supposed to describe me. You know what? I don’t recognize myself in any of that. Our “faith scientists” have just drawn up a scarecrow. To be sure, there may be some individuals, groups of them even, that fit one or more of these caricatures, but as a general situation, these are just silly caricatures hardly worthy of serious scientists. They express secular prejudice more than anything else, certainly not serious science. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Inside vs Outside Knowledge</i></b> <br />
True, Christians and Muslims—I confess that I don’t know enough about the other religions to speak for them—may see natural and other catastrophes as somehow incorporated in the will of God. However, I don’t know of any Christian or Muslim who would, on basis of that perspective, not work at or, at least, not favour preventing their re-occurrence. Seeing things in relation to divine will simply does not negate corrective or preventive action. Muslims have a reputation of being fatalistic, but they are very active and even pro-active in life’s affairs and by no means twiddle their thumbs while life overtakes them. Pitting such concepts against each other is typical of the outsider who makes logical deductions without having delved deeply into the subject, in this case, specific religions. They appear to have asked some scientific questions of and applied some scientific methods to religion, but they seem to know very little about the content or the inside of religion or about the way adherents experience their religion. How scientific, rational and critical is that?<br />
<br />
<b><i>Utopia: Freedom from the Irrational</i></b><br />
Or take their snide at politicians. Most politicians are, unfortunately, politicians. Many will appeal to almost anything they think will bring votes. If it is not religion, it will be something else that A&T would describe as “irrational and untenable.” There are plenty of other issues to which voters cling with strong convictions and emotions. A&T seem to want a total make over of humanity so as to exclude all the “irrational and untenable,” their characterizations of Religion/Faith. They want a world of “critical thinking,” one that “makes sense” to their secular souls. Being isolated academics, they seem to demand that everyone should drop all of life’s reactions to reality except the rational. What an impoverished life that would be—a cold, strict, linear rational affair. God help us!<br />
<br />
<b><i>Secular Faith in Reason</i></b> <br />
As a serious Christian, I am at this very moment engaged in critical thinking and I am trying to make sense of this world, including the extremely biased views of A&T. Again, they are pitting concepts against each other that in real life always co-exist, namely Faith and Reason, even in their own article! It is they who are uncritical, for they do not seem to have subjected their own secular faith to the critical thinking they demand of others. They appear to simply accept it as the plain unassailable truth that does not require any corroboration or proof. Reason is the source of all truth. Punkt. That’s it. And don’t you dare to challenge that, for then you have ventured into the land of the politically incorrect. But pray tell: who has ever proved that assumed “unassailable” assumption? A&T, until you have proved that article of your faith, you are contradicting yourself. Yes, your faith, your belief system. You are demanding a world without faith on basis of your own belief in unassailable Reason. I can’t rewrite the same things time and again. So, if you're really interested in this issue, skim your way through previous posts and you will find it referred to repeatedly. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Next Post</i></b> <br />
I hope to deal with A&T’s scientific explanations of religion in the next post.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-5026808437306508372011-07-21T19:59:00.000-07:002011-07-21T19:59:37.462-07:00Change of Course: Introducing an Additional Blog<b>Post 41--: </b> <br />
<br />
For some time I have been aware of the need for a change in this blog. It is too much a mixture of the concrete and abstract, of comments on events and on more philosophical-theological issues, on principial issues if you will. Though some people will read both, I sense that some people prefer the one over the other and read the one more readily than the other. In order not to bore either group, I am from here on going to separate these two.<br />
<br />
<b><i>The Old and the New</i></b><br />
This blog will continue under its present name and will deal with more abstract considerations. I will open a new blog for the events part of the discussion. Its principial underpinnings and the basis of my opinions will be dealt with, but not in great detail. For that kind of material you will have to turn to this existing blog. The new blog with its event character will be called “Christian InTheSecularCity.blogspot.com.” The capital letters are only for easy reading; they are not necessary when opening up the blog. The numbering of this blog will continue on into the new, so that, like this post, it will start with Post 41. This is in order to provide a sense of continuity. I foresee that there will occasionally be cross references from the one blog to the other.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Reminder: ChristianMuslimWorld.blogspot.com</b></i><br />
I remind you that the other blog will continue under the title “ChristianMuslimWorld.blogspot.com.”<br />
<br />
<b><i>Schedule Change</i></b><br />
I hope you will appreciate the new arrangement. As for me, it will be more work. So, it may well be that the average time span between posts on these two blogs will somewhat increase. I hope you will stay with me and even that some of you will read both blogs regularly. I will appreciate any comments you may have on this new arrangement.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-9134885597006651092011-07-16T09:58:00.000-07:002011-07-16T11:50:09.154-07:00Secularism—A Major Cause for Hockey Riot (3)<b>Post 40--:</b> <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>My Connection with Sports</b><br />
I promise: this is the last one on Vancouver’s hockey riot. It’s the closest thing I have ever written about sports and its associated culture and certainly the most—4 posts. I did not know I had it in me, for sports is not a major factor in my life, though I do enjoy watching a game on TV now and then and even try to attend a live game once or twice a year, games other than hockey: especially baseball, soccer or tennis. I watched a lot of Vancouver’s Winter Olympics on TV and was intentionally sucked into its very exciting atmosphere. After all, the major street crowds were less than fifteen minutes walking from where I live, as was this year’s hockey riot. While the Olympics were very orderly and made Vancouver proud, the aftermath of the final hockey game was anything but that and made the city bow its head in shame. So, yes, both about sports, but very different events, not to say opposite.<br />
<br />
<b>Questions</b><br />
However, different as these events turned out, they generated the same question in my mind and the same tentative suspicion. The question is the same that thousands of people are asking, including columnists in our local press: How could this have happened? When I try to formulate the question to make it appropriate for both events, it becomes: How can so many people, a whole city, be so infatuated and caught up in sports, so influenced by it? Even to the point of sporting t-shirt slogans like “This is what we live for?” In the past posts I have summarized some of the public discussion and opinions about the cause(s) and acknowledge that most of the explanations and theories offered have elements of truth to them. <br />
<br />
<b>The Secular Factor</b><br />
I am going to suggest one more explanation. It does not invalidate the others. Mine is neither the only nor the entire explanation. I do not expect mine to be popular or acceptable to most Vancouverites, for it will touch many in the centre of their soul, but it is one entirely in tune with the spirit of this blog. If you have been following this blog regularly, you may already suspect the point I am about to make: secularism. Yes, secularism is a major cause for the hypnotic drawing power of sports and for the violence sports can generate, not only in Vancouver but in many cities around the world. This does not hold true for every sports fan. I know some very religious and spiritual people who are sports fans, hockey fans even—I think of my pastor—practitioners even. Here I think of a close friend of mine in Port Alberni on Vancouver Island. Sorry, Nick, I’m not going to mention your name or list all your sports achievements. <br />
<br />
<b>Secular and ….</b><br />
But I do seriously propose that secularism is a major underlying cause of sports riots in the Western world in general, including Vancouver. Secularism has replaced Christianity as the major mainstream worldview or even religion. If that sounds outrageous to you, check out discussions by sociologists and philosophers of religion. An 2010 Olympic slogan appearing on the streets read, “I believe.” That’s kind of religious language and not simply a coincidence. Secularism affects even people who officially adhere either to Christianity or another religion, for secularism spreads by stealth: It influences people and slowly changes their values and standards without their even being aware of it and without their foreswearing their official religion. Their hearts and minds are divided; they adhere to both, though they may call themselves Christian, Muslim or Sikh or whatever. These bifurcated people are also sucked into the world of sports and, given the right circumstance, may participate enthusiastically in the sports culture and fall out of sports events. They have traded in the strength and standards of their religion for the values of the secular pop culture around them.<br />
<br />
<b>A Secular Vacuum</b> <br />
In earlier posts, I have argued that secularism is basically just another religion with its own sets of beliefs and unproven assumptions. As mainstream Vancouver veered farther and farther away from its previously more influential religion a lot of meaning and standard was lost. A vacuum was created that humans cannot tolerate, a vacuum of meaninglessness and purposelessness. As nature abhors a vacuum, so does the human soul. Such a vacuum demands a replacement to fill it. <br />
<br />
<b>Secularism a Religion</b><br />
The replacement can take many forms. It can be art in any of its variations. It can be reason, money, fame, power, nature or some addiction. It can also be sports. Apart from addiction, none of these things are negative per se, but when they take on the power of directing your life and become your central concern, then they become, as it were, your god. The Bible calls it idolatry: replacing God with something in creation. And you will replace Him with something. That’s just the way we are by nature. Every culture has its pop stream, the one most secularists will follow, unless they happen to be of a more reflective, intellectual type. It is no accident that the negatives of our culture, drug addiction and homelessness, have been on the increase, for meaninglessness will drive many people in that direction either to search for new meaning or to drown their meaninglessness. <br />
<br />
<b>From Vacuum to Violence<b></b></b><br />
For many people naturally caught up in our pop culture, sports is a natural choice they embrace without much thought. You just go along with the crowd. It’s almost automatic for many. You give yourself over to it lock, stock and barrel. You participate in the shouting and whooping that is part of that world. It gets hold of you more and more. As the shouting and whooping and other forms of excitement increase and you descend into an almost religious trance, mindlessness sets in and all reason and other restraints are suspended. Given the vacuum of values and standards with which you have grown up, you have no resistance to your adrenalin rushing to a boil and there you go. It only takes a few intentional purveyors of violence to start the ball rolling and the adrenalin-driven crowd, full of either excitement or disappointment and anger, gets whipped up into a frenzy. Add a little booze to the mix and the rest is history. The next morning hundreds of people kick themselves for the stupid frenzy that overtook them. Their vacuum, their lack of internal restraint, deep down, that they should have learnt from their parents, took its toll. They just went for it.<br />
<br />
I advise you to read a column by Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg in the <i>Vancouver Sun</i>. They ask, "What if these young people do represent what Vancouver is and what it shall be?" Another of their question: "What if what we see being reflected are the cultural consequences of a post-religious society with no clear moral compass and no overarching guiding values?" Then this statement: "Vancouver has adopted a Lotus Land ideology of cultural relativism in which we tell our children that there are no good cultures and bad cultures and no good versus evil." Or this: "A vast number of people in Vancouver view themselves as 'secular but spiritual.' Too often it means a worship of nature and the absence of discussion of values and morality. If they are raised without any clear values, is it any wonder that young people....?" Finally: "The riots are reflective of a loss of hope and deep-seated anger that we have created in our own children" ("Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?" June 24, 2011).<br />
<br />
I invite you to spend some time meditating on these paragraphs. Is there a vacuum in your life? That means you are standing on the edge of a steep cliff with a deep ravine just before you. <br />
<br />
(For further reading along this line go to volume 5, part 2, of my series Studies in Christian-Muslim Relation. This is an ebook you can access free of charge at < www.lulu.com >. Just type in < jan h boer >.)<br />
<br />
Thanks for sticking with me--JanJan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-86564254374095360202011-07-09T19:02:00.000-07:002011-07-09T19:04:59.759-07:00Why the Mindless Vancouver Hockey Riot?<b>Post 38—:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Overtaken by Surprise</b><br />
I cannot resist devoting a couple of more posts to Vancouver’s hockey riot I wrote about it two posts ago. The riots took place several weeks ago by now, but the scars are still very noticeable on Granville Ave. while the local media are still busy discussing and analyzing them. Especially in the press, there is an agonizing search for the motives of the riot. How could a city that only a year ago hosted a successful Winter Olympics with its huge international crowd, fall apart upon the loss of the Stanley Cup hockey trophy? Some say it was because at the Olympics every conceivable security measure was taken, including a considerable military presence appropriately kept invisible in the nearby mountains. Nothing was taken for granted; no expense spared. The hockey championship game was approached with assumptions based on the Olympic experience and the lessons allegedly learned from similar riots for a similar hockey defeat 17 years ago. The city invited its entire population by blocking off downtown streets to traffic and installing huge TV screens. This was going to be a clean event. After all, Vancouverites are a decent and cultured people. This was going to be one big party that was going to reset the benchmark by which such events are measured. Alas….<br />
<br />
<b>Faulty Assumptions Led to Faulty Security</b><br />
Upon hindsight, security measures were pitifully inadequate precisely because the assumptions were wrong. Andrew Cohen of the Vancouver Sun (VS), the main paper in which these discussions are taking place, reported a discussion with a police officer prior to seventh and deciding game. Cohen asked the officer whether he expected any trouble that night, win or lose? The officer answered that in either case “It will be a party.” Cohen commented, “With naivete like this, who needs police?” This man was not just airing personal opinion; he was mouthing the opinions of his superiors, the Mayor and Police Chief. Practically all writers disagree with the Mayor and the Chief of Police who tried to place the blame on outsider agitators and hooligans who had come equipped with rioting as their aim. It does seem to be true that a number of people overheard conversations about planning a riot during the days before.<br />
<br />
<b>Boastful Pride</b><br />
The perpetrators were obviously very proud of their achievements, a pride that was further fed by the support of the cheering and clapping ordinary Vancouver citizens. So proud that they photographed themselves on their cellphones. “They just could not help themselves,” wrote Cohen. “They had to boast. It felt so good to smash things up.”<br />
<br />
<b>Identity of the Rioters</b><br />
While some authorities insisted that the perpetrators were either outsiders or fringe insiders, most columnists know better. Among them were “normal, middle-class kids wearing expensive hockey sweaters…. Real rioters don’t wear…hockey sweaters,” Cohen insists. Mark Braude, a Vancouverite himself, stopped just short of blaming himself but insisted that those who participated in the riot “are our neighbours…our classmates and co-workers” (“There are no simple answers to explain riots,” VS, June 22). Penny Gurstein and Howard Rotberg took it one step further by attributing the chaos to ourselves, not just to others near me. “The enemy is us,” they wrote in the VS (“Have We Lost Our Moral Compass?” June 24, 2011). I will return to this article shortly. One “happy hooligan,” Cohen writes, every time he threw more fodder into a burning fire, “raised his arms in triumph and acknowledged the cheers of the mob”—and that mob was us, Vancouverites, not some marginalized nobodies. “And cheer they did,” he continues, “or dancing like Druids at Equinox.” That sheep-like, mindless and cheering crowd was us, Vancouverites.<br />
<br />
<b>Inflation of the Inconsequential</b><br />
We Canadians think of ourselves as decent, civilized people, but Pete McMartin referred to the perpetrators as “self-entitled little pukes,” our children, siblings and friends and, for many, ourselves “who had invested an obscene amount of emotion and money on what was only a game.” “We let something as inconsequential as sport do so,” he lamented. That was our shame (“The View from Another Counter…Ontario,” VS July 5, 2011). He is right, absolutely right—in so far as he went. Sports have their legitimate place in recreation, building of team spirit and healthy life style, in economics even. In my younger days I enjoyed a vigorous tennis game, while today I enjoy watching certain sports, whether on the field or on the screen. I am grateful for sports. But in the end, after affirming much of sports, we must remember that, after all is said and done, played and watched, it is only a game. No more. That’s it. <br />
<br />
<b>Why the Inflation?</b><br />
Part of the answer to this “why” question lies within the sports world and its powerful organizations themselves as well as by various levels of government who encourage this inflation by massive spending on arenas and other facilities. That the sports establishment should encourage such developments stands to reason—vested interest. It is the source of their wealth, power and status. Governments often support this addiction to sports to divert the attention of their citizens from more serious matters arising out of their own misgovernment. <br />
<br />
But the question still is: How can these developments be so successfully encouraged that it often totally consumes people so that they live for little else and it becomes the very centre and meaning of their lives? They develop a deep passion and strong exclusive loyalties that lead to t-shirt declarations such as “This is what we live for.” During the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics the slogan was “We believe!” As my pastor, a self-confessed hockey addict, commented in one of his sermons, “Oh, really?”<br />
<br />
I am still asking the question: How can these feelings run so deep, arouse so much passion and, given the right circumstances, cause such an explosion? Even though I have not yet answered the question or presented my particular theory on it, I hope I’ve given you a few things to think about it. In the next post I will present my theory. If you have been a regular reader of my two blogs, you can perhaps guess which direction I’m going to take this. Mull over it and, when you read the next post, see if you have caught on to my basic vision.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-16591384974822722002011-06-29T06:55:00.000-07:002011-06-29T06:59:38.830-07:00Kuyper Common Grace Translation Project<b>Post 37<i></i></b><br />
<br />
My intention for this post was to do another one on the Vancouver hockey riots. However, unexpected intrusions into my week over which I had little control, made it impossible for me find the time. So, hopefully next week I will fulfill that promise. <br />
<br />
<b><i>What's in this Post</i></b><br />
In the meantime, today I introduce you to some new kindred spirits along with a translation project of one of Abraham Kuyper's major works. Kuyper, you may remember, is the father of the Kuyperian movement of which this blog is a member. Apart from this introduction, the rest of this post is simply copied from the website of the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA. The information below will inform you of an important translation project not only, but also acquaint you with the Acton Institute, and will enable you to become part of their network. Some of it is info you generally do not get in a blog. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Qualified Kindred Spirits</i></b><br />
Though I refer to the Roman Catholic Acton as a kindred spirit, that must be taken with some qualifications. I feel a kindred spirit with them in that they are very aggressive in promoting a full-orbed Christian approach to society, but they often do so within a framework for which I have considerable respect but sometimes is too dogmatic for my Kuyperian soul and too one-sidedly capitalist. Anyone acquainted Kuyper's angry <i>Christianity and the Class Struggle</i> or its various English translations, will know that Kuyper was very aware of the negatives associated with capitalism. <br />
<br />
Then there is mention of Kuyper College as a partner in the translation project. I confess to not being "up to snuff" when it comes to this Calvinist institution, also in Grand Rapids. It started out as a Bible college, a notion more Evangelical than Reformed, let alone Kuyperian. They have since adopted the name of Kuyper, but to what extent they now espouse Kuyperianism, I do not know. If interested, check out their website. Perhaps some time in the future I can devote a post to them and introduce them better. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Acton's Summary re the Kuyper Translation Project</i></b><br />
There is a trend among evangelicals to engage in social reform without first developing a coherent social philosophy to guide the agenda. To bridge this gap, Acton Institute and Kuyper College are partnering together to translate Abraham Kuyper's seminal three-volume work on common grace (De gemeene gratie). Common Grace was chosen because it holds great potential to build intellectual capacity within evangelicalism and because a sound grasp of this doctrine is what is missing in evangelical cultural engagement. Common Grace is the capstone of Kuyper's constructive public theology and the best available platform to draw evangelicals back to first principles and to orient their social thought.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Acton Press Release: Fuller Explanation</i></b><br />
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (April 19, 2011)—The Acton Institute and Kuyper College are collaborating to bring for the first time to English-language readers a foundational text from the pen of the Dutch theologian and statesman, Abraham Kuyper. Kuyper’s three-volume work, Common Grace (De gemeene gratie) appeared from 1901-05, during his tenure as prime minister in the Netherlands. These works are based on a series of newspaper editorials intended to equip common citizens and laypersons with the tools they needed to effectively enter public life. The doctrine of common grace is, as Kuyper puts it, “the root conviction for all Reformed people.” “If the believer’s God is at work in this world,” says Kuyper, “then in this world the believer’s hand must take hold of the plow, and the name of the Lord must be glorified in that activity as well.”<br />
<br />
Dr. Stephen Grabill, director of programs at the Acton Institute, serves as general editor of the project. He points to the contemporary need to understand Kuyper’s comprehensive and cohesive vision for Christian social engagement. “There are a host of current attempts to try to describe how evangelicals should be at work in the world,” Grabill said. “Kuyper’s articulation of the project of common grace shows how these efforts must be grounded in and flow naturally from sound doctrine.”<br />
<br />
Placing social engagement, particularly within the context of business activity, in the broader context of sound theology is a large part of what led Kuyper College to partner in this translation project. “Abraham Kuyper’s project in Common Grace helps provide a reliable and engaging theological basis for our new business leadership program,” said Kuyper College president Nicholas Kroeze.<br />
<br />
John Bolt, professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary and author of A Free Church, a Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology, will serve as a theological advisor to the project. He describes Kuyper’s work as intended “to challenge the pious, orthodox, Reformed people of the Netherlands to take seriously their calling in Dutch culture and society. His basic argument was: God is not absent from the non-church areas of our common life but bestows his gifts and favor indiscriminately to all people.”<br />
<br />
The translation and publication project will cover a two year period, and the three volumes total over 1,700 pages in the original. Dr. Nelson Kloosterman of Worldview Resources International and translator of numerous Dutch works will oversee the translation of the texts. The completed translation will be published by Christian’s Library Press, the recently acquired imprint of the Acton Institute. Volume one of Common Grace is scheduled to appear in the fall of 2012. <br />
________________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><i>Additional Miscellaneous Info from the Acton Website</i></b>Resources<br />
• Kuyper Common Grace Brochure (PDF)<br />
• Kuyper Common Grace Table of Contents (PDF)<br />
• Kuyper Common Grace Volume 1 Foreword (PDF)<br />
<br />
Stay Connected<br />
Follow the Kuyper Common Grace Project on Facebook.<br />
Acton Institute: Facebook | Twitter<br />
Kuyper College: Facebook<br />
Christian's Library Press: Facebook | Twitter<br />
<br />
Abraham Kuyper: 1899<br />
Kuyper & Leo XIII<br />
<br />
<br />
Journal of Markets & Morality 5.1<br />
A Century of Christian Social Teaching: The Legacy of Leo XIII and Abraham Kuyper<br />
(print / electronic)<br />
CFP: Modern Christian Social Thought (PDF)<br />
Partners<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Receive Project Updates<br />
Name: * <br />
Email Address: * <br />
• <br />
• <br />
ACTON RESEARCH<br />
• Research Home<br />
• Research Staff<br />
• A History of Liberty<br />
• About Acton Research<br />
• Books from Acton Research<br />
o Christian Social Thought Series<br />
o Occasional Papers<br />
o Published by Acton Institute<br />
o Studies in Ethics & Economics<br />
• Lord Acton<br />
o Chronology<br />
o Lord Acton Quote Archive<br />
o Photo Gallery<br />
o 100 Best Books<br />
• The Social Agenda<br />
• Kuyper Translation Project<br />
• Related Websites<br />
• Suggested Reading<br />
o Christian Social Thought<br />
o Free-market Economics<br />
o Human Dignity<br />
o Marriage and the Family<br />
o Natural Law<br />
o Private Property<br />
o Value Theory (Axiology)<br />
Journal of Markets & Morality<br />
Purchase a subscription to the Journal of Markets & Morality to get access to the most recent issues.<br />
Subscribe | View your Cart<br />
________________________________________<br />
Liberation Theology: The Church's Future Shock<br />
<br />
$10.00 [ purchase ]<br />
Liberation Theology proclaims liberty to the exploited masses of Latin America. Its spirit is gradually spreading across the Western world, and creating intense discussion along with Vatican concern. This book explains that theology. <br />
Acton Institute<br />
161 Ottawa Ave. NW, Suite 301<br />
Grand Rapids, MI 49503<br />
phone: 616.454.3080<br />
fax: 616.454.9454<br />
Follow Acton Institute on:<br />
Facebook Twitter Flickr YouTube blip.tv <br />
Subscribe to Acton<br />
Subscibe to Print/Email<br />
Refer a Friend<br />
What is RSS?<br />
Acton PowerBlog<br />
Latest Site Updates<br />
Acton Events<br />
Radio Free Acton Podcast<br />
Acton CommentaryJan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-67896906472646912732011-06-20T11:53:00.000-07:002011-06-20T11:59:53.231-07:00Reactions to Vancouver’s Hockey Vandals<b>Post 36—</b><br />
<br />
Vancouver, the scene of the final game in the recent NHL Stanley Cup runoff, shocked its own socks off when the post-game mourning celebration deteriorated into a mindless, idiotic and violent riot. It has received enough coverage in the media, both public and social, that I do not need to describe the details of the event. I am interested here in the public reactions and in the process will reveal my own. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Why This Violence?</i></b><br />
The last half dozen posts of this blog have been heavy on responsibility and accountability. This one will follow that line as well. But first of all, why the vigilante reaction demanding instantaneous justice? I suppose that is the natural product of the public’s impatient indignation. But it is also due to the very low confidence the public has in and its contempt for the BC and Canadian “justice system,” such as it is, a lack and contempt I totally share. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Proposal: Citizen's Committee</i></b><br />
But to prevent further vigilantism and the unconscionable delays that marks the system, I want to propose a middle way outside of the existing system. I want either the Mayor or the Premier to appoint a committee of “ordinary” citizens who are not afflicted, blinded or handicapped by the contorted thinking characteristic of our legal system and who are capable of using common sense in promptly meting out judgement to the perpetrators. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Two-tier Tether</i></b><br />
Please refresh your mind of Post 34, where I propose an alternative to prison, namely a serious tethering system. In this situation, I propose that those found guilty by the above committee be sentenced to a two-tier tether system. Two years for those who stupidly followed the leaders and a minimum of five years for the leaders. Now I am restraining myself here. If I simply respond to my anger and indignation, I would demand ten years for the entire bunch, every one of them. <br />
<br />
My restraint comes out of Christian compassion and mercy, but that does not exclude justice or taking responsibility for the damage done. I was going to add the element of repayment by having these losers participate in the repairs, but which company or crew would want them around?<br />
<br />
<b><i>Diana Purkis' Public Stocks</i></b><br />
I am intrigued by Diana Purkis’ proposal in her letter to the Sun. The culprits should be put in public stocks for a week, during which they could be humiliated by the public pelting rotten eggs and tomatoes, after which they would forced to clean homeless shelters and toilets. I would not insist on the pelting. A week in public stocks, with or without the pelting. Just the sheer humiliation and embarrassment of it would be excruciating. Perhaps we can combine our two proposals. <br />
<br />
<b><i>Offer of Volunteer Service</i></b><br />
Mayor, Premier, I volunteer for that committee and so would, I suspect, Diana Purkis. I would not even need to be paid! I make my offer not to ensure vengeance. My heart is big enough to separate the sheep from the goats and I believe I can distinguish between guilt, various degrees of it, and innocence. My offer comes out of mistrust of our “justice system.” They will waste an inordinate amount of time and an even more inordinate amount of money, but come out of the process with little more than a hand slap. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i>These Poor Boys!</i></b><br />
After all, we must understand the pressure and grief these poor dear boys were suffering. They lost a hockey game! In other countries people riot merely because of political oppression, injustice and hunger. Thanks, boys, for showing us what’s real!Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-109367625038549112011-06-10T16:53:00.000-07:002011-06-11T13:37:32.289-07:00Obesity: The State Has No Place in….35-- <br />
<br />
<i><b>Excuses, excuses, excuses</b></i><br />
<br />
Once again, I apologize for an almost two months-long interruption. Life sometimes becomes too hectic for me to cope. I take on too many responsibilities or obligations and then find I need to temporarily change course. This time around it was a trip to Ibadan, Nigeria, where I was invited to deliver an annual lecture about Muslim law or sharia in Nigeria. My title was “Re-tooling Our Approach to Sharia: A Wholistic and Pluralistic Perspective.” Readers interested in that issue may contact me at < boerjf@hotmail.com > for an electronic copy. If you do forward this request to me, please be sure to mention this blog post and tell me what province or state and what country you are from. Of course, if you are interested in such issues, you would do well to also turn to my other blog: < Christian-Muslim World.blogspot.com >.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Trudeau: The State Has No Business</b>....</i><br />
<br />
If there is one statement by Canada’s “philosopher-king,” former Federal Minister of Justice later to become Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, that lingers in the collective memory of the Canadian people, it is probably that “There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.” According to a CBC transcript, the context was his response to a reporter’s question. It seems that it was not a carefully thought out statement but, rather, an off-the-cuff remark without official backing. He bumbled his way through as follows:<br />
<i>“I think the, the view we take here is that, uh, there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation, and I think that, uh, you know, what's done in private between adults, uh, doesn't concern the Criminal Code. When it becomes public, this is a different matter."</i><br />
<br />
<i><b>Mclean's: The State Has No Business....</b></i><br />
<br />
Whatever the statement’s official status, it has been quoted left and right—and been used as a takeoff for parallel statements about other concerns. Recently the editors of Canada’s Maclean’s captioned an article about obesity among kids with this: “The state has no place in the lunch bags of a nation” (May 2, 2011). They explained, “In the name of fighting obesity, schools everywhere are taking away the freedom of students and parents to make their own lunchtime decisions.” After giving a number of examples just how far this can go, the editors insist that “Eating remains a personal responsibility, not a government mandate.” Proper diet, they affirm, “is a matter for the family, not the authorities.” <br />
<br />
<i><b>Mutual Responsibility</b></i><br />
<br />
Well, yes, in an individualistic world this may be true, but Canada is not a nation of rugged individualists. The nation has decided that the people are responsible for each others’ health and enforces this responsibility by means of a mandatory socialized medical regime to which everyone, except the very poorest, contributes through taxation. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Christian Responsibility</b></i> <br />
<br />
Of course, Christian tradition has always upheld mutual responsibility and concern for each other. Some Christians, usually more liberal ones, would extend this expression of mutual care by involving government, while others, often more conservative, may insist that this responsibility must be handled by both individuals and by the community, including the church, but not by government. Kuyperians like me cannot be placed in such boxes. Our criteria are different. Sometimes we sound like the one and sometimes like the other, sometimes we sound totally different. This is not due to a wavering posture of uncertainty—Kuyperians are hardly known for that!—but to our different criteria. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Mutual Accountability</b></i><br />
<br />
Put bluntly, if I have to pay for your health problems, then I also demand a degree of accountability towards me on your part. And if we communally pay for each other’s health problems through government, then we, through government, also have a right to responsible living, including eating. Trudeau’s statement also includes the rider, “When it becomes public, this is a different matter." Through the national health care system to which we all contribute, we have become our brother’s and sister’s keepers via the government. It does not make sense to insist that it is purely your own business to eat as you like and then, when obesity or other problems set in, the public has to pay for your folly? Then it suddenly becomes a public concern—while you probably continue to consume mountains of junk food? <br />
<br />
<i><b>Radical Solutions vs Bandaids</b></i><br />
<br />
The Maclean’s editors are right that it is hard to control dietary restrictions of students. Attempts to do so, they clearly show in their article, have not worked. However, one way of getting at it that the editors have not mentioned is control at the manufacturing and distribution level. A soft attempt at control would be heavy taxation on all problem foods. A hard approach would be to simply outlaw the production, importation and marketing of such foods. In the end, this latter approach may be the only one that could work. <br />
<br />
When our health care system is overworked and underfunded and when the citizenry refuses responsibility, why do governments hesitate to apply the radical solutions needed? Is it the old democratic saw of powerful lobbyists and corporate finance? If democracy cannot fix things at their root or radix level, does it then doom us to patchwork solutions and limping along while our problems intensify?<br />
<br />
<i><b>Responsible Parenting</b></i><br />
<br />
Of course, the other radical solution that is also desperately needed is responsible parenting. But who can imprint that on a secular population that rejects the teachings of stewardship, responsibility and accountability, the sacredness of the human body, etc.—all the classic teachings of Christianity? With the church sidelined in the lives of many and the government prevented by ideologies from enforcing responsible parenting, what do we have left? Things look kind of hopeless, I am afraid. Do an irresponsible citizenry and irresponsible parents call for some form of dictatorship? Perhaps our secular irresponsibility has driven us beyond the limits of democracy towards a new governing model? Perhaps--and now hold on to your seat!--we need to take another look at God and His guidelines as found in His revelation. Now that would be radical--going to the root of things, our spiritual roots. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Responsibility of Christians</b></i><br />
<br />
I am not suggesting that Christians do not share in the responsibility for our derailed dietary habits and addiction to junk foods. Christians are often more influenced by their society and culture than by their religion. Too bad. Seeing that they are familiar with Christian thought and values, they should be among those providing formulae for solutions, not simply adhere to the dictates of pop culture or to middle class values and ambitions. It is time for churches to prepare their members to make hard-nosed decisions with respect to family diets and eating habits. Yes, it is first all of all a parental and family responsibility. Secondly, the church has an important task here. Thirdly, if both of these fail to function properly, the government may have to wade in and either insert strong nudges towards solutions like taxation or force the issue by legislation.<b></b>Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-84173211726586432682011-04-25T19:52:00.000-07:002011-06-03T06:07:50.380-07:00Gangsters--What Would Jesus Do?Post 34-- <br />
<br />
The basic message of the Bible is about love, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is possible that you do not detect much of that spirit in the past few posts. I seem rather harsh and unforgiving. Though the above concerns are indeed dominant in the Bible, there are also subconcerns that betray a different spirit. These subconcerns are directed at people who represent the opposite of the dominant spirit and work against it; against oppressors of the people. <br />
<br />
<b>John the Baptist<i></i></b><br />
<br />
When Jewish religious leaders came to John the Baptist, he berated them with all the harshness he could muster. Of course, neither he nor Jesus were invested with official power and thus had to restrict themselves to the power they had, which was one of warning and castigating. “You brood of vipers,” John yelled at them and threatened that “the ax is already at the root of the trees…” (Matthew 3:7, 10; Luke 3:7-9). <br />
<br />
<b>Jesus<i></i></b><br />
<br />
Jesus blasted those leaders time and again for putting an impossible load on the shoulders of the people that they themselves were “not willing to lift a finger to move them.” Jesus’ preferred name for them was “hypocrites”—“you shut the kingdom of heaven in man’s faces. You yourselves do not enter…” (Matthew 23:4, 13-14; Luke 11:46). Like Canadian gangsters, Jesus accused these leaders of traveling “over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” Upon them “will come all the righteous blood” they have caused to flow (Matthew 23:15, 35). He cursed those who did not take pity on the poor and helpless and assigned them to “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41, 46). He accused religious leaders of devouring “widows’ houses” and warned that “such men will be punished most severely” (Mark 14:40; Luke 20:47). He pronounced “Woe” on the well-fed (Luke 6:24-25), and that allegedly includes gangsters. His “Woes” are scary and not to be ignored. Jesus did not leave it with mere words. One time he violently overturned the tables of merchants in the temple and drove them out, probably with a whip (Mark 11:15-17). And all of that from a Jesus who describes Himself as “gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29)—“meek,” according to the old King James.<br />
<br />
<b>Compared to Jesus<i></i></b><br />
<br />
Yes, meek under most circumstances, gentle and humble. Love and compassion personified. But when it came to the high and mighty who oppressed the people, he reserved nothing but scorn and threats of the worst future imaginable. Hell, even. Rejection by and separation from God Himself. Compared to that, you must admit that I am pretty mild comparatively when it comes to gangsters. I do not threaten them with hell. I do not demand capital punishment, but if they insist on divvying that out amongst themselves, I suggest we give them the space for it. Instead of imprisonment, I prefer having them tethered in homes. Out of the box? Yes. Cruel? Compared to Jesus, I am a wimp with my proposals!Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-65282388122718565692011-04-23T18:59:00.000-07:002011-04-25T14:36:38.802-07:00Treatment of Gangsters (and other criminals)—Preposterous Proposals (4)Post 33-- <br />
<br />
<b>Apology and Subject<i></i></b><br />
<br />
I once again apologize for the time lapse between this and the last post. I was under such intense work pressure that I just had to let go for a while. I may as well tell you now that I expect to be in Nigeria the full month of May and am not sure I will have the facilities or the files I need to write new posts while there. So, perhaps one or two posts over the next week and then off to Nigeria. When the next one after that? We’ll see. Possibly early June. <br />
<br />
Please refresh your memory regarding my first preposterous proposal in the previous post with respect to the self-cleansing of the gangster world. Though I continue with the subject of gangsters to provide continuation with Post 32, my basic concern today is more with prisoners in general, including gangsters. <br />
<b><br />
Second Proposal<i></i></b><br />
<br />
The second proposal has to do with the fact that the prison population of this country and this province is increasing by leaps and bounds. The institutions are overcrowded something fierce. The Federal Government is planning to build more penal institutions. The latest statistic I read is that it costs approximately $120,000 annually to house one prisoner in Canada. $120,000! Imagine. And that will only increase along with the numbers incarcerated. It has become impossible and unaffordable.<br />
<br />
So, my second proposal: Instead of incarcerating gangsters and other criminals in prisons, they should be put on a very short leash in someone home, whether their own, a friend’s or relative’s or even a home some individual organized for that very purpose. They should feed themselves or be fed by friend, relative or whoever. Though living in private homes, they are actually incarcerated prisoners with no more freedom to move around than they would in actual prison. They would be subject to the same restraining orders and restricted contact with the outside then if they were in prison, with the exception of people living in the same house with them. They should be stripped of most human rights and be banned from any contact with the criminal world whatsoever during the course of their sentence. In fact, they are not allowed to phone anyone or conduct correspondence in whatever shape or form, except with their “keeper” or “handler,” that is, their caseworker. The terms “parolee” and “parole officer” would not apply in their case, for they are prisoners. No email or internet or social network access or connections. Complete isolation via comprehensive restraining orders. This is prison at home. If they wish to improve themselves in preparation for the time they have served their sentence by distant learning, special arrangements can be made with their keeper. <br />
<br />
No doubt, there will be all kinds of problems to be solved before this system is workable, but it would be a lot cheaper than the current method of incarceration. And thus a lot easier on the pockets of citizens. It is these pockets, that is, the welfare of ordinary citizens, that are more important than the welfare of these hicks. My concern here is to reduce the burdens of innocent citizens who have to foot the current $120,000 p.a. per prisoner. My primary compassion goes out towards the hard working tax payer. I also have a strong but secondary compassion for many prisoners, but, I must confess, little for gangsters. I would think that my scheme would be much more humane for them and would protect them from the barbarization that appears to affect many in the current prison system. Being in the company of “ordinary” people might be a more effective way of rehabilitating, re-socializing and re-humanizing them. <br />
<br />
I am very eager to hear of your response to these proposals. I know that they don’t stand much of a chance, but perhaps mulling them over will at least get us out of the box to something better than we have now. Personally, I would be overjoyed if they were accepted with the proper tinkering to make them workable. Email me at boerjf@hotmail.com for discussing these proposals. Go ahead and tell me I’m crazy or cruel. <br />
<br />
<b>Capital Punishment?<i></i></b><br />
<br />
I am not even proposing capital punishment at this point, though, according to recent polls, that would not be so outlandish, since the majority of Canadians support it (Guest Editorial, Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, taken from the Ottawa Citizen). I confess to being tempted with regard to gangster dogs and other murderers, but I hesitate because of the lengthy and expensive legal appeals capital punishment often triggers, another impossible expense for which we need to tackle the legal profession from whom I want to protect the taxpayer. One of these days I will engage in a series of blogs directed at those gowned legal gangsters. <br />
<br />
<b>Summary<i></i></b><br />
<br />
In summary, while in Post 32 I advocate self-cleansing of the gangster world so that the police can go about the more important business of protecting the innocent, in this one I propose reducing the expense of incarceration and exchanging the barbarization of the current system with rehabilitation in the context of more civilized and normal people. Between the two of them, we would create a more humane world for both taxpayers, my primary concern, and for prisoners, even for those gangsters. <br />
<br />
<b>Future Discussions<i></i></b><br />
<br />
The next post will show how my apparent harshness in this and the previous posts mirrors that of Christ Himself. After that, I plan to change gears. Before long I hope to start a series of posts about lawyers and the court system. You should see the files of materials I have amassed about these “friends” of ours. It’s going to take me some time to organize the material. So, have patience. We will get there. In the meantime, we will occupy ourselves with some more innocent and less volatile issues—perhaps!Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-79461108495726658352011-02-01T05:55:00.000-08:002011-02-01T05:55:51.353-08:00Treatment of Gangsters—Preposterous Proposals (3)Post 32:—- <br />
<br />
I am really going to take you out of the box with this post. I am going to offer a proposal that I have never heard of or read about before. I have tested it on a crime journalist who rejected it outright as ridiculous. But what we’re doing now with gangsters is, according to me, even more ridiculous, at least if you go by “success.” The population of BC, especially in the south, is being traumatized by constant shoot outs in public places with innocent bystanders or passers by getting killed. Many people feel that the “justice” system seems more concerned with the human rights of monster gangsters and with proper legal procedures than with the safety of ordinary citizens. And after one gangster has killed another gangster, all the manpower and other resources of police forces are marshalled to investigate the killing to the finest detail, while other policing needs receive insufficient attention. They even go out of their way to protect gangsters against gangsters!<br />
<br />
So, my proposal: Deny gangsters human rights and police protection. Remember from the last post, that in the scheme I am currently discussing, gangs themselves are now seen as illegal and it is illegal to belong to them. When a gangster—i.e., a member of a known gang-- is killed, let the gang world take care of the dog’s corpse and dispose of it. No investigation on the part of the police. Who cares? That’s one down. Their work has just become a little easier. If gangsters know that no one is concerned about such murders and no one will investigate, perhaps they will kill each other more without restraint and so reduce the further chaos they cause in the civilized community. In the meantime, the police can turn their attention to more worthwhile issues.<br />
<br />
There, I’ve said it with all my gruffness without any euphemisms. I just called a spade a spade. This is the proposal that crime journalist rejected almost indignantly. You could think of it as gang suicide or self-cleansing. Goodbye to bad rubbish. And if you don’t like the animalistic terms I use for these dogs, well, I’m in the good company of Kim Bolan, a crime journalist and of Andrew Wooding of the Abbotsford Police whom she quotes approvingly as saying, “It is animalistic.” Indeed. So why not give it a more concrete name with apologies to all respectable dogs?<br />
<br />
Recently more hoodlums have been arrested. Bolan reports that Wooding expects that increasing arrests will lead to “less public gunplay.” “It will drive things underground, unfortunately. But I think that is safer for the public.” With all respect for Wooding’s experience, I cannot follow his logic here. Whether the hoodlums shoot each other publicly or underground, what’s the difference? When they do, just leave them lying in their own blood for the dogs to lick up. I don’t believe for one moment that more arrests will instill greater caution in the hearts of gangsters. I know of no research that proves arrests stop criminals in their tracks. If that were so, the US should have fewer criminals than any other nation. Alas….<br />
<br />
My rather crude sense of justice has some backing in the Old Testament of the Bible. The prophet Elijah was sent to chastise King Ahab of Israel who had arranged to kill a man called Naboth in order to seize his property. The prophet said, “In the place where dogs licked up Naboth’s blood, dogs will lick up your blood—yes, yours!” His wife, who had instigated it all, was to suffer the same fate along with their entire family (I Kings 21:19, )! Now even for me that’s a bit over the top! <br />
<br />
I’m not done. Stay with me.<br />
<br />
Source: The source for the journalistic materials is Kim Bolan, “Murder Charges….” Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26, 2011, p. A8.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-22489958395451850932011-01-23T20:50:00.000-08:002011-01-23T20:50:31.636-08:00Gangs are Terrorists: More Outrageous Proposals (2)Post 31—:<br />
<br />
My question for this post is why gangs are not considered and treated as terrorists. <br />
<br />
My dictionary defines a terrorist as one who engages in “the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.” That seems simple and clear enough. For my purposes, I would probably drop the term “systematic” from the definition, for I doubt that gangsters do their shooting according to a systematic schedule, but they do according to a set of priorities that they may not have defined carefully—do gangsters define anything?—but by which they operate instinctively. Applying the word “instinctively” to gangsters seems to degrade them to animalistic levels, but that is not so far off the mark. <br />
<br />
Do we need anything more? Since terrorism is an international problem, we should listen to the international political community. Unfortunately, it has not been able to reach agreement on a definition. Some experts have found over 100 definitions and, it appears, productivity and imagination are still cranking out more. The political community generally links terrorism to violence for political ends. That is not the case with gangs. They are not primarily politically inspired and I see no reason the definition should be exclusively political. One terrorism expert, Walter Laqueur, has concluded that the “only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” That seems to come pretty close to the essence of gangs. <br />
<br />
When you turn to the definition of gangs, especially the legal definition, you once again end up in the land of multiples. Alabama law has defined it more precisely than some as follows: a "street gang" is, "any combination, confederation, alliance, network, conspiracy, understanding, or similar arrangement in law or in fact, of three or more persons that, through its membership or through the agency of any member, engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity." That’s probably pretty good, except that it does not necessarily include violence. For my purposes I would like to take the Alabama version as my working definition of gangs with the addition of “frequent violence.”<br />
<br />
But is it legitimate to subsume gangsterism under the umbrella of terrorism? Back in 1988, California enacted the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. Since that time, at least 28 other states have enacted similar legislation. (Sorry, but I have not found parallel info about the Canadian situation. Perhaps I should try harder?) Here gangsterism is subsumed under “street terrorism.” So, my proposal to bring them together is not unheard of. I stand by it. <br />
<br />
Why these thugs are not treated like terrorists and their organizations classified as terrorist organizations is beyond me. If they were, the gangs would be illegal and their bank accounts could be frozen. I am not a lawyer and so do not know whether simple membership in a terrorist organization is illegal in Canada, but in my opinion, it should be. <br />
<br />
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada explains what Canada should and/or is doing to counteract terrorism in this website: http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx. Check it out and see how much of it you think should or could be applied to gangs and gangsters. One of the things I fail to understand is the emphasis on the need for paying special attention to human rights in this framework, unless the reference is to the human rights of the targets. <br />
<br />
In my humble opinion, gangs should be treated like terrorist organizations and gangsters like terrorists. Their organizations should be illegal as should membership in them, whether or not an individual member has personally committed any act of violence or not. Their assets should be seized and used to pay for the expenses of countering them. <br />
<br />
I am not done yet with these monsters. In the meantime, I invite you readers to dialogue with me on this subject. Tell me where I am wrong. Insult me all you wish. But one thing I will not accept, namely to be told that the law, whether national or international, forbids the kinds of things I am suggesting. Law is becoming oppressive. It is increasingly used to protect terrorists and gangsters. That climate must be done away with. God is the ultimate law giver, but much of today’s positive law with respect to our subject goes counter to His law and has become a prison to the ordinary citizen. In the previous post I wrote about the need for revival. Well, positive law needs to be revived and refreshed to make it more hospitable to freedom and peace. In this process, our lawyers, these so-called “legal experts,” should be assigned a backseat and the “lay” citizen take control of the process.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-26134165405670274912011-01-12T18:59:00.000-08:002011-01-12T18:59:28.065-08:00Crime, Gangs and SecularismPost 30—:<br />
<br />
The past few years BC has had to live with a very lively gang regime that goes far beyond anything reasonable and kilometres beyond anything we should put up with. Shootings, killings, guns, drugs and every kind of violence and vice make up the picture. We are living in a reign of terror. Innocent neighbours, bystanders or passers by are getting shot. The police are doing the very best they can under the circumstances. In the process, they are spending fortunes on staff hours, finances and every resource at hand. <br />
<br />
Acording to Kim Bolan and her colleague Daphne Bramham, both of the Vancouver Sun, the murder rate has been going down. Quite a number of gang leaders are behind bars, awaiting trial in the province. Others have been charged and convicted south of the border. So, the police are making serious progress and we ought to appreciate them for their efforts. I so do. <br />
<br />
What to do about it? It is clear from letters to editors of local newspapers that the public is getting tired of all this violence and danger lurking all around us. Not a few argue for stiffer laws and stiffer sentences. They get terribly impatient with judges who to them appear to be overly lenient with these thugs and do more to protect their civil rights than the security of ordinary citizens. <br />
<br />
Both Bolan and Bramham—see above—are among my favourite columnists around town, Bolan especially because of her crime beat. Bramham has a couple of general suggestions. “We need to act boldly,” is one of her recipes. Fair enough, but how, in which way? “We need to address the root causes” is another one of hers. You don’t know how often I have heard that advice in various community workshops discussing social ills around town. It has become a mantra among those dealing with the issue. Indeed, address the root causes, but I have noticed that people never get beyond pointing to just another level of underlying symptoms such as drugs and alcohol. But why are those causes so common? They are not causes; certainly no underlying causes; they are mere symptoms of something deeper that Vancouver does not want to address.<br />
<br />
I have an idea that most people around Vancouver will regard as outrageous and even offensive. When I suggested it once to my table mates at one of these seminars, they looked at me with shock in their eyes. The whole table was quiet for some seconds. Then someone started another discussion—a blatantly diversionary tactic. No one wanted to address the basic cause I suggested. I picked on secularism as a basic cause. Yes, secularism. Since my statement constituted a direct challenge to the worldview of almost everybody around the table, they were not in a mood to accept the challenge and look at it. No surprise, really. Most people resist serious challenges to their worldview. That comes too close to home. That could make me partly responsible for the problems under discussion.<br />
<br />
Why did I suggest secularism as a basic cause? Because secularism has replaced Christianity in Vancouver but only in a general way. Though Christianity was never perfectly practiced by anyone, it had provided a perspective with which people could handle and interpret the challenges life hurls at us. Secularism may have replaced it, but it is largely an empty frame of reference on which most people cannot build their life. It is a weak base on which to build a society. It gives a person no moral hold with any degree of imperative. It does not offer firm standards by which to conduct oneself. Everyone sets his own standard. <br />
<br />
When a society recognizes no spiritual transcendent standards beyond itself that it it regards as sacred and inviolable, all too many people cave in to the process of lowering standards that is taking place in society. Parents have little or no firm guidance to bequeath to their kids and so the next generation lowers its standards even more, a generational cycle without end. All you have to do is compare the movies of 50 years ago with the current crop and you will immediately notice the difference. Same thing for fashions. What was considered sexy, shocking and avant garde then, is now blasé. What is common now, would have been highly offensive then. This process has been going on at almost all cultural fronts—marriage and divorce, abortion, free-lance sex of every kind, reduced sense of authority and respect. People have lost their sense of meaning. Many wander around on this planet with a feeling of emptiness and uselessness. So they find some sort of relief in alcohol and drugs; others in diversions like sport. Moral sensitivities have dulled and the challenges of an exciting gang life with money and power overcome many young people. <br />
<br />
I am not suggesting that every secularist is a drifting clod in a sea of meaninglessness, open to every temptation that comes his way. I have several secularists as friends and they are the finest of people. They are Humanists in the best sense of the word with high morals and clear vision of right and wrong. They are guided by an elevated moral reason that largely keeps them on track, though they also espouse the horror of abortion. They are strong intellectuals who can mostly resist the situation described above, but the next generations? <br />
<br />
Here, I believe, we have a major basic cause, one that is hard to overcome, that most of us cannot and do not even want to overcome. So, if we wait until we have overcome this basic cause, we will be paralyzed and achieve nothing, since we don’t want to overcome it. <br />
<br />
Now you may think I have really gone cuckoo, I bet! Question secularism?! Get off the pot! But it’s actually nothing new. The latest challenge to secularism is postmodernism. But long prior to that, I am the product of a revival that challenged secularism and continues to do so, a wholesale revival across all cultural segments. It’s called the Kuyperian revival that started a century and a half ago and is still working and spreading its tentacles across the world. It has actually successfully challenged secularism at various fronts in Canada, in the courts, in education, in labour and in areas of social justice, but it has not dethroned it. While some of us pray and work towards such a revival, others of us should work on reducing the negative effects of the symptoms. Both need to happen, but in the next and other future posts I will concentrate on ways to reduce these negative effects, the symptoms. <br />
<br />
In the next post I will begin to offer a suggestion or two about tackling the symptoms. These suggestions will likely be considered be equally outrageous by “experts.” In fact, one expert has already done so when I contacted her some time ago. As I occasionally get back to this subject, I will often ask you to think outside of our current boxes of political correctness. I am no expert on these subjects, but, judging from the results the “experts” have to show for so far, it may be the time for an open and blatant non-expert to throw his hat+ into the hopper and see if we can’t shake things loose a bit. In the meantime, if you haven’t done so yet, I urge you to check out this Kuyper and Kuyperian stuff I refer to occasionally, so you know what I am talking about. You can google <Abraham Kuyper> and find plenty to chew on. You can also go to the Kuyperiana page on my website www.SocialTheology.com>.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-68713965883790131752011-01-01T15:25:00.000-08:002011-01-01T15:25:57.270-08:00Government Transparency (3—and last for now)Post 29--: <br />
<br />
I don’t want to keep flogging the same horse, dead or alive—the horse, that is. But I do want to report on some progress that is being made at the transparency front. <br />
<br />
Transparency could be dangerous to our health. The decision in favour of transparency of the BC Ferries is a case in point. The recently released info about the outrageous annual income of its American CEO has upset many citizens, judging from letters to local newspapers. Some, including yours truly, are—well, let me not embarrass my family with Vancouver’s favourite street vocabulary—blooming angry, especially as they learn of additional charges and reduced services to pay the pigs at the trough. Over a million p.a., according to a caption under the man’s picture in the Vancouver Sun (Dec. 27, 2010, p. A14). As I read angry letters, my own anger rose right along with them. Not good for my high blood pressure! <br />
<br />
It would be nice if this public outcry would cause shame among the pigs at the trough. I must admit I doubt that. Corporate pigs have been exposed much since the beginning of the current economic crunch, but I have not heard of any public repentance or confession. They themselves and their lackies continue to argue that in order to get highly qualified people, they have to be paid “market prices.” That is, as high as they dare to make it. They won’t do it for less. Have these people heard how they describe themselves? They seem to be incapable of shame and beyond embarrassment. Let me address them in the second person directly: Do you realize how extremely egoistic and materialistic you sound? Listen to yourself, man! I can’t imagine! How can you live with yourself? <br />
<br />
If you pigs are enjoying your trough too much to listen, perhaps the public anger will make the authorities in government a bit more careful in future doling out their largesse by thinning what goes into that trough. <br />
<br />
I love the work of Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF). They are on the ball and provide taxpayers with lots of great info. I enjoy their work and thank them for it. They push hard for financial transparency. Nevertheless, at the end of this post, I will critique them. But first, the positive, the progress that their Federal Director, Kevin Goudet, writes about in the Vancouver Sun (Dec. 22, 2010, p. A15). <br />
<br />
One item that gladdens my heart is that Kelly Block, a Member of Parliament (MP) from Saskatchewan, has sponsored a bill “for transparency of reserve remuneration for chiefs and council.” The idea is to “put reserve politicians’ pay online”! I love the unintended pun—online vs “on the line” “Even the Assembly of First Nations has buckled to the pressure and is now promising to make this information public.” Wow! That’s big news! Rumours have it that some chiefs of small bands make as much or more than the Premier of the province they live in! If you compare that to the squalor in which many members of these bands live, then such incomes place these chiefs also among the pigs at the trough. So, this new development could mean significant progress in terms of transparency, though you never know, for promises and new laws often end up as mere smoke screens.<br />
<br />
The second item reported by Gaudet is that, due to pressures from various quarters, the Auditor General of the Federation is going to “be allowed to look at the books of MPs and Senators. The voices were heard, sense prevailed and the books will be audited.” Having read about some of the high expenses these “servants of the people” incur, seemingly without real worries about the welfare of the people or sense of responsibilities towards them, I am very happy to learn of this development. <br />
<br />
But I cannot suppress the question how it could be that the Auditor General of the entire Federation of all people needed such special permission! How did it develop that that high office did not have access naturally, automatically to this info? I am stunned. But I’m also happy. The next step is for that info also to be accessible to the general public. Canadian transparency ain’t what it should be by a long shot. I believe a party that makes this a major component of their platform and acts upon it, will be honoured by the people. For transparency goes along with a cluster of attitudes that together spell “democracy,” something of which Canada has a serious deficit between elections, what with Prime Ministers and Premiers acting like tribal chiefs. <br />
<br />
I did promise you a word of critique of CTF or, at least, of its Federal Director. His closing paragraph starts with this sentence: “Undoubtedly the list of all the things governments did wrong this past year would dwarf this list of things done right.” That comment, Mr. Goudet, is unbecoming of someone of your stature. “All the things” our governments—note his plural—do are amazing in keeping this country going, from the smallest details of city curbs and sewage you seldom see, through providing health care and security for all, to representing the country on the international scene. Canada is admired by the international community for the way she negotiated her way through the global economic crisis. To negate all that by a flippant condemnation as mostly wrong is nothing short of irresponsible. You owe all the governments and their civil servants in Canada a serious apology and all the people an explanation. Yes, transparency please. Yours is a low blow. <br />
<br />
I would refer you to the National House of Prayer (NHP)in Ottawa, an organization that teaches serious politically impartial prayer support for Canadian government ( www.nhop.ca ). Perhaps they can help you develop a more serious, wholesome and responsible attitude. Christians critique, yes, as I do here, but they also support the governments of the day with respect and prayer. There, that’s the Calvinist in me peeping out, referring you to an NHP operated by a Baptist. John Calvin could be shocked! Probably surprised. Most likely pleased.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-25951118470269233512010-12-24T16:48:00.000-08:002010-12-24T16:53:57.160-08:00Christmas: Holding Forth JusticePost 28—:<br />
<br />
This post is being written on Christmas Eve, 2010. The Christmas event is too large to just let it slip by without at least a nod. So, I am interrupting the flow of thought to offer you something Christmasy. I am going to place this post also on my other blog, <ChristianAndMuslimWorld. Blogspot.com>.<br />
<br />
I am offering you some quotes from the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah. This is a prophet of peace and justice. He repeatedly talks of the future in terms of hope for peace and justice. The Messiah whom the Jews had long been waiting for would introduce a new framework for society that was to be characterized by those two features, peace and justice. A new set of standards, if you like. To be sure, even Isaiah’s vision was an Old Testament one that allowed practices that we no longer approve today but have not yet been able to stem in our own lives and nations. And, of course, it is all written in terms of an ancient culture most of us no longer understand. Hence, it takes extra effort to understand it all. Don’t even try. Just go over these passages a few times and appreciate the emphasis on and the hunkering for peace and justice. <br />
<br />
Of course, some readers will object that it is all very nice and idyllic, but tell me about it once Christians actually demonstrate or live up to this perspective. I fully understand the objection and am ashamed to admit that it is a reasonable one. Christians will be the first to admit their failure to live up to this picture. We believe in Jesus, in God, to save us from ourselves. We do not believe in ourselves, in our own capacity to make this all come true. We cannot create utopia. It is God who will one day turn this hope into reality. In the meantime, we struggle towards it as best as we can and ask for forgiveness where we fail. <br />
<br />
There are more such prophecies in Isaiah and in other prophetic writings in the Old Testament. However, I am giving you perhaps more than you can or care to chew for one day. I will probably continue featuring such quotations next Christmas. In the meantime, here goes. Participate in the poetry; ponder the promise. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Isaiah 2--The Mountain of the LORD</b></i><br />
<br />
1 This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: <br />
2 In the last days <br />
the mountain of the LORD’s temple will be established <br />
as the highest of the mountains; <br />
it will be exalted above the hills, <br />
and all nations will stream to it. <br />
3 Many peoples will come and say, <br />
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, <br />
to the temple of the God of Jacob. <br />
He will teach us his ways, <br />
so that we may walk in his paths.” <br />
The law will go out from Zion, <br />
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. <br />
4 He will judge between the nations <br />
and will settle disputes for many peoples. <br />
They will beat their swords into plowshares <br />
and their spears into pruning hooks. <br />
Nation will not take up sword against nation, <br />
nor will they train for war anymore. <br />
5 Come, descendants of Jacob, <br />
let us walk in the light of the LORD. <br />
<br />
<b><br />
Isaiah 9:5-7<i></i></b><br />
<br />
6 For to us a child is born, <br />
to us a son is given, <br />
and the government will be on his shoulders. <br />
And he will be called <br />
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, <br />
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. <br />
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace <br />
there will be no end. <br />
He will reign on David’s throne <br />
and over his kingdom, <br />
establishing and upholding it <br />
with justice and righteousness <br />
from that time on and forever. <br />
The zeal of the LORD Almighty <br />
will accomplish this.<br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 11:1-9<i></i></b><br />
<br />
(Jesse is the father of King David and ancestor of Jesus.)<br />
<br />
1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; <br />
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. <br />
2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— <br />
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, <br />
the Spirit of counsel and of might, <br />
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD— <br />
3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. <br />
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, <br />
or decide by what he hears with his ears; <br />
4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, <br />
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. <br />
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; <br />
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. <br />
5 Righteousness will be his belt <br />
and faithfulness the sash around his waist. <br />
6 The wolf will live with the lamb, <br />
the leopard will lie down with the goat, <br />
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together; <br />
and a little child will lead them. <br />
7 The cow will feed with the bear, <br />
their young will lie down together, <br />
and the lion will eat straw like the ox. <br />
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, <br />
the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. <br />
9 They will neither harm nor destroy <br />
on all my holy mountain, <br />
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD <br />
as the waters cover the sea. <br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 32:15-20<i></i></b> <br />
<br />
15 till the Spirit is poured on us from on high, <br />
and the desert becomes a fertile field, <br />
and the fertile field seems like a forest. <br />
16 The LORD’s justice will dwell in the desert, <br />
his righteousness live in the fertile field. <br />
17 The fruit of that righteousness will be peace; <br />
its effect will be quietness and confidence forever. <br />
18 My people will live in peaceful dwelling places, <br />
in secure homes, <br />
in undisturbed places of rest. <br />
19 Though hail flattens the forest <br />
and the city is leveled completely, <br />
20 how blessed you will be, <br />
sowing your seed by every stream, <br />
and letting your cattle and donkeys range free. <br />
<br />
<b>Isaiah 42:1-9 The Servant of the LORD<i></i></b><br />
<br />
1 “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, <br />
my chosen one in whom I delight; <br />
I will put my Spirit on him, <br />
and he will bring justice to the nations. <br />
2 He will not shout or cry out, <br />
or raise his voice in the streets. <br />
3 A bruised reed he will not break, <br />
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. <br />
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; <br />
4 he will not falter or be discouraged <br />
till he establishes justice on earth. <br />
In his teaching the islands will put their hope.” <br />
5 This is what God the LORD says— <br />
the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, <br />
who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, <br />
who gives breath to its people, <br />
and life to those who walk on it: <br />
6 “I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; <br />
I will take hold of your hand. <br />
I will keep you and will make you <br />
to be a covenant for the people <br />
and a light for the Gentiles, <br />
7 to open eyes that are blind, <br />
to free captives from prison <br />
and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. <br />
8 “I am the LORD; that is my name! <br />
I will not yield my glory to another <br />
or my praise to idols. <br />
9 See, the former things have taken place, <br />
and new things I declare; <br />
before they spring into being <br />
I announce them to you.”Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-18398374434823802082010-12-16T14:16:00.000-08:002010-12-21T10:54:27.716-08:00Transparency in Government (2)Post 27— <br />
<br />
I have for some time planned to do a post on transparency in government but was not quite ready for it. Then the WikiLeak issue sprang up and suddenly the entire (media) world is up in arms about a deluge of government documents flooding cyberland with promises of more to come. So I felt forced to jump on the bandwagon now rather than look like a Johnny-come-late.<br />
<br />
The reason I have been planning to write on the subject is my growing annoyance with the BC Government for making it so difficult for people to access information. Vancouver newspapers regularly feature stories about the obstacles, the time and the money it takes to obtain information that should easily be accessible to the public. Government may need to keep some issues and documents secret, at least temporarily, but after all is said and done, Government has no interests beyond the interests of the people it governs. It has no interests of its own; even less, interests that clash with the interests of the people. Well, it shouldn't have. <br />
<br />
I have been out of BC for most of my working life and so have to rely on written history. One thing I have learned is that government opposition leaders, like Gordon Campbell, frequently berated the government of the day for refusing to divulge information and even promised that if elected, the would make access to archives easy in the name of democracy. A subsequent premier, also by the name of Gordon Campbell, and his underlings have made it almost impossible and expensive, especially for reporters and journalists, to get the info they need for their research. I feel absolutely annoyed, cheated, humiliated and despised as a citizen. Downright angry and ready to punch those responsible for such high-handed treatment of info in the nose. Who do they think they are?! Please don't expect me to be polite in such an environment. <br />
<br />
I am no expert on this issue of transparency versus secrecy in government, but when citizens, including journalists, routinely run into serious obstacles such as lengthy delays and high charges, if not outright refusal, then you know they are not served right. Then you also know, or at least, have good grounds to suspect that the government is up to something that cannot see the daylight. <br />
<br />
Although I could reference many articles on the subject from various Vancouver newspapers, I restrict myself to a recent article by Vincent Gogolek, “Province Loses Fight to Keep IBM Deal Secret” (Vancouver Sun, Dec. 3/2010, p. A13). Gogolek reports that it took his organization, the BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association six years—yes, six years!—to obtain a copy of the Government’s workplace agreement with IBM. Six years! Imagine that. Gogolek rightly argues that transparency of government contracts “is the best possible way to guarantee these arrangements are honest, free of conflicts of interest, and the best possible use of public dollars.” Both parties, Government and IBM, “fought tooth and nail to keep the contract from being released.” It was only the ruling by an adjudicator from the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner that forced the issue. And then I wonder why they took so long to act. <br />
<br />
This one particular paragraph is written and inserted into this post a day later. Things are getting worse. After I wrote that post, I came across an article in 24th News Vancouver by Mike Klassen under the title :City's Chokehold Tightens on Info." The city he refers to is my city, Vancouver and its Mayor, the man who campaigned on such a populist platform. The info screws have become increasingly tight over the life of the current administration, according to Klassen. <br />
<br />
With my apologies, this paragraph is inserted a few days later still. The issue is getting more serious. I've talked about the BC Government and that of Vancouver City, but now I'm running into stories about Canada's Federal Government (FG) as well. So, here's another insertion. Glen McGregor of Postmedia News reports that the FG took four years to release a requested expense report about Prime Minister Stephen Harper flying from Ottawa to Edmonton with six Members of Parliament along with some staff members in order to attend a Stanley Cup hockey game there. If you know Canadian geography, you will realize that this was a long trip. This lag of four years, according to McGregor, "is emblematic of the long delays that critics say are weakening Canada's open-records law." It is "unclear why the department resisted releasing the records." A member of the opposition commented that "most Canadians would have trouble with the idea that you load it [the plane] up with your friends and head off to a playoff game." Harper's office in due time provided some explanation of the adventure, but I will tell you about that four years from now, at least, if I get an official request for information. What's the hurry? [For your interest, I am member of the PM's party, but not sure I will remain there. Too many disappointments.] (Glen McGregor, "PM's Stanley Cup Expenses Released, 4 Years Later," Vancouver Sun, Dec. 20/2010.) <br />
<br />
Gogolek and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham both ask why the public should have to file such requests for info to begin with. Why not make them routinely available proactively? It would be in line with a constant theme of legislative committees dealing with the issue.<br />
<br />
To that I can only shout a loud, “Amen!” The people need to know and be assured their taxes are spent justly and judiciously. Obstacles that prevent the flow of legitimate info only serve to undermine the credibility of government. It is these obstacles that finally called for WikiLeaks. The latter is a reaction to unhealthy secrecy.<br />
<br />
Authorities who resist transparency have things to hide and are not to be trusted. They should be booted out at first chance and never voted for again. As you can see, nothing strong or bullish about my opinions!Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-21701842433796553842010-12-10T12:04:00.000-08:002010-12-10T12:04:41.946-08:00WikiLeaks and Government TransparencyPost 26—<br />
<br />
In these days of Wikileaks, government transparency is once again on the front burner in the media. Article upon article and report upon report have been filed and published or televised. These leaks have caused governments both serious damage and embarrassment. By the sound and looks of it, will continue to do so for the immediate future. Of course, the US government, the world’s busy-body superpower, gets the brunt of it, but other governments feel embarrassed and threatened as well, including Canada. It also hits individuals. William Crosbie, Canada’s ambassador to Afghanistan, offered his resignation after his slamming the corruption of the Afghanistan regime was revealed. <br />
<br />
The question is whether all this unrestricted exposure of government secrets benefits anyone, apart from the operators of Wikileaks themselves—and, of course, all those in the media business and, yes, I need to admit it, it gives bloggers something to write about! But Fen Hamson of Carleton University is not so sure. Crosbie, he argues, was doing his legitimate job, but his kind of comment is not the sort “that can withstand public scrutiny.” Public servants should have the confidence that, in the pursuit of their legitimate duty, their confidential statements and reports created in the course of policy development are kept confidential. How can governments engage in their business of policy creation, especially when it comes to rogue and other hostile nations, without the confidence of confidentiality? This kind of exposure of documents is “corrosive to Canada’s foreign relations and to international diplomacy in general.”<br />
<br />
Hamson is right, I believe. He goes further. These leaks are likely to have the adverse effects of governments creating more obstacles to the flow of information and make public access to it even more difficult, expensive, and time consuming. Probably more will be kept classified in the closet for a much longer time and more strictly controlled. Thanks, Assange.<br />
<br />
But, as always, there is the other side of the coin. Please note that my question about benefits of such leakage is about “unrestricted exposure, ” not about all exposure of government documents, even secret ones. Yes, the Assange leakage shows allies spying on each other and members on the United Nations. Western democratic governments lecturing the rest of the world on corruption and human rights, turn a blind eye to these practices on the part of their “client states.” Secret backroom deals that are not meant to see the light of day and lobbying for causes and policies of doubtful benefit to some other nations are often conducted behind cloaks of secrecy. <br />
<br />
Chris Waddell, also of Carleton, explains that governments often use national security as an excuse to hide the above kind of behaviour in order to “avoid embarrassment, to avoid having to explain the rationale for their policies and to say one thing publicly and something else privately.” He suggests that in general it is better for citizens to know more about the development of their government’s policy than to know less. We would be “better off if there were less of all three of those things” in the above paragraph. <br />
<br />
I agree with arguments on both sides of the coin. But I would argue that the side we examined first should be much less common than it is. In our imperfect world, it would be impossible for governments to conduct legitimate business without secrets. At the same time, the tendency of the second side of the coin is all too prominent and makes a joke of transparency, a hallmark of democracy. This Calvinist blogger votes on the side of transparency, much more of it. At the same time, at the end of this article Iland up on the side of condemning the indiscriminate leakage perpetrated by Assange as too reckless and not having counted the cost and potential damage to peoples and their policies.<br />
<br />
I close this post with a quotation that constitutes the closing of an article by the famous Canadian ethicist, Margaret Somerville of McGill University: “As I continued to read and think even more about WikiLeaks, I found it easier to know what was the ethical path to take with respect to it and its perpetrators. I believe that, overall, WikiLeaks involves grossly unethical conduct, some of which is also illegal.” (“Wiki-Leaks, Wiki-Leakers, and Wiki-Ethics,” Comment, 10/12/2010.http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/2405/) I highly recommend reading this article for its first-rate professional ethical discussion.<br />
<br />
The discussion to be continued.<br />
<br />
(This post has made grateful use of Randy Boswell’s “Do Leaks Defend or Thwart Democracy?” Vancouver Sun, December 4, 2010, p. B3. Thank you, Boswell.)Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-32501440295249830102010-12-05T14:09:00.000-08:002010-12-05T14:09:56.076-08:00Jesus in Any ColourPost 25<br />
<br />
What did Jesus look like? What was his colour? Since there are no photographs of Him or paintings by artists who have actually seen Him, His appearance, including His colour, has long been subject of discussion. In the Western world, the traditional homeland of the majority of His followers, people have long depicted Him as white skinned, often even with Teutonic or Nordic blue eyes like my own. Western artists such as Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Angelico and Michelangelo all depicted Jesus as white.<br />
<br />
In our day of multiculturalism, such depictions are increasingly challenged, berated and even rejected as provincial, racist and wrong. People criticize the depiction of Jesus as a Caucasian as akin to the “sin” of creating Him in our own—I am Caucasian—image. A friend forwarded to me the following comments from a writer he did not, unfortunately, further identify:<br />
<br />
"It has always bothered me that Jesus in the Sunday school pictures is white. Did they miss the part where it says he was born a Hebrew? Somehow I doubt he had blue eyes. There is a 10 000 Villages store not far from here that sells all manner of nativiy sceens -- African Jesus, Indian Jesus, Latin Jesus, even a curiously moving faceless Jesus. They're fantastic. Today I came across a site presenting "The Life of Jesus Christ: An African Interpretation by the Mafa People in Cameroun" and once again I'm taken by the beauty of a completely different view of a very old story. Who's to say that a black Jesus tending the sheep on the serengeti is any less valid than a white, blue eyed Jesus with little white children gathered at his feet?"<br />
<br />
Well, I am the proprietor of the website where the writer found the artful Mafa depictions of all the Gospel stories in terms of West African, specifically Cameroonian, culture --< SocialTheology.com >. In this context, Jesus, His disciples and all the other people in the stories are depicted as Black and the surrounding culture as unashamedly West African. If you love West African culture, you will adore these paintings. We have had them all over our house for years and frequently use the various formats in which they appear for gifts and as greeting cards. Hospital patients and people in mourning especially appreciate the upbeat and inspiring messages embedded in these surprising and lovely Gospel depictions. My wife and I are proud to be associated with them. I urge you to check out my website for further info about this series and the various uses to which you can put them. <br />
<br />
If some Whites are offended by depictions of a white Jesus, so are some Africans offended by black depictions of Him and the Gospel stories. When I first introduced the series to my friends in Nigeria, some of the more educated among them rejected them instinctively as presenting a false Jesus. He was not Black, they argued. So, what am I trying to pull off by foisting a Black Jesus on them? Their mistake was that they thought of these depictions as photographic instead of artistic interpretations. More traditional Nigerians did not have that problem and tended to enjoy looking at them. One recent convert from Islam was offended at one picture because he thought to recognize a large beer container. Beer in a picture with Jesus? Blasphemous! <br />
<br />
If the Mafa materials are legitimate as a way of interpreting Christ in a specific culture, then so are all those expressions of the white Christ. Those are equally legitimate interpretations of Christ for white cultures. Too many people react negatively to a basically valid attempt to interpret Christ if He is portrayed as white. This is an unhealthy reaction, probably mostly driven by a guilty conscience for white racism. White racism cannot be denied, but attempts to interpret Christ for white cultures are legitimate. One could equally condemn the Mafa art because Blacks are equally racist. <br />
<br />
As to whether we are creating a Christ in our image, whether black or white, that is not the issue. The issue is to make Him legible to different cultures. These are art works, not photographic representations. They represent meaning expressed in the various cultures. Do check them out.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-24111685476439573562010-12-02T16:33:00.000-08:002010-12-04T16:13:58.642-08:00Thomas Jefferson QuotesPost 24--:<br />
<br />
The past few posts have been a bit heavy and, for some, perhaps a bit dull. Let me redeem myself with something "light," quotations from Thomas Jefferson (1746-1826), one of the authors of the American "Declaration of Independence." In reality, there is nothing light about these quotes. Every quote is worthy of time and serious consideration. But here is an internationally highly revered historical genius who, let's face it, sounds like today's Tea Party in the US, the group that today is highly "irrevered," at least in Canada, as something akin to a bunch of crackpots not to be taken seriously. <br />
<br />
I must confess that I have not done research into the accuracy of each of these statements. I have decided to simply assume they are genuine quotes from Jefferson. Given today's discussions and arguments, I think they are extremely interesting and, to me at least, surprising. I present them here for your edification, reflection and debate, but not because I agree with all of them. You will find parenthetical comments from yours truly under each quote. <br />
<br />
Before I proceed, here is a relevant Kennedy story--or myth? <br />
<br />
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."<br />
<br />
The Quotes:<br />
<br />
When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.<br />
(Jefferson should know: He spent many years in Europe as American<br />
diplomat. To make it more contemporary, an Al-Jazeera article of December 2, 2010, makes claims of serious corruption and wastage on the part of the European Union.) <br />
<br />
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.<br />
(Do please note that he wrote "would not," not, "could not," a slight <br />
difference.) <br />
<br />
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.<br />
(Do we routinely contract trans-generational debt because we have<br />
grown in wisdom, understanding and economic knowledge since <br />
Jefferson's days? Just a question!) <br />
<br />
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.<br />
(Though I would hardly reject all government responsibility for <br />
supporting the poor and vulnerable in society, try applying the quote <br />
to our current practice in Canada and see where you end up.)<br />
<br />
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.<br />
(I could not agree more.)<br />
<br />
No free man shall ever be debarred from the use of arms.<br />
(I could not agree less, especially in view of the next one.) <br />
<br />
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.<br />
(Do we really expect a situation in North America where we feel so <br />
threatened by our governments that we need arms to keep them at<br />
bay? Under normal circumstances, we do not need that. When circum-<br />
stances demand it, we will have reached such chaos that law no longer<br />
is in effect. Of course, Jefferson lived during the American revolution.<br />
There <span style="font-weight:bold;">was</span> war and chaos.) <br />
<br />
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.<br />
(This may be a trend in history, but to assert this as a historical law<br />
is unacceptable to me. Liberty under threat has more than once been <br />
released by public leaders who amassed the power of the people to force<br />
change and refreshment without resort to bloodshed. I am the heir to <br />
such a revolution started in The Netherlands by Abraham Kuyper.)<br />
<br />
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.<br />
(A modern example in many North American provinces and states is where <br />
your tax money goes to schools run on basis of secularism, even though<br />
you disagree with that philosophy. Another is when governments spend my <br />
tax money on abortion.) <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:<br />
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.<br />
(Why does this quote sound so contemporary?!)<br />
<br />
Enjoy your reflections and debates.<br />
<br />
I do hope that the Jeffersonian origin of these quotes will never prove to be a hoax!Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-25076417229288418122010-11-13T17:02:00.000-08:002011-08-01T17:00:31.429-07:00Secularists Opening up a Can of Their Own Worms?Post 23—<br />
<br />
We are still on the issue of why some secularists want to effect changes in the Public Schools of BC. The secularists under discussion are, of course, good friends of mine and fellow members of World Views Collaborative (WVC). So, I am talking here about and even to these friends. They are three and I could name them for you. Their initials are E and K and E. Well, you know that bit about privacy that’s in the BC air.<br />
<br />
They invited me to join them in a “crusade” to have Public School authorities in BC agree to a new high school course that would teach about all major BC world views. That would include the various religions as well as Humanism, their own world view. I joined them because I agreed this would be a good thing and I am glad I did, for I have thoroughly enjoyed getting to know my WVC friends in a setting where everyone is very definite about their own world view but also very open, respectful and courteous about that of others. <br />
<br />
I have tried to warn E, K and E that they could be opening up a can of their own worms. As it is, their world view is actually the reigning one in the Public Schools. There is no course teaching their world view, but theirs is the entire basis of the system and all courses are based on the secular world view. Now, of course, like other religions/world view, secularists are also divided amongst themselves, so that many of them will have some critique of the Public School system. However, by and large it is theirs that is the very atmosphere that the students and teachers breathe in these schools as the assumed truth that is hardly ever subject to scrutiny in those schools. The entire world view is simply assumed and considered neutral enough that everyone can subscribe to it. ‘t Ain’t so. Many do not subscribe to it and hence have transferred to schools more amenable to their own world view—after they have been forced to pay the taxes to have the establishment world view of Secularism taught. <br />
<br />
E, K and E, do you not realize how privileged your world view is in the Public School? Without anyone overtly teaching it, students just soak it in effortlessly without realizing it. I know, for I have been through it and did indeed soak it up without realizing how I slowly veered away from my own Christian world view. Oh, I did not lose my faith, but my views of the world and events and scientific discoveries, etc. all became increasingly secularized. It was not until I began taking courses in Christian philosophy at university level that I began to realize that I had been secularized in much of my thinking. The secular world view of the system almost achieved its purpose with me. <br />
<br />
But no one seems to realize that secularism is really the establishment faith or world view. It is exactly that. Now, if the schools are going to teach that course, including Secularism, students are going to question that world view that previously they simply imbibed unconsciously. Students and parents may suddenly begin to realize that there is nothing neutral about this perspective and that it is as subjective as all the other world views taught in the course. It, too, can be questioned and rejected like all the others or accepted. Its privileged status in the schools will be questioned. That is the can of worms I am talking about.<br />
<br />
And with its privileged status now being questioned, people will begin to ask why the Public School only supports this one particular world view and not any of these others. Canadians have long ago rejected the notion of an establishment worldview, at least, when it was a Christian one. Catholics long had that dubious privilege in Quebec and they still enjoy the financial residue of that in Ontario. Anglicans have been the establishment in Ontario and, if my BC history is not completely off the track, even enjoyed a minor version of it on Vancouver Island. People have revolted against such arrangements and many take it ill of these churches for the establishmentarian roles they have played. E, K and E, is that what you are looking for? You really want those worms out of the can? Having an annual Christmas tree in these schools or one or two other tokens of our Christian past is a small price to pay for having your world view presented as unquestioned gospel truth.Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1928950620214782051.post-72747916709596891312010-11-05T20:17:00.001-07:002010-11-05T20:22:03.131-07:00Why Many Christians Opt out of Public Schools (2)Post 22--<br />Post 21 was a bit theoretical and vague. I made a big point of the fact that all human beings, including Secularists, Humanists and Atheists, are believers. We all build our lives on a set of values that we believe, but that we cannot prove. We call that total package of beliefs our “worldview.” Christians are very aware of that; most Secularists—from here on in this blog I use this term to refer also to Humanists and Atheists—are not. That is their blind spot and serious weakness. They believe in autonomous reason and in its ability to potentially understand everything and determine good and evil, but few realize it is a belief they have not proved and will never prove. Christians, on the other hand, recognize that the human race went through a serious fall or break with God, with themselves, their neighbours and all of the universe way back when in our history. The first chapters of Genesis are a poetic or mythical representation of that tragic event. That fall also created a serious disconnect between our reason and reality, a disconnect that can only be restored with the help of divine revelation. <br />This divine revelation comes in two forms: the Bible and the book of nature or creation, often called “natural revelation.” The knowledge gained in the second form requires correction from the Bible. These two supplement each other. It is the same God who reveals Himself, His wisdom and His will in both.<br />What does all this mean in practical terms? It means that Secularists draw conclusions with the aid of their autonomous self-directed reason about what is good and wise in this world, while Christians also check out the Creator’s will and wisdom for this world by consulting the Bible. This difference drives the two groups towards different conclusions. Let me illustrate the point by random use of abortion as an example.<br />Secular abortionists defend the practice of wholesale murder, a less euphemistic term than “abortion,” of human fetuses on basis of the priority they have placed on the freedom of women to control their own bodies. Probably in reaction to centuries of restricting the freedom of women, they now advocate total freedom for women to control their own bodies. Away with all restrictions! In view of the history of women in most or even all cultures, this attitude seems to make some rational sense. If you have no point of reference beyond yourself, your community or science, that’s kind of a natural way for you to go. The human race is like a pendulum that keeps swinging from one extreme to another without ever resting at a balanced situation. So, from centuries of chains, as some would interpret the history of women, to complete unrestricted autonomy over my own body. <br />Christians on the other hand…. Well, many Christians, not all. Many have been taken in by the powerful rationalism of secularism. The practice of abortion has become so widespread that it has lost all shock value. Many of us have gotten used to it. The horror associated with this wholesale destruction of human beings has evaporated. It’s become as common as making a grilled cheese sandwich. These two factors, the secular air that we all breathe in and the daily practice of abortion have led even people who want to take God’s Word seriously at other fronts, to accept abortion, though they will tell you they don’t really like it. But, they may argue, you can’t tell others what to do or not to do! <br />Oh, you can’t? Why can you tell people not to kill that same fetus that has just now made its way into the world? On what basis? What is the difference? The difference lies in your point of reference. Autonomous reason and autonomous women’s bodies? Off to the clinic we will go. The Word of God? Then the life of the fetus trumps the freedom of the woman. Freedom is part of the Christian message, but it is freedom within the law of God and within His priorities.<br />Most Christian denominations in the world--as well as most other religions-- oppose wholesale abortion. Though they also wish to see women enjoy freedom, there are other considerations that they pick up from the Bible. There is the Biblical emphasis on the absolute sacredness of life that has priority over female freedom to abort a life already started. These Christians are also pro-choice, but the choice is made at the time of sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. That’s when they make their choice. If pregnancy results, a new life has been started that is sacred from its inception. It is God’s gift that is to be accepted with gratitude and faith and as a challenge. <br />So, the difference is not that some people are cruel and others nasty. Or that some prefer women; others, babies. The difference is our point of reference, autonomous reason or reason guided by the Word of God. But both are matters of belief. This same difference crops up in many social, political, sexual, cultural and economic issues.<br />Many Christians and people of other religions opt out of the Public Schools, because there the autonomy of Secularism holds sway. God’s Word may not serve as a point of reference. All things religious are banned, except perhaps some cultural residues like Christmas trees. But the main atmosphere is that of Secularism—all the way from kindergarten through university. In fact, in most of those quarters religion is scoffed. We Christians have high regard for reason and for the scientific enterprise, but we prefer our reasoning to be directed by the Word of God and reject autonomous reason. <br />The next post will try to explain why my secularist friends from World Views Collaborative are unhappy enough with a Public School system to change it, even though it is based on their worldview!Jan/John H. Boerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10445918477538084931noreply@blogger.com0