Updated from my Councilman.

Yesterday I received a call from my city councilman Mike O'Donnell, who knew that I had heard about the motion he and the Mayor are going to put forward to amend the current extension cord bylaw.  He also called to give me a little heads up on the procedures the use, and a little thing called an "executive meeting", which is a less formal meeting than publicly addressing Council during there regular meetings.  Basically he invited me to watch for this on the agenda and make an appearance.

I thanked both he and the Mayor for taking me and this cause seriously, and that I appreciated their efforts in working on it.  He said that my logic made sense, and it seemed that it was time to do something about it. :-)

Update from the Mayor.

I spoke with the Mayor of Regina (Mr. Pat Fiacco) about this issue for the first time on November 30th 2010, and he commiserated and agreed that he didn't like the law, as well as saying he would have the Cuty's legal team look into it.

Today (December 13th 2010) Mayor Fiacco called me back and informed me that he was going to put a motion in front of council to amend the bylaw where it will have a safe allowance for the use of extension cords to run across a city sidewalk. I mentioned that the City of Grand Prairie had a bylaw in place that satisfies both safety and necessity, so that he knew I supported a rewording like it.

I also got a letter today on my dispute of the ticket, and it appears that they didn't even read the reasons I was disputing it. I disputed it for 2 reasons, 1. the law is inappropriate for Saskatchewan, and 2. because the enforcement agency did not follow City procedure in issuance of City bylaws.  So I will continue on with it in court, and I will argue my case with even more ammunition knowing that the City will probably amend the bylaw.

Regina Extension cord bylaw.

I was upset about getting a ticket for a bylaw infraction, and wrote a letter about it to the Leader Post here in Regina Saskatchewan. And it seems this was a bigger issue than I thought.

I was also interviewed by CBC, Global, and CTV about this issue, and in an online poll conducted on the CBC article it seems that 85% of the voters agree that this should either not be a law, or the officer should have used judgment on whether or not it was dangerous.

I have started an online petition to start change, located at; PETITION.

I would love to hear ideas on how we can keep pedestrians safe, and at the same time accommodate the necessity of Saskatchewan residents to plug their vehicles in when they must park on the street.

Bob

Why I am fighting this ticket.

 I am not an enemy of justice, but this ticket is an injustice, and in this case the law was unjustly applied. This bylaw is an injustice to every person forced to park on the street who needs to keep their vehicle running, so they can get to work and make ends meet, in our Saskatchewan winters! Also complaints should not warrant instant tickets, they should illicit discussion first for compliance if possible, before ticketing, but if the offence truly warrants an instant ticket, tickets should be given across the board to everyone in violation of the infraction.

This ticket is an example of how our bylaw systems can be easily abused. When bylaws are enforced only on when a complaint is received, it is easy for individuals to use them in their petty squabbles against their neighbours. I say this because the enforcement officer who came and unplugged and ticketed my car neglected to ticket anyone else in our neighbourhood for the same infraction, including the vehicle plugged in all day right next door to us who was plugged in as we were being ticketed (and potential 5 more as he left our street.) I guess this is why I find myself personally arguing with individuals parked in marked Handicap spaces who have no legal right to be there, instead of them getting ticketed, because they know they can get away with it as enforcement usually only comes when called, and that takes time.

I should also mention that I was unaware of this bylaw's existence, and although ignorance is not an excuse, neither should ticketing be a form of enlightenment, especially in a case where it was obvious where the person resides, as well as being highly likely they were home if their car was plugged in. There are obviously 14 others in small my neighbourhood that are ether unaware, or by necessity breaking this law because they have no other option, as we live in a climate that requires our vehicles to be plugged in during the winter months.

• As for the “hazard” our cord presented;

1. first off we contentiously, and diligently shovel our walk, and the city walk in front of our home (primarily to make it convenient for postmen, which one Canada post parcel delivery man profusely thanked me for when he brought a parcel to my door).
2. Secondly we did not leave excess cordage on the walk, it is one thin cord flat on the sidewalk.
3. Finally we never left the cord on the sidewalk when it was not in use.

All being said and done, I am looking for some sort of compromise on this bylaw, where to maintain the functionality to support your family, it is not necessary to break the law. There has to be a way for citizens without off street parking to maintain an operational vehicle in our Saskatchewan winters without being contrary to the law, otherwise it would be safe to say that thousands of the city's residents are right now, and every day, are contrary to the law just so they can get to work and feed their families. As well as keeping the public reasonably safe and not inconvenienced. I am look for suggestions for the court, and from the city, on how to best resolve this issue and maintain compliance with the law not only for me, but also for those unknown multitude of others that are forced to break this law every winter.

BEWARE! Winter parking on the street means no power for you!

Those of us forced to park on the street overnight in winter are going to need stout vehicles, because in Regina it's actually a ticket-able offense to run an extension cord across a sidewalk to plug your car into! What an absurd bylaw to have, let alone to enforce, in a Saskatchewan winter!

The explanation I received from the Bylaw division was that “it is a trip hazard, and the city would be liable for it” as well as "we only ticket complaints" which wqas to explain why my next door neighbor did not receive a ticket at the same time for the same infraction. Now I understand that the city wants to protect itself from liability, but with reasonable measures (such as a bright yellow extension cord, and a contentiously cleaned sidewalk), there should be no reason that even an infirm individual will not recognize and be able to avoid this sometimes very necessary and insignificant “hazard”.

That's not the worst of it unfortunately; my first issue is how the officer (Badge No: C504) decided that rather than come to the house and inform us we were in violation of a city ordinance, and give us the opportunity to comply, he UNPLUGGED the vehicle and THEN wrote the ticket! (Obviously we were home, and of course we would have complied to the law!) My next issue is that this Officer failed to give a ticket for the EXACT same infraction, to the house right next door to us (not to mention any number of other offences occurring on the street, at the very moment he was issuing my ticket!)

Now of course we all feel like a victim when we get a ticket we don't want (and in this case weren't even aware that it was an infraction), but it's even worse when you are singled out among many of the same infractions occurring in the exact same single block street. If the officer was there to strictly enforce the bylaw (rather than give the person a chance to comply with it), then why was I the only one ticketed for that on my block?

My question is simple; What do you do in winter in Regina to keep your car running, if you have to park on the street?

It's really hard to “heart” Regina with bylaws like this enforced without the application of common sense or common courtesy.

Bob

The paradox of pain.

Pain seems to make the day last forever, but it never leaves you time to get anything accomplished.

I always seem to be fighting with the chronic pain I have, which seems to leave little or no time to accomplish even the things I am capable of.  I was thinking about this as I struggle through the day, wishing I could accomplish something while at the same time just trying to hold off being overwhelmed by it.  It's an odd situation we put ourselves in, we force ourselves to be task oriented, or outcome driven, and we never expect that to be taken away from us.  Yet at the same time the fragility of our bodies leaves us vulnerable to injuries which can leave us incapable of doing the simple things we once took for granted, and should this happen it takes considerable rewiring of the way we think to avoid a number of mental conditions which arise from it.  Of course I speak primarily of depression, but often our previously programmed thoughts can lead to other feelings like that of inadequacy, low self esteem, and burdening of family. 

It's a tough thing trying to to come to terms with both the pain and the feelings of inadequacy it evokes, but maybe that itself is an accomplishment to be recognized? Then again maybe I'm just grasping at straws, but you take what's in arms reach when you feel like you're drowning.

A trip through the headlines.

Today I noticed 2 striking headlines coming out of the Middle East, which seemed to me to explain each other.
1. NATO Afghanistan airstrike kills 27 civilians.
2.Car bomb kills 6 in Pakistan.

In Headline 1 it states how the Afghan cabinet (whom I might point out would not be where they are without western involvement) condemned the deaths as "Unjustifiable".  Yet at the same time that civilian deaths are tragic, when you fight an enemy that uses civilians as cover and camouflage what else would you really expect to happen?  Which brings me to the second headline.  This screams of civilian deaths, however accidental deaths of civilians seems to affect these Governments more than the threat caused by these cowardly terrorists who dress in civilian clothes and are absolutely willingly to kill innocent people.

Here's my dilemma; does the Afghan cabinet not realize that NATO does not want to kill civilians, or are they simply making political noise to appease the masses?  Do they not realize that insurgents dress as civilians?  Have they forgotten that NATO is there to help them abolish the oppressive regime they were living under?  Are their flipping turbans wrapped too tight?? (Ok I know they don't all wear turbans, but I'm at a loss to the mentality that directs their anger against those trying to help, RATHER than them all rallying to fight these murderous, cowardly sons of goats with everything they have!)

Voltaire said "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men" AND "it is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".


Maybe it's time for the Middle east to wake up.

Britney Spears "Womanizer"; playing the blame game?

I guess I question the motivation behind this song simply because of the apparent hypocrisy it conveys. I have to say that this song and it's music video do nothing to promote respect for women, but to the contrary they actually degrade women to as little as objects for the use of men (the definition of a womanizer is a man who has numerous casual sexual encounters with multiple women - *paraphrased). This video is about how she won't fall for someone "like that", yet she dresses (or undresses) and acts in a manner that encourages just this action from a man. So really who is the womanizer? Is it the man who responds to the enticement, or the woman that encourages the behaviour?

If you don't demand respect by appropriate actions, you shouldn't be surprised when you don't get it. Unfortunately this undermines efforts of women throughout the ages who have worked tirelessly to advance the status of women without the use of sexuality, but based on a woman's abilities.

The thing that disturbs me the most about this video is really the message it sends out to men that tend to "prey" on women, and by this I mean the ones who don't require consent to fulfill their desires. This song and video just scream conflicting messages that could be very dangerous in the long run for women.

There is also a number of relational problems I see arising from the mentalities I see on both sides of this song and video. Foremost is the possibility for long term productive and fruitful (meaning mutual love and respect) relationships. Let me analogize for a moment; if I see a commercial for my favorite restaurant I may want to go out and have a meal, but it doesn't make me feel like going out and buying the establishment. (You know, the whole "why buy the cow when you get the milk for free".) This promotes a fragile shallow relationship which is easily broken by the next "commercial" that offers something different.

I haven't even come close to touching on all the issues I saw in this song/video, but I can break it down to simply saying that you have to "*honestly" respect yourself if you want others to have respect for you.


Bob


(* I used honestly here to accentuate the fact that we must all be aware of our own faults and self evaluate ourselves critically to become a person worthy of respect for ourselves through moral actions and attitudes. We cannot expect that we should receive respect just because we are alive, because respect is really not a human right but a privilege we enjoy when we we contribute positively to society.)

Once again Quebec holds back progress in Canada.

I'm not going to mince words; I think the Bloc has no place in federal politics. PERIOD! There is no place on a Federal stage for a Provincial party to be elected. If you want to sit in the House of Commons I think there has to be a simple understanding that you must run candidates in all provinces of the Country.

Honestly what can the Bloc accomplish in the House that any one of the Federal party candidates from their area couldn't? There are local members of a legitimate federal party that could represent them not only as adequately, but more effectively with the support of a national party behind them.

I personally think it's a travesty of democracy to have to kiss Quebec's behind with it's own "special" party because they somehow think they are more deserving, more entitled or simply better than everyone else in Canada.

Hey Quebec... Grow up.

Bob

With record profits for "Big Oil", how can they claim competition over collusion?

With record profits being recorded by companies like Exxon raking in 11.7 Billion dollars profit, Shell right behind at 11.5 Billion and 2 other major companies in the states (BP and conico) also raking in 9 and 7 billion dollars respectively.

So let's think about this for a second; In a competitive market place costs are driven down by companies "competing" for business by giving the consumer a better deal than the next company, on the other hand we have the collusive market place where companies form alliances and strategies to control the market place and increase profits. So with how on earth can big oil explain the consequences of collusion (big profits) of as being competitive?

The only competition I see, is the one between big oil companies for the dollar sitting in YOUR pocket.

Time for these Government watchdogs to pull their heads from where they are firmly planted (where the sun don't shine), and come down hard for the consumer they are supposed to be there to protect!

Sincerely (from me to the Government),
Bob

The Order of Canada now means murder is acceptable.

With the Order of Canada being awarded to Henry Morgentaler, Canada has not only condoned the murder of innocent children but by the award it says that Canada believes that this is something to strive for.

This award is even worse than if it had been posthumously awarded to Adolf Hitler! The problem is that Morgentaler's efforts will kill far more people than Hitler could ever have imagined to. I see Morgentaler's beliefs and actions as even more heinous than the Nazi leader because of his fight to kill those that have absolutely no way to fight back for themselves.


In a nutshell, that's the way I see it.

"Worst Neighborhood in Canada" strikes again.

In a place that has made itself infamous with the problems of substance abuse (and all the crimes that follow it), we have people who say they encourage healthy lifestyles and yet through their actions promote the opposite. This is yet another black eye for the "Worst Neighborhood in Canada".

What bothers me the most in this situation is that the people that are supposed to be in charge and helping inner city kids overcome an unhealthy lifestyle where the ones perpetuating the usage of alcohol and tobacco (and I hesitate to not to say drugs, because logically in a party situation with high risk individuals this would not be a very broad leap, especially in Jamaica. But as there is no evidence, I shall apply the benefit of the doubt here as it does nothing to diminish the scope of inappropriateness of the known situation.).

Here's the issue, The North Central Family Centre's mission states: "Our Mission is to carry out works for the encouragement and empowerment of the inner city community by offering a variety of programs. Our programs and services will promote positive and healthy changes in our community." From what I understand all of the children enrolled in the marathon program were required to sign a contract abstaining from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Now I've heard the justification that "the contract ended after the race", but wouldn't anyone that truly wanted to help these kids live healthy lives off of the dependence from any type of substances continue that contract on principle? What I'm trying to say is that if you TRULY wanted to help these kids live a lifestyle free of dependence, why would you EVER supply any of them to high risk individuals? Ii makes me feel the need to ask how this in any way fulfills their motto of "Empowering Youth, Families and the Community"? Why wouldn't you continue the contract even after the race, and if a deadline is required make it after you've returned home? Even on principle this contract should have been enforced by the chaperone's until the children were no longer THEIR RESPONSIBILITY!

I believe the Centre needs to take measures to re-establish it's credibility in the community which they propose they are there to help, and I feel this action is obviously the dismissal of the chaperone's involved, and further after the ridiculous decision of the Board of directors not to accept their resignation that these Board members ALSO need to step down and let others with a higher standard of values step in and take over.

Obviously this was not entirely an altruistic undertaking for these people, and it makes you wonder why they are doing it if their beliefs don't really match up with their stated philosophy........ Money maybe?

Ever more the cynic,
Bob

This is 12 years of "Liberal" Canada at it's finest.

Here is a kick in the pants for those intelligent enough to consider human life more important than an animals. In Canada you can be charged for killing an unborn deer, but not for killing an unborn child (for now that is, and with any common sense maybe the House of Commons will actually approve the unborn victims act to protect the people it claims to serve.) But it took 12 years of Liberalism being defeated by a minority Conservative government to have an issue like this addressed.

There is something seriously sick about a society that values the life of an animal over that of a human. Granted; animals are our responsibility to protect as good stewards of our resources, and it is even disgusting that anyone would consider killing a pregnant animal on purpose, HOWEVER after a fine and having hunting privileges revoked it’s case closed. On the other hand I COMPLETELY believe that the murder of a pregnant woman is by FAR more heinous than that of an animal, and the laws of the land should reflect the importance of those human lives.

Trying not to get swallowed up by the stupidity out there,

Bob

__________________________________________________________

For more info on this story I have include the lifesite article (and link) below;

In Canada You Get Charged for Killing an Unborn Fawn, but Not an Unborn Human Being

By Hilary White

VANCOUVER, As Canada's legislators prepare to debate Bill C-484, Canada's unborn victims of crime bill that was introduced in Parliament in November, conservation officers are reportedly "emotional" after having discovered three men in British Columbia who were hunting pregnant deer.
The three have pleaded guilty to violating the Wildlife Act after having shot two female deer, one of whom was found to have been pregnant with two fawns. The men have been charged with four counts against the Act, two for killing the two adult females and two more for the unborn fawns.
CanWest News service reports that conservation officers were "horrified" at the incident.
The deer season in British Columbia runs from mid-September to the end of November and the law prevents female deer from being included in the hunt. The officers believe that the deer were targeted specifically because they appeared pregnant.
Conservation officer Dave Jevons told CanWest that the case was "emotional," because the hunters appeared to be after the fawns for food or medicine. Some consider foetal fawns a delicacy.
John Hoff, head of Campaign Life Coalition British Columbia said the case highlights the "absurdity" of having laws that protect foetal fawns but not foetal human beings.
The Unborn Victims of Crime bill was condemned recently by the member for Halifax, Nova Scotia, Alexa McDonough, former head of the pro-abortion New Democrat party, who dismissed the testimony of the families of children killed in the womb as being motivated, through their grief, from a desire for revenge.
"In our democratic society, we have long decided that revenge is not a proper basis for drafting or adopting our laws," she said.

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Canada Unborn Victims of Crime Act Introduced in Parliament by Conservative MP
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/nov/07112104.html

A summer of loss.

This summer has been a summer of loss for my wife, 2 family members have been killed in Alberta in just over a month.

It started at the end of May when her Nephew died. Her 19 year old nephew had a car accident near Leduc Alberta, and amazingly he survived the crash. What he didn't survive was the semi which hit him when he returned to the highway to look for help. This happened only days before her mother's (his grandma's) birthday, and it turned out that the funeral was held the day she turned 60.

Today we found out that my wife's Step-dad was killed in a 2 car collision yesterday morning. The car accident took place near Leduc Alberta, where a half ton ran a stop sign and collided with his SUV. The aftermath at the scene was brutal. We were able to watch coverage on the Edmonton news and both vehicles were incredibly damaged, but her Step-dad was ejected from his vehicle as he wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

Dealing with pain and disability.

I read an article in a chronic pain magazine about Annette Funicello's battle with MS a while back, and I've been meaning to post on it for some time so here it comes. A quick warning, this will be lengthy.

The article I read mentioned how even though people knew she had the condition, she never "appears" as if she is suffering even though it is quite common to do so. Her reason can be summed up in a quote I read which went like this; "I think you only have two choices in this kind of situation. Either you give in to it or you fight it. I intend to fight."

After the first 5 years of my own chronic condition I came to this same conclusion, but somehow I saw it as logical and not something anyone else may need to hear so I really kept it to myself. But in recent days I have observed others in my life with chronic conditions who are not accepting the situations they deal with enough to fight the outward appearance no matter what they are feeling internally.

I found the reason that I don't allow myself to show many outwards signs is because I don't want others to pity me, or look at me any differently because of my disability. Sure I will talk about my condition to help people understand, but my only motivation is for others to be aware of my limitations to physical contact. (Not to say I haven't tried to do things with the result being some very severe consequence, but that too is a learning process which sometimes takes trial and error to discover the boundaries). However even through the sometimes rigorous trials of even everyday life, I do this not for my own sake but for the emotional well being of those around me, whom without my self control would be targets to lash out at in anger (more at the pain than for anything they might have done).

In particular there have been 2 other people that I am in direct (though infrequent) contact with which made me realize that the coping skills I developed may not be to everyone what I saw as a logical conclusion.

The first of these individuals I watched very harshly (quite rudely for that matter) speak to someone they call a friend, simply because this friend was performing a simple ability that the disabled individual could no longer manage for any length of time. This act was the simple act of standing, but the disabled person was so caught up in how they couldn’t do it that they took it out on their supposed friend. This is what I meant at the end of the last paragraph, if those of us who suffer don’t accept that we are and may forever suffer we will lash out in jealousy at those able bodied around us.

The second person I know was disheveled, lethargic and had an attitude of discontent when I ran into him the other day. Now I am in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY saying that he should be clean shaven and immaculately dressed, his appearance was mentioned only because it helped me understand that he is not at all coping well with his condition (which is the same as mine) even on vast amounts of Opiates. After talking to him I also found that he had not accepted his condition and is aggressively searching out a cure.


This attitude of not accepting said condition is extremely common among chronic illness sufferers. Unfortunately this can cause more harm than good, which is apparent after learning that this individual’s condition has worsened because of the continued search for treatment options and therapies that will cure him. When I decided to discontinue taking opiates for pain relief I understood that my amount of daily pain was going to increase exponentially, but that knowledge was very helpful in dealing with it. The key was having a mindset change from doing everything I could to get rid of the pain to one of knowing I will have to deal with, so I needed to learn to balance my activities to manage my condition and for the rest I just have to suck it up and deal with it!

At a men’s breakfast today I heard someone very succinctly describe “Joy”. He said that joy is an attitude that is outside the situation which we are currently experiencing, experiences which would normally cause more negative attitudes. My attempt to revisit his wisdom is a little longer, but I hope it conveys the information appropriately. It is up to us to experience joy through whatever we are dealing with, and this can only be found through Christ. This is not mere happiness which can be obtained by the simple act of receiving a gift, but true joy through even the worst circumstance and even further to outwardly glorify God by actions indicative of someone with the joy of Christ. Unfortunately neither of these fellow sufferers show anything near this joy, one because they don’t know the Lord, and the other because they haven’t dealt with the self centered issues of betrayal, disappointment, bitterness and jealousy just to mention a few.

How do I get this joy? What does it feel and look like? I can’t answer that because God will encourage each person differently, but it will look outwardly the same for everyone. It will manifest itself in the visible attribute of the gift of the Holy Spirit, Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Unfortunately these will be more obvious to others than to ourselves, and if we fail to listen to those around us (no matter who they are) that point out our shortcomings in these areas we will be unable to correct ourselves. There is a way to have this joy, but it takes a lot of self examination to align your mind with scripture, and sometimes very pointed truths by others that will be a severe blow to your pride and your feelings.

I’ll be honest, I feel like I stumbled onto this by accident (though I don’t really believe in accidents, I’m sure the understanding was given to me by God). Nonetheless it is still something I work towards in an ongoing battle against the pain and limitation I deal with.

Bob

Hypocrisy thy name is ?

The latest scandal involving Christian leadership is that of Ted Haggard. Mr. Haggard has been accused of a homosexual affair and illicit drug use. Who is his accuser? The accuser is none other than the homosexual prostitute drug dealer that Mr. Haggard was said to have had the affair. But wait it gets better; the reason that this person said he came forward was a “matter of principle”.

I believe that leaders in the church are just as apt to make mistakes or fall into sin as anyone else, but I also believe we have to take into context the character of the accuser. This is especially true when dealing with homosexuals or their activist groups. They sheer hypocrisy of Mike Jones to accuse Ted Haggard of any wrong doing is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Sure there need to be repercussions to Ted Haggard’s actions, and these are already coming into effect as he has stepped down from his leaderships roles. However before we condemn him for anything more, we need to look at the motives behind Jones’ accusations.

Jones said he did it as a “matter of principle”. But this man is a self proclaimed drug dealer and homosexual prostitute, yet people are putting blind faith in his accusations. Since this man obviously doesn’t hold to the principles I do, it begs the question of what principles did he find so offensive that made him feel he must shout his claim to the world? Was it because Mr. Haggard was scheduled to speak out against homosexual marriage in a political arena (with US elections looming)? The timing does seem a little too coincidental, and since I don’t believe in coincidences I can only come to the most obvious conclusion that this was the case. It wouldn’t be the first time that a gay activist group tried to rally support by propaganda spreading.

What I’m trying to say is look behind the motives of people. This may or may not have been Jones’ reason, but his obvious lack of character gives me cause to consider his accusations far less credible.

Bob

What is Marriage?

Question: Is marriage simply a union between to people that love each other?
Answer: No.

To explain further, marriage is the union between one man and one woman that love each other and come together to have and raise children. There is no such thing as “gay marriage”, there are gay unions but within the true definition of marriage there is no such thing as “gay marriage”. Marriage is for procreation not for recreation, and it has the vital function of passing down morals and values to the next generation. Marriage is FOR children or for the propagation of humanity; and in no way is this possible for, or between, to people of the same gender.

Is gay marriage really best for society, or are we bowing to the pressure of political correctness forced on us by those only interested in themselves (homosexual activists)? What benefit will this social experiment of gay marriage have, or better yet we should ask ourselves what further damage this will have on the already lowered morals and values of the next generation. .

People may think this is equality, but really it is more like giving in to a child that is throwing a temper tantrum. It is not for the benefit of everyone, but for the benefit of a partisan group (to quiet down the raucous child in other words). This is not something that should be taught as acceptable to our children, but taught as a deviation from normal due to unknown traumatic experiences. I also don’t feel it is in the best interest of children to be adopted or raised by a homosexual couple either, nor do I believe that we should be teaching in a public education system that this lifestyle is either appropriate or acceptable.

Homosexual marriage does not strengthen society, it weakens it by saying that morals are relative and that self desires override that of society as a whole.


Bob

Being Strong.

"A strong man stands up for himself, a stronger man stands up for others". It's ok to encourage these principles to children in movies like "Barnyard, The original party animals", but heaven forbid that adults should act on them.

Just a simple thought for those of you that disagree with the efforts in the middle east.

Bob

Hate speech

Hate speech.

Ok so what truly constitutes hate speech? I’m going to be blunt; hate speech is not any opinion opposing the views of any group (whether they are called evil or not), hate speech IS when someone tries to garner support for physical violence towards another group. PERIOD!

Freedom of speech allows me to say that Islam is a religion of evil; it even allows me to say that Islamic Muslims will be going to hell when they die. Freedom of speech DOES NOT allow me to incite violence against this group, which is not only what I believe to be wrong but is also common sense. (Unlike the current Muslim threat of violence against Israel and countries that support it.) So what is hate speech? Obviously that which threatens bodily harm on someone or promotes actions against any other group, not that which tells them they are wrong or that a different way may be right.

Again I heard this on CTV coming from a Muslim activist group, and I guess all I can say is know what you are talking about before you go spouting off rhetoric that could damage ALL freedom of speech.

So let’s recap: Hate speech encourages violence; Freedom of speech allows opposing opinions. Did I make that simple enough?

Bob

Cultural relevance vs. Christian conservatism.

One CTV news report today focused on how a church in Moncton, NB was trying to be “culturally relevant” in their community by holding a heavy metal concert for the youth. Although I understand that they are trying to draw the youth into the church, what does it matter if you draw them in with worldly enticements?

What point is there to draw them into the church by worldly offerings and throw a few minutes of God at deaf ears? Do you really think it matters to kids if they have to sit through a few minutes of “religious stuff” to get what they want? In a word, no! Instead of a house of worship this church was turned into a house of the world; and instead of presenting God to these youths in an appropriate manner by the church’s actions they told them that their selfish desires were acceptable.

In today’s youth culture which includes bad parenting, over stimulation by media sources and intense peer pressures, I understand how some might see this as a justifiable action to get the youth into the church. But just getting them in is not enough. Yes, I agree that kids need to realize that they are accepted as they are but just accepting them without mentoring or discipling is a waste of time and energy. For a quick analogy it’s like throwing the jack and tire iron at a flat tire and expecting it to fix itself.

I also have issues with defiling a house of worship with something as obviously anti-Christian as heavy metal music. Look at Christ’s example of righteous anger at the money changers; it’s not much different than when you allow music designed to balk at traditional religious morals (it was created to antagonize parents and promote and proselytize a worldly set of immoral values). The church isn’t here to give people their worldly desires, what it is here to do is teach people about God. I’m not saying this can’t be fun and exciting but to be effective for God it can’t conform (through acceptance or even encouragement of secular desires) to a fallen world.

This speaks directly to the teachings that youth pastors are being taught in Bible school, which I feel are become far too liberal in their attempts to “reach” the youth. There is no substitute for sound doctrine and good theology, and I feel that the latest crop of youth pastors are concentrating too much on fluff ministries that are more acceptable to the secular masses. Showing youth motorcycle stunts in a church parking lot before this concert was also irresponsible and unacceptable; it just goes to even further encourage them in worldly behaviour which in this case is very dangerous. This youth pastor in particular even admitted that he wasn’t there to “convert you to my religion”, so I have to ask what was he there to do? Was he just there to enjoy the concert too? Was he there to do anything for God? Mark Moore (loosely titled youth pastor) even went so far as to say "Jesus Christ loves you. He does not care what you've done,", but if Christ doesn’t care what we’ve done why did He have to come to save us from our sins? This is not only bad theology; it is unscriptural and ineffective evangelism. Moore also said "It's easy to be an arm-chair critic and sit at home if you're 40 or 50, and say, 'I can't believe this is happening,”, but it shouldn’t be (and isn’t) that I can’t believe it’s happening but rather that it is unacceptable no matter what age you are. This is just another attempt to erode Christian values with a justification of reaching today’s youth. It is yet another current trend in the church to offer the world where we should rather be a “light in the world” (Matthew 5:16, Luke 1:79, Eph 5:8) set apart from it. The Ten Commandments are not all there is to being a Christian, and if that’s how you are living you are forgetting (or discounting) salvation and repentance; the only way to heaven.

“Culturally relevant” does not have to mean culturally accepting, or even worldly (culturally) encouraging; there are many verses that tell us that the world will hate us and God’s feelings towards those “of the world”, so we need to be careful of the message we are sending the youth. Remember we are to bring a message contrary to worldly views, values and desires, so to encourage and accept those things in a house of the Lord is unacceptable. (1 John 2:15-16, John 15:19, 1 John 4:5). 1 John 4:1 specifically tells us to be careful of false prophets, and 2 Peter 2:1 warns us of false teachers. If you’re preaching or teaching it, you should make very certain that it lines up with the Word of God and not just your theology based on your desires and interests.

Bob