An initiative of  

Search
Twitter
Email Subscription

Get this blog sent to you by entering your email address:

Navigation
Monday
08Mar2010

The Value of a Life: An Unborn Child, A Chihuahua and Cacti

Hugo, the fuzzy ChihuahuaWhat is the value of a life? A human life? A dog’s life? A potted plant?

I have shared in the past that I am pro-life and told my story publicly. I believe that all life comes from God, that He made man in His image, and that human life is therefore of inestimable value. As such, it follows that I hold the lives of humans as being of greater value than other forms of life.

Don’t get me wrong – I believe in caring for all of creation. At home, I have a little white furry Chihuahua with medical needs, coincidentally much like my own. We have sought veterinary help for him and he’s on the appropriate medications. I care lovingly for my office plants, though they never fare as well as Hugo the Chihuahua. A girl can try.

In Canada, when it comes to the value of the life of the unborn child, our country’s policies and laws express that it is of no value. In the courts, it has been made clear again and again that the unborn child, the fetus, has no status of personhood. The child’s life can be ended up to the ninth month of pregnancy (really, it’s true).

This occurred not because we expressly stated, as a nation, that we believed that an unborn child should have no legal standing. Rather, it is because an imperfect access-to-abortion law was challenged many years ago by Henry Morgentaler. The Supreme Court of Canada found it imperfect enough to strike it down and left it to Parliament to redraft another law. No government has had the sufficient desire, courage or concern to do so. And while public opinion is far from settled on the matter, wild shrieking can be heard up and down Wellington Street each time a Member of Parliament even mutters a comment on the topic of abortion.

Further, western society feels a growing need to make light of the life of the aborted child and seek additional protections for other life forms.

We have BUMP+ in which ‘fictional reality’ characters give the decision to abort or not to the audience. As stated on their website “the choice is (really) up to you.”

In February, Angie Jackson live tweeted her RU-486 abortion. Initially started to casually demystify and chronicle the “4 hour bleed out” abortion, it led to a days-long painful process during which she suffered many of the known adverse reactions. Planned Parenthood had unfortunately failed to share with her the comments made by RU-486’s inventor, Dr. Baulieu, who has stated that it’s “insulting to women to say that abortion now will be as easy as taking aspirins. It is always difficult, psychologically and physically, sometimes tragic.”

While the unborn child has no rights, the Swiss government in particular is considering two right protection moves. Recently a national referendum was held to determine whether animals have the right to legal counsel.

Ethicists in that country are also pondering “plant rights”. Experts are taking the time to “debate the finer points of plant dignity with university ethicists.” And while an important consideration undergirds the debate, that of genetic modification, one must stop and consider where we’ve come – in one Western nation, there is a treaty which states that arbitrary “decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside” is immoral and another that ignores the plight of the unborn. Let’s not forget that decapitation of a child occurs in certain abortion procedures.

The life of the unborn child matters. It has value. However, the lives of the woman and man who turn to abortion as a solution for an unwanted pregnancy are also of inestimable worth. They too were created in God’s image. They are deserving of dignity, love and respect. I believe that loving and respecting women such as Ms. Jackson would be fully sharing with her the facts of abortion, the known short-term and long-term side effects, and offering to provide support to her and her child.

Abortion does not implicate the health and value of one life. It implies the value of three, and its effects ripple out to our society as a whole.

Monday
01Mar2010

Canada’s Government and Sunday Voting

Here’s hoping that Wednesday’s “Speech from the Throne” won’t feature the return of a Harper government bill that has been twice opposed by the EFC and by the broader Christian community.

The Expanded Voting Opportunities Act has twice appeared in the House of Commons as a government bill and twice died with prorogation. Let’s hope it stays that way.

The legislation proposes amending the Canada Elections Act to add full scale, no holds barred, all polls open Sunday voting on the day immediately preceding Election Day, currently a Monday in Canada.

It’s true that it used to be easier to decide what to do on a Sunday. Christians went to church and everyone else had the day off. These convictions are no longer a reality in the majority of the nation’s retail sector, but they are still a reality for nearly all Christian worship services.

In an effort to address falling voter turnout, the Canadian Government has landed on a proposal to increase the number of advance polling days. The proposal is to add two Sundays of voting to the agenda.

The first Sunday would be added to the existing Friday, Saturday and Monday a week before election day when a limited number of polling stations are open in each district from noon until 8 p.m. In a pluralist society, where a broad accommodation of religious interests is sought, this seems a reasonable and accommodating proposal. Intentional or not, this would spread the opportunity to attend advance polls over significant days of worship for several religious communities – Muslims on Friday, Jews and Seventh Day Adventists on Saturday, and most Christians on Sunday.

The second Sunday, however, is the day immediately preceding Election Day and is proposed to be a mirror image to Election Monday’s full polling day, with all polling stations open. The only difference from Election Day is that the polls would be open from noon to 8 p.m. instead of the full 12 hours of the following day. Essentially, this could be the first step toward replacing Monday elections in Canada with Sunday elections.

We have Sunday shopping, so one might ask, “What’s wrong with Sunday voting?”

For one thing, Statistics Canada reports that approximately 1/3 of Canadians, over 11 million people, regularly attend church on Sundays. In order to open every polling station in the country, Elections Canada will be competing directly with churches for space. In communities where church space is used for polling or where space in schools and community centres that is normally used by churches on a Sunday will be required for polling, Christian churches will pay the price.

In 2007, Chief Electoral Office Marc Mayrand testified before a parliamentary committee that 11% of the facilities used for polling during a federal election in Canada are church buildings or other places of worship.

Along with many others, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada encourages voting as a part of active civic engagement. No one denies the importance of voting to the democratic system of government. And, Canadians have become accustomed to hearing how voting continues for days, weeks or months in some nations – usually, those nations that lack the electoral and communications infrastructure that is present in Canada (the USA, with 10x the population, manages to do it in one day). People who are determined to vote on a Sunday can, however, already do so by means of the mail in ballot available to any Canadian who so chooses.

Additionally, if one were to set aside the issue of religious infringement, one has to question whether essentially doubling the cost of Canada’s federal elections – for rental space and the salaries of those operating the polling stations – is justifiable in the pursuit of percentage points.

Ultimately, however, in Canada’s pluralist society no government should initiate or engage in the infringement of the worship practices of a significant number of Canadians when it is not essential to do so.

Friday
26Feb2010

Why are people afraid of “Christ”?

New Democratic Party MP Pat Martin invited others to join him in an attack on a good public policy project in Winnipeg that would seem otherwise to be non-objectionable but that the plan is promoted by an organization that has “Christ” as a part of its name. Let’s be clear, if this was “Youth for Youth” or “Youth for Young People on the Street” or even the YMCA – formerly known as the Young Men’s Christian Association, and still motivated by its founding values – there would be no objection. 

The location of the proposed building is a long vacant lot in a needy area of downtown Winnipeg. The project is designed to meet a longstanding need identified by the City and no one else has advanced a proposal to meet the needs in question. The City has been actively looking for someone to handle this or a similar project in this neighbourhood. Councillors admit the current youth facilities in the downtown core are in a state of disrepair. The federal, provincial and municipal governments assessed this as a valuable undertaking, although the provincial government has backtracked on its commitment following Mr. Martin’s diatribe.

Another similar proposed project was scheduled to receive funding using federal infrastructure dollars coming to the city, but that project fell through because the sponsor was unable to make the financial commitment that Youth For Christ (YFC) has agreed to make to get the project done. In the youth centre equation, no self-funding means no public funding means no youth centre.

YFC is not the extreme fundamentalist organization portrayed by some who have objected. YFC has given us some great examples of people who are respectful of others in meeting their needs. Billy Graham started with YFC and developed his internationally respected ministry that offers people freedom of choice to make their own decision. Brian Stiller led YFC in Canada before moving to The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and heightening the voice for pluralism in the public square, focusing on the development of good public policy. And Tim Huff, currently with YFC in Toronto, has expressed the approach to loving youth neighbours living on the street in his excellent book Bent Hope.

YFC is definitely motivated by the Man who said those who follow Him are called to “love your neighbour as yourself.” No one has come forward to meet this need motivated by belief in “survival of the fittest.” In fact, the ardent relativists, sanguine secularists and pugnacious atheists who object to the project are doing just that, objecting, and offering no constructive alternative solution.

Canada has never had a constitutional or other recognition of the “separation of church and state” message that is being spouted by opponents. Canada has a long recognition of the differences between church and state, a healthy recognition that both serve overlapping constituencies and longstanding cooperation between the two when it makes good public policy sense to do so. Hospitals, schools, half-way houses, shelters … and the list goes on … have been initiated by those motivated by love for neighbour and cooperatively developed with government, sometimes moving into government hands and sometimes receiving government funding. Organizations like YFC, The Salvation Army, World Vision and others have all stretched government dollars to an increased level of effectiveness while their faith motivation established superior service delivery as well.

The wise use of funds for a good public policy initiative in the general interest of society is sound decision making on the part of any government. While social relativists or self-described secularists speak of tolerance, YFC and similar Christian faith-based organizations are motivated by love in what they do. They are motivated by Christ’s love that demands contemporary standards of child protection screening and parental consent when working with children while shunning manipulative methods that, in the end, would not be at all loving.

It was heartening to see that Mr. Martin has changed his position since the final decision was made and he realized he had lost the debate. Pluralist engagement in the public square results in all sides having opportunity to be heard, then working with the outcome once the decision is made. It’s unfortunate that the damage done by Mr. Martin’s earlier stand has cost provincial dollars and caused unnecessary unrest for YFC and other community stakeholders to work through as what will be an excellent community resource begins development.

People who object to compassion, care and concern being shown by the commitment of a Christian organization but offer no alternative lessen their legitimacy to speak on the issue. I encourage them to first find their motivation to engage positively, start doing the work and then let’s work together for the greater good. But if you’re simply a naysayer, then please get out of the way and let good be done – good public policy, good use of public funds and good resources for a community in need of them.



Monday
22Feb2010

Child Pornography and Canada’s Minister of Justice

This past weekend I attended the extremely well organized Christian Legal Fellowship National Christian Law Student Conference hosted by University of Ottawa law students. Kudos to organizers for a great event with great speakers, including Justice Minister Rob Nicholson as the keynote speaker for the opening session on Thursday night.

I arrived a little late as it can be hard to break away from a conversation with a Chippewa elder (and I really enjoy the wisdom he had to share), but that’s a story for a different day. Because of my late arrival I didn’t hear all of Minister Nicholson’s talk but did hear some words of wisdom shared by a Conservative elder, Nicholson having been first elected to Parliament in 1984.

We live in a hyper-sexualized culture and children are, unfortunately, not immune from it. Sex sells cars, clothes and children’s toys. Unfortunately, sex with children also sells and so do images of that action.

Nicholson was a member of the cabinet in the Progressive Conservative government that enacted section 163.1 of the Criminal Code in 1993. The production, possession, sale and distribution of child pornography in Canada is illegal as a result.

In November 1998, the law was challenged by John Robin Sharpe who had been charged with two counts of possessing child pornography. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, having been engaged on this issue since the 1980s and involved in the passing of the law in 1993, stood before the court as an intervener in its defense. The law was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, with two exceptions: written or visual presentation created by an individual from his or her imagination and held for his or her exclusive personal use; and, visual recording that did not depict unlawful sexual activity, created with the consent of the participants and held exclusively for personal use. At the time of the decision in R. v. Sharpe, that meant that those able to legally consent to sexual activity with an adult could be filmed while doing so, an age set at 14 since the enactment of the Criminal Code in the 1890s.

As Government Leader in the House of Commons, and subsequently Minister of Justice, Nicholson oversaw the introduction and enactment of legislation to reduce the gap established in R. v. Sharpe by raising the age of consent to sexual activity with an adult from 14 to 16 years of age effective May 1, 2008. Nicholson stated on Thursday evening that he was pleased to have played a role in protecting children from predators in both adding child pornography to the Criminal Code and increasing the protection afforded children by two more years with the change in age of consent.

Noting his personal concern for the protection of children, Nicholson was pleased to tell students that although Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, had died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued, the government would be reintroducing the legislation when the next session begins in March.

People of faith can and do engage in the political process, making a difference and making good public policy motivated by the faith that inspires them. The students were impressed with Minister Nicholson’s perspective and accomplishments. And, we look forward to the re-introduced legislation in the hope that it will move quickly through House and Senate to continue to extend the protection of children that is part of the legacy of the Honourable Rob Nicholson’s career.

As I wrote on December 1, 2009, “Children deserve the right to be children, protected – not perverted – by all adults in their life.”

Tuesday
16Feb2010

CAUT Does not Discriminate Against “Fundamentalist Christians”

Last week I wrote about the Canadian Association of University Teacher’s (CAUT) witch-hunt directed toward faith-based institutions. In short, they believe that a university whose staff members sign a statement of faith is incapable of fostering an environment of academic freedom. Case in point: CAUT conducted a ‘random’ investigation of Trinity Western University and placed them on a black-list.

ChristianWeek has published a recent article on the same matter. CAUT representatives were interviewed and asked for an explanation.

James Turk, a CAUT executive, explained that it is not bias or anti-Christian discrimination or sentiment that motivated their investigations. As evidence of CAUT’s good faith, he states,

If a fundamentalist Christian were barred from working at a university because of their religious beliefs, we'd be every bit as outraged.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Mr. Turk is referring to Evangelicals when he references  “Fundamentalist Christians.” I make this inference because CAUT’s investigations took place at Evangelical schools, not fundamentalist schools. Although, in fairness, perhaps Mr. Turk is aware of the differences. But, it is important to be clear.

Most of the Evangelical Christian community in Canada self-identifies as “Evangelical” and not as “Fundamentalist Christians”.

The term “Fundamentalist Christians” has, decades ago in regard to Canadian Evangelicals, been recognized as a pejorative label which often insinuates  a narrow-mindedness and negative rules-based approach to religion. It is not an accurate portrait of who we are or what we believe.

If CAUT wants to demonstrate good faith and respect for Canada’s Evangelical community and their institutions, they should start using the appropriate language and terminology. This will go some distance toward facilitating any discussion that might take place.

On that point, Mr. Turk, please don’t hesitate to contact me. I’d be happy to walk this through with you.

Related Posts with Thumbnails