Posted in Blog, In the World

Become a PC party member by midnight tonight

If you are Ontarian, you have until midnight tonight to  register for PC party membership  in order to vote for the new leadership. You must be 14 years old, and the cost is $10.00.

Tanya Granic Allen, head of PAFE, Parents as First Educators, is running. She is not a career politician, but has been heavily involved in grassroots advocacy. She is a Christian mother who was very disillusioned with Patrick Brown.

Like many of us, she planned to support Monte McNaughton in the last leadership race. When he withdrew, he cast his support behind Brown, who was courting the social conservative vote. With our vote behind him, Brown won against Christine Elliot. But after winning party leadership, he abandoned the social conservative base. (I would say he more than abandoned us, he actually defrauded us, but that is a post for another day.) Like us, Mrs. Granic Allen was shocked and angered. She has been a strong voice against this all-too-commonplace political deception. I have been following her articles throughout this whole drama, and she has never been afraid to hold politicians accountable. (As she held Elliot accountable in yesterday’s debate, to the latter’s intense discomfiture.)

When we didn’t have a social conservative in this election,  Granic Allen stepped up. I couldn’t be more excited. This woman truly represents our commonsense, Christian voice in this race.

And she is already having an impact on the race, bringing the sexed curriculum to the forefront. Doug Ford has begun speaking against it, and Christine Elliot, who stated during the last leadership race that she would not be reopening it, is now stating that it needs to be reviewed. Our voice is being heard.

I have never been so fully in support of any candidate in any election before. For he first time, I am represented.

Watch yesterday’s debate and see if you are represented, too. And register for party membership, so you can make that representation matter.

Posted in Blog, In the World

Media Blackout on Parental Rights Hearing?

Ontario father Eustathios (Steve) Tourloukis was in Superior Court yesterday in Hamilton,  where Kathleen Wynne’s Attorney General allegedly argued to take away the father’s parental rights pertaining to the education of his children. I say allegedly because I can find only one source for this information, a blog written by Lee Iacobelli, the chair of Parental Rights in Education Defense Fund (PRIEDF), an organization which is financially supporting Mr. Tourloukis’ court case.

Why is the media so silent? This is a case with ramifications far beyond one father. If Premier Wynne and the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (EFTO), who have sought intervenor status in the proceedings, are successful, they will have set the precedent of revoking fundamental parental rights in education!

This is an extremely controversial curriculum. It was controversial in 2010, when it was first introduced by Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government. So controversial that he pulled it, promising not to reintroduce it without parental consultation, much to the chagrin of then-Minister of Education now-Premier Wynne.

It was controversial at the time of its implementation in September 2015, when it was discovered through documents disclosed via a Freedom of Information request that Wynne had lied to the public in her assurance that this curriculum had been revised with input from parental consultation.

It was controversial when the man in charge of the development of the curriculum,  former Deputy Minister of Education, Ben Levin, was arrested and convicted on child pornography charges.

It was controversial throughout the school year, as school enrollment plunged. While the government will not admit that the new sex-ed curriculum plays any role in this decrease in enrollment, Wynne certainly seems to feel threatened by it, going so far as to attack homeschooling  as outrageous and irresponsible.

And it remains so controversial, in fact, that concessions have been made to parents of students at Thorncliffe Park Public School. (Never mind the obvious bias of the CBC article, which makes the parents’ concerns seem ridiculous — that is for another blog post, another time) Despite Wynne’s previous assertions that she would not back down on this, in May 2016, the Toronto District School Board agreed to offer a “sanitized” version of the sex ed curriculum, in respect to the Muslim beliefs of the school population.

So why won’t Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) allow Mr. Tourloukis to be informed of what and when his children will be exposed to in contravention of his Greek Orthodox beliefs?

The Liberal government is just as full of obfuscation, doubletalk, and outright deception in the area of education as they are in every other scandal-ridden area.  Liz Sandals, Minister of Education in September 2015 as the curriculum rolled out, confirmed that parents would be allowed to opt out, stating that “It’s actually in the Education Act that a parent has the right to withdraw their child from content they don’t want their child to receive.”  Wynne confirmed that parents had the right to opt-out from objectionable content, although she could not help but place a moral judgment on those who would avail themselves of this right.

So why did Tourloukis have to actually take his school board to court in an effort to get them to comply with the Education Act? And why, when he did, has Wynne’s government prepared a factum stating the intention to have his parental rights to his children’s education revoked?.

Why is this not reported in the mainstream media?  Other than Mr. Iacobelli’s blog, you won’t find a word about yesterday’s hearing, presided over by Justice Reid at the Superior Court in Hamilton.

Mr. Tourloukis’ legal counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulis, replied to my email yesterday with the statement that “No decision was issued today. It will likely be several months.”

And if you want to find out what that decision is, you will have to hunt pretty hard for it.

Posted in Blog, In the World, Little Boots

Let Love Be Genuine

When explaining current events to my boys, I told them that ISIS persecute and kill those who do not agree with their religion. Terrorists from ISIS killed people in France, and every day they persecute people in their own country. Refugees fleeing from their homes are asking to come to Canada..

“But what if there are spies hidden within the refugees?” Encyclopedia Boots asked.

An eight-year-old boy, as free from racial and religious prejudice as only a child can be,  put his finger directly on the very real fear that many Canadians are facing.

“Well, yes, that is a risk,” I told him. “So what do you think Canada should do?”

In the media (both corporate and social), we seem to be so divided along party lines, speaking within a framework that is predetermined for us by our political leaders. But as Christians, having pledged our lives to the service of He who has died and risen for us, we must resist the urge to trot out the familiar soundbites of those pundits who espouse the values of our particular political bent. Our response, in this as in all things, must be to turn to the Word of God

 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”  And [Jesus] said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
Matthew 22:36-40

Sure, love my neighbour as myself, the Conservative Right acknowledges. But it goes on to ask: Are these 25,000 refugees, many of them Muslim, really my neighbours? Are we merely opening the door to a people who will bring the problems of their country into our own? 

When an expert in the law poses to Jesus the question “And who is my neighbour?”, Jesus responds with the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-36). This man, despised by the Jews for his race and religion, showed more mercy to the wounded Jew than did the priest and the Levite who passed him by. “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?”  He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.” (Luke 10:29-36)

Okay. So they are our neighbours. But what if there are terrorists hidden within the ranks of the well-intentioned refugees? If even 5% of the 25,000 are terrorists,  we would be inviting 1,250 terrorists into our country. Surely Christian compassion cannot mean that we are to put the welfare of our own country at risk by helping our Syrian neighbours, at the risk of bringing in potential enemies.

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.  To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

 If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.  Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. Luke 6:27-36

As Christians, we must not be ruled by fear.

On the other hand, it seems that the Liberal Left, in its eagerness to prove its distinctiveness from the Conservative Right, moves past compassion and into foolhardiness.

Trudeau has pledged to welcome 25,000 refugees by year end. They are vetting 100 each day. But to meet the self-imposed deadline, he will need to process refugees almost ten times faster! How can they reasonably expect to screen almost 1000 people each day, and still maintain adequate security?

And yet those even further left on the political spectrum, are quick to dismiss these security concerns as hateful prejudice and fear-mongering. NDP leader Tom Mulcair has even criticized Trudeau’s policy of attempting to keep out terrorists by excluding single men in favour of women, children and families.  Mulcair states that this is “simply wrong,” and “not the Canadian way.”

Is it really so wrong to give preferential treatment to those who are most vulnerable?

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. James 1:27

Obviously, there is a security concern. Even an eight-year-old, who has no idea of the skin colour or the religion of the “bad guys” in ISIS, can see that. We needn’t prove our compassion by affecting blindness.

But that valid security concern does not veto our obligation to help our fellow man. They have asked for help, and we can give it. As Christians, we must give it.

Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good…Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them .. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all… Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:9,14,18,21

Part of living peaceably with all, so far as it depends on us, includes taking appropriate security precautions (abhoring what is evil) to preserve the peace within our nation. We need to forget arbitrary deadlines given as election platforms. Take the necessary time to screen the refugees fully and carefully as possible. And then welcome them, in genuine love.

Posted in Blog, In the World

Prier pour Paris

One day after the terrorist attack which killed 129 people (so far) in Paris, France, you may see several posts circulating the internet in an attempt to shame people for praying for Paris. Because Paris wasn’t the only victim of terrorist action in the last couple of days. There was also an attack that killed 19 people in Baghdad, Iraq. And one that killed 43 people in Beirut, Lebanon, over the past couple of days. One of these posts claims racism is the reason that Paris is garnering more attention — because it is white people who died in Paris.

The attack in Paris resonates with us strongly in North America. It hits us close to home because Paris is familiar, not in colour, but in culture.

If you are American, France was, as Obama declared yesterday, one of your nation’s oldest allies. Don’t forget where the Statue of Liberty came from.

And if you are Canadian, France is the motherland to a large portion of the population. As Trudeau reminded us yesterday, they are our French cousins.

Paris is not just a popular, familiar tourist destination; it is a nation connected deeply to the roots of our own.

There is another reason why this tragedy has made such big news — it is newsworthy because it is rare. This is in stark comparison to the attacks that happen daily — yes, literally daily — in the Middle East. According to the wikipedia article circulated by the anti-mourners, there have been more than 300 terrorist attacks so far this year, only a handful on Western soil, and certainly none so large as the one in Paris yesterday.The overwhelming majority are in the Middle East.

The fact that Islamic terrorists are killing innocent people in the Middle East on a daily basis should not stop us from praying for their victims in Paris — we need more prayer, not less.

Of course we are mourning for France. Not only are we entitled to this outpouring of emotion for our oldest ally, our cousin, but France is entitled to this outflowing of prayer support from us.

I have to wonder if these posters would have espoused the same anti-mourning declarations after 9/11? I don’t think an American audience in those traumatized days would have stood for such an anti-American sentiment. We should not stand for such anti-France sentiment now.

But please know that our prayer for Paris does not mean that we are not also praying for the Middle East. We are.

The video prayer that I linked to in my tribute post to France is from Operation World, a site with prayer videos to help us pray for every nation. Sign up for their daily email to receive a video prayercast for a different nation every day.

And yes, Pray for Lebanon! Pray for Iraq!

But don’t let anybody shame you for praying for France.

Posted in Blog, In the World

Christian Worldview vs. the Potterverse

Spoiler Alert: But come on, if you haven’t read the Potter books yet, are you really ever going to?

I was on another forum, discussing whether or not the Harry Potter books are appropriate reading material for Christian children. These are my answers.

Is Harry Potter a type of Christ, as is Aslan in the Narnia stories?

Aslan is a metaphor for Christ because he is the sinless creator of worlds, who comes to the aid of Narnia, suffering and dying in the place of sinful man (Edmund), and restoring the world of Narnia.HP1

Harry is more like the children of Narnia than the God of Narnia. He is a normally-sinful little boy who disobeys his professors and argues with his friends. The idea that he is a type of Christ, just because he is on the side of “good” when compared to Voldemort’s evil, is a really dangerous idea, and shows a huge misunderstanding of the gospel message.

Because there is no Creator in the Potterverse, and no arbiter of a universal good and evil, there can be no consequence for sin. Indeed, sin is not even a concept to be explored. There is good and there is evil, but “good” is not a concept in itself, defined by the goodness of God. Indeed, good can only be defined as anything that is not evil, defined by the badness of Voldemort. So the Potterverse has a devil, but not a god.

Take for example, the chapter where Harry, Ron & Hermione disobey explicit instruction from Professor Dumbledore by sneaking out of bed in the night in order to fight Voldemort. Are we to say that their decision was right, because they are the “good guys?”

Consider that they cast a spell on poor little Neville Longbottom, who is trying to obey Dumbledore in telling them to go back to their rooms. In the relativist morality of the Potterverse, it’s okay that they cast a spell on him, because they are justified in their disobedience because they are on a well-intentioned mission to foil the evil Voldemort. In the Potterverse, the ends justify the means. How very Machiavellian!

When Edmund betrays his brother and sisters in Narnia, there is a consequence. Indeed, Aslan Himself takes that punishment for Edmund. Remind you of anyone? This is why Aslan is a type of Christ.

When Harry Potter betrays Neville Longbottom, there is no consequence for this action. Indeed, this is the very night on which he succeeds in defeating Voldemort (the first time). There is a huge celebration, where he is rewarded for his actions by Dumbledore, the same professor whom he disobeyed. Certainly, Neville is also rewarded by Dumbledore for his bravery in standing up to Harry, but there is no consequence to Harry’s disobedience.

If Harry Potter is a type of Christ, he is a type of a Christ who never existed. He is a type of a Christ who would never have taken the cup of suffering given to him by his Father, but instead, who would have taken arms as Peter wanted to, and fought the forces of evil on his own terms. He is a type of a Christ who could never have led us to salvation, because it is in humility and submission that Christ did this, not in rebellion and disobedience.

Aslan, dying on the Stone Table for Edmund’s sin, is a type of Christ. Harry Potter, in his rebellion towards authority, is more a type of Edmund! But because Harry Potter lives in a godless universe, where morality is relative, where good has no definition of itself other than “not evil,” there is no consequence for sin, and no need for Christ.

But what about the last book, where Harry sacrifices himself for his friends?

Romans 5: 7-8: For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Christ died for sinners, who fell vastly short of God’s standards. Christ was able to provide a sacrifice for us because He was not a sinner. That’s the whole point of a Saviour. We are unable to save ourselves, because we are just not good enough (because God sets the standard of “good.”)

Harry died for his friends, who followed the same morality he did. They were all good, in comparison to Voldemort.

Harry is the one (in Romans 5) who will dare to die for a good person, while Christ is the sinless one who died for sinners.

The Christian worldview is based on God’s standard of morality. He decides what is good and what is evil. So God is good, and whatever is opposed to Him is evil. That includes all of us, (for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God: Romans 3:23) so we are all in need of a Saviour.

The Potterverse is based on Voldemort’s standard of morality. Voldemort is evil, and whatever is opposed to Him is good. So anyone who opposes Voldemort is good, and therefore has no need of a Saviour.

Harry Potter is a good kid, a nice guy, brave and self-sacrificing. He sacrifices himself in order to save others who are nice, good people, others who are opposed to Voldemort’s standard of evil. But He is no Christ.

But not every story has to be a gospel allegory in order for Christians to read it.

Certainly not. But the previous has been in response to the idea — presented by a religion teacher, of all things! — of Potter being a metaphor for Christ. The question of whether Harry Potter is appropriate for Christians to read is a separate issue, one best left to the individual Christian and his/her parents to determine.

If parents are using Harry Potter to springboard discussion about the Christian worldview vs. moral relativism, more power to them.

The bigger issue is that many Christians don’t recognize the flaw in the worldview, and imagine that it is compatible with a Christian worldview. They are not using the book to springboard critical thinking and discussion. They are merely allowing the world’s errant philosophies to enter their child’s perception of the world, unchecked.

As Christians, we need to be vigilant… especially when it comes to our children. Certainly, all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. (1 Cor 10:23)

Posted in Blog, In the World

Poor Dumb Ontario

Kathleen Wynne really thinks you’re dumb.

You keep protesting this curriculum, and that can only mean that you don’t understand it.

She obligingly set out to inform you, generously budgeting $1.8 million in taxpayer funds (according to the London Free Press) for radio, print and online ads throughout June and July.

But that wasn’t enough! Protests across the province showed her that the ignorant, unwashed masses remained ignorant and un(brain)washed. She had no choice but to continue to inform you how great this curriculum really is, using more of your money. You’d thank her for this one day.

But these dumb parents kept showing up at protests throughout Ontario. Some even insisted that they would enrol their children in private school or homeschool. How irresponsible and outrageous!

Just whose children are they, anyway? Anyone would think that parents believed themselves to have more authority over their children than Kathleen Wynne has!

Clearly, something had to be done. Money had to be spent. A television ad was produced. How much more (above the original $1.8 million budgeted for print and radio) of your money was spent convincing you that you really like this curriculum?

But you don’t really need to know that, do you?. In any event, Wynne refuses to tell you (according to The Globe & Mail).

She will decide what you need to know, just as she will decide (with the help of Benjamin Levin) what your child needs to know about sex.

As for that promise that parents would have the right to exclude their child from objectionable content? Turns out that would be a violation of human rights.

We shouldn’t be surprised that Freedom of Information documents show that she didn’t really consult with Ontario parents, as promised after McGuinty pulled the curriculum in 2010 due to tremendous opposition. After all, you’re not smart enough to know what’s best for your kids.

If only she spends enough of your money on ads, surely she can make you understand that she is the best person to teach your child about sexuality. She only wants to keep your child safe, after all. Didn’t you see the commercial?

And if you still disagree, well, it must be because she’s gay. If you’re not dumb, you must be homophobic.