Anglican Church of Canada: Myopia 2019

Posted on by
3

These days, the fashionable thing for businesses to do is produce a Vision Statement; it’s normally an exercise designed to conceal the fact that they are in it for the money. Not that that is an entirely bad thing, but business today, in spite of having abandoned its moral compass, still wishes to present at least a veneer of decency to its customers; so it must pretend it has intangible “core values” however fleeting they may be.

Here is advice from Scotiabank on preparing a vision statement for your business.

But, finding your true vision is neither quick nor painless. It involves asking yourself some difficult questions and sorting through meaningless adjectives in search of the true values at the heart of your company. What are your deepest concerns? What do you hold as your core beliefs? Does your company exist for a purpose beyond just making money?

Similarly, the Anglican Church of Canada, having ceased to be a Christian denomination, is a business which needs a Vision Statement as a diversion from the painful fact that it is teetering on bankruptcy and extinction. Fred Hiltz is peddling Vision 2019, which, apparently “is an opportunity to say ‘here’s what I think our church needs to be about.'” Fred has no idea what church needs to be about, so he has to ask those whom he is pretending to lead. He is adept at generating meaningless adjectives, though and he expresses considerable glee at the prospect of acquiring cash:

Contrast this with someone who actually knew what he was doing, Archbishop William Temple, who declared:  “The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members”.

The Anglican Church of Canada, on the other hand, exists chiefly for the enrichment of its bishops’ pensions. As everyone already knows, its core value is left wing political agitprop.

This gives me the creeps

Posted on by
3

There are about 115,000 abortions per day worldwide; women have the freedom to choose abortion as a birth control option. These are real babies – some of whom are alive after they are aborted – killed for convenience.

But wait! After you have disposed of the inopportune accident, for a mere $4000 you can buy a finely detailed replica with its own heartbeat and body temperature; so realistic that it will trigger those elusive hormones to make you feel good. But it makes absolutely no demands on you! Not a doll; a fake baby.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm1wHYl-lRQ&feature=related]

For more weirdness go here and here.

Illusion: a sanitised alternative to reality.

How not to win friends in Canada

Posted on by
Reply

A principal losing his principles:

A New Brunswick principal who eliminated O Canada at the start or the school day says he is considering his future in teaching.

A euphemistic understatement from one whose extravagant politically correct imprudence has severely limited his teaching career choices in our home and native land.

What a twerp.

A New Brunswick principal who eliminated O Canada at the start or the school day says he is considering his future in teaching.

In an interview with CBC-TV, Erik Millett says his decision to stop the anthem at the start of the school day was taken out of context.

“I received probably over 2,000 emails, most of them hurling abuse at me, saying everything that I should be at the end of a bayonet, I should be shipped out of the country, I should be put on the front lines with the Taliban,” he said in a broadcast interview with CBC today.

“I bore a very heavy price for something that I think was very, very misrepresented in the media.”

Millett could not be reached for additional comment.

The principal of Belleisle Elementary School in Springfield, near Saint John, has said he stopped the anthem after receiving complaints from two parents who objected to it on religious grounds.

Yes the Canadian national anthem mentions God: get over it.

The compassionate financing of Hamas

Posted on by
Reply

Remember this, when the BBC was excoriated by every right left thinking zealot for not broadcasting advertisements asking for aid for Gaza?

The BBC’s instincts were right:

The Robbing of Gaza

In a rare admission of Hamas’ wrong-doing, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (“UNRWA”) promptly condemned Hamas in a sternly worded press release for seizing its humanitarian supplies by force on February 3, 2009. For once, UNRWA did not deem it necessary, in the name of moral equivalency, to attack Israel at the same time.

The UN Secretary General’s deputy spokesperson Marie Okabe reinforced UNRWA’s condemnation of Hamas by essentially paraphrasing its press release at a briefing held on February 4th at UN headquarters that I attended. I looked around at other peoples’ faces in the briefing room and some appeared as surprised as I was that, for the first time, we were witnessing UNRWA and the Secretary General’s office actually criticizing Hamas alone in such strong terms. However, the matter-of-factness with which the Secretary General’s deputy spokesperson read her statement – as opposed to the anger we always hear from UN spokespersons whenever Israel is criticized – conveyed a rather nonchalant attitude toward the whole thing as if it were an unfortunate but isolated event. Of course it is anything but.

The incident that brought this development about involved the confiscation of over 3500 blankets and 406 food parcels by police affiliated with Hamas, who broke into an UNRWA warehouse in the Shatti beach refugee camp and seized the aid supplies by force. The supplies were to be distributed by UNRWA to five hundred families in Gaza. The confiscation took place after UNRWA staff had earlier refused to accede to Hamas’ demand and hand over the aid supplies to the Hamas-run Ministry of Social Affairs. The reason for the refusal, UNRWA said, was to ensure that the assistance would actually reach the intended beneficiaries.

Hamas wants total control over all aid – supplies and money – in order to enhance its claims to legitimacy and to bestow favors to its supporters in Gaza while depriving its enemies of any assistance.

Hamas has no interest in relieving the suffering of the civilians under its rule. In fact, Hamas prevented its own people from reaching lsraeli medical facilities set up just outside Gaza. It has regularly intercepted humanitarian convoys and stolen food items that had been donated for free distribution to needy Gazans. Instead, they were sold in the black market. After using Palestinian civilians as human shields during the conflict with Israel, Hamas is now stealing aid intended for suffering women and children whose images Hamas wants to continue using for propaganda purposes.

Another example of Hamas using its own people’s suffering to further its own evil ends – and how the West fell for it yet again.

Free speech dies a slow death on Canadian campuses

Posted on by
Reply

From the National Post:

Should a public university, funded by taxpayers, be able to censor controversial speech on campus? According to the University of Calgary, the answer to this question is a resounding “yes.” In spite of its stated mission to “seek truth and disseminate knowledge,” and in spite of advertising itself as “a place of education and scholarly inquiry,” the University of Calgary has charged some of its own students with “trespassing” because they set up a pro-life display on their own campus this past November.

But in 2008, the University of Calgary wholly abandoned its commitment to free speech as a means of pursuing truth, and demanded the pro-life students erect their signs “facing inwards” — so that passers-by could not see the signs. While the university described its demand as a “reasonable compromise,” the practical effect was akin to total censorship.

[T]he university has expressed no qualms about other controversial large colour displays, including ones showing the effects of torture on political dissidents in China, the cruelty of animal testing and the consequences of spousal abuse. It seems gory and disturbing displays on campus are fine–as long as they do not convey a politically incorrect view on abortion.

The University of Calgary receives over $500-million from taxpayers each year. If it does not reacquaint itself with the ideals of tolerance, it may find taxpayers becoming less tolerant of footing such a hefty bill to support an institution which so blatantly disregards its own mission.

Displaying the signs “facing inwards” — so that passers-by could not see the signs and claiming this to be a compromise is an interesting approach by the university administration. It is an attempt to pay lip service to free speech by allowing students to display what they want while trying to ensure that no-one sees it. Like allowing a contentious book to be published, but only if it uses invisible ink.

The argument that photographs of aborted babies are sufficiently gory that the public should be spared being visually assaulted by them is a rather poor one since it views the depiction of  reality as more offensive than the reality itself. Photographs of murdered babies are less tolerable than the act of murdering babies.

And politically correct gore is allowed.

Lies, damned lies and Fred Hiltz lies

Posted on by
3

Fred’s view of what happened in Alexandria at the Primate’s meeting is here.

My observation is that in those dioceses where resolutions have been passed requesting the authorizing of rites for blessing same-sex unions the Bishops have shown gracious restraint. They have called for continuing discernment in some cases through the drafting and testing of such rites in a limited manner and have advised the House accordingly.  I am of the opinion that while our church struggles to honour the call for gracious restraint in blessing same-sex unions, those who are the proponents of cross-border interventions have and continue to show no restraint. I have endeavored to address this situation since the Lambeth Conference and I regret to say that to date a conversation with the pertinent parties has not been possible. I am disappointed and dismayed. My feelings are grounded in my care and concern for the Bishops and dioceses most adversely affected by these cross-border interventions.

First: the reason that phrases like “gracious restraint” are used is that it is impossible to pin down exactly what they mean. Thus, Hiltz can say that the New Westminster, Niagara, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto dioceses are exhibiting this quality – while obdurately doing what they have been asked not to do –  and bishops, clergy and others of a sensitive disposition do not swoon in horror at the audacity of the lie.

Second: Hiltz’s contention that the “proponents of cross-border interventions have and continue to show no restraint” is completely false: ANiC parishes have, to my certain knowledge, been restraining themselves for at least 30 years. During that time Hiltz and his predecessors have never deviated from their agenda of de-Christianising the Anglican Church.

Third: by using the phrase “proponents of cross-border interventions”, Hiltz is implying that people like Greg Venables are poaching in North American territory in order to expand their own empires. In assuming this, he makes the usual mistake of those whose life is given to grasping power: he cannot conceive that others might have motives that differ from his own. Venables wants to spread the gospel – at all costs; the parishes that have come under his jurisdiction wish to do the same.

Fourth: the “conversation with pertinent parties” is probably a reference to this, where Venables shrewdly asserts : ‘”I talked to Fred about this at Lambeth, but it never occurred to me that a private discussion would become public without us both agreeing first,” Bishop Venables told The Living Church. “It looks more like a publicity stunt than a serious desire for dialogue.’ Venables and Hiltz were at Alexandria together; if Hiltz was that keen on having one of his wretched “conversations”, I’m sure he could have.

Fifth: Hiltz mentions his feelings for “Bishops and dioceses most adversely affected by these cross-border interventions”. How about the people in the parishes that are being sued by the bishops that you have such feeling for, Fred? Again, the gospel is subservient to the power structure of the Anglican Church of Canada.

Malcolm Muggeridge used to say, ” you can have power or love, but you can’t have both”. Hiltz has chosen power.

Free to choose anything but Christ.

Posted on by
2

More evidence of anti-Christian bias in the UK; From the Telegraph.

Christian foster mother struck off after Muslim girl converts

A foster mother with 10 years’ experience was struck off after a Muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity, it has emerged.

The woman has been banned by her local council for failing to prevent the teenager from getting baptised, even though the girl was 16 and made up her own mind to change religion.

The carer, a churchgoer in her 50s who has fostered more than 80 children, has now been forced to move out of her home.

She has lost the farmhouse she rented to look after vulnerable teenagers, due to the loss of income.

Another girl she was looking after has been taken back into care.

The woman, who has launched a legal challenge to the council’s challenge, told the Daily Telegraph: “I just want to get my life back.

“I still hope to resolve this so that I can possibly foster again in the future as I simply enjoy helping young people.”

Religious groups and fostering charities condemned the council’s decision, which comes amid a nationwide shortage of foster parents.

Last year the Fostering Network launched an urgent appeal for more than 5,000 families to come forward

Christ does not force himself upon us and compel us to believe in him: God created us in his image which means we have free will; he wants us to freely choose him. In the same way, this girl was not forced to become a Christian by her care giver: she chose. The foster mother’s  local council, a branch of the UK Stasi, setting ideology above reason, followed its mandate to further the self-destruction of the civilisation it is supposed to be serving by punishing her.

Contrast the above with this:

Kidnapped Children Forced to Convert and Marry Muslims Lose Court Case.

Saba and Anila Younas, both Christian, were abducted June 16 by a group of Muslims, and forced to marry and convert to Islam. A doctor’s report establishes that the eldest is 16 years old and thus capable of marriage.

There are slim hopes for the return home of the two Christian girls kidnapped by a group of Muslims on June 26 from Chowk Munda village in Punjab. According to the defence attorney, the situation is more complicated for the older of the two sisters, Saba Younas, who was forced to convert to Islam and marry a young Muslim the day after her kidnap.

The god of Islam compels obeisance rather than offering salvation. The god of Islam is not God.

Why Muddled Delusions Galore (MDGs) won't help

Posted on by
Reply

The Anglican church’s idea of ending poverty is to assemble a bunch of old people, many of them men in funny Add an Imagepurple dresses, and get them to hold up traffic by parading along a street waving meaningless placards. After their exertions, they naturally repair to a posh venue to gorge themselves on delicacies.

Anglicans will gather in Ottawa and New York on Thursday, Sept. 25, to renew their call for governments around the world to demonstrate their commitment to end global poverty and other social justice priorities outlined by the United Nations Millennium Development goals (MDGs).

This is how Anglicans plan on ushering in the New Jerusalem.

Allowing free trade is a different approach and, according to the National Post is one that actually helps the poor rather than merely increasing the already substantial girth of pot-bellied bishops.

More human beings have escaped poverty in the past 20 years than in any equivalent period in the history of the world.

Since 1990, China and India have pulled hundreds of millions of their people out of want. Their people eat better, live longer, and enjoy some measure of security. As they have prospered, they have in turn enriched the advanced world, selling us cheap goods and services and buying our food and technology.

Ominously, the anti-recession actions undertaken by the advanced countries may well aggravate the global trade collapse. The U.S. House of Representatives stuck a “Buy American” provision into its US$800-billion-plus stimulus package. The Senate has now extended the measure, with a requirement that “all manufactured goods” purchased with government money come from US suppliers. This protectionist amendment carries the strong backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

More than the dialogue that so fascinates Obama, what the world needs most is trade, more trade. It is up to him to champion it, for his own country’s sake, and the world’s.

I wonder when Rowan Williams will march for free trade? Shortly after taking a stand against the rampant heresies in the North American church, I expect.