The sad news is that if you belong to a Christian Group called Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, the Canadian Arm of the Gaystapo will try to prevent you from entering Canada.
The good news is that the Canadian Arm of the Gaystapo will immediately get some sex-sex loving from the “appeal” instance, which if I understand correctly was merely an administrative on the spot decision without the need to address any immigration court.
Yes, the Gaystapo will try to silence Christians wherever they are, or wherever they go. Yes, they will bully public officers – in this case, frontier police – to do their bidding. But no, it won't be so easy as the West hopefully wakes up to Gaystapo oppression as it woke up to Global Warming liberal hysteria.
There is a long way in front of us. But we have a strong tradition of freedom of expression on our side. I trust in the end – not without time and trouble, and losses – this tradition will prove stronger than the Gaystapo offensive currently under way.
Two recent sentences of the Canadian justice have recently reinforced the position of normal people against the growing phalanx of Nazis nowadays going around undisturbed under the guise of liberals.
One of the two sentences is particularly notable because of the circumstances: the doctors demanded the right to kill the patient, the wife was opposed.
One truly wonders what has become of mental sanity in the West, if situations like these occur in the first place. Doctors. Suing. To. Kill. Their. Patient.
One cannot avoid thinking Satan is making overtime, and not without success.
Still, one must notice with a certain satisfaction that at least in the case of so-called euthanasia we might not have to witness the diabolical extremes reached in the case of sodomy. The Canadian parliament has overwhelmingly rejecting a relative legislative proposal, and the obvious strengthening of pro-life positions in the coming years will perforce cause more and more people to reflect very attentively about the life of the vulnerable on the other end of natural life.
Let us enjoy the good news for today. We are approaching decades in which we will have to learn to savour to the last all the good news we get.
As a man coming from a so-called civil law country (a legal system common to most countries in Continental Europe, in which judicial power is much more restrained than in Anglo-Saxon, common law systems) I never cease to be amazed at the power elected democracies leave in the hands of people with either none or only indirect democratic representation. The result of the system is that small cliques of “progressives” (which very often means “perverts, Nazis, and their friends”) judges can demolish one piece at a time the Christian edifice of a country, possibly for their own personal advantage (see the faggot judge of California’s “Proposition 8”).
A telling example is the recent Canadian decision about assisted suicide, with a woman behind the decision (I thought they were against the “judging”; but it must only apply when they don’t like the judgement) of striking down the law which declares assisted suicide “unconstitutional”. I hope this will have further episodes.
Still, it turns out the woman is, as you would expect, an old abortionist,and it is certainly not surprising she should now take position against the protection of life (and democratic representation be stuffed). She who is able to approve the killing of unborn children will certainly not have any problem in killing old people.
We cannot know whether the lady is planning to take advantage of her decision on her own skin (these judges hate to do illegal things, I am told) and as a Catholic I can certainly not suggest that she do so. On the contrary, as a Catholic I have the unsavoury but, in the end, salutary duty to pray for the old female ungulate.
In the end, if she repents there will be, during the appropriate punishment in purgatory, sufficient time to regret the decision.
If she doesn’t, the time will be much longer.
From Father Z’s blog, a barely believable – if we lived in normal times – story about a canadian Catholic school. In said Catholic school the idea of having a crucifix in every classroom was in the past considered – for reasons I do not even want to think about – not really necessary. I know, I know…..
This year, this state of things changed and every classroom was equipped with his crucifix.
Thinking that this would make some explanation necessary (a crucifix: what will then that be, one wonders….), a teacher (and principal of the school) decided to give some “explanations” to every class in the school.
The explanation centered about Jesus not having physically risen from the dead. Not only Easter, but the entire concept of divinity of Christ, and with that of Trinity, goes herewith out of the window as I can’t understand why God would decide that he can resurrect, but prefers not to and tells us a lie about it instead, clearly allowing this lie to be believed for some 20 centuries before a Canadian minus habens comes along.
Because this is, according to one brave girl who immediately challenged him, what is all about: Jesus “never resurrected”, the whole thing is “like a metaphor that you follow” and, you know, “people have taken the Bible too literally”.
In the view of this “enlightened” teacher in a Catholic school, the “moral” that Jesus died is right but hey, “the story is wrong”. The man is, at this point, launched toward the creation of a completely new religion and dutifully delivers: “Because He died in our honour we should be nice to each other,” or if you prefer to put it another way “the crucifix represents helping others” and when the students look at it “that’s all it’s supposed to mean”.
And there, a new religion is born. This new religion, “BeNiceAnity”, has a vague flavour of Christianity and actually can even tolerate a Crucifix, but not without an explanation that says: “hey, don’t take it all too literally with this Christ: the chap is still six feet under (at which Mundabor would have asked: “where’s the body? Who has stolen it? Who has lied about it? Why?”) and you must just relax, be nice to each other and try to be helpful” (and, no doubt, inclusive).
I don’t want to think what private issues a man can have to want to blasphemously offend Christ in this way, in his role as teacher, in a Catholic school, but one doesn’t have to be a genius to see that they must be huge.
One would wish the chap all the best in his chosen new professional path. Whatever that is, I’m sure he’ll be better at that than he was at teaching.
You would think that the Anglicans, even if progressively forgetting what Christianity is, would still retain a minimum of decency and at least defend a very simple concept, that one first is accepted into the Christian community through his baptism and then receives communion.
Well, you would be wrong. Apparently, somewhere in the world (a very “liberal” place, no doubt; Canada comes to mind) someone has decided that to require one to be baptised before giving him communion is not “inclusive” enough.
If you don’t believe me (and I don’t blame you if you don’t) read here.
The argument brought against the hineous discrimination of non-Christians is that Jesus “did not discriminate” (note the magic word) about whom he invited. The fact that Jesus insisted on being baptised Himself is elegantly avoided, because obviously not “inclusive”.
Similarly, the fact that the twelve were, to all intents and purposes, bishops and as such full members of the nascent Church already founded on Peter when He instituted the Eucharist is also conveniently ignored.
Thirdly, two thousand years of Christianity is utterly ignored.
Instead, we are informed that Christianity – Catholics as well as the wrong versions – has been discriminating against non-Christians these last 2011 years, which poses the interesting question as to why would Jesus allow this to happen and why would he wait for some Canadian nutcase 2011 years after the fact to correct this – we are informed – clearly un-Christian practice.
The state of utter oblivion of everything Christian within the Canadian Anglicans is clearly visible in the use of the words, with some of their so-called priests feeling strongly about this, that is: thinking that Christianity had done such fundamental, absolutely basic things since inception in a seriously wrong way and that this must stop now. No doubt, these individuals dream of “common tables” when Hindus, Muslims, Sikh and, why not, atheists with a liking for bread (we want to be “inclusive”, remember?) participate to such an “inclusive communion” and this would be called by them, possibly, Christianity. Or perhaps not, as it is clear that in this case to want to impose a label on such a ceremony would be clearly a discrimination towards non-Christians and therefore also to be felt strongly about.
It is no surprise than this should come from the same community (the Canadian Anglicans) already well-known for giving communion to a dog. These people just haven’t a clue of what communion is, and of what Christanity is. Political correcteness and inclusiveness is all they know and all they preach.
You really couldn’t make this up. I have known Muslims far more Christian than these people, and they weren’t Christian at all.