Tuesday, 11 August 2009

Told You So...

American Graduates Finding Jobs in China

This story reminded me again what I have thought for some time and what I have posted on in the past Here... and Here...

Some excerpts from my previous posts:
I believe that the greatness of our western society parallelled its Christian heritage, and now that our society's Christian faith is waning and that of Asia is on the ascent, our respective societies are going to fall and rise correspondingly.

I truly expect that some of our children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren (depending upon the generation of the reader) will be emigrating (west across the Pacific)to Asia some day, much as many of our forebears came to this country from Europe (west across the Atlantic.)

...I have said it before, but must say it again, that (I believe) China will not only be a great nation, it will be a Christian nation. And the pattern of God's blessing on those who honour Him will not be broken.

I am not trying to point to a prosperity gospel, but I think our North American societies and liberal religious leaders might bear 1 Samuel 2 in mind:
Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained (1 Samuel 2:30b)

Just remember, when the time comes...

Take Care

H/T TitusOneNine

Wednesday, 5 August 2009

The Death of Sanity?

I know nothing of this case, a fight for child custody now occuring in Nova Scotia, beyond seeing Blog posts Here... and here...
Tomorrow a court in Canada may grant full custody of two small girls to the father who has been credibly accused of molesting one of them. This man, by his own testimony in court, is lazy and works only part of the time during the year...
He is seeking, by his own testimony, alimony and child support from his wife...
He admits that he slept with other women while his second child was on the way..
He admits that, when the children were in his keeping, he forced one of them to sleep in the same bed with him and the woman he had over...
His drawings, hundreds of them, show him to be a deeply disturbed young man (they apparently include images of pornography, violence against women and father/daughter incest)

Amazingly enough, by what I've seen (admittedly only one side of the story), the courts seem to be leaning his way! If this man is granted custody, or even access, sanity is indeed dead in child social services in Cape Breton.

However, now I must show my politically incorrect side. The mother of these children is represented as, "...a courageous young mother, faithful to her Catholic values..." So I have to pull a Dr Laura here. Under what circumstances did this young woman pick this guy to be the mother of her children? Because that she did, didn't she? Now, I'm not at all trying to tip the scales away from him, but this mother, at one time, must have thought he was a great guy. And having had one child, she decided to have another. At what time did he cease to be Prince Charming and become the devil of hell? What changed? Or did anything?

I hope I'm not passing judgment where I shouldn't, but maybe there is something here that might prevent some other young girl from making the same mistakes. Because a horrendous mistake is certainly what it appears to be, doesn't it?

Take Care

Liberal Two-Faced Hypocrisy

Among the resolutions passed at the recent Episcopal General Convention, some were dangerous, some completely apostate and some downright silly. Resolution D035, proposed by one Dr. John Chaffee, was one of the latter. It calls on Queen Elizabeth II to apologize for the “Doctrine of Discovery.” (From Here via Here.)
This doctrine, which originated with Henry VII in 1496, held that Christian sovereigns and their representative explorers could assert dominion and title over non-Christian lands with the full blessing and sanction of the Church.

First of all, it seems to me that there is this certain self-righteous, judgmental attitude in (mostly) liberal circles that sees what it considers evil in others while assuming that they themselves have got it all together. To paraphrase the popular '70's book, I'm OK, you're not OK. This atitude manifests itself in these kinds of calls for apologies, usually by others, usually for those no longer here, for acts allegedly committed sometime in history, by someone today who had nothing to do with the alleged "atrocities." I see it as a log in one's own eye kind of thing. They find it so easy to see what today we consider an injustice and project judgment back through time on people of another era.

It reveals a certain anachronistic arrogance that says, "Oh, if I were there I would have done differently." How do these people know how they would have felt, or how they would have acted, for instance, when slavery was culturally acceptable. I wouldn't be at all surprised that, if they could be transplanted to a period of time two or three hundred years ago, to a position of plantation owner, a great many would have behaved exactly as other plantation owners of the time did.

Now, what should they do? I assume that the proponents of this type of resolution believe that lands were taken unjustly from aboriginal residents of various continents. If they truly believe this, what is the proper thing to do? They must agree that many churches and properties of the Episcopal church are on or among those lands improperly taken. They must then agree, if they are to be consistent, that they are in possession of stolen property. What should one do if one knows one possesses such property, accuses one's ancestors of having stolen it, and knows who the rightful owner is? One should return it, shouldn't one? But will they?

Of course not. They are as much as saying, "We are sorry your property was stolen. We believe our forefathers stole it when they first came to this continent, but we have it now and we're not giving it back."

Their magnanimity stops at demanding meaningless apologies from others who have nothing to do with anything.

Take Care