The New Gender Ideology Comes With Knives And Muzzles

A petition is circulating that calls on the federal and provincial governments to stop promoting the new gender ideology. Christians should take note and sign it, though already many Christian churches have been infiltrated by this latest trendy and powerful extension of post modernism and political correctness. After legislation was passed in the previous session without dissent or debate, it is now being taught in our B.C. schools as fact.

Gender ideology is the “ism” behind a dangerous trend in medicine and psychology that promotes troubled teenagers unhappy with their bodies to “change” their sex by taking powerful hormone blocks in early teen years, then opposite sex hormones later, with a view to ultimately cutting off their breasts if female and their genitals if males. It is a bad ideology that has caused a shared delusion among doctors, politicians and parents.

There is plentiful evidence that 80-90 percent of teenagers who decide they need to change their gender, or who believe they are already a different gender from their biological one change their minds back in a few years if left alone. Yet most doctors and psychologists will now support the troubled teens in their delusion.

The argument for taking hormone blockers at the onset of puberty and opposite sex hormones in mid-teens or late teens is that if such treatment is delayed, the child will develop the primary and secondary sex characteristics that are unwanted. They will develop according to their sex in some ways that are irreversible, such as the breadth of shoulders and pelvises , the length of arms and legs and the proportions of the bones of the face. And they ill develop in some ways that are changeable but only through irreversible surgery such as masectomy and castration.

But given that most people who suffer gender dysphoria recant, medicos and parents who jump on this particular bandwagon are approaching child abuse. Acceding to a child’s or teenager’s wishes certainly avoids conflict, but the evidence is that most gender dysphoric teens would be unhappy anyway because of a co-morbid condition such as depression or schizophrenia. Or so insists Walt Heyer, who after undergoing surgery to live as a woman for more than a decade, later reverted to his real sex and now crusades against the transgender movement full-time.  Treating such conditions with hormones or hormone blockers is a short term panacea, says Walt, that just prevents addressing the underlying condition. Heyer, a Christian, counsels trans youth to stick with their birth gender at waltheyer.com.

Again, given that most trans-inclined youth change their minds, arresting their normal growth with hormone blockers or opposite sex hormones during their teenage years may never be entirely reversed. They can go back to being a boy or a girl, but may grow into a permanently smaller less masculine, less strong man, or a less feminine, less attractive woman.

 

Heyer recently published an article in the conservative website the Federalist, “This formerly trans 14-year-old has a message for questioning kids.” There he writes about about a teen girl, Noor Jontry, who fought her parents for two years to be allowed to take steps to “change” her sex. Now she has recanted. Heyer quotes her as follows:

“I learned that being female isn’t a feeling. It’s a biological reality and I could feel however I feel without it meaning I was male.”

When asked why she wanted to be male, she said she didn’t like her body and wanted a different one. She also realizes in retrospect that “I used being trans to try and escape being scared about being small and weak. I thought that if I presented myself as a man I’d be safer.”

Noor’s thoughts are published on 4thwavenow.com, a website for dissenting parents and professionals, many who write anonymously because those who fight are shunned by their professions. In Ontario and California it is illegal to even counsel teens who are gender dysphoric with the intention of helping them accept their birth-gender.

The CBC recently planned to air a BBC documentary on “Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best” until LGBT activists campaigned against it. A Wilfrid Laurier University teaching assistant, Lindsay Shepherd who showed her class a debate on gender ideology was subjected to an Orwellian disciplinary hearing because it subjected her students to opinions that might upset them: the opinions of University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson that gender is immutably based on biology.

Now the view that gender is plastic and subjective is being taught as fact and dogma in British Columbia schools.  The same is happening in Alberta, but there a resurgent conservative movement led by former federal cabinet minister Jason Kenney is daring to give mild support to parents who challenge the reigning  gender ideology. The NDP government is suggesting Kenney and his United Conservative party is bigoted against gays and trans youth.

Similarly, a new federal anti-hate law is being invoked against those who, like Jordan Peterson,  challenge the transgender ideology. The same law was cited the WLU teaching assistant Lindsay Shepherd for merely showing students a debate between Peterson and those holding the prevailing view.

Christians who believe God made us male and female should sign the petition and support their Christian schools in resisting this dangerous ideoleogy.

And any parent you hear promoting this viewpoint, or supporting a gender dysphoric child, refer them to the websites listed in this blog.

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in Gender Ideology, Transgender | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Darker Meaning of Julie Payette’s Ignorant Comments

 

Payette and Trudeau : Birds of a Feather

A speech by our new governor general, Julie Payette, has clearly underlined a grave deficiency in our political culture. That is the more or less complete failure of socially conservative politicians (mostly: Christians) to defend the intellectual roots of their position, including and especially the religious component.

In fact, even to put “religion” in the same sentence with “intellectual” is now a controversial act, as Payette’s comments to a group of scientists demonstrate. She expressed incredulity that some people in “learned society” continue to deny climate change and man’s role in causing it, while at the same time holding to unscientific belief in astrology and the origin of life  through “divine intervention.”

These three things don`t really go together. Far from it: a belief in a conservative Christianity—such as that which informs Evangelical Protestants—is an antidote to belief in astrology, UFOs etc. It is true that Evangelicals are climate change sceptics, but it is not because they are anti-science but because they oppose immoral or harmful public policies “justified” by invoking “Science” with a capital “S,” like climate change, embryonic stem cell research, and transgenderism.<

Tellingly, opposition criticism of Payette’s comments have focused on what the critics see as a breach of the governor general’s traditional role of unifying Canadians. Instead she has heaped elitist contempt on the beliefs of some. But both conservative politicians and Canada`s only conservative newspaper, the National Post, have defended only the right of Canadians to hold those beliefs, not the beliefs themselves.

Payette`s putdowns and these lame defences therefore blur over the fact that both a belief in God the Creator and scepticism about climate change are intellectually defensible. They are also held by a segment of the population that is quite distinct from believers in astrology and other pseudo-sciences.

Payette’s glib putdowns will prevail, if Canadian politicians of faith such a Conservative leader Andrew Scheer will not volunteer a rational defence of their beliefs, but continue to explain them away as family heirlooms. They are contributing to the relegation of such beliefs to the church sanctuary and the home. The consequences of this are there to be seen in the attack by Canada`s biggest law societies on the very existence of the  Evangelical Christian law school proposed by Trinity Western University.

It behooves all of us to have a rational explanation for our faith, because we should believe and profess there to be no conflict between reason and faith and science and faith. God is the author of all. That is what Isaac Newton believed, for example. He believed the universe was governed by discoverable rational laws because the Maker is supremely rational.

Personally, I still believe in the faith of my childhood because the world I empirically observe as an adult accords with it. While science offers no explanation for selfless love, honour, sacrifice honesty and forgiveness, my faith acknowledges their existence and explains them as virtues. I observe a world where both good and evil are displayed in the actions of people, but nowhere find them described or explained by science or scientists. And these things are far more important to me and to the world than climate change.

Moreover, I maintain that it is empirically demonstrable and universally acknowledged  that good and evil not only exist in the world as described in the Bible, but they do so in the relationship described in the Bible: That is: we live in a Fallen world and we ourselves are Fallen in a way the other living creatures ae not. The world and we ourselves bear the evidence of benign design which we have wilfully, sinfully thwarted.

I once attended a speech by anthropologist Helen Fisher, the leading exponent of the theory, growingly supported by neuroscience, that romantic love is not a cultural artefact ( a product perhaps of medieval French troubadors) but is biologically wired into our brains. Fisher explained that romantic love amounted to the production in one part of our brain a certain mix of chemicals causing another part of our brain to experience pleasure over the contemplation and proximity of a certain person.

This mix causes the production of a different set of chemicals that generated sexual desire. This sequence also acts in reverse. Love leads to desire but sexual desire leads to romantic love.

Then the romantic chemical cocktail goes out of production, giving way to chemicals that give us a less manic pleasure simply from being in the company of our spouses.

According to Fisher, this must have evolved because it enhanced the survivability of the human race. But of course, this idea is completely compatible with the idea of a Creator God who built these capacities into our brains so that we would survive and, I speculate, so that we could, when procreating, enjoy some of the pleasure He enjoys creating.

But Fisher had a problem. We scientists cannot see any reason, she told us, for the person who now has a spouse and children, to still have the capacity to fall into love or lust with a third person, since the resulting breakup surely endangers the survival of the children.

 

I wanted to put my hand up and say, “Teacher, teacher, I know why it happens. It’s the Fall.” Or as Shakespeare put into Hamlet’s mouth: “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

I bet that Andrew Scheer has worked things out too in his own way and does not believe there is a conflict between science and his faith. But his political advisors assuredly have told him he should never speak of the content of his beliefs, except to defend his right to hold them privately. This is bad thing in both the short and long terms.

The compatibility of science and faith has been established empirically. For example, in his study titled “Are Religious Americans Opposed to Science?” University of California, San Diego academic John H. Evans, reported the opposite. His comparative survey of conservative Christians and other Americans showed that the first group were just as likely as other Americans to hold scientific jobs.

However, they definitely had a bone to pick with “Science” but it is over “values not facts” said Evans. This “bone” has arisen over issues such as abortion, or the use of fetal stem cells obtained by abortion for research of medical treatment.It has spilled over, says Evans, so that Evangelical Christians are willing to dispute and oppose many public policy recommendations made by scientists.

“Differences over global warming, for example, do not seem to be similarly grounded in theology or passages found in the Bible. In that instance, conservative religious people may simply believe that scientists should not have authority in the public sphere– on any issue,” Evans writes.

There is more. The book, What Americans Really Believe by researchers at Baylor University, based on polling by Gallup, shows that Evangelical Christians are the least likely Americans to answer yes to questions such as: “Do dreams foretell the future? Did ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis exist? Can places be haunted? Is it possible to communicate with the dead? Will creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster someday be discovered by science?”

Fully 31 per cent of people who never worship expressed strong belief in these notions but only eight per cent of those who attend a place of worship more than once a week did. Of course, the huge majority of such people are Evangelicals.

Setting aside attendance levels, there were significant differences in terms of how liberal was the denomination: only 14 per cent of those in the conservative Assemblies of God (Sarah Palin’s church) believed in the superstitious potpourri served up by Gallup.  However, 36 per cent of those in the liberal United Church of Christ—Barack Obama’s fellowship– believed in these absurdities.

Sadly Catholics are about average in credulity, though I do wonder if the pollsters broke them into orthodox and liberals what the results would show.

 

Other social science to be found on the site of the Washington D.C.-based Marriage and Religion Research Institute shows a strong positive correlation between religious attendance and school success, lawfulness and post-graduate income.

Science is more than an ordered way of studying nature based on empirical testing of propositions. It is an ideology that is complex and aimed at gaining power. Also, in its heart it believes that all human problems are reducible to testable characteristics and solvable by discoverable techniques. Payette speaks for this overweening and prideful ideology of Science and Reason, as does Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

We Christians believe that the world’s woes cannot be solved at a technical level because they reside in the souls of humankind.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Victoria 40 Days for Life told it is part of an army of 750,000

VICTORIA, British Columbia,October 15, 2017 (Choose Life Victoria) —  A contradiction lies at the heart of arguments for abortion rights, 40 Days for Life staff person Katherine O`Brien told 40 Days volunteers here on Thanksgiving Day, that prevents abortion supporters from sustaining counter efforts.

“They are demonstrating for a right that they are very grateful, somewhere in their heart, that their Mom did not use’ “That’s why, in the end, they are not going to have a 40 day campaign. In the end they don`t want that either,” Mrs. O’Brien, who is Director of Hispanic and Youth Outreach for the Texas-based organization.

(O’Brien’s remarks were echoed, interestingly, by European abortion advocate Neil  Datta, Secretary of the European Parliamentary Forum on Population & Development. As reported by Agenda Europe, Datta was commenting on “the successful European Citizens’ Initiative “One of Us”, which collected more than 1.7 million signatures in support for a request to the European Commission to fully recognize the dignity of the human embryo and provide adequate legal protections.”

Said Datta, “Try to imagine the collection of a similar amount of signatures by a feminist or progressist movement. We would never be able to achieve this.”)

40 Days for Life’s Katherine O’Brien joins Victoria-area vigil keepers

O’Brien was in Victoria, accompanied by her husband Edward, as an extension of a week-long tour of 40 Days vigils in Washington State. After that she was headed for Mexico City, she said.

“It blows me away that you are here on Thanksgiving morning. I don’t know if we could get people that dedicated in the United States,” she told the vigilists.

She added that she and her husband Edward, who accompanied her, were embarking on “our biggest pro-life adventure,” and were “expecting a baby in March.”

Noting that she was headed to Mexico from Washington, O’Brien said Latin Americans and Hispanics in the U.S. shared a paradoxical position on abortion. “Latinos say that it is wrong but then turn around and get abortions for their daughters,” if they are unmarried or when other circumstances make it expedient.

She hoped that young people today could be appealed to on the basis that women “should not be put in the situation where they are so vulnerable that they see their only way to go is to have an abortion.”

O’Brien cautioned a half dozen vigil keepers from Choose Life Victoria that, “sometimes it can be a bit discouraging and hard to motivate people to come out. [But] we have a cause that we’re here for that is more than the other side has, the counter protesters who want to make us feel alone. We’re not alone. We have our brothers and sisters in Christ.

“This isn’t just happening here…Its happening in 375 cities around the world,” she continued. “Forty four countries—people out on the sidewalks, in front of the abortion clinics. Praying to end abortion.

“It’s a David and Goliath problem. But it’s not just eight people here. We have more than that. We have God with us. We have eight people here and 750,000 people worldwide.”

Victoria has been holding 40 Days vigils outside the city’s private abortion clinic twice a year since 2011. While for some of that time they were opposed by a solo protester who local pro-lifers believe was paid, and other times bullied by civic officials and physically threatened and cursed by pro-abortion advocates, opposition in the past two years has subsided. (The local RCMP detachment has respected and, at times, defended their free speech rights).

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Marxism In Seven Minutes

 Marxism had a huge impact on the world, and though discredited by history, continues to undermine Western Civilization and Christianity in its latest expressions in gender theory, feminism, and post-modernism. So I thought I’d provide a quick explanation.

Marxism’s initial appeal came from its ambitious scope: Karl Marx said his theory explained not only why everything important in history had happened; more significantly it predicted everything important that ever would happen, in particular the workers revolution that would bring history itself to an end with its fulfillment in the perfect socialist society. It was imminent, his theory showed, adding Millennarian fervour to the intellectual appeal.

It was the 19th Century, after all. Big theories were in vogue. Charles Darwin was explaining everything that ever had or ever would happen in Nature with his theory of Evolution. Karl Marx admired Evolution, by the way. I don’t think Darwin returned the compliment.

Marx said history was driven by one thing only: that humans were alienated from their labour and its product. Just as the Greek or Roman aristocrat owned his slaves and their product, the capitalist owned the wage workers’ factory output. Ultimately all wars, all intellectual activity, derived from this fundamental fact.

Now the details. Depending on how advanced the productive technology was at any time, an appropriate method of production would evolve (Tools and methods together Marx called the infrastructure, the means of production). These would bring about a matching social organization of ruling and working classes, a political system to legitimize and enforce this, and a religion to bless it.

Very primitive production (hunting, gathering), produced chiefs and followers and animism; primitive farming produced landowners and slaves, monarchy and polytheism; more advanced farming produced feudal lords and serfs, monotheism and the divine right of kings; And the harnessing of water, fossil fuels, and specialization produced the bourgeoisie, the factory system, capitalism, representative democrac,  wage slavery and Protestantism.

It also produced the French Revolution as France’s landed aristocrats were expelled by its vulgar middle class factory owners.

Each formulation throughout history Marx called a thesis, which eventually gave birth to an internal contradiction Marx dubbed its antithesis, (Okay, he stole the whole scheme from Hegel, but as they like to say in Marxist studies, he turned Hegel on his head) . Each antithesis swallows its parent and produced a new synthesis. (This is Marx’s Historical Dialectic). Capitalism, even as Marx was writing, was producing the working class, or proletariat, its antithesis, that would rise up and destroy it.

One of Marx’s “Iron Laws,” was that capitalists would be driven by competition to reduce wages to the point they drove the workers to starvation–and revolution. For this impoverishment would force the working class to become aware of its own united self-interest and its own power.  Then, inevitably, Marx promised, the proletariat would overthrow the bosses and assume ownership of its own labour, resolving the last contradiction.

The wastefulness of capitalist competition would give way to harmony and plenty. Oppression would end and with it the need for government, the state, and religion.

Religion’s role in this was to assure the suffering workers that they would be rewarded in heaven for their pain; meanwhile the rich might be rewarded in this world, but would surely be punished in the afterlife.

The overall theory is called Dialectical Materialism. It didn’t work at all at predicting the future and, apart from the French Revolution, it didn’t actually match up with history very well either. The workers of the world did not unite, for example. In their name, however, dedicated and ruthless activists did take over Russia and then China where they murdered upwards of 100 million of their own countrymen to achieve their ends.

But that is okay for Marxists because they do not believe in countries, nor in countrymen. In fact, they do not believe that human beings with rights exist at all as such unless and until socialism has been achieved. That is why even people on the right side of history can be killed when necessary. They aren ‘t really people yet. Just fighters on one side or the other of history. (Arthur Koestler explores this ruthless expedience in Darkness at Noon.)

The owners of the old factors of production (eg. France’s aristos) will always resist the march of history expressed by the efforts to take over by the owners of the new factors of production (eg. middle class factory owners). The factory owners must likewise resist the efforts of the workers to claim ownership of their labour and its product.

They must resist because Marxism acknowledges only one motivation: self-interest. Instead of evil, there is the working class’s alienation from the fruits of its labour. But this alienation is, like everything else in Marxism, inevitable, given the technology and method of production at any given time.  Instead of good, there is only “Being on the right side of history.”

But if it all be inevitable, why should anyone kill anyone else to achieve it? asked the Mensheviks in Tsarist Russia, for example. Because history needs a push sometimes, replied the Bolsheviks, speaking out the barrels of their guns.

I’ll add that Marxism’s perfect socialism obviously resembles and replaces Christianity’s promise of a paradise on earth after Christ’s Second Coming, when sin is all washed away. Marxism is, therefore, sometimes said to be a Christian heresy.

How does communism fit into all this? At the theoretical level, communism is the next to last stage before perfect socialism is achieved but after capitalism is overthrown. At this penultimate stage the workers are ruled for their own good by a single political party: the communist party. This is called “communism building socialism.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What Our Trip to Brussels and Venice Revealed About Europe’s Vain Hope of a Humanist Paradise

 

Europa

Europe’s  self-identity now rooted in bestiality

Last month my wife and I went to Brussels, where she attended a conference on family therapy and I visited museums. Then we went to Venice, where we soon overloaded on Renaissance art and architecture in the island city.

The main takeaway for me is that Western Europe’s political-cultural elite have forgotten their history, and become blinded by their dream of a secular humanist paradise.

In Brussels, where the European Union’s bureaucracy is headquartered, I visited the House of European History.  It did not even attempt to live up to its title. Instead, it was a history of the recent ideal of a humanist Europe where tolerance and civility reign as supreme values and other strongly held beliefs, especially religious ones, which might cause passionate disagreement, must be surrendered, suppressed or privatised.

In one unintentionally hilarious exhibit room, the origins of the idea of Europe are examined.  There we find a large display devoted to the myth of Europa, who was the mother of King Minos, and who was raped by the god Zeus in the form of a bull.

Down the room, another display shows all jammed together dozens of factors deemed by the curators to have contributed to today’s Europe. Buried among them along with soccer and feudalism is Christianity.

So: a story of bestiality is represented by many old and modern artistic depictions at one end of the room as a key concept in understanding Europe. And at the other, the belief system that actually held Europe together  for two millennia, when politics, language and ethnicity divided it, is reduced to barely more than a footnote. This is not history.

The museum also pays some attention to the Crusades, depicted, of course,  as an act of aggression, rather than an attempt to resist an aggressive, empire-building Islam.

(To its credit, the museum devotes a lot of space on another floor, rightly, to exposing the crimes of totalitarian Nazism and Communism.)

On to Venice where we spent a day at the Venice Biennale, an international festival of modern art. The most intriguing work was in the Greek Pavilion. Called the “Laboratory of Dilemmas,” it turned the whole building into a maze as rats might be subjected too—with the public standing in for the rats. As we wound our way through it, we were confronted by film clips supposed from a long-abandoned documentary project in the 1950s about research into developing an antibody in rats to hepatitis. Instead, the researchers discover they have accidentally developed a new strain of hepatitis.

The centrepiece of the installation is a video debate among all the researchers in the laboratory about whether to destroy the new strain of hepatitis or to remain true to the spirit of science and study it in the hope of learning something new and beneficial.

It’s all an elaborate metaphor for Europe’s refugee crisis. It ends without a conclusion. We, not the filmmaker, must find our own way out of the refugee dilemma.

But the installation is very revealing. Along with the House of European History, it portrays the German and French-led European Union as a grand secular humanist experiment, based on a wonderful hope that all humankind can share. The heart of belief is that a society whose root value is tolerance can absorb even Muslim immigrants ( thenew Hepatitis strain) with their toxic political and cultural beliefs, turning them and all others into model, law-abiding citizens. They won’t have to surrender their beliefs, but only give up the idea they should have any traction in the public sphere. Then, as Europe’s birth rate falls and its native population declines, its wonderful vision can be sustained by the newly transformed and grateful immigrants and refugees.

This obviously hasn’t happened yet. Instead, swathes of Europe’s big cities are given over to Muslim Sharia law. The public authorities call them “no go” zones where police and other emissaries of the great dream dare not go. The Muslims are not assimilating. They are not surrendering their beliefs. And of course, radicals among them are blowing people up to demonstrate their contempt for the European ideal.

(It was exceedingly ironic that this installation supporting Islamic immigration was displayed in Venice. For centuries Venice, as free, independent republic and a naval power, led Christian resistance to Islamic expansion via the Mediterranean Sea. The climax of this struggle came in 1571 at the Battle of Lepanto.

lepanto

The  Battle of Lepanto: Venetians held a more realistc view of how easy it might be to assimilate Muslims in 1571.

Though the vanquished Ottoman Turks quickly replaced their fleet, they never recovered the initiative, and after defeats on land by the Austrians, Poles  and then the Russians,  they began a long retreat from Europe.)

The humanists sincerely believe that tolerance itself is a principle with enough purchase to sustain a culture and win over newcomers. However, wiser men and women than me have argued that humanism was itself only made possible by Jewish and Christian concepts of human beings as God’s supreme creation, and of God as the Supreme Lawmaker.

Secular humanists see their primary task as one of winning freedom from the West’s superstitious and intolerant past. But what they may succeed in doing it cutting themselves off from their roots. Then Europe will be unable to resist the forces pushing against it.

Canada’s birth rate has also fallen below replacement levels, and the popular policies which prevail in our halls of power, government, media and universities, all work to reduce our birth rates further: LGBTQ, whatever else the acronym stands for, is opposed to natural  human reproduction. And feminism has long ago made the negation of maternity its guiding principle. With our geography, however, we can be more selective than Europe about what ethnic groups and so what culture we choose to replace us. If we care.

Posted in Europe, Islam, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Bum Rap Against Jason Kenney

Christians are stupid and  worse, cruelly judgmental, according to Left progressivism, especially so to women seeking abortions , homosexuals and transgenders.
And the news media agrees.

Last week’s example was a story the Victoria Times Colonist picked up from one the Alberta dailies that itself appeared to be lifted  verbatim from a press release from the New Democratic government.

The NDP government promises to pass a law to stop Conservative Leader Jason Kenney from “outing” homosexual students in Alberta public schools, and in any private ones too, that get public funding.

Most of the latter are Christian, in Alberta as in BC, so take note: We’re next.

The story is grossly misleading on several levels–an obvious effort to smear Kenney, the likeliest of several candidates to win the leadership  of the newly formed United Conservative Party, which is already ahead of the NDP in the polls.

First, Kenney has no power to out anyone. He’s not in government. Second, the way to stop him from ever getting that power is to defeat him in an election, not pass a law that he could repeal if he and his party won the next election.

Third, Kenney never said he would “out” homosexual or transgender students if elected to government. He said it would be a good idea for school authorities to notify parents if their children joined a Gay Straight Alliance club that every school must now set up in Alberta.

So this is not “outing,” since as soon as a child joined the club, everyone at the school would know. Does the NDP government intend to pass a law forbidding school chikdren from telling their own parents who is in the GSA?

The children in question would be outing themselves.

Should parents really be the last to know?

The NDP is taking a lot of heat from conservative parents groups and Christians for promoting the LGBT agenda via the schools. In retaliation, the government wants to pose as the defender of sensitive, vulnerable  LGBT children from  their horrible, bigoted parents.

And it wants to lump Kenney, a pro-life, conservative Catholic , in with those alleged bigots. The news media are happily cooperating. The TC too.

(Just so you know, because Kenney is unmarried, the Left has had a whisper campaign going for several years that he is homosexual and therefore a terrible hypocrite.The news media is helping .)

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The End of the Stem Cell Debate: Embryonic Stem Cell use Goes out with Not with A Bang But a Whimper

The growing success of adult stem cells in a widening array of treatments was further reinforced by news of ex-Canadian Football League running back Dahrran Diedrick’s recovery from a rare form of lymphoma–with adult stem cell treatment. Hepatosplenic gammadelta T-cell lymphoma is the name of the disease discovered, after an on-field injury in 2014, to be killing him. Neither Interferon nor chemotherapy arrested the condition, though removal of the spleen removed the immediate danger.

Dahrren’s prayers (not for a cure but courage) were followed by an apparent reprieve.
Then came an adult stem cell transplant from his 20-year-old daughter Dominique. The closer in genetic makeup the donor is, the greater chance of success. Fifteen months later, and still the disease is in complete remission. Thanks be to God.

The story I read, in the National Post, makes no mention of the debate which once raged over stem cell research, more or less perfectly aligned along the lines of the Culture Wars (Republicans vs Democrats, Hollywood versus Heartland, Science versus Faith). The argument was about whether research on embryonic stem cells (from aborted fetuses) should be pursued with the full funding of government bodies, or whether adult stem cells should get all, more,or any funding.

The actor who played Superman in several movies, Christopher Reeves, suffered from a condition that ultimately killed him, for which stem cell treatment held a remote chance of a cure. He campaigned for embryonic stem cell research, but the government of the day, George Bush’s, vetoed much federal research depending on aborted fetal tissue. US President Barack Obama, the epitome of Political Correctness, reversed the ban, making it very hard, in the process, to get federal money for adult stem cell research.

Embryonic stem cells appeared to have won. But medical science is hard science. Political Correctness will only take you so far. Embryonic stem cells don’t work. They behave like cancer cells, in fact, multiplying uncontrollably and fostering tumors.

Adult stem cells are less flexible and harder to grow in a test tube than embryonic ones, but the flip side of this quality is that they behave better, and can be turned to good use much more easily. Hence the growing list of successful treatments owed to them.

The natural consequences of immoral acts are everywhere on display, but perhaps not usually so clearly and empirically.

The appeal of stem cells in the embryo is that they are undifferentiated. They develop into any kind of cell needed by the body. Researchers hoped they could figure out how to turn them into any kind of cell in a sick person that needed replacing.

Adult stem cells are less flexible. Stem cells from bone marrow have been used to treat leukemia for 50 years because cannot provide replacement cells for every part of the body .

Recently adult stem cells have been used to replace nervous system tissue, allowing paraplegics to walk. Injected into people with brain damage, they did not replace damaged tissue, but so stimulated the healthy tissue in the brain as to replace the damaged parts.

The triumph of adult stem cells is complete. Is this why you have go deep into news stories to find even a mention of the “adult” component? Is this why the once fierce debate, covered so one-sidedly in the news media, is never mentioned? Or is it because the news media does not want to admit it when it so thoroughly picks the losing side in controversy it framed as Enlightened Science vs Stupid Christianity?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment