Oy, Canada!

Prime Minister Paul Martin (a liberal, of course) has decided that, due his whining citizens, Canada would not join the U.S. in its North American missile defense system. Canada would "opt out". Opt out? Opt out of what? Opt out of the protection the system provides?

Can you imagine the ridiculous scenario...

White contrails of nuclear missiles arc high over the Canadian arctic ice. NORAD scrambles, a call is put in to President Bush.

NORAD: “Sir this is General So-And-So from NORAD. We are tracking several ballistic missiles over Canada targeting Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and Washington. Request permission to intercept using missile defense system.”

W: “Ummm…hang on a sec. Let me get Prime Minister Martin on the horn.”

Phone is dialed, and rings. A voice picks up on the other end.

CANADA: “Hello?”

W: “This is the President of the United States. I need to speak to Prime Minister Martin immediately!”

CANADA: “The President of who?”

W: “THE UNITED STATES!”

CANADA “Oh, one moment, please.”

A few seconds of silence

CANADA: “I’m sorry, but the Prime Minister is taking his afternoon nap. Can I take your number?”

While this might seem a contrived, remember that Prime Minister Martin stated, “we would expect and insist on being consulted on any intrusion into our air space.”

So, here you have it, Mr. Prime Minister: you want to be informed? I say the phone call is more along the lines of, “Paul, we just launched a bunch of missiles to bring down those nukes pointed at our population centers. Call us if you need help cleaning up your uninhabitable frozen wastelands.”

The U.S. ought to have every right to defend itself. We shouldn't be expected to let millions or even thousands or even one American die because Canada won't let us defend ourselves.

If Canada doesn't want our missiles in their airspace, they ought to stop any incoming missiles before they get to us. Anything less, when they have a working missile defense system at their disposal, is complicity.

- The Red Oasis

The problem with Christians

To many conservative Christians, it seems that their voice is being swallowed up by a culture that is falling ever farther and faster away from what they consider to be the moral center. Liberal social causes such as the legalization of drugs, acceptance of the gay lifestyle, and religious pluralism/secularism run counter to conservative Christian beliefs. Generally speaking, they view the direction that society is heading as the wrong direction.

This has not always been the case, and even as recently as the middle of the last century, Christian ethics were unquestionably the guiding force behind much of our nation’s laws. Most recently, traditional marriage seems to be the victim, with the advent no-fault divorces being the main culprit. Many anti-gay Christians see the introduction of gay marriage as a symptom of the moral disease.

And now, it seems that Christians are losing more and more ground. Increasingly, the Christian viewpoint is marginalized as the mainstream is relaxing opinions on subjects such as homosexuality. Tolerance, a word which has been co-opted to be equivalent to acceptance, is the happy-feel-good word of the decade.

My recent posts (here, here, here) regarding anti-gay protesters, and a series of comments (here, here) following made me start to wonder why Christians are in this predicament. While there are several answers, like branches of a tree coming from a single trunk, the root cause I believe resides in the idea that Christians have forgotten what it means to be Christian.

The Old Testament of the Bible has many rules and regulations. Each rule had its purpose and place in its time; most were applicable rules for all time. You must not murder. You must not steal. And even if many people will excuse another’s marital transgressions, when it happens in their own relationship, adultery is a bad thing. People understood that staying right with God meant staying within these rules.

Until Jesus came along, that is. When Jesus came to earth and started his ministry, he shook up the establishment. He said, “There’s no way you could ever possibly follow all of the rules. These rules aren’t really there to make you right with God. They’re there to show you that you never could be right with God no matter how hard you try.” The point was not to follow the rules, but rather to follow God, and he would keep you from doing wrong.

When I hear about the sorts of protests that go on, with Christians screaming obscenities like “Burn in hell, faggot!” I cringe. Jesus never approached a sinner like that. He always approached sinners with an openness and love that drew sinners to him. He never excused their sin, but he always forgave it. He did not say that what they were doing was acceptable, but rather that what they had already done would not be counted against them if they were to accept the message he brought.

Is homosexuality a sin?. In the book of I Corinthians we are told that,

“Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers and swindlers – none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.”

For the initiated, this was written after Jesus walked the earth. It cannot be explained away as an old-society rule that Jesus came along and abolished. It is also not prohibition stemming from a social norm, as many would like to twist it to be. Along with homosexuality are listed greed, thievery, abuse and swindling. These latter offenses are universal sins. There is no way, which I can see, around this, unless you take this verse and strip it of its original meaning, and then if we do so, who's to say we can’t edit the Bible however we want? Certainly this is something people do presently, but doesn’t that strip the Bible of any real relevance at all?

But the question is moot. The Bible commands Christians to love their neighbor, fully knowing that their neighbor is a sinner. They are commanded to present the Christian message – in gentleness and love – to the people around them. Bring the homosexual to Christ, and let Christ work that sin out of their lives. From a biblical perspective, their soul comes first.

- The Red Oasis

One last thought on Philly

Before I move on to another topic, there is still one bone I have to pick in the Philly 5 case. While I applaud her ultimate decision, the ruling passed down by Judge Pamela Dembe is disturbing. In her decision, Dembe stated, “We are one of the very few countries that protects unpopular speech. And that means that Nazis can March in Skokie, Ill. ... That means that the Ku Klux Klan can march where they wish to. We cannot stifle speech because we don't want to hear it, or we don't want to hear it now.”

Perhaps this was not her intention, but on the surface it appears that, to Dembe, Christian groups are equivalent to the KKK and the Nazis. Christians are now the same as a murdering band of thugs hell-bent on turning back the clock of racial equality? They are now no different than a regime that systematically slaughtered 6 million people in less than a decade? Now anytime we disagree with the message we must demonize the messenger?

And, this ought to not only be offensive to the ears of Christians, but also to the victims and survivors of the hatred perpetrated by the Nazis and KKK. How awful it is to minimize the pain and loss inflicted on these victims. The memory of the lives that were destroyed by the lynch mobs and holocaust should not be compared to the inconvenience “suffered” by the attendees of the OutFest.

- The Red Oasis