3801 Lancaster - House of Horrors

It's a story too horrible to think about. When I've shared this with people they have responded with disgust and disbelief. Newborn babies summarily executed, their bodies stored in jars and freezers. The trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell will wrap up shortly in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has been charged with the murder of seven newborn babies, as well as one mother, at an abortion clinic. The evidence presented in the trial shows that there were hundreds of babies who were killed this way over the years.

This trial would have peeled back the curtain on the abortion industry in the United States. It would have, if not for an unwillingness on the part of the mass media to cover this story. It took the sustained efforts of pro-life bloggers to shame outlets like CNN and the New York Post into giving the least bit of coverage of what has been called "The Trial of the Century." It should have been a front-page story for months.

There are some subjects that we simply do not want to talk about; this is one of them. But here is my challenge to you: do what you have to do to force yourself to watch the video below. We must not ignore the reality of abortion and - Canadians - remember that there is no legal limit on abortion in Canada whatsoever. To continue to remain willfully ignorant is to be complicit. It reminds me of a story that emerged after World War 2.

There was a church in Germany that was next to railroad tracks. Trains would run past the church on a regular basis, carrying prisoners bound for the gas chambers. As they gathered for worship on Sundays, the congregants learned to time their service so that they would be singing hymns while the cars went past. As it came close enough to hear the cries of the prisoners, they would sing louder to drown out the sound, as if not hearing meant it wasn't real. Are we doing the same? Please watch the video below, and take action. Call your political representative, support a Crisis Pregnancy Center, consider adoption, or at least offer to help a single mom who's struggling.  



Related Articles:
Facing up to the Horror of Abortion
"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look
The "A" Word
Heads In The Sand
No Justice in Canada for the Unborn

Book Review: "Why Jesus?"

Book Review: Ravi Zacharias, "Why Jesus? Rediscovering His Truth In An Age Of Mass Marketed Spirituality" New York, NY: FaithWords, 2012. 281 pages.

Reading one of Ravi Zacharias' books reminds me of going out to dine at a nice restaurant after only eating at fast food joints. It's a little bit more work, but a lot more rewarding. I remember when I first started reading Ravi. I would have to have a dictionary close by because his vocabulary was and is a lot larger than mine. The extra effort is worth it. His writing has had more influence on my life and ministry than almost anyone else.

"Why Jesus" was written in response to the new spirituality espoused by such luminaries as Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra. As Ravi states in his introduction, "it is hard to imagine a culture more gullible than that of America today, priding itself on being a culture that is willing to absorb anything indiscriminately." (p. xiv) The combination of the power of the media, spiritual hunger and erroneous teaching mixed with bits and pieces of the truth is a volatile combination.

This book sorts through the roots of these new movements, identifying why they cannot ultimately satisfy, finally ending with a case for why spiritual satisfaction can only be found in the person of Jesus Christ. The journey is a long one, but Ravi's perspective is particularly helpful. He was born in India, with a deep understanding of the culture of his birth and also of the Eastern roots of the new spirituality (which is not new at all).

Chapter 1, called Movie Making or Soul Making, delves into the power of the media to shape worldview. He states "The world of entertainment has become the most powerful means of propaganda, and the audience is unaware of how much it is being acted upon and manipulated, paying for it not only in cash but in having its dreams stolen." (p. 6) Ravi is not claiming a conspiracy theory, rather that many of the creative among us have been seduced by Eastern thought, which has also paraded itself in scientific terminology. The following quote summarizes the chapter well:

"We have found a religion that has helped us to revolve around ourselves, and once we have believed that the spiritual imagination needs no boundaries because we are gods, everything becomes plausible and nothing needs justification. We are now in the precarious situation where science has given us the tools - and possible the imperative - to convey fiction, and fiction has the pervasive power of science. This is the New Spirituality." (p.10)

Chapter 2 - How The West Was Lost Through Its Gains continues with a history of how the views of North Americans have been shaped by television and now the internet. Far from being benign, "the visual media, especially television and movies, manipulates us into seeing with the eye, devoid of the conscience, whose role it is to place parameters around what we see."

"The end result is spirituality without dogma, religion without God, argument without substance, rationalization without rationality, and tranquillity by transfer of funds from the seeker's bank account to the company that makes the best offer of nirvana, at the same time producing dogmatism about relativism in matters of ultimate meaning."

Part of the reason for the decline of the influence of Christianity in North America was the abuse of the media and the audience by Christian televangelists, who have been used as caricatures. The spiritual hunger continued, but the young rejected the faith of their fathers and opted instead, for an "egalitarian, all-inclusive, nonjudgmental, non-Western way of looking at things." (p. 38)

Ravi suggests three layers that make up the "rebellion against the status quo of Western society... first, the disillusionment with materialism and the status quo; second, the shallowness and, at times, hypocrisy of the Church, or of those who claimed to be Christians; and third, and perhaps most compelling, a desire for liberation from all restraint, especially in matters of sexuality."

Chapter 3 - Exhaling The Old, Inhaling The New deals with the philosophical shifts in society from rationalism to empiricism, then to existentialism, finally arriving at postmodernism. These shifts have had a great impact in all aspects of society, certainly in how we engage and answer the most important questions. As Ravi states: "We are at a time when postmodernism defies certainty, truth, and meaning; when spiritualism dabbles in quantum theory; and when randomness has become the order of the day." (p. 58)

Chapter 4 - From Oprah to Chopra deals with the rise from obscurity to the pinnacle of the New Spiritual movement of both Oprah Winfrey and Deepak Chopra. Ravi here goes into detail on the journey of Oprah and her changing spiritual views. "Once you have gained a following of such magnitude; once you can do no wrong by virtue of the adulation you receive; once you are one of the richest people in the world and can buy the companies that sponsor you; once you have a magical impact on the minds of people... is it not a short step to playing god in the minds of your followers?" (pp. 74-75) Oprah uses her considerable platform to push The New Spirituality espoused by people like Eckhart Tolle. Deepak Chopra, in a similar vein, pushes his blend of spirituality with quantum physics. What do they have in common? Wealth and spiritual talk.

Chapter 5 - The Religion of Quantum focuses on Chopra and his "new spirituality combined with his brand of gimmickry." He speaks of Chopra's claims that "'quantum healing' can defeat the aging process, that the mind may be healed by harmonizing or balancing the 'quantum mechanical body.'" 
Ravi points out that Deepak's claims misrepresent both science and Hinduism and are a disservice to both - but they have made Chopra rich and popular.

Chapter 6 - Go West, Young Man speaks of the trend in American culture to embrace unquestioningly all that is Eastern. Ravi here brings his extensive knowledge of Eastern thought and Christian theology to shine a light on the hypocrisy of many in the New Spirituality movement, who promote positive aspects of Eastern religions while completely ignoring the flaws. At the same time, Christianity is attacked for the abuses of some while its role in shaping Western Civilization is ignored. "In Europe, Christianity was abused when it was used for political power; in America it has been abused by using it for economic power. And today it is abused by its detractors who deny its power and remove it from any position of moral authority." (p. 102).

Chapter 7 - The Three Gurus is a chapter dealing with the three gurus whose influence has shaped much of Eastern mysticism today. These are Swami Vivekananda, Yogananda and the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement). Ravi quotes Richard Neibuhr as he summarizes the affect of their teachings: "'in all these religious theories and expressions, what we are really looking for seems to be 'a God without wrath who took man without sin into a kingdom without righteousness through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.'" (pp. 129-130).

Chapter 8 - Smiling Your Way Through Puzzles deals with the manner in which Eastern religions deal with questions of truth. This chapter is helpful for anyone wanting to understand the differences between Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism and other branches of Eastern philosophy. Portions of all of these - and of Christianity - are blended together to form the New Spirituality. "If you shine your light on one chapter of the New Spirituality, it can almost look like Christianity. But when you shine the light on another chapter, you're sure it's Buddhism, then Hinduism, then Taoism. This is brilliance at work in a culture of spiritual hungers and an aversion for dogma... But still hanging over our heads is the fact that relativism must eventually pay its dues in the currency of reality." (pp. 148 - 149).


Chapter 9 - Do You Really Want To Live? speaks to the question of meaning. What is life all about? How does the Christian worldview make sense of the problem of pain and the pursuit of pleasure? These are questions which other belief systems struggle to answer and for which the Bible provides unique responses.

Chapter 10 - The Ties That Bind carries on with the theme from the last chapter, speaking of pleasure and pain in the context of relationship, stewardship and worship which is uniquely offered in Christianity. "There is a clear and unequivocal assertion in the Judeo-Christian faith that God created us for his purpose: to fulfil life's sacred nature within the particularity of an individual life, in relationship with him and his indwelling presence."

Chapter 11 - The Search For Jesus deals with the loss of Biblical literacy in North America and the resulting ignorance of the historical Jesus. This has brought to pass what Ravi speaks of: "The Jesus of the New Spirituality is a Jesus of myth, not fact... New Age Spirituality keeps losing Jesus because it reduces him to just another voice and just another teacher or master." Further, Ravi states his case: "This is the strongest indictment I make against the New Spirituality. They have violated the true Jesus and formed him in their own image. While exalting themselves, they have denigrated him. Against the backdrop and the evolving ethics of a culture that is lost, the New Spirituality has manipulated the text of Scripture, ignored history with redefinitions of their own to leverage cultural desires to their own advantage."

Chapter 12 - Reshaping Jesus To Suit Our Prejudices reveals firstly the damage that has been done by New Age Spiritualists who have either deliberately or ignorantly misinterpreted the Bible to promote their distorted Jesus. "In their deep prejudice against Christianity, advocates of the New Spirituality malign the Christ of history in order to remake him into an image that is consistent with their ideas." (p. 210) Secondly, Ravi speaks of how some churches have contributed to the problem by neglecting the Biblical message of Christ and ignoring the spiritual disciplines. Pages 216-218 provide a succinct critique of the New Spirituality movement.

Chapter 13 - The Greatest of All continues to build the case as to why Jesus is the only answer for those seeking fulfilment. "True spirituality is not a game we play. It is not merely a preference for some position over another. Nor is it at its core a search for some healing balm. It is an ultimate choice of ultimate definitions that require one's utmost commitment."

Chapter 14 - False Assumptions and Magnificent Truths wraps up the book by looking at "The Three All-Important Questions" all worldviews and religions must be examined by. They are:

1. How do they answer the question of exclusivity as it relates to their own belief?
2. What is the source of their authority?
3. How relevant is what they believe to the common experience; what difference does it really make?

Also in this chapter Ravi includes a section on Building A Worldview, which gives the basic components that must be addressed. "Jesus proclaims the truth - that is why it must exclude all that is contrary to it. He lived and spoke with authority - that is why what he said applies to each of us. His message bridges the greatest gulf within us - that is why it is relevant even today, two thousand years later." (p. 269)

This book is not an easy read, but none of Ravi's books are. It is not fluff, but is designed to engage the mind to wrestle with serious issues. It's worth the effort.

Related Articles:
Some Books Worth Reading
"Truth" - by Ravi Zacharias
Ravi Zacharias and Dr. John Lennox take on Stephen Hawking
Ravi Zacharias and Dr. John Lennox take on Stephen Hawking cont.
Book Review: "Has Christianity Failed You?"

A Letter to Girls

Some of you may have heard of Paul Gomille, a 17 year old from Ajax, Ontario. Paul's name has been launched into the headlines because he wrote and distributed a letter to the girls in his Catholic High School. He was subsequently suspended by the principal of the school. Here's the letter in full:

"Could I please have your attention for a few moments? I guarantee you won’t regret listening to what I have to say. You definitely won’t regret hearing this in your life time, especially from a man of dignity. It’s an idea that I have held close to my heart even before the kilt controversy arose in the media. This message is not meant to address the kilt controversy directly by any means, but rather, this message is a general and all-encompassing statement. It is a message about the qualities that really matter in a woman, and what really makes a woman attractive. Although this speech has some relevance to the way women dress and present themselves nowadays, the message in this speech goes far beyond one’s preferences, or feelings of pressure, as it relates to the way they dress, and it goes far beyond any concept of modernity. It strikes at the very core of humanity itself, in an attempt to make a revelation of truth apparent to all of you, with awe inspiring certainty. If you read this, and receive anything less than a feeling of absolution from it, then I have committed a grave sin, a sin against myself and a sin against all of you."

"The people this message concerns are the young women of this school, and of the world. In particular, it concerns the silent ones, the intelligent ones, the ones that don’t talk about people behind their backs, the ones that guys don’t flock to in droves, the ones that don’t dress in revealing clothing, the ones who would love to be in love, and the ones that are continually disappointed in their appearance because the only thing they have to compare themselves to are the women that have been put on pedestals by our society. This message also concerns those of you who may consider yourselves the so called “opposite” to the demographic I just described. The ones who do dress in revealing clothing, and the ones who try to fit in with the crowd."

"You don’t need to dress or act a certain way to fit in, to feel attractive, or to BE attractive. You’re all far more attractive than you realize. All of you. But that’s not to say that you should all dress in revealing clothing. No, not at all. Sure, a girl who dresses that way might turn a few heads, and get some compliments. But real attractiveness doesn’t come from wearing the latest fashion, and it doesn’t come from being scantily clad in public, or putting on make-up, or having a pretty face, or a nice body. No. Real attractiveness comes from having a certain dignity. It comes from having class. It comes from being true to yourself, being yourself, and being comfortable in your own skin. This message is for all young women within the sound of my voice and beyond. You’re all beautiful. You all have inner beauty AND outer beauty."

I don't know this kid, and he could have demonstrated a little more humility, but I like what he had to say. I also think it's a message the school should be applauding; not censoring. Austensibly, Paul was suspended for "Opposition to Authority" because he originally asked to give this as a speech to the student body but was denied. The principal asked him to change some parts first because she viewed them as "judgmental," (in bold above). Paul, instead, decided to leave it as is and print and distribute them himself. This was viewed as opposing authority. Charles Adler had some interesting things to say about this on his program.

I don't want to lose the main message in this, however.

Our girls are fed a steady stream of media messages telling them how they need to look and dress in order to be beautiful. Anorexia and bulimia have robbed many young women of their futures as they have tried to force themselves to live up to an unreachable standard. How exactly do you compete with a supermodel who has had every minor physical flaw photoshopped out? And, more importantly, why should you? This is the same message the "Dove Evolution" commercial was trying to say.

There is nothing wrong with trying to look our best. We all do it. But this piece was about self-esteem - feeling good about ourselves and being comfortable in our own skin. I would think that this message would be encouraged in a Catholic School. It reminds me of Proverbs 31:30: "Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised."

Our young women are placed in a very difficult position, trying to fit in and be accepted in an often hostile environment. Recognizing that each of us is an individual created by a loving God, we all have value; we all have worth. This is not an appeal to simpler times, but rather to common sense. Many of our young women feel compelled to dress inappropriately in order to gain the attention of the opposite sex, and even to participate in sexual activity before they're ready because they feel it's expected. This is wreaking a lot of damage on this generation of women.

You're right Paul: "Real attractiveness comes from having a certain dignity. It comes from having class. It comes from being true to yourself, being yourself, and being comfortable in your own skin." I do hope that some of the girls are listening. Comments are welcome.

Related Articles:
Minding Our Manners
"Gendercide" - A Deeper Look
Triumph and Tragedy - Whitney Houston
What Love Language Do You Speak?

Minding Our Manners

Here's a subject that I've been thinking about often. How is it that we can restore civility to our society? Those who know me well know that I'm not a prude. However, this is getting ridiculous. Everywhere I go I find my senses assaulted with a steady stream of vulgarity and downright rudeness.

I remember as a teenager that every once in a while you might run into someone who wasn't quite up to speed on the social graces, and of course you had some using profanity to act cool. Now it's everywhere, all the time. Does anyone else have a problem with this, or is it just me? I'm really trying to understand.

This subject reminds me of something I read a long time ago about William Wilberforce. If you recall, Wilberforce spent his life fighting the slave trade in Great Britain. It was abolished the year he died. But here's the part that struck me. Read this: “God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners.” At first reading I have to admit, I found it somewhat amusing. But now I think I get it.

He lived in a horrible time in British history. Not only was the slave trade going strong, but in parts of London, every other house was a tavern, and prostitution was rampant. Many, if not most, of society's elite lived lives of debauchery and gloried in it. When Wilberforce became a Christian, he became convicted that his life needed to amount to something - that was when he declared his two-pointed vision. Many have had ideas and made bold declarations. What was impressive about Wilberforce was the way he set about changing things.

He gave away one-quarter of his annual income to the poor. He fought on behalf of chimney sweeps, single mothers, Sunday schools, orphans, and juvenile delinquents. He helped found parachurch groups like the Society for Bettering the Cause of the Poor, the Church Missionary Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the Antislavery Society. He wrote books to appeal to the upper class to help them realize they had a responsibility as leaders to model responsible behaviour in a civilized society. He also helped to found the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

He understood that society is not changed overnight and that what people need are role models. I think the same is true today. As a Christian leader, one of the things that frustrates me the most is watching people of influence, especially parents, setting horrible examples for their kids. Do we really want everyone dropping 'f' bombs in everyday conversation?

And while I'm ranting, why do they have to put that same kind of language in every movie? - and then in Canada, rate it at PG? I don't know how many times I've brought home a movie rated PG or PG-13 for a night, only to find when it starts that the U.S. rating is 'R.' Five minutes in, and 10 'f' bombs later, I've had enough. I don't think that makes us more enlightened, I think it means we couldn't care less about the junk our kids are putting in their minds.

And then there's the music, dare I start on the music - all aimed at the kids. Topping the charts on i-tunes right now is E.T. by Katie Perry and Kanye West featuring sexual dialogue and profanity. Next in line is "S&M" by Rihanna, which is a song about... S&M - aimed at your 13 year old daughter. Here's a line: "Sticks and stones may break my bones But chains and whips excite me." Charming. The rest of the top ten are more of the same, including Jeremih and Fifty Cent and Britney Spears, et al, almost all with the same theme: "I want your body, whoa, whoa, whoa..."

In my line of work, I talk to a lot of people battling low self-esteem issues. Teenage girls are especially prone to this. We're not helping them at all, as a culture, by glorifying artists who are treating women as sex objects. Have you watched MTV lately? I couldn't take much more than a couple of minutes as some singer, dressed as a pimp, surrounded by scantily clad women he calls his b*****s, raps about what he wants to do with them. Wow! Isn't that what you want your daughter to grow up and do - star in a music video with a misogynist rapper? Then we've got the idiocy happening with Charlie Sheen. I think it's a little crazy that everyone's criticizing him for living his life in real life the way he was playing it on his show.

I know I'm ranting, but it bothers me. I was always taught the old computer principle GIGO - "Garbage in, garbage out." What's true about computers is also true about the mind. You fill it with junk, junk is what you get. Here's a challenge: try to live your life in such a way that, if your children knew everything about you, they'd still be proud. And for you Christians out there, live your life in such a way that you enhance God's reputation in the world. Finally, here's a verse from the Bible that I think is very appropriate for today:"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." (Isaiah 5:20) That verse was written some 2,800 years ago. It could describe a lot of what's going on around us. I'm going to try to do a little better in my corner of the world in making it a safe place for everyone. Anyone in favour?

Related Articles:
What Is A Christ-follower?
Assumptions
Book Review: "It Came From Within!"
I'm offended!

EXPELLED - The Movie

I don't usually do this, but I'm making an exception in this case. This is from Charles Colson's "Breakpoint." I had the chance to do some research about some of the cases that Ben Stein speaks of in his movie. I hope you have an open mind and watch it.

Myths about Expelled

Don't Believe Everything You Hear

If you have heard of the new documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opening April 18, chances are you have heard all kinds of distortions and myths about it. So let me set the record straight about some of the most common myths.

Myth #1: Darwinists interviewed for this film were tricked into participating.
Not so. Each scientist interviewed for Expelled, on both sides of the evolution debate, knew who would do the interview and what it was for. Each of them signed a release, allowing the producers to use the footage of their interviews.

Myth #2: The film is anti-science.
Wrong again. Many distinguished scientists were interviewed for this film and given the chance to express their views. Just like their Darwinist counterparts, the advocates of intelligent design and their supporters who are interviewed are there to talk about science, not to dismiss it. These are people like Cambridge physicist John Polkinghorne; Oxford mathematician and philosopher John Lennox; journalist Pamela Winnick, who has received hate mail for covering the issue; and biologist Caroline Crocker, who was fired from George Mason University for discussing intelligent design in the classroom. Some of them are religious believers; some are not. But what they share is a commitment to science and the unfettered pursuit of truth. Expelled is not anti-science; it is anti-censorship.

Myth #3: Ben Stein, the actor and writer who hosts the movie, has lost his mind.
Bringing up this very issue in a conference call, Stein quipped that he probably has, "but it was a long time ago . . . probably sometime around 1958." Well, I have known Stein well for years, and he is as bright as a button and anything but out of his mind. On a serious note, Stein and his film's producers explained that the mud that people are flinging at him is just one small example of what happens to people who question Darwinian orthodoxy. The original idea for Expelled, said co-producer and software engineer Walt Ruloff, came to him when he was working on a project with a group of biotechnologists and learned "that there was a whole series of questions that could not be asked."

The prevailing ideology among many scientists—it turned out—he concluded, was keep your mouth shut, take the research money, and publish only the data that fits with "the party line." The issue that concerns Ruloff and the others behind Expelled is whether the scientific establishment in this country is going to allow genuine "freedom of inquiry," or simply shut up—and slander—those who do not toe the line.

Given all this, Ben Stein states, "As long as the cause is right, I'm happy to be in an uphill struggle."

Myth #4: Popular author and atheist, Richard Dawkins tells Ben Stein in this film that there could have been a designer of life on earth, but it would have had to have been "a higher intelligence" that had itself evolved "to a very high level . . . and seeded some form of life on this planet."

Well, actually . . . that one is not a myth. He really did say it—striking admission, though it is.

So, I urge you to go see Expelled when it opens at a theater near you. Believe me, in this case the truth really is stranger—and more compelling—than any fiction the film's detractors could possibly dream up.

Faith-based Schools and Government Dollars

I decided to weigh in on this debate since it seems to be getting so much media play time during this Ontario election campaign. For those of you still unaware, John Tory, the Ontario Conservative leader has promised that, if elected, he will extend full funding to all faith-based groups. Currently, that benefit is enjoyed only by the Catholics.

I'm of two minds on this. I have three boys and we've used different approaches to educating them. We've done homeschooling, Christian school and the public school system. Each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses. Different children would benefit more from one than another.

My biggest issue with most media commentary on this issue is the lack of fairness and the hysterical reaction to faith-based schooling. Dalton McGuinty has raised fears that full funding will lead to a ghettoizing of Ontario, leaving children unable to function in a multi-cultural environment. Of course, he is a product of the fully funded Catholic system and his family actively participates as well. His position is hypocritical in the extreme. Other provinces have demonstrated that the social fabric can withstand extending funding to others. It appears that the knee-jerk reaction of many is to cast this as a public vs. private school war which must be won at all costs. Both can obviously survive and probably be the better for the process.

At the heart of this issue is fairness. Why should the Catholics have full funding and not other religious groups? Even the United Nations has ruled this discriminatory and prejudicial. Parents who choose to have their children in a non-Catholic faith-based school must currently pay above and beyond their taxes to do so.

In my opinion a better option is the school charter system for all schools. Bring a healthy dose of competition into the educational system. Under this model, each parent receives a voucher for each school-aged student. That voucher can be used to purchase enrollment at any school. This allows for schools to specialize while maintaining a core curriculum. It would allow for gifted students to flourish while ensuring that no student gets left behind.

At the very least, parents of students in faith-based private schools ought to have a tax deuction equivalent to their fair share of the education tax in order to offset the tuition they pay out of pocket. But regardless, let's end this fear-mongering that the sky is going to fall if we simply level the playing field for all students.

2007 March for Life Ottawa Follow-up

Where do we stand in Canada on abortion? Believe it or not, Canada is the only democratic nation in the world without a law governing abortion. Read this article by London Free Press writer Rory Leishman.

The "A" Word

Today, in Ottawa, thousands of people will March in the annual "March For Life" in a peaceful demonstration against abortion. You likely won't hear about it in the mainstream media because they seem to have a policy of ignoring any pro-life event. This fact was brought up in an article on the front page of the National Post last week.

I bring this up today because I think it says a great deal about us as a society. Many consider it one of our finer qualities as a nation that we have made tolerance the virtue. I'm not one of those.

First of all, we've lost the original meaning of the word. Tolerance has come to mean the blind acceptance and promotion of ideas and opinions. The Webster's dictionary definition for "tolerate" is "To put up with; to suffer to be, or to be practiced or done, without prohibition or hindrance."

In a free society, there was a recognition that there would be disagreements, we would tolerate, or put up with, the differences between ourselves and others, while maintaining the right to respectfully disagree. That is what we have lost in Canada - the right to disagree without being labelled as some kind of nutcase.

A case in point is the abortion debate. Far from being settled, it rather remains a serious point of contention for Canadians, with a large percentage of the population at odds with the current state of affairs. Yet it is rarely covered in the media, unless a pro-abortionist is doing the talking. There is no public debate because we don't want to deal with it, and we somehow think we should applaud ourselves for this?

It's the same with religion in Canada. Secular-humanist thought has a virtual monopoly in our media and in our school systems and we're all fine with that, buying the mantra that religion should be kept private. But we forget that secular humanism is also a religion. Its worldview makes just as many faith claims as any of the more widely recognized religions. It has positions on origins, meaning, morality and destiny, the basic frameworks of any worldview. What we forget is that ideas have consequences. There is a profound, and I believe negative, impact on our children to deprive them of a solid Judeo-Christian foundation, especially given the historical significance in Canada.

What I argue for is a re-opening of the debate in Canada. Let's stop preaching to each other and start talking to each other. The place to start may be with the whole idea of truth itself. If all truth is relative then what are we really talking about? The fact is, some things are true and some things are false. The law of non-contradiction states that "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time". In other words, two opposite statements about the same thing cannot be true at the same time.

We have a ridiculous belief in Canada that we can all believe different things about the same thing and we can all be right. Or another, similar, fallacy, that as long as we're sincere we can believe anything we want. Sorry, but that's just stupid. Believing you're taking tylenol while you're in fact taking cyanide tablets will not make you feel better, it will kill you - even if you're sincere. It's the same with ideas. The wrong idea will lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Let's re-open the debate.

The Fall Of Civilization

Lately a lot of the talk on sports roundtables has been about the ignorant comments of Don Imus, who managed to insult the entire Rutgers University women's basketball team as well as black women everywhere. Imus is (was) a "shock jock" with a syndicated program on MSNBC and CBS radio. He has since been suspended by CBS for two weeks and apparently suspended indefinitely by MSNBC.

I've been fascinated by the entire exercise partly because of what it reveals about us as a society. Anybody with a pulse and a social conscience recognizes that what Don Imus said was unacceptable. What is remarkable is that the man has been so successful for so long doing basically the same thing. His "schtick" is to use vulgarity and insults to put-down anyone with whom he disagrees or whom he might not like. For this he is paid big money and draws large crowds. He has done so well, in fact, that for years politicians and authors have practically begged to appear on his program. Why?

Are we this starved for so-called entertainment that we enjoy seeing others put down and insulted? The answer obviously is yes.

Perhaps the best point was one that I heard on a radio station as I was driving through Michigan this week. The talk-show host was not questioning whether Imus was wrong, what he was questioning was this: why is Imus wrong and the rappers featured on BET say much worse every day and no-one says a word. It was actually an impassioned statement from a young black man that brought up this point. He was enraged that the black community would put up with the degrading comments directed towards young black women every day on BET and radio by hip hop artists.

I think it's a great point, and it should not be limited to rappers - it's everywhere. There is a general lack of respect in our society that is reflected in everything from basic manners to language to basic TV fare to music. When and why did it become cool to use the "f" word in public? When did we lose the ability to disagree politely with people and, rather, loudly tell them off? When did we lose the ability to produce a good movie with a sound storyline without filling it with gratuitous sex scenes and vulgar language? Why do we feel that we have to try to offend the sensibilities of those around us as if we were all 15 years old? Why is it that you can't just flip through the channels on your TV set without finding something that is completely inappropriate for your children?

I think it's time we started saying "no" to the Imus' of this world by tuning them out. Let the ratings tell the networks to drop these guys. If we continue to listen to this junk, buy these CD's and videos, then whose fault is it really? The responsibility lies with all of us.

Amazing Grace, Amazing Movie - Take 2

Something happened with my post yesterday and the text was deleted - sorry. My wife and I had the chance to take in the preview of the movie "Amazing Grace." It's the story of William Wilberforce and his life-long crusade to end the slave trade in the British Empire. I'm normally a critic of Hollywood, but this time they got it right.

I know that it's hard to do justice to this type of character in a 2 hour movie, but they managed to hit most of the highlights. Wilberforce was a larger than life person (short though he was) who had as large an impact on Western Civilization as almost anyone. Yet he has remained largely unknown. Kudos to New Life Cinema for making this movie - it was truly inspirational. Be sure to take the kids.

I rate it a 4 out of 5 stars.

The Great Global Warming Swindle 1/8

For the full video - click here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=Global+Warming+swindle

5 Stories You Likely Haven't Heard About

1. David Suzuki and Charitable Tax Status

During the last Federal election a number of outspoken critics of the moral stance taken by the Liberal Party of Canada received calls from Revenue Canada bureaucrats. At least one, Bishop Fred Henry, was warned that his organization could lose its charity tax status if he continued to criticize the government's stance on issues such as "same-sex marriage," abortion and divorce. Henry was critical of any and all politicians who took opposing views. He was reminded that the charities act requires that he abstain from partisan political activism.

Suzuki, Canada's leading voice for environmentalism, has been traveling the country, speaking at schools and other functions. In a Calgary school he attacked the Federal Conservatives in front of an assembly of sixth-graders, admitting he was directing his comments more to the adults in the room. The question is whether it's okay for the left to participate in partisan politics while keeping their charity status, or if they will be held to the same standard as Christian organizations. We'll let you know if Revenue Canada takes any action. Follow this link to read the original story.

2. Founder of Lesbian Magazine Goes Straight and Becomes a Christian.

This story is the height of political incorrectness and flies in the face of everything we hear about in the press. I've been told on numerous occasions that gays and lesbians are born that way and that it's genetic, etc... The evidence for that is still forthcoming, by the way.

Now we hear of Charlene Cothran, founder and editor of VENUS magazine, not only "coming out," but inviting others to join her. It's created a firestorm of criticism around her from the usual suspects, but you need to read the story for yourself. She wrote an article in her own magazine about her experience.

3. German Authorities Take Child Away From Parents Because of Homeschooling.

This story is another bizarre one, I first talked about it a few months ago. It's hard to believe, but homeschooling is illegal in Germany, under a law enacted by none other than Hitler himself. The law was designed to enable the Nazis to indoctrinate children into their way of thinking. For some reason it is still on the books, and has been used to remove 15 year old Melissa Busekros from her home and place her in an undisclosed location. Her siblings may face the same fate.

An organization named "Parents of the World" has launched a boycott of German companies to try to bring pressure on the local government to reverse its decision. It raises the whole question of parental vs. state authority. Check out the article by Gudrun Schultz on the subject.

4. Former ACLU Leader Arrested On Child Porn Charges

I include this for purposes of fairness. We all heard ad nauseum of the events surrounding Ted Haggard's fall from grace. It was featured repeatedly on all of the major networks, newspapers and news websites for weeks and became the subject of many a comedian's routine. He came under special criticism because of the hypocrisy of heading a Christian organization espousing morality while leading a private life that opposed it.

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, was arrested late last week by federal authorities and charged with receipt and possession of child pornography in violation of federal law. He has previously lobbied against internet filtering of web sites in public libraries and pushed for "maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet." Easy access to pornography is fast becoming one of the greatest social problems families face. Read the full story here.

5. Iraqi Christians - Does Anybody Care?

The Christian community in Iraq is one of the oldest anywhere in the world. They have survived generations of persecution and somehow learned to survive in an often hostile environment. Now there is a war in Iraq, largely fueled by the animosity between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. What both groups can agree on, though, is that Christians are a common enemy.

How bad is it? The latest figures from the UN estimate that around 3.7 million Iraqis - 1 in 8 - have been forced out of their homes by the violence since 2003. Christians, who made up only 3-4% of the population of Iraq, account for nearly a quarter of the refugee population. The number of Christians left in Iraq has fallen from 1.4 million in the 1980s to less than 500,000 now. Those who stay often face violence and/or death. An e-petition has been launched in the U.K. to help protect the rights of Iraqi Christians. For more of the story click here.

Let me know if you found this helpful - I might make hard-to-find news stories a regular feature.

Money, Money, Money...

There was a quote that I noticed in a Toronto Star article today that caught my eye. The article was dealing with the growing gap between rich and poor in Canada, and the seemingly insatiable desire for more - even among those who would be considered wealthy. It was written by Rita Daly and the quote was attributed to Kalle Lasn, an "outspoken critic of consumer excess..." He called this "hyper-capitalist" trend in society a "social virus" and thinks that "it's eating at our culture." I don't know the guy's politics; I'd probably disagree with him about many things, but I think he has a point here.

In my dealings with people I've found a growing number who find themselves falling further and further behind. I don't mean that they can't afford the latest toys; I mean they can't afford their house or apartment; can't keep up with their bills and can't keep their car on the road. In another article in the same edition, Daly and Laurie Monsebraaten quote statistics that show that the average Canadian family with children worked 200 more hours in 2004 than in 1996 yet found themselves no further ahead. On the other hand, the top ten percent of income earners worked less, yet found their salaries growing exponentially.

For example, in 1996 the 10% richest families earned 31 times what the 10% poorest lived on. By 2004 they earned 82 times more. That's quite a change - even without a careful study of the statistics. We've all heard about the incredible salaries of CEOs both in Canada and the U.S. Here's just one example: John Hunkin stepped down from his position as CEO of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) in 2005. He now receives more than $1.3 million yearly in retirement benefits. He also received more than $25 million in stocks. His salary in 2004 alone was $1 million. His bonus for the year was over $3 million. That's just one example.

Now, let me first say that I believe in free enterprise. I also believe in social responsibility. In 2004 three of the big Canadian banks earned profits of: $2.2-billion (CIBC), $2.9-billion (Bank of Nova Scotia) and $2.83-billion (Royal). Yet my non-scientific poll and my personal experience reveal that customer service is actually declining. You receive no interest on deposits, high service fees and no tellers when you want service. This is only one sector of business. We could look similarly at the oil companies and others. We could also look at our own Federal government.

The point is that there is a grossly disproportionate share of resources being channelled into fewer hands, creating, soon, a permanent underclass. Perhaps the most telling symptom of this "social virus" is one that is hard to measure, because you can't see it. It's a growing sense among a generation that they will not be able to achieve their dreams. Not only that, but there's a growing fear that they cannot even take care of their own. It's been a while since our culture has known that fear on a wide scale.

I think that there's a reason (or reasons) for the insatiable greed on the one hand and the fear on the other. We've made money and things the measure of our success; yet things can never satisfy. I remember at Christmas waiting for the new toy and then merely days later forgetting all about it. The more we have the more we want. We also have advertisers telling us all of the things that we need because they will make us happy.

There is something very wrong with a culture where, even though the very poor are wealthy by the world's standards, there remains such a high level of dissatisfaction. If you're looking to be the richest on the block there's always a Jones (or a Trump) with more.

Wouln't it be great if more people lived the way that Mother Teresa lived? She said: "I try to give to the poor people for love what the rich could get for money. No, I wouldn't touch a leper for a thousand pounds; yet I willingly cure him for the love of God." She understood that what really matters is not what we have, but what we do with what we have.

The Biblical word for that is stewardship. It's a recognition that God is the one who has provided for us, and He intends for us to use our resources to help others; to make the world a better place. One of the best examples I've seen of this was when Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in California, became a best-selling author. His book, Purpose Driven Life, has sold millions of copies and brought in millions of dollars. What does a man do with that kind of money in light of Scripture? That's what Larry King asked him. Warren and his wife decided not to buy a bigger house; to stop taking a salary from the church; to pay back the church every penny he had received in salary; to set up charitable foundations to distribute the money; to give 90% of it away and to live on only 10%. He and his wife, Kay, are now heavily involved in fighting the AIDs epidemic.

He might not be perfect - I'm sure he's not. But I think I prefer his example to that of John Hunkin. We are not accountable for what we don't have; we are accountable, however, for what does come into our possession. If each of us could keep that in mind, we could make the world a better place. Just a thought.

Setting the record straight on "Amazing Grace."

Another Jesus Conspiracy Theory

Easter must be around the corner because here comes yet another conspiracy theory around Jesus. This time it's about a tomb that supposedly contains the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their family and... we've heard it all before.

Canadian director James Cameron, of Titanic fame, and another Canadian director, Simcha Jacobovici, are responsible for this latest bit of irresponsible journalism. The Discovery Channel is being criticized for its sensationalism and lack of ethics in airing the documentary.

So, what of the claims? Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner, who was in charge of the 1980 investigation of the tomb which is the subject of the new claims by Cameron-Jacobovici, said "The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell." Archeologist Joe Zias, who spent a quarter-century at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem, said "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever."

If you recall back in 2003, it was broadly reported that the remains of James, the brother of Jesus had been discovered - a claim that was disproven and demonstrated to be a fraud (see picture above). Jacobovici is still a believer in the fraud - likely because it helps with this current deception.

This is all so repetitive and typically inflammatory. Two years ago we had ABC's special that challenged the facts of the resurrection; last year we had NBC's "Dateline" featuring Michael Baigent and his claims in "The Jesus Papers;" and let's not forget "The Davinci Code." Now this from the Discovery Channel. I've also got a collection of magazine covers from "Time" and "Macleans," etc... with cover stories with titles like "The Shaman Jesus." Anybody see a trend. It's interesting that all of these "breaking" stories happen to coincide with the Easter season. No coincidence there I'm sure.

Why the media wants to jump on the bandwagon with these fringe players is beyond me, especially when their claims fly in the face of evidence. You can check out some more commentary at "The Point," if you like. Let's leave the last word to archaeologist Amos Kloner, who made the find in the first place: "I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists."

Christianity & Science

There's a theme that keeps being repeated over and over again in the popular media which basically states that there is a war between religion (particularly Christianity) and science. Time magazine recently did a cover on just this subject. A British television station went one further, airing a two-part special titled "The Root of All Evil?". Both Time and the TV series featured Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous apologist of Darwinism.

One of the most consistent myths being perpetrated by Dawkins and his ilk is that Christianity promotes ignorance and superstition. He may have some scientific qualifications, but his grasp of history could certainly be improved.

As Rodney Stark outlines in his book, The Victory of Reason, it was Christian Europe that provided the fertile soil for modern science. As he states, Christianity "embraced reason and logic as the primary guides to religious truth." It was, in part, the understanding that God was an intelligent being who created in a logical and orderly manner that encouraged scientists to look for the order in nature. There were laws in nature because there was a law-giver.

I think it's a given that there are many, if not most, religions which are anti-science, but Christianity is not one of them. What Christians object to is pseudo-science: making outlandish faith claims and calling it science. Retired Berkeley law school professor Phillip E. Johnson, among others, have pointed out the propensity of some members of the scientific community to make truth claims without the required evidence.

The Discovery Institute is an organization established by well-known scientists such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and Jay Richards who also happen to be Christians. So was Isaac Newton, by the way. All of these men - and countless other men and women - have found that their Christian faith and scientific investigation are mutually compatible.

What intellectually drew me to Christianity was the fact that it is based in history and has a comprehensive view of the world. It has as its central tenet an historical event - the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It presents a view of the world that makes sense at every level. As C.S. lewis wrote: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Over the next few posts we're going to look at the idea of worldview, and how the Biblical worldview compares with that of other faiths - including atheism. Your comments are welcome.

Surprise! Hollywood Influences Children.

I know that some of you are shocked by this, but a recent study has confirmed what many have been saying all along, graphic movies have a negative impact on our children. According to an article in the Washington Post and re-run in the Toronto Star, there was a substantial difference in risky behavior between 9-12 year-olds whose parents allowed them to watch 'R' rated movies and those who didn't.

Remember that in Canada the ratings system is quite different, so many movies rated 'R' stateside are actually '14A' here or even 'PG13.' According to the study done by researchers at Dartmouth Medical School, children with permissive parents were 40% more likely to consider using cigarettes or alcohol than their more restricted peers.

This simply confirms what many parents have already assumed to be fact - GIGO "Garbage In, Garbage Out." There have been voices speaking up for years but they have largely been ignored by the mainstream media or dismissed as crackpots. Movie critic Michael Medved has been an especially articulate spokesman in favor of some self-control from Hollywood (don't hold your breath). A couple of books have spoken specifically to this issue, incuding: "Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values" and one he co-authored with his psychologist wife: "Saving Childhood: Protecting Our Children from the National Assault on Innocence."

We live in a complicated age. Technology has enabled us to have instant access to news and entertainment from anywhere in the world to wherever we happen to be. This new freedom is not necessarily a good thing if we haven't learned how to discern. This is particularly important for the age group mentioned in this study. We've focused a lot in our society on the unhealthy diets which our fast-food culture has inflicted on our kids, but what about the junk food for the brain that passes for entertainment. Regarding the morality of the movie and music industry the question seems to be "how low can you go?"

I guess the good news coming out of this study is that parents who took an active role in the viewing choices of their children were actually able to make a difference. Don't give up on being parents. Your kids may fight you, your friends may criticize you, liberal media may mock you, but your kids need you. Hang in there!

Good News!

Over the last few weeks there have been a number of news reports and op-eds about the videos "Bum Wars" and "Ghetto Fights" and the like. If you look elsewhere on this blog you'll find a couple of articles as well as a response from one of the stores which sold the videos. The good news is that a reversal in policy was just announced. The stores have voluntarily pulled them from the shelves and the Ontario Film Review Board has also announced that they may slap a 'R' rating on the offensive DVD's.

If you recall, the videos included graphic images of thugs beating defenseless people half to death - all for profit. Some teens were actually going out and making their own violent videos in the hopes of cashing in on the new craze.

Brodie Fenlon, who originally broke the story in the Toronto Sun, announced the decision in an article today. Sometimes public outcry can make a difference. If you sent an e-mail or letter or made a phone call, thanks. Let's hope the review board does its job.

Stem Cell Research & The Media

You likely haven't read it in any of the major newspapers or seen it covered by the CBC, ABC, CBS, Global, CTV, etc..., but there's been a major breakthrough in stem cell research. According to an article by Gudrun Schultz, Scientists in Britain have grown a human liver from stem cells taken from blood from an umbilical cord. In other words, no embryo had to be destroyed; no ethical lines had to be crossed. It was simply good science.

You won't have heard this story likely because there seems to be a very real media bias as regards stem cell research in favor of the mantra that embryonic stem cells provide the "best hope" for scientific breakthroughs. You've likely seen video or heard audio clips of Michael J. Fox's impassioned plea for the passage of a bill that would allow for the expansion of this type of research in order to treat diseases like Parkinson's, from which he suffers. Michael's sincerity is obvious, which makes it all the more important to look at the facts.

Regardless of why those embryos were created - another debate entirely - how do you morally justify their destruction when other alternatives are available? Perhaps the question of the day would be this - why would the mainstream media ignore a scientific breakthrough of this magnitude? This "eureka" type of discovery was covered in London's Daily Mail. These scientists foresee a day when "cord blood from millions of babies born each year is banked, creating a world-wide donor register for liver transplant and dialysis."

Rush Limbaugh's crude accusation that Michael J. Fox was "acting" and exaggerating the effects of his illness are simply a distraction from the real issue: is it a good idea to open a door to questionable scientific practices? My answer is a firm no! Just because we can do something does not mean that we ought to; especially when there is a safe and non-destructive alternative.

According to Schultz: "Research using embryonic stem cells is highly controversial because it requires the destruction of embryos in order to 'harvest' the cells. Further, to this date there has been no success in using embryonic cells to treat any disease or disorder. In contrast, the use of adult stem cells or of cells harvested from umbilical cord blood shortly after the birth of a baby have already been used successfully to treat multiple conditions, including spinal injury and blindness."

The point is this: while Michael J. Fox's condition does tug on the heart strings, it is not a valid argument. Emotion should not - cannot - be allowed to override sound reasoning. One of society's main responsibilities is to defend those who cannot defend themselves. In order to do that we must preserve a healthy respect for human life. Embryos ought not to be created to be destroyed; the U.S. should not open that door, and Canada should not have.

During the reign of our previous Liberal government, Bill C-6 was passed, allowing research on frozen embryos created for in vitro fertilization (IVF) but no longer wanted by the donors. The language of the bill was clear that testing was limited to these embryos. However, already the line has blurred and IVF donors are now being asked to consent to allowing their embryos to be harvested for research - exactly the type of abuse that was feared in the first place. The argument that such legal changes are a "slippery slope" is not mere conjecture, it's history, as Rory Leishman argues in his recent article.

Our culture needs to move off of its trendy pragmatism, and look once again at a moral framework that protects those who are the most vulnerable. We need to stop being lazy intellectually and work through the implications of the decisions we make. The consequences of doing otherwise are frightening indeed.

Apologize! Should He Or Shouldn't He?

Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, and a well-known preacher in his own right, has recently found himself in a great deal of controversy. Some church leaders in Winnipeg are demanding that Graham apologize over comments that he has made in the past that Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion."

This is just the kind of fodder that Canada's broadcaster, the CBC, loves to see. For the net news item, go to this link. They no doubt will be following Franklin's every move in Winnipeg, where his organization has planned a large evangelistic outreach.

The multi-faith group getting the publicity have organized what they are calling "Operation Bless Our Enemies." Apparently the group is led by Aiden Enns, who is a well known activist and the editor of Adbusters magazine. It is made up of Mennonite, United and Anglican church members, as well as representatives from the Muslim and Jewish communities.

While I would like to take this protest at face value - that they're simply trying to convince Mr. Graham to do the right thing by apologizing for his remarks, a short look at Mr. Enns' other causes would tend to indicate otherwise. You also have to wonder at the choice of venue for this protest by this group of mostly "Christians."

What would be the motive for handing out handbills to people attending the event and asking them to sign them and leave them on collection plates? The goal of the Winnipeg festival was to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a cause which, one would assume, Mr. Enns and his friends would support. It would seem to me that if he were sincere, he would find some other way to get his point across to Rev. Graham, rather than disrupting the proclamation of the Gospel and perhaps turning someone off to the message. My suspicion is that this has a lot more to do with politics than a concern for Muslim sensibilities.

That being said, should Franklin Graham apologize. His father, the Rev. Billy Graham, said on Larry King that he didn't agree with his son's position but that he had every right to hold it. In previous attempts at explaining himself, Franklin has said that he has nothing against Muslims but that the religion itself is based on error - an obvious statement for a Christian who believes in the Bible and the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ. He has made his position clear in a public statement.

I think that, by and large, what Graham stated is true: Islam has proven itself historically to be a religion that advances with violence, seemingly endorsed by many of its leaders and its holy book. His statements were not politically correct and, therefore, made for great press and fodder for the liberal media. Franklin's father has always shied away from taking controversial public statements - as is his right. Apparently his son will say what he thinks.

But let's look at the evidence. Does Franklin Graham hate Muslims? As head of "Samaritan's Purse," a large Christian relief organization, he has overseen the ditribution of compassionate aid to millions of people, worldwide. His claim - and I have no reason to question this claim - is that more aid has gone from his organization to Muslims than to any other group in the world. That aid would total in the tens of millions of dollars. That doesn't sound like the efforts of someone who hates Muslims, does it?

Rather, it seems to me to be the outworking of a Christian leader who believes that the words of Jesus - "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me." - are true. Therefore, all other claims to the contrary are false. Christianity and Islam have fundamentally different teachings and therefore they cannot both be true at the same time. Rev. Graham is making the very logical statement - as a Christian minister - that Christianity is true and Islam is false. I would like to suggest that Mr. Enns and the other "Christian" leaders with him either lay down their label or explain how two contrary and opposing views could both be true at the same time.

To wrap it up, could Franklin Graham have been more sensitive? Absolutely. Should he have stated his position more diplomatically? Almost certainly. Should he apologize? If you read his statement, I believe you'll find that he clarifies his position well: he is opposed to the Islamic religion, but loves and respects Muslims as individuals. For that position he need not apologize. Opinions welcome!