Michael Coren is typical of the "progressive" Christian, based on what the linked article implies. He apparently has written a number of books, with the latest being entitled "Epiphany: A Christians' Change of Heart Over Same-Sex Marriage". The article in question speaks of a "proposal by Trinity Western University of Langley, B.C., to establish a law school." The issue revolves around a conflict between Canadian law which supports the travesty of SSM and the right of a religious school to impose standards upon its students...the disregard for which can lead to expulsion. This is the typical conflict imposed by all states or nations that choose to support a behavior long considered immoral and abnormal. In the good old U.S. of A., our Constitution acknowledges our right to express our faith as we see fit in all we do. Such legal impositions such as state recognition of sexual immorality naturally causes hardship for people of faith and reason and naturally pits "rights" against each other.
Such is the case with Trinity, as they seek to maintain standards of conduct among their students, faculty and employees. It is their right to do so and as these standards are up front, open and easily found out by all who seek to spot among their community, the whine that they are "denying" or "discriminating"...as if homosexuality is akin to race or sex...is ludicrous.
But worse, the hatred for those who uphold long held and time-tested standards of morality and virtue extends to the hiring of those who acquire their law degree through this university. The problem is that British Columbia will, like Ontario, deny law licenses to graduates of Trinity's law program, simply because the school has moral expectations for their students! It's not like graduates are obliged to ignore the law simply because they signed onto a covenant. But just like in the case of Amy Coney Barrett, somehow leftists, and this Coren dude, can't believe that a Christian can uphold the law if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. In the case of BC and Ontario, apparently, they aren't even going to take the chance, as idiotic as the notion might be.
So what of Coren? Early in the piece he makes the cheesy and woefully deceitful argument (though typical of the "progressive" Christian) that after His resurrection, Christ "went on again to not address sex, abortion, contraception, pornography or any of the other topics that seem to so obsess the Christian right. Odd, that." Not odd at all, given three very significant factors:
1. Christ was known to uphold the commandments of the Father, encouraging obedience to them, including those regarding human sexuality, which prohibits various immoral expressions of it. What this doofus refers to as "obsession" (another typical argument and equally false) is actually concern with the obsession of the immoral that has led to laws that codify immorality. As sexual immorality is harmful to body, mind and soul, decent Christians are justified in opposing it where proponents seek to legitimize it.
2. Jewish law in the time of Christ resulted in sexual immorality not being as common as it otherwise might have been, and the punishment for being guilty of engaging in homosexual behavior was death, so it wasn't prevalent in Jewish society...at least not that anyone has ever proven. Why would Jesus spend time speaking on that which was not a problem for the targets of His preaching at the time?
3. It is said by John (I believe) that there is much that Christ said and did that he did not record in his gospel. To suggest that Christ NEVER broached the subject of homosexuality is an assertion without basis.
Again, Coren assume Christians can't do the job because of their faith. He says Trinity is inconsistent in their policy:
"The question is whether those future graduates should then be permitted to work as lawyers within the public square, to participate in a legal and social framework where the equality of LGBTQ people is the law — a fundamental human right. Trinity’s advocates respond by claiming the covenant is about protecting the sanctity of marriage, not homophobia. That’s a rather disingenuous claim, to say the least. What if a heterosexual student had a sexual relationship while enrolled at the college?"
An actual journalist, or an actual Christian concerned with truth and facts would have the answer to that question before writing an article about the case. In Illinois, Wheaton college has a similar covenant incoming students are contractually expected to abide. It is my understanding that ANY sexual immorality results in the same consequences. I would assume Trinity is the same, but I'm not opposed to what has been stated about their covenant...Coren is. If he wishes to portray them as wacky, interview someone from the school who is solidly familiar with the covenant in question. Doing so may even have resulted in making his article unnecessary. Having all the facts can do that.
But it seems that Coren believes that one cannot live one way and abide and defend the law at the same time. One might be led to believe that there is absolutely no law that any Canadian lawyer finds objectionable. It's absurd and unjustly derogatory toward Christians who do not pervert the Word of God to suit their personal preferences and opinions...like Dan and feo.
Then Coren goes all in.
"Prejudice is what it is, by the way, and I’m sick and tired of people trying to use and abuse Christianity to justify their own baser feelings. Homosexuality is hardly mentioned in the Bible. Jesus doesn’t refer to it at all. The Old Testament never mentions lesbianism, the story of Sodom is more about rejecting the stranger than gay sex … and let’s just say that David and Jonathan might have had a tough time becoming law students at Trinity Western.
Frankly, scripture is vague on the issue. But sex and sexuality simply do not figure large in the Bible story, particularly when Christ becomes its centre."
Like all false Christians, Coren believes that discriminating against bad behaviors is anti-Christian, as if Christ never spoke about human behaviors. This is what Coren regards as "baser feelings".
---He also suggests that how much something is mentioned matters to whether or not it is moral or immoral. A single, solitary "Thou shalt not" is sufficient to all true Christians who seek to live a life pleasing to God. It doesn't require reiteration every other page throughout the entirety of Scripture. As I've demonstrated to Dan over the years on more than one occasion (because for him, reiteration is required, though never sufficient for edification), even pro-homosexual scholars and theologians acknowledge the clear and unmistakable prohibition of homosexual behavior in any context or scenario in which it might take place. It is always an abomination, detestable, sinful and forbidden.
---The OT doesn't need to mention lesbianism. As "progressive" Christians are quick to remind us, the ancient Hebrews were a patriarchal culture. They counted their population by the number of adult men, not by how many men, women AND children there were. What applied to men was (at least) equally applicable to women. If a man was prohibited from lying with a male as one would with a female, there's no way a woman could lie with a female as one would with a male.
---The story of Sodom is NOT about rejecting the stranger as the men of Sodom were absolutely NOT looking to reject the two strangers Lot was protecting. The homosexual aspect of the tale describes just how wicked the people of Sodom were, that they would welcome strangers by having homosexual sex with them. If anyone was being rejected, it was the men of Sodom in their intentions to welcome the visitors in their customary manner. I'm being only partially snarky here. They didn't get pissed and attempt to force their will until after they were refused by Lot.
---Nothing is more desperate than the homosexual attempt to portray the David/Jonathan friendship as homosexual. The activist/enabler is so corrupt as to accuse them of vile and detestable desires just to pretend there is Biblical precedent for their own.
Scripture is not "vague" at all on the subject of sexual immorality in general and certainly not with regard to homosexuality behavior. God forbids it because it is detestable, and even mandates capital punishment until the sacrifice of Christ on the cross paid for that sin as well.
Coren is not a Christian any more than are feo or Dan. They all worship a god of their own making who has only a loose similarity to the God of the Bible. It is not conservative Christians who drive people away. It is the sin nature of those who find the moral teachings of Christianity inconvenient that does it.
15 comments:
Great response, MA. He's just another wimp who trots out the same lame arguments (gee, the argument from silence - never heard that one or refuted it 100 times before!) to justify loving the world. Isn't that convenient how he had his epiphany just when it benefited him the most?
Christianity is simply not going to be the forte' of such sissies. Hopefully God will save at least some of these "Christian" Leftists and then they will have the guts to speak the truth.
And while there appears to be no risk at the moment of him going to Heaven, if he repents and believes he'll owe David and Jonathan a big apology. Or maybe they get to kick his ass on his way to Hell?!
P.S. Just glanced at his article and saw the typical dishonesty you get from these "Christian" Leftists: "The Supreme Court will make its decision and we will all move on … until the next Christian baker or dressmaker decides they don’t want to serve gay people."
He deliberately and dishonestly misstates the argument. These people serve gays all the time, they just don't want to be forced to participate in their God-mocking ceremonies or have to use their creative abilities in that process. But fascists like that guy don't like anyone having a true Christian conscience.
It's a willful disregard for the reality of the situation, constantly re-framing and distorting it in favor of the homosexual position. And from one who claims he's a Christian, to boot. Gee. Where have we seen that before?
Thanks for your attention to this matter, Marshal.
A couple minor clarifications: At Dan's blog I labeled the Canadian man as "a liberal Canadian Catholic," not a "conservative" as you indicated. Also, I was asking about the general tenor of the Canadian's twitter page, not a particular article written by the man--but you've covered the most interesting aspects of his views in analyzing his article, so that's fine.
I'll note that a different Canadian on twitter likes to say that those of us south of his country are so conservative that our Democrats would be considered right-wingers in Canada. Could that be exaggeration? Not sure. He loves socialized medicine and thinks it is primitive of us Americans to not have gone whole-hog in that direction.
~ Hiram
Welcome Hiram,
"A couple minor clarifications: At Dan's blog I labeled the Canadian man as "a liberal Canadian Catholic," not a "conservative" as you indicated"
I debated with myself on this point as to whether or not I would address it or leave it. I didn't get it from you. In looking at articles he had published, I came across another source describing him as such. I don't believe he is rightly labeled conservative at all based on what I've seen thus far. But it's a minor point compared to the position he takes in the article I reference.
"I'll note that a different Canadian on twitter likes to say that those of us south of his country are so conservative that our Democrats would be considered right-wingers in Canada. Could that be exaggeration?"
It may be, but that doesn't speak well of Canada in my opinion. Our Dems are about as far to the left as I've every seen them be, and I believe were it not for the GOP, we'd be Canada. And that's acknowledging how few real conservatives exist within the GOP these days.
Socialized medicine is not working for Canada. Those who support it are among those who do not actually look at its failure. One doesn't hear of Americans going to Canada seeking medical care. It's not uncommon to hear of Canadians coming here. What does that say about socialized medicine in Canada? Even as damaged as Obamacare has made our health care system, we still have a far better system for acquiring care than any country with socialized medicine.
Was there anything else about Coren's views that are of particular interest that you'd like to see discussed? Feel free to make them known. Consider this thread your opportunity. Also, feel free to comment on any other thread of my blog.
Coren tweeted, "I'd estimate 30-50% of Roman Catholic clergy are gay. Many but not all celibate. Most uphold the homophobic teaching of the church. Awful."
Do you think the percentage really could be that high?
Also, Coren is one of those foreigners who devotes a lot of energy to politics in the USA. I oscillate between "why not mind your own business" and "I'm flattered we are so important in the world that you obsess about us" when I read social media by foreigners like him. The expression "pulling the lion's tail" might be applicable. Any thoughts on America-obsessed foreign writers?
{The comment above being from Hiram.}
I wonder how he comes up with that percentage. Does he give any indication?
I don't know if there's any way to know without a poll of all RC priests. What I do know is that those priests found guilty of having molested kids are mostly those who have molested boys, and not small boys. They are not pedophiles, as the term is defined. There are more specific terms depending on the age of the victims and thus the charge of homosexual predator is appropriate.
I've posted links to a couple of articles referring studies that compare sexual abuse among Catholic priests to other denominations, religions and the public school system. There's a good argument that they are not the worst offenders, despite any quantity of incidents being unacceptable.
As to foreigners commenting on the affairs of the USA, I have no problem with it and believe it indicates two things: how much our nation affects the rest of the world, and how small the rest of the world is that such interest among nations with each other is a natural consequence of it.
I don't see any source given by the fellow on twitter for his percentage estimate.
~ Hiram
I think it's just a personal opinion due to biased reasons.
I just saw another Canadian tweeting about how she thinks US healthcare is inferior to Canadian healthcare.
https://twitter.com/Norlaine
Several consecutive tweets September 21 are on that topic.
If time permits, elaborate further on your thoughts on that topic with her points in mind--to supplement what you have already written above on this page.
~ Hiram
I just listened to an interview with Sally Pipes on Larry Elder's radio show last night, so your reference to Canadian healthcare is timely. The interview reminded me that I was interested in checking out her book "The Top 10 Myths of American Health Care" even though it's almost ten years old. In any case, here are the myths she addresses:
Myth One: Government health care is more efficient
Myth Two: We’re spending too much on health care
Myth Three: 46 million Americans can’t get health care
Myth Four: High drug prices drive up health care costs
Myth Five: Importing drugs would reduce health care costs
Myth Six: Universal coverage can be achieved by forcing everyone to buy insurance
Myth Seven: Government prevention programs reduce health care costs
Myth Eight: We need more government to insure poor Americans
Myth Nine: Health information technology is a silver bullet for reducing costs
Myth Ten: Government-run health care systems in other countries are better and cheaper than America’s
But the greater significance of mentioning Pipes is that she's from Canada and is now an American citizen (I don't think she sneaked in). As such, she has some familiarity with the Canadian system, and she addressed some of what Norlaine Thomas mentioned. Here are my thoughts on Thomas' list of points without going into too much detail:
"1. I must say, I am completely perplexed by what it is that Americans find so distressing about a universal health care system."
She would be less so if she'd take the time to read any of the many commentaries on this very subject. It can be done without reading an entire book like Pipes' book mentioned above. In general, among the many downsides, it's not cost-effective, wait times are longer, and government is never more efficient in areas like this that are better run within a free-market context.
"2. The government doesn't decide on your care. You and your doctor do. Not like in US where insurance company controls who gets care."
Insurers do not control who gets care. They never did. But many in this country have this same foolish understanding. Insurers deal in costs, not whether or not one gets care and when. Those costs that are covered by the insurers are known up front, or should be by responsible customers. For that which is not covered, one can still access the care via out of pocket costs, which too many people believe is not their responsibility. Weird.
"3. There are sometimes waits, usually for elective surgery because patients are triaged based on urgency, but I have not found waits long."
Wait times are not hard to compare on line. Steve Crowder has an old video (he was raised in Canada and speaks French as a result) did a video where he tries to access the medical care. Wait times are far longer than here on average. Also, there is a difference based on where in Canada one lives. Some people are easier access than do others. It isn't equal in any sense of the word.
"4. No one ever has to choose between paying rent and going to the doctor."
I don't think that's very common here, but in Canada the choice has been made up front in higher taxes. According to Pipes from last night, the amount of their taxes that they pay for health care alone is about what the average cost of insurance coverage is here.
"5. No one loses their home because they are sick and can't pay both medical bills and mortgage."
This is another thing I think is more rhetoric than accurate. But there is also a burden on the gov't to pay for absolutely everything, so many have lost their lives while they wait, or they have lost their jobs or earning power because they're waiting. It also presumes that one isn't responsible for their own care, so why prepare for the unexpected, which is why anyone would be in such financial dire straits.
"6. No one is excluded. There are no pre-existing conditions. You don't feel well, you go to the doctor. They treat you. That's it. No bills."
Little comfort if you can't get the care you need when you need it. The "pre-existing condition" argument had always been overblown here. It never resulted in denied care, but only in denied payment by insurers who aren't in the business to cover houses currently on fire, as it were. There were risk pools available in most states to deal with the pre-existing, which naturally incurred higher costs...but again...house on fire. Also, she pretends there are no wait times, which is largely untrue.
"7. Universal health care is cost-effective because government buys in bulk & gets savings. Also, no insurance middle-man that has to profit."
While this might be true with regard to bulk purchases, and I don't know that it is, it doesn't take into account all costs of providing care. It also assumes a large profit margin for insurers, which was never true. Also, as as this article shows, even the Canadians are aware of just how difficult it is to sustain this system due to rising costs.
"8. Everyone in health care makes a wage or salary. No one is meant to profit. It is about making sick people well. Not about money."
Wow. This is just stupidity and selfishness. Who is this chick to dictate that those who enter the health care field must be absolutely altruistic without regard for their own financial well-being? Is she willing to spend years in training, doing internships and doling out big bucks to set up a practice and NOT get something in return but a stipend? Jeez! And imagine this attitude while considering those who live in an irresponsible manner, getting sick and/or injured due to their lifestyle choices! Idiotic on steroids!
"I don't mind that my tax $ help pay for someone sick elsewhere in my country. Someday, someone else's tax $ might help me."
I do, considering those that don't live responsibly. What's more, she is entitled to donate as much as she'd like for those truly in need who, despite responsible choices, get sick or injured nonetheless. I can't see assuming I can rely on the charity of others as a game plan. How childish.
"10. I want to live in a country where people can get the help they need, where getting sick doesn't destroy people. And I do."
This is abject naivete. The system will not go the distance to help anyone it feels is "too far gone", with the system dictating what constitutes "too far gone". People have been destroyed in that they've died waiting for care for which she says no one waits. A system that must pay for everything must ration in order to be sustainable. There is no way it can simply pay for everything all the time no matter what.
This is all off the top of my head. The link I found in no time. No one from American turns to Canada for health care...tens of thousands of Canadians come here every year.
Hey, thanks for putting so much effort into your response, Marshal. Don't know if you are registered at twitter, but if you are you could go there to do battle with some folks there!
~ Hiram
Thanks. Not sure the wife would be thrilled that I found another place to "argue", as she puts it, though I have considered it already. However, don't know if I could feel comfortable in 140 characters per post. :)
Post a Comment