Time Immortal

So apparently the Senate, already being expert in the field of national governance, have expanded their knowledge base to include cutting-edge theology. Or perhaps “bleeding heart Theology” — I can’t really tell anymore.

My respect for Senator Anne Cools has gone up a few more notches, however. Though a member of the unelected portion of the Canadian government, she displays a level-headedness and clarity of principle that the and NDP seem completely devoid of, that the Bloc Quebecois sometimes displays but limits in focus to Quebec, and that the Conservative Party could display if they ever stopped trying to placate both the Liberal government and the liberal media.

I wonder exactly where the fundamental understanding of Jesus and His message goes wrong with Senator Marilyn Trenholme Counsell. On the surface, it seems she thinks of our Lord as some sort of hip swinger, someone who’d permit anything in the name of being “fair”.

Not exactly the picture of Jesus painted in the Gospels, is it? Certainly, Jesus’s message was one of peace and understanding, and certainly He tore down many barriers between Jew and Gentile, man and woman, slave and master, invader and invaded. He preached that all were equal in God’s eyes, and never turned away those who sought him.

Okay, that part sounds kind of like the picture our Senator paints. But is that the whole picture of Jesus?

As I recall it, if people came to Jesus as sinners, one of the first things He would do is ask them to repent and sin no more. If people came to Jesus who were sinners but did not realize it, or thought their actions permissible/moral/justified, He would correct them, often in a very direct and sometimes harsh way. He was especially harsh with the self-righteous authorities, those convinced of the correctness of their ways because of their status in society (not unlike, I would wager, a certain Senator I could name).

When he stopped the stoning of the adulterous woman, He did not condone her sin. He stood up not in support of her right to fornicate herself silly — instead, He stood up against the hypocrisy of those would would overlook their own sin in their zeal to condemn her, since all sins are equal in magnitude before God. And when her would-be executioners had left, He turned to her and (much more gently, but firmly nonetheless) told her to end her sinful practice.

When Jesus met the woman at the well in Galilee, He treated her as an equal, a valued child of God and a person. He did not condone her five (or was it six? Curse my memory…) marriages, nor the fact that she was shacking up with someone she was not married to (note: tacit condemnation of common-law relationships, people!). In fact, He pointed these things out to her as an example of her sin, and His frankness with her inspired her to repent.

Would Jesus support gay-marriage legislation? I think anyone who claims to speak for Jesus, as our Senator has done, is guilty of blasphemy, and so I won’t come out with a “yes” or “no” answer. But I will leave this parting thought:

Christian moral philosophy teaches that proper sexual relations have two seperate but indivisible parts: unification and procreation. If a couple engages in sexual union that is open to one but blocks the other, this is a sin, because it violates the natural order and God’s intention for humanity. Proper sexual relationships should be a joining, strengthening force in the lives of the couple, but the couple should always be open to the possibility of bringing forth a child. (And no, this isn’t the Monty Python conflation that “every time they have sex, they have to have a baby”.)

Bearing that in mind, and assuming for just a moment that the Church has got something right in its understanding after 2000 years of ministry, one has to ask whether a homosexual union qualifies. Certainly, I will be the first to concede that homosexual sexual relations, like heterosexual relations, can be unitive in nature. I admit that’s speculation on my part, having never had a homosexual affair myself, but I would wager it likely. But even in that case, that’s only part of the puzzle, isn’t it? And we could start the debate over artificial insemination and surrogacy, but let’s cut to the chase on that one: procreation, in its natural state, involves one zygote from each partner in the sexual union, so that the child will be biologically related to both of the people it will come to know as “parents”. Wake me when that’s possible in a non-heterosexual setting.

And really, given that same-sex marriage is already a morally contentious issue, do we really need to open the “embryos debate” can of worms too?

Do I support “equal rights” for homosexuals? That depends on what you mean. As I understand it, they are human too, and as such already have equal rights under the law in Canada, even before the various related Supreme Court filings. Should they not be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality? My first answer is yes. But I think even there I need to disclaim. I think respect is a two-way street, and I think that homosexual lobbyists should not force their agenda on those whose personal beliefs hold the homosexual lifestyle as immoral. That means no bullying town mayors who don’t want to take part in “Pride” days. That means accepting that religions institutions may not condone promotion of that lifestyle in their classes. That even means accepting that some churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples will refuse to perform marriages for homosexual couples…not because they are discriminatory, but because for them the morality of the issue is anything but settled. And in return, I say that yes, homosexuals should not be targets of hate crimes, should not be denied employment (see caveat above), and should continue to enjoy the same full legal protection of the that they have since its institution in 1982.

But, as Anne Cools noted in the Senate debate: “Marriage is not now and has never been a right…No sacrament of the church has ever been a right.”

In the aftermath of the Canada Day weekend, I always find myself reflecting on…well, to be truthfully honest, I find myself reflecting on more than I want to, a problem I attribute to the tendency of my mind to wander just beyond the fringes of my control when I’m a little tired (or a little inebriated). And this Canada Day was no different.

It helps, or perhaps doesn’t help — I’ve never figured out which — that those fireworks make me just a touch sad. I don’t know why, but they make me feel quite suddenly alone. Maybe it’s the fact that the one time I’ve tried to watch the Canada Day fireworks with someone else in the past four years, they started the fireworks early because of weather considerations, and we wound up missing the show. I usually watch the Canada Day fireworks alone. In 2002 and 2004, it was because I had moved away to Rocky Mountain House, and this year it was because Grace and Anne were on their way to Leduc to sleep over at a friend’s place there before catching a morning flight to Vancouver. 2003 was the year we missed the show.

And I can reflect forever on old mistakes, because that’s just how I am. Should I have been in Rocky both those times? Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to say. I can’t even remember why I was in Rocky on Canada Day last year, although I think it had something to do with the fact that the guy I was catching a ride back to Edmonton with wasn’t planning to leave until the 2nd, the next day. When you don’t own your own car, you kind of find yourself subject to the whims and fancies of others who are willing to drive you, and you really can’t complain about it. And I’m not complaining that Rob wanted to wait a day at all. I just question my wisdom in taking the second work stint in Rocky.

Did I need the experience? Coming off of getting fired from EPCOR, a little reconstruction of my resume was perhaps in order. So in that sense, it was a good thing. Plus that, it helped pay for my schooling, which is something else. You know, I’m not rich, nor am I from a wealthy family, and though my parents and grandparents did set up a GIC or two for me back when I was an infant, the majority of my paying for school was made possible through summer jobs and scholarships. But thanks to those jobs and scholarships, I’ve been able to avoid going into debt, for the most part (credit cards don’t count, right?). But though it helped out with the work experience picture and paid for another 8 months of my degree, was it the right choice? In the end, I can’t say it was — too much collateral damage to the relationships I cherished, to the people I loved.

But I could flog myself over that forever if I wanted to. What I’ve really gotten to reflecting on these past few days is why we celebrate Canada in Canada Day. Because that’s what we do — it’s not just a commemorative ceremony for our becoming a nation unto ourselves in 1867. We celebrate Canada, and what it means to be Canadian. Don’t believe me? Listen to any speech given that day, or any media correspondent commenting on the celebrations. But what, lately, is there to celebrate about being Canadian?

We have a minority government that for a week ruled completely without the confidence of the House, and in the end probably only survived a confidence vote by postponing it until midnight and not telling the Opposition MPs that the vote would be held then. That’s a legal parlimentary tactic under the Westminster system, by the way. At the same time, this government doesn’t even represent the will of its constituents, and forges ahead with its own vision of Canada that in many respects is at odds with what the people want. Take the recent same-sex marriage legislation: don’t know about you, but every web poll I’ve come across seems to suggest that a discernible majority of Canadians don’t think it’s a good idea, and I have to say I’m one of them. But does that stop our government? A top Cabinet minister resigns because he and his constituents oppose this legislation, but does THAT stop our government? Not at all — instead, the dissenters (who may have valid reasons for opposing the legislation, reasons worth considering) are criticized and branded as bigots, and the legislation is rammed through. This is a government that has consistently set itself at odds not only with itself, but with the people it purports to govern, and in the process they are changing the very fabric of the nation itself. And the judges of the Supreme Court are no better.

And so now, as the Americans celebrate their independence, I find myself wondering exactly why last Friday millions of people across Canada came to celebrate their nation, a nation increasingly not their own. For myself, I was already sad enough watching the fireworks, and eventually I turned and went home. There’s precious little to celebrate about anymore. The Americans have something to celebrate — that is clear. The American people have much more power in their government, and can recall elected representatives that they find have strayed from executing the will of the electorate. Remember Gray Davis?

But then, the Americans also celebrate something different on their national holiday. They celebrate their independence. They celebrate where they came from, not just what they have become. We in Canada seem to have forgotten that.