Your book as a seeming curse, and on being a conservative in Toronto

I sent off this note to Mr. Steyn after purchasing his book yesterday.

Dear Mark:

Long time, no write (remember "Wacky Wooing", re: the morality of using terrorist tactics - saturation/nuclear bombing of civilians - in order to secure professedly anti-terrorist democracies?).

So, I finally find -- and purchase (you're welcome!) -- your (my) book in Toronto, at the Indigo in the Eaton Centre (our Yonge & Eglinton Indigo location has NO copies to this date, at, arguably, the area of Toronto with the highest percentage of young, educated folks under 35 -- interesting). I've heard of censorship of imported materials by governments, but "censoring" a bestselling book by one of Canada's (most notable) own, making it unavailable in Canada? Huh?

So I am sitting at the downtown Indigo (as you know, the Barnes & Noble of Canada) reading your book while my daughter plays with the Thomas Trains (Our Lady of Perpetual Help/TCDSB had a professional day, so school's off), and two pregnant women (it's the demographics, stupid) with kids sit down too. As I look up to monitor my daughter, I realize that both women are whispering and glaring at me. Both women are clearly Muslim, as their cultural dress indicates this. Both women are staring at, and recognizing, my (your) book of choice. I unwittingly stand up, figuring I have been rude, and that there is another woman nearby who deserves the chair I am sitting upon. No dice. It is the book I am reading which is at issue. Hey, I don't sweat it. So when we leave, and I am managing Cinderella nap sacks & lunch bags & jackets (it's still too warm for Winter coats -- global warming?), I unintentionally carry my book (your book) openly in my hand.

So Daddy goes with his daughter into the plaza of Toronto's City Hall to see the new Cavalcade of Lights (not Christmas Lights/Tree, no) & say a prayer. With my book (your book) still in hand, my daughter runs around and demands new ice skates for the Winter -- and I notice that two men next to me are staring at my (your) book's cover. They exchange comments, laugh, and stroll away. Apparently I am simply a silly American sympathizer. Unfazed, I sit down with my daughter next to the ice rink. A burly red-headed guy walks by, and doing a double-take, looks at the bookcover, and, grinning, nods at me. Obviously, he must have been an upstate New York cop, on holiday.

We arrive at the subway and, as I cannot put my (your) book down while reading the hilariously depressing prologue, everyone around me can see what I am reading. At College Station, two University aged punk-guys get on, flashing body-piercings et al. One of these guys leans over, and proceeds (conspicuously) to peruse the cover of my (your) book. He snorts and shakes his head. They both snicker as they get off at Bloor & Yonge.

I finally arrive at Eglinton & Yonge subway station and meet several parents from my daughter's school on a day's outing, since school is off today. As we chat, my (your) 'nasty' book publicly beckons to them, and as they realize I may very well be the 'secret American parent' of the otherwise nice Jr. K girl (indeed I am!), the conversation falters and dissipates. My (your) book has ruined my daughter's chances of fun play dates with about 1/3 of her classmates. Moreover, I now face interminable mornings of chilly hospitality from my 'enlightened,' parental peers.

How has my (your) book already become taboo in a country where it has been manifestly unavailable? How is it that Canadians (N. Americans!), as a whole, have fallen for the anti-American clap-trap of the Europeans?

With Christmas greetings & best wishes, from a New Englander exiled in Toronto,

Tim
Toronto ON

Finally got my copy -- please buy and read this amazing book

This is a must-read for anyone who cares about their children, their family, their culture, their freedom, America, or Western Civilization. If you think you'll disagree, please read it anyway and let me know why!
http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/0895260786

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, truly

It is getting more and more difficult to believe that anyone has even a basic, adolescent, juvenile, ability understand or otherwise comprehend what is at stake re: Western Culture, and even more basically, what is necessary re: family life in order to raise and secure one's children in a healthy way of life. Everyone I speak to seems to be putting their heads in the sand, or else working to save for tomorrow.... but no one has a long view ... Am I crazy?

I envy those of you who seem to feel secure about your kids, your family, your 'freedom'. From what I can see, my daughter is going to grow up in a very rough world ( say around 2020) -- and that in a (currently) N. American metropolis, with no current extensive crime problems!

In Toronto, or God's sake! Which in 20 years will be an abominaton.

Happy Thanksgiving. Good Luck.

For my great blogging friend, who wonders about same-sex marriage legislation

See this dissertation by a friend, regarding: the morality of homosexual activitiy, so-called "same-sex marriage" vs. the best known Natural Law theorists; a take on same-sex activity; as well as an analysis of Andrew Sullvan, et al., arguments for same-sex marriage. It may not be exciting reading, but it is relevant to the push for an amendant to the Constitution of the US of A to ban same-sex marriage. The precis states:
--------------
Rev. Anthony E. Giampietro, C.S.B.
B.A., Wesleyan University, 1984
M.A., University of Toronto, 1988
M. Div., University of St. Michael's College, 1993
Ph. D. (candidate), Fordham University, 2002

The New Natural Law Theory and the Question of Same-sex Marriage
Dissertation (Fordham University), directed by Joseph Koterski, Ph.D.

"In this dissertation I engage the new natural law argument that homosexual acts cannot be marital acts. I address two important disputes within contemporary philosophy. One is the issue of whether or not the new natural law approach is an authentic natural law approach. The other is whether or not this approach is adequate to the task of calling into question the arguments of those who advocate that persons of the same sex be given the legal right to marry one another. I argue further that these two disputes are related, that is, that the question of whether the new natural law theory is really a natural law theory has a direct impact on the question of its adequacy in dealing with the question of same-sex marriage.
The core of my argument is that the lack of an explicit metaphysics undermines both the natural law argument and the arguments of some who advocate same-sex marriage. I argue that the new natural law view ought not be taken lightly, however, since the intuition that it depends upon, namely, that the union-effecting nature of heterosexual intercourse is essential to the meaning of marriage, has wide support. But while this intuition may indeed be a recognition of a moral truth, the new natural lawyers do not show this to be the case. I then address the fact that many arguments for same-sex marriage depend upon the presupposition that sexual activity in general is in some sense union-effecting. I suggest that this presupposition is unwarranted and that it depends upon an acceptance and transference of the union-effecting meaning that the new natural lawyers say is intrinsic only to heterosexual intercourse and not to other kinds of sexual acts. In my conclusion I offer some suggestions for future work on this issue, specifically in the area of the metaphysics, or the nature, of sexual acts."

Well, I should probably explain to my reader (singular)

Good News: Tim, your blog is read & commented upon.
Bad news: It's only an old friend who feels sorry for 'ya.

Re: Elton John's "progeny" -- the point is, he won't have any, so he can afford to be reckless by promoting bigotry against organized (Christian & Jewish) religion. However, I feel sure that the majority of those who will willingly die -- in opposition to any Muslim "final solution" vis-a-vis those who are homosexual & living in "Europe" around 2100, CE, -- will be Jews, & also Christians like myself and my family, IE, followers of Jewish/Western Organized Religion. Yet I impiously & privately wonder whether the "gay community" will suffer for their chosen lifestyle when life & limb are truly on the line.

But I will surely choose death, and risk the safety of my family, over and against any bogus imposition of "Allah's Law" regarding homosexuals.

And in Europe and for Europeans, barring unimaginable reversals in the birthrates of "longtime" Europeans, that time is not far away.

Meanwhile, in the UK -- designer babies loom...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=416025&in_page_id=1770

Unfortunately, it may be to little, too late for the Archbishops & the Cardinal & their flocks

Given current demographic trends in the European Union, gay secular atheists will truly face this question of religion -- but not in any way Elton John might imagine. If current birthrate trends continue, by the year 2100, Muslims will be a majority within whatever is left of Europe as we know it. Since Elton John certainly won't have any progeny to worry about, but whatever is left of the "gay community" in Europe, at the end of this century, will have returned to living "in the closet," or else they will have faced 'martyrdom' for openly living according to their chosen lifestyle. If, that is, the current demographic trends continue in Europe.

ELTON JOHN: 'I WOULD BAN RELIGION COMPLETELY'
"Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely.... Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings".The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq....
"From my point of view I would ban religion completely....Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm
The BBC has blithely reported the following: "Sir Elton John has said he would like to see all organised religion banned...."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6140710.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6138486.stm
The Archbishop of York has condemned what he called the systematic erosion of Christianity from public life. Dr John Sentamu told lay leaders illiberal atheists were undermining Britain's religious heritage.

Related to this, both the Anglican and the Roman Catholic leaders of England wrote the forward of the document '"Doing God": a Future For Faith in the Public Square. ' "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, have jointly backed a new religious think-tank in an effort to change the climate of opinion about the importance of faith in society."
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/anglican.head.and.archbishop.of.westminster.launch.new.christian.think.tank/8280.htm

You may not know him, but I thought this interesting....

Professor/Doctor Peters, JCD, over on In Light of the Law had this to say about a Roman Catholic's recent decision to join the Orthodox Church. For those of us who lament our "current Christian Communion's" ecclesial decision-making process, this case is worth pondering.

"I have never met Rod Dreher [pictured above] and know little about his work. Folks whose opinions I trust indicate that he is an intelligent, thoughtful man. A few days ago, Dreher publicly announced that he had left the Catholic Church and joined the Russian Orthodox Church, this, apparently, being at some level his reaction to the clergy sex abuse crisis and its associated scandals. See also his Clarifying and Gratitude posts. On the whole, I found Dreher's arguments for leaving the Church unoriginal and unconvincing, but then, I don't think there are any original arguments for leaving the Church (sub sole nihil novum) and I wouldn't find any of them convincing anyway (Domine, ad quem ibimus?), however much I might sympathize with what I was hearing."

Professor Peters continues:

Let me say, I don't think that all the ills of the Church are reducible to violations of canon law, nor is perfect adherence to law a guarantee of sanctity; but I do think that disregard for Church law has caused or worsened many of the problems we face today. Dreher would be right to decry the anomian attitudes that pervaded various hierarchies in recent decades. But no one should think that serious violations of canon law are unique to the clergy, nor should one underestimate the harm caused when someone, especially of a high profile, violates Church law in protest against those who violate Church law.

For the full post:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2006/10/some-canonical-thoughts-on-rod-drehers_17.html

Re: Mr. Dreher, see, for example:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5256754

Why have we not heard more about this, especially in light of the Schiavo debacle?

"A team in Cambridge have discovered that a patient in a vegetative state can communicate through her thoughts."

"Researchers at the Medical Research Council’s Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit and in Academic Neurosurgery in Cambridge, in collaboration with colleagues in Liege, have for the first time discovered a way to show preserved conscious awareness in a patient who has been diagnosed as vegetative. The research is published today in Science. "

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=51473
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/NewsViewsAndEvents/News/MRC002623

Please read "Marriage & the Public Good" from Princeton

http://www.princetonprinciples.org/contents.html

and this message from teh New Jersey R.C. hierarchy:

http://www.rcan.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=feature.display&feature_id=372&CFID=97298&CFTOKEN=86892789