X Marks the Spot

This weekend the Alberta NDP party made the announcement that Alberta citizens could choose a different letter to designate their "gender" on Alberta Government Identification - the Alberta ID Card and the Alberta Driver's Licence. Instead of the two options usually used "F" & "M" the letter "X" will now be available to those who choose it.
One of the comments that was included in the post that the Premier made along with the picture above was, "How we treat each other matters."
It is a sentiment that is hard to argue against. But does it really communicate that the current government is treating any particular group in a way that truly matters? I think not, for the reasons I shall enumerate below.
The addition of the "X" option on provincial ID is being touted as a victory for those who claim that people who identify as LGBTQ2X or whatever fits into that growing acronym. But one truly wonders what victory it represents beyond an opportunity for a photo op with the Premier the day before she danced in the rain in Edmonton at the annual Parade that celebrates those sexual identities. What has this group gained?
I have tried to engage in conversations with those who believe this to be a watershed moment, and their reasoning for claiming a victory of great magnitude leave me befuddled. Firstly, I have been told that I cannot be expected to understand the meaning and power of this new opportunity because my so-called "privilege" being a cis-gendered person makes my perspective on this invalid in any way.
The equivalent argument would be that I cannot understand childbirth - at all - as I have never given birth, so there is no point in my inquiring as to what it is all about. Understanding is, I am told, denied to me in this arena because I am excluded by my own self-identification (the very thing those who are in the group are doing) and thus unwelcome.
For the past two decades, the non-heterosexual community has been hammering the culture in Canada and the USA claiming that their battle is one for human rights, equality and fair treatment. Their primary reason has been that they have been excluded from society, culture and receiving fair treatment. And now, as it seems they may have become accepted by the current political leadership, these same people are more than happy to endorse exclusion towards those whom they deem to be adversarial to them. And to do so without any empirical evidence of such opposition.|
All cis-gendered people must be considered the "privileged opposition" because of who they are -not because of their specific actions.
At the aforementioned parade and rally, several speakers objected to police and military being present and identifying themselves as such. The reasons given were that these people represented professions that had and do allegedly systematically oppress LGBTQ2X people. No evidence, just anecdotal stories were provided. But it seems to be good enough that the possibility of these stories being true is enough to warrant rejection of participation. All from the group that has been campaigning for more inclusion and participation for over twenty years.
And what has this added letter option in their ID garnered for them in actual fact?
Will it make it possible for them to gain access to spaces reserved for adults only? No. Gender is not the basis for that access - age is.
Will it provide better access to commerce wherein identification is required to enter into business deals and contracts? No. Gender has not been an issue in that area in Alberta in my lifetime. Anyone can open an bank account, buy a fishing licence, get a Social Insurance Number, fill out a job application and do any other sort of activity wherein one must have proof of identity without barrier to them because of gender.
Will it impede their access to government services, emergency care or programs if they do not have the ability to place an "X" in a space that almost no one references in those cases? No.
And frankly, gender and sexual orientation shouldn't be a barrier to any reasonable activity with persons and businesses that are amenable to being in such relationships.
The only issue may come when one is seeking to be a part of a religious community for whom their worldview has very particular views regarding human sexuality, marriage and child-rearing. But it seems to me to be wrong for the government to intervene in such situations if we are to ensure freedom of association within the groups we want to belong to.
So why not just take the sex identification box off the ID? You will still be you and I will still be me without it. And what makes it such a big deal that the provincial government would grant this one letter option to a group that uses far more than one letter - or group of letters - to identify themselves? Doesn't entrenching this information in our government documents seem to actually create a culture wherein value judgments will necessarily be made based on that information. Wouldn't it be more inclusive, more welcoming, more demonstrative of seeking equality to simply stop using this data as a means of identifying each other?
Once one looks even a little deeper into this recent announcement, it begins to become clear that the way the government is treating the LGBTQ2X community is as shills for their purported progressivism. The practical reality is that the government will not be called upon to offer any more (or less) support for that community in the future than they do now or have done for their entire time in office. It is symbolic - nothing more. And perhaps it is even more ironic that it is merely symbolic when all the government did was add a symbol to the ID cards.
If the LGBTQ2X community really wants to be integrated into Alberta's culture and society, perhaps it should not be so supportive of such actions, symbolic or not, that make them seem to stand apart. Perhaps they should not be so quick to condemn other groups without evidence or just cause. And perhaps they should not be willing to settle for such cheap political tricks as allowing "X" to mark a spot that really makes no difference in any one's life at all.

Food for thought.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Murder is Murder

 “You shall not murder." - Exodus 20:13

The Hebrew word in the 6th Commandment also is used to refer to what common legal parlance would define as "manslaughter" - that is the causing of death through actions of a careless or negligent nature. It us used exclusively of human beings only. A completely different Hebrew word is used for "kill" in reference to animals and the actual act of killing a human being. This command takes precedence in all cases.

War is state sanctioned murder. However, Scripture does give the power of the sword to the state to use it in the best interest of the nations. The responsibility for that lies with those in authority. It will not be a part of this discussion, except to say that it is irrelevant in this discussion because the focus will be upon a state mandated and sanctioned form of murder that currently flows from a democratic decision of the citizens of the state. This does NOT absolve the citizenry of their responsibility.

I am referring to abortion.

Science declares that once conception has taken place, a new human being with all the genetic information - unchangeable genetic information - necessary for growth and maturity exists. It can only fail should an outside force limit her or his growth, or a genetic failure end the person's life. This is not a point of debate. It is scientific fact.

Everyone of you reading this was a zygote in your youngest incarnation. And the only thing that could have kept you from life would have been an outside force that took it from you. Abortion was one of those possible outside forces.

Abortion - other than spontaneous - is always a result of a human choice, and as the options are to murder a human being or not murder a human being, the 6th Commandment stands. But even more so such an act contravenes a fundamental concept that our civilization rests upon in Western Civilization - the idea that every human being is irreducibly and divinely valuable.

Pregnancy can occur through voluntary and non-voluntary actions. We recognize rape as fundamentally wrong, and our nation has sanctions against it. All sexual acts that happen because of an abuse of authority or power are evil and wrong - and should be dealt with accordingly. However, once a person has come into being we must consider most soberly what our collective approach should be towards that person.

In those cases of wrongful sexual acts that result in pregnancy, the full force of the law and the full force of the support of our civilization should be brought to bear. The option of abortion remains murder - circumstances do not change that fact. 

It is a indictment of our entire culture that we do not offer reasonable or sufficient supports to women who become pregnant through violent means, nor ensure the care for their children. We have failed miserably in this regard. And because we have failed so badly, we make the case for murdering our fellow human beings almost plausible.

But the facts remain. In all of the recorded information regarding abortion in North America, approximately 1% of reasons given for obtaining abortions are due to a child being produced by rape - 0.5% are reported as children conceived through incest apart from rape. Another 12% of abortions are obtained due to "medical reasons". As these reasons include physical and mental distress, it becomes difficult to determine how many, if any, are actually "life saving" choices for the women involved.

This means that at least 83% of all abortions performed in North America are a matter of "personal choice" - and to be fair "coerced personal choice" as many women report being "forced" to have an abortion by unsupportive fathers of the children, or families who place undue pressure upon them. This does not mean these murders are anything less than murders - only that the direct responsibility for them becomes shared amongst those who should be held responsible for protecting and nurturing the children. That such pressures are successful is a further indictment of our society as we do not offer reasonable options to women and children who are subjected to these awful stresses.

One murder is a horrible event. Hundreds of thousands of murders are merely statistics. In 2014 the abortion rate in the USA per 1000 live births was 186. That means that it was 18.6%. If it has grown only slightly in the past 4 years then the possibility of a healthy baby being murdered before being born in the USA has risen to one out of every 5. If this statistic was being caused by a disease, the amount of research dollars we would put towards reducing this risk to human life would be staggering.

I once read a statement that said "God aborts more babies than humans ever do." This was referring to the miscarriage and stillborn rates in North America - which combine to represent about 15 to 20% of all pregnancies. Mercifully, stillborn and SIDS deaths represent about only 1% of all pregnancies and live births. But to argue that we have the right to murder healthy, unborn human beings because we are all mortal and can die at any time during our lives because of forces beyond our control is illogical and even evil.

Recently the Irish people have voted overwhelmingly to legalize the choice to murder their own citizens who are still in their mother's wombs. Many are happy about this. Many say it is a victory for women - even a victory for all Irish citizens.

It is not.

Abortion is always murder. It may be a necessary evil in an almost vanishingly tiny number of cases - and we should have the collective compassion and wisdom to help parents facing such difficulties with the best support we can - and even provide for an abortion if it is the best of the terrible options available. And it should always be a tragedy we all mourn.

The only means that make the legal availability of abortion on demand exist is the willingness of us to collectively agree to remove human rights from other fellow human beings because of arbitrary circumstances we agree to. I cannot murder another human being because I find their existence to be a detriment to me. You cannot murder a family member because their life will present a financial burden to you - unless that family member is, as yet, unborn. If that is a legally available option - to murder them - why do we accept the financial burden of caring for aging parents, spouses, brothers or sisters? Why can't we simply choose to murder them?

The social and cultural forces that make the concept of abortion seem reasonable, if not necessary, seem complex and beyond resolving. But they are not. The responsibility for keeping human life sacred and safe belongs with every single citizen in a democracy. We cannot deny that the majority (and in Canada that may not be the case as we have never had a national referendum on the issue) of us have sanctioned murder through abortion - either passively or actively. And the government has co-opted those of us who repudiate this policy through the power of the state over our incomes.

Abortion will always be murder of a human being - whatever rationale we may use to justify it.

The difference between the truth and a rationalization is that the rationalization always seems easier to believe and accept.

Until there is an accepted rationalization that destroys the truth of your life.

Then it becomes evil insanity.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Local Economy IS The Real Issue

My wife has been unemployed since 2014. The circumstances of her work ending could fill a book, but the reality is that she is a highly skilled and reliable worker who has been an asset to every organization she has served for her entire working life. But the timing of her unemployment was coincidental with the global downturn in the petrochemical industry. This hit our city hard and a virtual hiring freeze happened in every business in our area.

I was laid off from my employment a year ago for "economic reasons". Those reasons were a direct outflow of the local economic recession our entire province and, arguably, the whole western part of our nation. If this was only about our personal story, I wouldn't be sharing it, but it is only part of a much bigger story.

Next door to us, the owner of the house was forced to move out of our province for employment reasons because his work was ended by the aforementioned downturn. He rented his house and moved on. This changed the nature of our neighbourhood and the local economy more.

Our next door neighbour on the other side went through an arduous and stressful two-year process of having his 13-year career slowly evaporate. His employer, to their great credit, did everything in their power to keep him working and on the payroll, but the downturn was deepened and extended by the provincial and federal policies that were detrimental to the petrochemical industry as a whole. My neighbour kept his home, but he lost 13 years of seniority and a huge portion of his income.

Two doors down from that neighbour the family living there lost their home to bankruptcy, and next to them, the owners sold their home because they could no longer afford it. Since then, both homes have fallen into disrepair so I can see three roofs, two houses and a garage, that seriously need new roofs.

In another city in my province my middle son lost the best paying job he ever had because the company he was working for was servicing the petrochemical industry.

I will be 58 years old this July. In my entire life, which includes living through an general recession in our country, and a time of mortgage interest rates in the double digits, I have never experienced such a profound economic downturn. And these are just the effects I and my family have experienced.

Meanwhile, the provincial and federal governments have done little to help, and have actually made the situation worse. All the while claiming that our nation is doing very well on the whole. I have to grudgingly agree. But the bigger numbers don't do anything for the local economy.

What has been most startling to me has been the inability of local resources to be of any help until a family or individual reaches the absolute bottom. And the complete lack of resilience of the local economy to absorb such a pointed loss.

I have spent the last half of my life in the pursuit of community that can absorb and redeem the losses that life inevitably presents to us individually and collectively. At the deepest level, the communities I have served have presented the doctrine of collective support and the sharing of resources. The idea of self-sacrifice lies at the core of the narrative that defines these communities.

What I have experienced is a lot of emotional and spiritual support, but very little in the way of practical support. Somewhere, somehow, the communities have lost the ability to be of practical help to those affected by economic loss. And the reasons are not clear, so I will offer no pronouncements as to why in this blog.

Only this...

We have to work to discover better ways to serve and support those who have been damaged by economic loss that is out of their control. We have to ask why. We must not speculate. We need to seriously search ourselves and our communities to discover how we have become so ineffective in this area.

The reason why is simply this:
There is no economic issue that truly matters to the vast majority of people except the local economy. When one is facing huge economic loss, nothing else matters.

Food for thought.

a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.