Destroy democracy by destroying religious freedom
Mr. Editor:
A few years ago a friend (Robert D. Hales) taught me four cornerstones of religious freedom to rely on and protect.
I share them because I believe that if they are protected, they will help bring more peace, security and happiness to our nation.
The first is the freedom to believe that there is or not a God in our universe, and, if you are a believer, what are his laws. No one should be criticized, mocked, persecuted or attacked for their religious beliefs.
The second cornerstone of religious freedom is the freedom to share one’s faith and religious convictions with those concerned. Parents rely on religious freedom and should always have the right to teach their children their beliefs.
Governments should not be allowed to impose doctrines on children in schools, or threaten retaliation against individuals who express beliefs close to their hearts, including issues of gender or birth.
The third cornerstone of religious freedom is the freedom to form a religious organization, a church, a peaceful place of worship with like-minded people.
The privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the precepts of his conscience, and allowing all men the same privilege, whether they worship how, where, or what they can, should be an undeniable right.
The fourth cornerstone is the freedom to live by one’s religious faith – the freedom to exercise one’s faith not only at home or in a chapel, but also in public places.
Ungodly politicians and dictators know well that the way to capture a nation from within is to remove the cornerstones of religious principles and the freedoms of the people.
They understand that by doing so they will destroy the freedom of conscience, choice, accountability and responsibility, therefore, they can usurp the nation.
North America, the bastion of religious freedom, is today the subject of a concentrated and well-planned attack aimed at destroying these cornerstones of religious freedom in two of the most prosperous democracies ever founded, Canada. and the United States.
Those who attack the cornerstones of religious belief are the enemies of democracy and all freedoms.
Unfortunately, too many of them are integrated into our government like wolves among sheep.
They only care about themselves, their power and their personal glory, not you or me or this great country.
They oppose it being “glorious and free,” usually by rigorously opposing the four cornerstones of Hales’ religious freedom.
Garry Rayner, Coldstream
Inflation small price to pay to save the economy
Mr. Editor:
The recent federal financial update also brought us the official opposition version of Economy 101.
Their economic premise is that without the Liberals there would have been no pandemic, no economic foreclosure, no supply transportation issues in the Suez Canal or off the Canadian coast, no supply chain issues in the factories globally and no global free fall in oil prices.
Their analysis is very simple and they show no shame in expressing it, perhaps because repeated insane sound bites are useful propaganda.
The interpretation is simple: If the Liberal government had not provided rapid tests and free vaccines, and funded businesses and individuals during this pandemic to keep the economy from bottoming out forever, Canadians would not be now. (in the words of the opposition) “sitting on savings, creating demand for goods, causing inflation.” “
It’s kind of an unspeakable “Let them eat cake” philosophy with a twist: “Don’t let them eat anything. So no deficit, no 4.7% inflation, no savings.
Inflation, unsurprisingly, is at its highest for 30 years. We are in the midst of a pandemic, as has not happened for a century.
One hundred and thirty-four OECD countries record an average inflation rate of 5.2%. Canada has recovered 106% of pre-pandemic jobs and, compared to the world, is in a good economic position.
Those who only speak to the 1% don’t think the rest of us need to survive. This became very evident in 2015 when the Harper government left a sinking ship after using the “scorched earth policy” to empty the country’s coffers.
Elaine Lawrence, Kelowna
The debate continues on the evolution
Mr. Editor:
Re: “Do not confuse evolution and magic” (letters of December 9)
Letter writer Marie Sorge says she has looked at several websites, but does not say if she has looked at the technical books I mentioned in a previous letter, which are often used to teach evolution in colleges and universities.
How many examples of macroevolution are mentioned in these books? Zero.
Sorge: “Microevolution is about changes in a single species in the short term. Individuals do not evolve, a population evolves.
When science writer Jonathan Weiner’s book “The Finch’s Beak: Real-Time Evolution” was published in 1994, he described changes in the beak size of Galapagos finches during a severe drought (1977) as “evolution in action” – even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended. The drought had caused a shortage of readily available small seeds, so finches with larger beaks survived better as they were better able to break larger seeds.
The reality was that these beak changes can be more accurately described as “a minor variation in action”. A more precise title for Weiner’s book would have been “The Finch’s Beak: Minor Variation in Real Time.”
Sorge says “rather than focusing on the evolution of a beetle species over a short period of time (microevolution), macroevolution studies the entire clade of beetles, the 400,000 species of beetles.” The oldest known beetle is Coleopsis, dated by evolutionists to around 295 million years ago. Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms leading to this beetle?
Sorge continues: “The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution. “
True. But a minority of scientists are skeptical. Google: “Dissent From Darwin” (dissentfromdarwin.org). The header of the paper reads: “We are skeptical of claims that random mutation and natural selection could account for the complexity of life.” Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Sometimes “current science” is wrong:
1. Bloodletting persisted into the 20th century and was still recommended in the 1923 edition of the “The Principles and Practice of Medicine” manual.
2. The oldest known coelacanth (fish) fossils date from around 410 million years ago. Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct around 65 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 by fishermen off the coast of Madagascar.
3. In the 1960s, millions of children had their tonsils removed because evolution predicted that the tonsils were “vestigial organs” and had no useful function. Today we know that the tonsils are involved in the immune response against disease.
On December 8, the University of Texas at Austin announced the most comprehensive pterosaur study to date. Quetzalcoatlus is the largest flying creature ever known, with a wingspan of 11 to 12 meters. How does evolution explain that pterosaurs gradually develop fully functioning wings, with their long bony fourth finger? Is there any fossil evidence of their transitional forms from a wingless pterosaur-like creature? The same question applies to bats of a supposedly winged ancestor.
David Buckna, Kelowna
Is China too big to be intimidated?
Mr. Editor:
Re: “Canada, allies must unite against China: Trudeau”, December 22
The government of Justin Trudeau is likely under heavy pressure from Canadian telecommunications giants to say yes to Chinese Huawei, as they have already largely integrated its 5G technology into their systems. Powerful business interests can weaken our high-level elected officials through implicit or explicit threats to transfer or cut jobs and capital investment, and hence economic stability, if business “demands” are not met. .
It is a political paralysis which is compounded by a booming media which is allowed to naturally criticize the governments of the day, especially with regard to job and capital transfers and economic weakening.
Before Canada, or any other nation, can succeed in forcing China to do anything, we must at least have a consumer base, thus exchanging an import / export currency compatible with the near 1.5 billion Chinese consumers.
Even then, China’s restrictive control over its own trading sector may give it an advantage. Canada, with fewer than 38 million consumers, cannot do it alone. (Military threats probably wouldn’t intimidate Chinese officials. The only other thing that could affect them is their economy, via the international market.)
Perhaps some strong allied nations, including Canada, combining their resources could do without Beijing’s usual trade / investment tie which they would prefer to sever, instead of exchanging necessary goods and services between themselves and themselves. other interested national economies.
Then again, perhaps such an alliance has already been discussed but rejected because Chinese government strategists know how to ‘divide and conquer’ potential alliance nations using economic / political leverage tailor-made for each. nation.
Perhaps each country that usually puts its own economic and financial interests first can still be its Achilles heel, and therefore collectively our, to be exploited by huge market countries like China?
Frank Sterle Jr., White Rock
