Canada: For Sale

The Conservative government of Canada has posted "For Sale" signs over all of Canada's natural resources. It is not interested in the opinion of Canadians. The throne speech this week demonstrates this. This speech is intended to distract Canadians by appealing to them as mere consumers. The government has thus reduced them to purely economic creatures who only buy and sell, and does not view them as citizens who actually own the resources that their government is disposing of to the highest bidder.

The economic policies of the federal government have failed miserably. The government is also mired in scandals such as in the Senate that led to the prorogation of Parliament. It is now offering Canadians a mess of pottage -- reduced roaming charges, the unbundling of cable-TV packages and a bill of rights for airline passengers are a few of the measures that were mentioned.

But there is no guarantee that a government that prefers deregulation can achieve any of them. That doesn't matter to the government. It looks good on paper. What Canadians really want and need is jobs, but very few jobs will result when many raw materials are exported, as seems to be the governments' intention.

These natural resources are an essential part of Canada. Many resources, such as oil and gas, are quickly being depleted and are irreplaceable. Moreover, when these resources are shipped to other countries, the sorely needed jobs that result from refining them are lost as well.

Historically, Canada was built on its natural resources. Voltaire once described Canada as "a few acres of rock and snow." He may have been a bit off on the size, but those acres have produced fabulous wealth, though often for non-Canadians, from products as diverse as beaver pelts and gold. Today the story is being repeated, but now oil and gas occupy central stage.

Long before the throne speech the government was busy promoting these resources, but now there is a new urgency to their efforts. Oil and gas are being touted wherever Prime Minister Harper travels. On his recent trip to Malaysia, Petronas, Malaysia's state-owned energy giant, announced that it would invest $35 billion in the Canadian liquefied natural gas industry.This gas will come from the Horn River Basin, a shale deposit in northeastern British Columbia, that holds unconventional natural gas reserves of 78 trillion cubic feet.

The federal government is also pushing the Alberta oil sands through various distribution channels. The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline beginning in Hardisty, Alberta, and extending south to Steele City, Neb. Trans Canada, the company that want to build and operate the pipeline says "it will be the safest and most advanced pipeline operation in North America."

But environmentalists in both the US and Canada disagree. At this point it is not at all clear that President Obama will approve the proposal. He has already said that aside from the environmental dangers, it will produce very few jobs in the US. The same is true of Canada.

Because of this possibility, other projects have also been planned. The Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines Project wants to construct twin pipeline 1,170 km in length, running from Bruderheim, Alberta, to Kitimat, British Columbia. The two pipelines would carry hydrocarbon natural gas condensate and bitumen from the Alberta diluted to a new marine terminal in Kitimat, from where it would be transported to Asian markets by oil tankers. First Nations groups have already stated their opposition not only to this pipeline but also to the threat posed by the oil tankers in the fragile coast of Northern British Columbia.

First Nations groups are also protesting the $5 billion plan of US oil giant Kinder Morgan to expand its Trans Mountain pipeline. This line stretches 1,150 kilometers between Edmonton and terminals around Vancouver and Washington State, which carries heavy and light crude oil, as well as refined products such as gasoline and diesel.

Trans Canada also has plans to convert 3,000 kilometers of the company's existing natural gas pipelines to allow crude oil to be transported from Western Canada to the East. This conversion would reverse the flow of the gas and oil. The company also wants to build 1,400 kilometres of new pipeline from Quebec to Saint John, NB. 

Environmentalists are up in arms about this proposal. For example, in Toronto the existing Enbridge 9B pipeline, which runs right through the city, could threaten the nine watersheds of the Greater Toronto area as well as infrastructure such as the subway. The city of Toronto is now making at least 13 demands, including assurances that the company will cover all costs of a major disaster.

Environmental issues have made the government very uncomfortable for many years already. Conservatives in Canada, like their counterparts in the US, are in favor of deregulation. The Lac Megantic rail disaster is just one result of decades of this. More disasters will inevitably follow.

The Conservative federal government has much further than encourage deregulation. Now, as the New York Times editorial board argues, the Harper government wants to "guarantee public ignorance" by muzzling federal scientists. The newspaper argues the Harper Conservatives have tried to restrict publicly financed scientists from sharing information with the public, particularly research into climate change and anything to do with the Alberta tar sands.

There is precedent for this in the US, but that pales in comparison with what is happening in Canada today. The Harper policy seems designed to make ensure that the tar sands project proceeds quietly and without any disruptions. 

Chris Turner, a Calgary-based journalist, documents this muzzling in detail in latest book, The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Willful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada, Turner describes this government as being interested mainly in Canadians as consumers, and only passionate about those parts of Canada it can develop and sell off.

Harper’s true agenda, according to him, has been to dismantle the government’s great traditions of natural science and environmental stewardship, which he claims has until recently made Canada a world leader in both fields.

He cites Christopher Plunkett, a US government spokesperson: “The idea is simple and straightforward: to make Canada the most attractive country in the world for resource investment and development.”

Turner summarizes the essence of the Harper agenda as "Do No Science, Hear No Science, Speak No Science."

This war on science is part of a sustained campaign to diminish the government’s role in evidence-based policy-making and environmental stewardship. It does this, Turner explains, by "reducing the capacity of the government to gather basic data about the status and health of the environment and Canadian society; shrinking or eliminating government agencies that monitor and analyze that evidence and respond to emergencies; and seizing control of the communications channels by which all of the above report their findings to the Canadian public."

In the book he lists some of the environmental science bodies and programs that the government has eliminated or reduced. These are already well known to those who are concerned about the environment and climate change, thus I will not rehearse them.

The federal government spends $24 million to tout the Alberta oil sands, and even more on an “Economic Action Plan” that is largely non-existent. Yet it wants to muzzle scientists who may deter their plans for selling off natural resources and contradict their stance on climate change.

Harper and his government must assume that many Canadians are stupid and are interested in watching TV and talking on their cellphones. It feeds on a latent anti-intellectualism that is widespread not only in Canada but also elsewhere in the world. The governments treats Canadians as incapable of understanding the issues and thus must be protected from the facts. By muzzling scientists it gives itself the freedom to do whatever it wants, including selling off the resources and not spending money to counter global warming.

Let those of us who are Canadians speak out and defend our scientists before it is too late. Those who are not Canadians should be concerned as well, because your government can also introduce legislation that will muzzle scientists. All governments are looking for ways to raise money, by selling resources for example, and to cut costs, especially if they involve supposedly contentious matters such as climate change. In both cases, muzzling helps to eliminate protests. Protest is what we must do before it is too late.

Christians everywhere should be especially concerned when governments do not exercise their biblically-mandated responsibility (whether they are aware of this or not) to care for God's creation and not to misuse it by selling it to the highest bidder. The best solution for the oil sands, at least from an environmental point of view, is to leave it in the ground until such time as it can be used in a way that properly honors this mandate.

      

An open letter to all Republicans about the government shutdown

I am reluctant to write this letter, largely because it probably will not accomplish very much. I realize that only a few people will read it. While some may agree with me, many will not. In either case, most do not have the power to change the situation. Yet I am so upset by the government shutdown in the US and the effects it may have both on the US and the rest of the world that I feel constrained to include this letter on my blog.

My comments are directed not only to those who are active members of the Republican Party or registered as Republicans but to everyone who votes Republican. I am upset especially with those Republicans who support the shutdown of the US government. Not only the Tea Party wing of the party but all Republicans are also responsible for this mess.

I write this as a foreigner, a Canadian who has lived and studied in the US, where I earned three degrees, including two masters. I have close relatives there, and travel to the US frequently. Thus I am not a stranger to the country. My comments should not be misconstrued: they are meant in love. I am concerned about the US and its role in the world. But because of that role, foreigners should also be allowed to comment on what is happening in the US. It affects all of us.

This shutdown is a perversion of democracy. Americans pride themselves on their democratic institutions, and even want to export democracy to other countries, but this action has not only puzzled much of the world but made the US a laughing stock.

You, as Republicans, have turned Congress into a game that children play where, when some kids are likely to lose, they pick up all their toys and announce they are going home. End of game. Yet, ultimately, it is self destructive.

Ever since the Patient Protective and Affordable Care Act was approved by Congress, you have attacked it relentlessly, even taking it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it was constitutional. On the day that the Act, known better as Obamacare, was being implemented though the opening up of health exchanges where Americans could shop for coverage, you forced the federal government to shut down.

The effects of the shutdown are already being felt, although there are some notable exceptions. You brought the government to its heels by refusing to pass the necessary budget measures unless the government would delay Obamacare for one year. You hoped, if possible, to demolish it.

You then tried to blame the Democrats for the shutdown, but the refusal to negotiate is yours exclusively. The American people now realize that. By shutting down the government you wanted to stop Obamacare, but it is already too late to do that. Even if you refuse to negotiate raising the debt ceiling, Obamacare is here to stay. Soon Americans may even grow to appreciate it.

Obamacare, unfortunately, is a badly flawed piece of legislation. But you are responsible to a large degree for not permitting a better bill to be passed by Congress. The final bill is a confusing, expensive mess. Many people, especially the poor, are still not adequately provided for. They are the ones who will continue to suffer the most. But to destroy Obamacare would make a bad situation even worse.

What the US needs is a single-payer, universal, system as in most wealthy countries. This is also what the developing world wants, not the patchwork job that has resulted and for which you must share the bulk of the blame.

Your real concern, as I see it from my vantage point, goes beyond destroying Obamacare. You are wearing ideological blinders that prevent you from appreciating the benefits of a universal system. You are opposed to big government and you are afraid of any infringement of your personal freedom. These two beliefs are closely related.

You are welcome to these beliefs, although I disagree with you totally, for several important reasons. Let me list just a few.

First, on a personal note, let me assure you that I am not a Communist or even a socialist, although I heartily approve of a universal system of health care as it exists in Canada. Yet some Republicans that I know have labelled me as such: "Canadians are all commies!"

Admittedly, the Canadian system is not perfect, but it is better that what the US will have under Obamacare, as I know from personal experience. A few weeks ago I needed an MRI because of severe pain in my lower back. That was quickly arranged and it was done a few days later. All I had to do was show my health card. I did not have to pay one penny. Furthermore, if I need medication, it costs me only about four dollars, the rest is taken care of by the province. I do not feel that my personal freedom is infringed upon in any way.

In contrast, whenever I travel to the States, I buy supplementary medical coverage in case of an emergency. Friends of mine have been nearly bankrupted because they did not have such extra coverage. Is that very expensive system what you really want? Under Obamacare many more Americans will now be covered, but the system will be much more expensive than it needs to be. Imagine the savings that would result if insurance companies were excluded. Will excluding these companies involve a loss of your personal freedom?

Second, you are blind because you do not fully understand the purpose of government. The Bible teaches that the role of government is to protect us from evil and to promote the good. For that reason, government must be larger than than the armed forces that protect you from external enemies. It must provide as well for the needs of all of society. It must care especially for the weakest and poorest members.

The government is also responsible for justice. What you have in the US can hardly be described as a just system. Members of Congress enjoy topnotch medical care, but the poorest in society are denied adequate services. You have Medicaid, but millions are still not properly covered under Obamacare. Is that justice?

Where is the love for the poor that is preached in all Christian churches? You, however, are so hostile to government that you willingly sacrifice the poor on the altar of small government. God has mandated the government to protect them, not sacrifice them. Many government programs at every level of government have been axed in the name of austerity and budget cutting. Unfortunately, this is happening in many other countries as well, not only the US. It is an example of politics influencing theology rather than the other way around.

Third, politics by its very nature demands the art of compromise. Politicians must be willing to negotiate with their opponents for government to work effectively. Such negotiations should take place while legislation is being debated, not after it has been signed into law. Then it is too late.

What you are doing during the current government shut down is blackmail, not negotiation. Like those kids who take all their toys and go home when they longer can get their way, this is infantile behavior and not what one expects from mature, responsible politicians.

Fourth, how far are you prepared to go in your refusal to negotiate? If no new debt ceiling is approved, are you willing to plunge the US into a recession?  What about the effect this will have on  the rest of the world?

Don't put the blame entirely on the Tea Party people. They are the most extreme element in the Republican party, but the ideology that motivates them is more general in that party. If it were not, the Tea Party would be the tail that wags the Republican dog. That dog is already sufficiently motivated to wag its own tail.

I invite the leaders of the Republican party to refuse to listen to these extremists any longer and instead sit down with the Democrats and pass the necessary legislation to end the budget crisis. Is this too much to ask? Is it illegitimate on my part to ask all Republicans to do what they can so that such shutdowns become a thing of the past. Then the US can begin to be an example once more of a democratic system.
     

Peace in the Middle East?

It took only a simple phone call made by President Obama. The recent 15-minute conversation between Obama and President Rouhani of Iran has already been heralded as a major portent of peace in the Middle East. It may yet become such a sign, although it is quite premature to speak about peace between their two countries, much less peace in the Middle East. That peace may never happen.

The negotiations could take years, although there has been talk of ending the negotiations early next year, or they could end in dismal failure, since many on both sides are adamantly opposed to any negotiations.

A few weeks ago I urged dialogue tween the US and Iran as one step towards resolving the Syrian crisis. That dialogue has now been initiated, although I am under no illusion that these two men listened to me. It is simply common sense that steps such as this be taken if peace is ever to become a reality in the Middle East.

Nearly every part of the world has conflicts, which can be political, ethnic, economic, religious and so on. There is probably not one region anywhere that has seen so much conflict as the Middle East. It has been fought over for  millennia as armies swept across this vast area. No piece of global real estate has been fought over so often and for so long.

The people who make their homes in the area today are the legacy of these conflicts. Some enmities may continue for decades or even centuries, and they can weave a very tangled web. But enmities can also shift quickly, as can friendships.

It is hard for outsiders to unravel these complex relationships.An Arab proverb puts it well: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Alliances have been formed for ages in order to achieve political goals, whether long-term or temporary. This is equally true today.

Outsiders have interfered since time immemorial and made these webs even more complex. The colonial powers, Britain and France, contributed the modern borders that separated ethnic groups, as also happened in Africa, or forced various people who have little in common to live together in one country  whether they like it or not.

The US has interfered extensively in the Middle East and thus contributed to the current mess. Not only has it fought a tragic war in Iraq, but it was responsible for supporting the Shah in Iran and continues to support Israel in an inequitable fashion, earning the ire of many Arab countries. Desmond Tutu and many other world activists are also upset.

Thus it is high time that the US and Iran sit down together and negotiate an end to the decades of hostilities. These negotiations would not be easy. It would not be popular with every one in both countries. Rouhani was greeted by less than enthusiastic crowds when he returned to Tehran. Many hard-liners are opposed to any deal with the US.

But Rouhani does enjoy the support of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei who holds the real power in Iran. Khomenei has urged "heroic flexibility," which is code for accepting a treaty that may be beneficial, even if it involves major concessions. The Western-educated Rouhani was the only candidate in the recent presidential elections who enjoyed Khomenei's support.

Successful negotiations would have to deal with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. These negotiations would affect many other countries in the region, including Syria, which was and is a client of Iran. Iran also supports Hamas and Hezbollah.

Israel would also be affected. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu at a speech at the UN warned about the Iranian charm offensive. His country has the most to fear from an Iranian bomb and thus it has good reasons to be wary.

Both the US and Iran are already wary of each other's intentions. Iran insists that their program is purely for
energy and that is within its sovereign right a a nation to engage in such research. Iran sees the US as seeking to protect Israel by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

The newly mandated inventory and destruction of Syria's chemical weapons by the UN will facilitate the negotiations between the US and Iran, between these two former friends and now bitter foes. Maybe one day friendship will be restored again.

Two doves, one from either side, may through a phone call have been able initiate the process of eradicating decades of enmity. That will not happen overnight, but when it does a big step will have been taken to bring peace to the Middle East.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of conflicts that will also have to be resolved if peace is ever to bloom throughout the Middle East. But some major conflicts will have be eliminated first. The conflict between the US and Iran need never have arisen if the US had stayed out of the region in the first place and not interfered in Iran and elsewhere. The US must stop playing policeman throughout the world.

Any country that allows the use of blackmail by Tea Party Republicans who want to delay or even turn back Obamacare -- legislation that was properly passed by Congress and approved by the courts -- has forfeited the moral right to tell other nations how they should behave.

I pray that peace may come to the Middle East. Then the entire world will become a better place in which to live. By nature, I prefer to see the doughnut rather than the hole. Peace will come in the Middle East one day, even if that day is still a long time off.

Christians, Jews, and Muslims must all pray to the one God whom they all worship, albeit in different ways that peace may reign in a regain that has rarely known peace. All these faiths agree that God brings peace.

Sometimes a phone call is all that is needed to begin the process of bringing peace to this region. Then other conflicts may follow, even the seemingly intractable conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Pray for peace!
       

A new agenda for the Catholic Church?

Ever since his election, Pope Francis has made a reputation for himself as outspoken. Since then, the secular media have been in a frenzy trying to interpret his comments and present him as the pope who is going to secularize the Roman Catholic Church. But nothing could be further from the truth.

As many have observed, Francis is delightfully frank and even provocative, in the good sense of the word. He seeks to challenge the Catholic Church, but he has no intention whatsoever of secularizing it, turning it upside down and inside out. Yet during his pontificate he will probably shake it up a bit. Something that is urgently needed. He has already started.

Many of his comments have been taken out of context, often by journalists who are atheists, or agnostics at best, and sometimes by progressives in the Church who identify him as a kindred spirit and reformer. Yet still others see regard him as a very traditional pope, much like his predecessor, Benedict XVI, in spite of a penchant for speaking out on controversial issues.. 

Although I have never met the man, and only know what the media have written about him, my intuition is that he is neither the secularizer that many journalists see, nor the wild-eyed reformer of the progressives, much less the rigid traditionalist that the hierarchy prefers. Francis is his own man. He has been that for many decades already. His lifestyle is very different from that of his predecessors. 

Casa Santa Marta, next door to St' Peter's

The pope's most recent comments were made in an interview published in La Civilta Cattolica, a Rome-based Jesuit journal. This interview was conducted by the Italian journalist Father Spadaro over the course of three days in the pope's room in Casa Santa Marta, where he has chosen to live instead of in the papal palace. After his election, Francis had heard a distinct "no" about living in the papal apartment, which he claims would have kept him far from the people to whom he was ministering. A slightly edited translated transcript is available in America: The National Catholic Review.

I have chosen to read this interview carefully, which I suspect many of the journalists or their editors who came up with sensational headlines neglected to do. This 12,000 word interview is well worth the time.

It begins with Father Spadaro's description of that room. The room conveys both the simplicity of Francis and his complexity: 

The setting is simple, austere. The work space occupied by the desk is small. I am impressed not only by the simplicity of the furniture, but also by the objects in the room. There are only a few. These include an icon of St. Francis, a statue of Our Lady of Luján, patron saint of Argentina, a crucifix and a statue of St. Joseph sleeping. The spirituality of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not made of "harmonized energies,"  as he would call them, but of human faces: Christ, St. Francis, St. Joseph and Mary.

The papal bedroom, which may still be a bit too much for Francis

Francis cites three Jesuits whom he considers his models. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, Francis Xavier, and a figure who is not as well known, Peter Faber, whom the pope calls, “the reformed priest,” someone for whom interior experience, dogmatic expression and structural reform were inseparable, as by implication for Francis himself. All three men were roommates at the University of Paris. Incidentally, all three were contemporaries of John Calvin, although the pope does not mention him. Nor does he mention Francis of Assisi, whose lifestyle is very much a model for the pope. 

For Francis the church is the people of God, in the spirit of Vatican II, and not just the hierarchy. He sees the church as a "field hospital" where serious wounds must be treated first. "The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules," he explains. "The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all."

When it comes to the controversial issues of abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptives, for which he has been widely quoted as urging change, Francis warns that they have to be talked about them in the context of the teachings of the church. There has to a balance between the dogmatic and moral teachings of the church, but for him the message of the saving love of God must be paramount.

When prodded about the hot-button issue of homosexuality, Francis responded, "A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person."

           Pope Francis being interviewed on the question of homosexuality on a return flight to Italy

Has Francis rejected the church's teachings on abortion and gay marriage? Hardly! But he is saying that the church should not emphasize these teachings at the expense of showing mercy to those who contravene the rules. The love of God must be proclaimed in a simple yet profound way.

On the role of women in the church, Francis asserts that women are essential for the church."The challenge today is this: to think about the specific place of women also in those places where the authority of the church is exercised for various areas of the church.” This statement can hardly be construed as advocating that women become priests.

On all these contentious issues, Francis is not Martin Luther dressed up in Jesuit robes. He is a reformer not in the sense of turning the church upside down but but rather in pleading for the church to stop focusing on minor issues and emphasize the Gospel instead. This is a profound but needed remark. He always speaks from the heart. That is the source of all his pronouncements. 

Francis knows what the Gospel is and, most important, he is willing to live in accordance with it. The Gospel for him is the message of Jesus Christ. And anything that stands in the way of that message must be rejected. If that makes him a revolutionary, so be it. This is what the New Testament teaches.

Pope's study in Casa Santa Marta

His refusal to live in the papal apartment is a recent example. As Archbishop of Buenos Aires he had already set a style of life that was marked by simplicity. He used public transit instead of a limousine.

On a recent trip inside Italy he condemned "the idolatry of money." In the interview he claims that he is not a right-winger, but it is unclear whether he means in the political or ecclesiastical sense. Yet he would not have been elected if his fellow-cardinals had suspected that he would overthrow everything in the church.

Has Francis set a new agenda for the church? I doubt it! What he has done in a few carefully chosen words, is remind the church and anyone else who is interested what the real agenda of the church is. That agenda was set already about 2000 years ago by Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, that agenda has sometimes been neglected. If Francis only keeps on reminding the world of this, he will already have transformed the church more than many of his predecessors put together.

Other churches could learn something from Francis. Have they also concentrated on minor matters at the expense of the Gospel? It is easy to deny this, but it takes someone like the pope to open other eyes as well. Thank you, Pope Francis!

        

Pornography and religion

Recently the Canadian Broadcasting Commission (CBC) aired a panel discussion on three topics: The first was the role of Putin in arranging an agreement about containing and destroying Syria's chemical weapons. The second dealt with the controversy surrounding the Quebec Charter of Values that bans "ostentatious" religious symbols that I have written about previously. The third, however floored me since it had nothing to do with politics, although it had plenty to do with symbols, in this case sexual symbols.

It concerned the "smashing" new video of Miley Cyprus, called "Wrecking Ball" that has rocketed to the top of the charts.  Although this explicit video has nothing to do with politics, yet, as one of the panelists noted, many more people watched this video than those who are aware of the situation in Syria. Porn trumps politics.

This raunchy video may not be pornographic to everyone, but many people would consider it as such. It is not something you would want young children to watch. Nudity on TV is common today, even if a disclaimer is added. Pornography has gone mainstream. It can now top the popular music charts, and it is used to spice up movies and TV programs. This is all about ratings and money.

It was not always this way. I remember when I was in my early teens, "girlie" magazines were available, but were not easily accessible. What was available was often airbrushed and tame by contemporary standards. Today, because of the internet, everything is accessible, even to young children. I don't consider myself a prude, but this has gone too far. Unfortunately, we cannot turn the clock back again.

Pornography, which derives from the Greek πορνεία, porneia, meaning fornication, has been defined as the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual gratification. The Greeks and Romans already had pornography. Today, a variety of media are available, including books, magazines, postcards, photos, sculpture, drawing, painting, animation, sound recording, film, video, and video games.

Porn is pervasive. It can be found almost everywhere. Last time I wrote about the pervasiveness of religious intolerance. The pervasiveness of porn, however, is perhaps even greater. I don't know which is worse. Both of these evils need to be exposed, as I try to do in this blog, which is geared to politics and faith, but touches on many other aspects of life as well. 

 For the internet alone, I discovered these rather disturbing figures: 

• 4.2 million pornographic websites (12% of total websites)
• 68 million daily pornographic search engine requests (25% of total requests)
• 34% of average users received unwanted pornographic exposure
• 1.5 billion pornographic downloads per month (peer-to-peer) (35% of total downloads)
• 42.7% of internet users view pornography
• 72 million worldwide internet users visit adult sites per month

If that is not disturbing enough for you, these figures about kids and porn might change your mind:

• 116,000 daily requests for child pornography
• 100,000 websites offer illegal child pornography
• 11 is the average age of first internet porn exposure
• 12- to 17-year-olds are the largest consumers of porn 
• 90 percent of 8- to 16-year-olds have viewed porn online

Pornography is big business. It has been estimated that every second $3,075.64 is spent on pornography, while 28,258 people are viewing pornography and 372 people are typing in adult search terms. $13.33 billion was spent in the porn industry in 2006, and that has increased since then. In the US, porn revenue exceeds the combined revenues of all professional baseball, football, and basketball franchise and the combined revenues of ABC, CBS and NBC. World-wide pornography is a $57 billion world-wide industry.

Why do so many people watch it? While pornography is typically associated only with men, a significant portion of Internet pornography users are female: 72% of internet pornography viewers are male and 28% are female. Women generally use internet porn differently, being more interested in cyber chat rooms instead of just viewing pictures or videos, which is what males prefer to do online.

According to researchers, the majority of internet pornography users appear to do so on a recreational basis, with 43% spending less than one hour per week and 6-10% using it more compulsively, spending six hours or more per week engaged in internet pornography. Then it becomes an addiction.

Internet pornography addiction has been defined as "a pathological preoccupation with online sexual behaviors in an effort to create a mood-altering experience." This is something that affects all relationships. Those who have a partner who views internet pornography often experience this as an act of betrayal similar to an affair. I will not deal now with the role of shame, which is a very complex factor.

Internet pornography use also affects their spiritual connection. Many Christians admit it makes them feel disconnected from God. Religious involvements are often found to be a protective factor for such problem behaviors as crime, illegal drug use, and alcoholism. But research has been mixed as to whether religiosity is a protective factor in internet pornography usage.

At a policy level, religious belief was found to be related to supporting more restrictions on access to internet pornography. It was discovered that weak ties to religion and a lack of a happy marriage were the strongest predictors of cyber-porn use .But other researchers found that religiosity was not significantly associated with negative emotions related to viewing sex on the internet or in predicting negative emotional reactions to viewing internet pornography among college students.

In fact, it was found that although there was an inverse relationship between religiosity and sexual addiction, there was no significant relationship between religiosity and involvement in internet porn. Instead, there was actually a direct relationship between higher spiritual belief scores and cyber-porn involvement.

It has been theorized that males who have stronger spiritual beliefs may be more likely to engage in solitary cyber-porn because pornography is perceived as more permissible than premarital sex or extramarital sexual relationships. Since internet pornography is generally conducted in the privacy of one's own home, Christians can often maintain rigid doctrinal attitudes, public religious fervor and outward appearances, while ignoring their own private practices. Although religiosity is normally a protective factor for many social problems, it may not be for the private accessing of Internet pornography, and that it may actually be a risk factor. That may help to explain why Christians are also involved pornography.

Pornography is contrary to Christian beliefs and values. It reflects a mechanistic view of the human anatomy and its functions that is contrary to the Scriptures. It focuses on a single aspect of the person -- sexuality --and neglects others. It is reductionistic. Thus we objectify people and no longer see the whole person. When we view others through this narrow lens, it changes our understanding of everyone, including ourselves. That is why pornography needs to be rejected.

Yet that is often difficult since pornography is addictive, and not merely compulsive behavior. The current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) includes a new section for behavioral addictions, but includes only one disorder: pathological gambling. The neurochemical dopamine is the central player in all addictions, including pornography.

Many Christian men, myself included, as well as women, have struggled for years against pornography. It is not easy. The same thing is true for practitioners of other faiths, even non-believers. Religion, which is often protective and helpful in fighting addictions of various kinds, has a risk factor when it comes to pornography.
     
As we have seen, pornography is pervasive and addictive. We know that religion can play both a positive and a negative role in the battle against pornography. Religion from now on should be used in a positive way so those who are addicted to pornography can receive additional resources to win the battle.

Pornography must be dragged out of private viewing rooms and condemned for being just as dangerous and destructive as many other sexual sins such as adultery. Pornography must be exposed as a very public sin, which has enormous consequences for many people: financial, social, ethical and spiritual, and thus should no longer be hidden.
       

The pervasiveness of religious intolerance

Religious intolerance can be found everywhere, all over the globe. If you think there is no religious intolerance in your own country, you haven't been looking very hard. It is easy to wag your finger at other countries, but such intolerance is present in every country. Bigotry knows no boundaries.

Recently I wrote about how politicians can misuse religious symbols. I wrote specifically about the Canadian province of Quebec, where the minority government of Premier Pauline Marois wants to ban the use of all "ostentatious" religious symbols by everyone who is paid from the public purse. This week her government introduced the necessary enabling legislation under the guise of a charter protecting Quebec values.

The negative reaction was immediate, predictable and loud. Ostensibly secular in motivation, the politics of this ban is obvious: Marois hopes that this ban will deflect the attention of voters in the next election from the less than sterling economic policies of her government. Instead, it is threatening to blow up in her face, but it may also hurt those whose cherished religious symbols-- hijab, kippa, turban, or cross -- are threatened.

The Quebec Charter of Values is not only a political ploy but also a crude racist and sexist document that appeals to some elements of Quebec society and ostracizes certain minorities, especially Muslims. For public workers, wearing a hijab will no longer be permitted. In other words, Muslims are not welcome in Quebec, although no one will put it quite so bluntly.

Poster illustrating symbols that are permitted (top) or not permitted (bottom)

A Bloc Québécois member of parliament in Ottawa has appropriately called this "ethnic nationalism." Her forthrightness, unfortunately, led to her immediate expulsion from her party that is overtly separatist and thus supportive of the provincial Parti Québécois.

The federal government also practiced religious intolerance when it did not allow certain potential immigrants to enter Canada, but did open the doors to anti-Muslim spokespeople. That made it very difficult for Prime Minister Harper to respond immediately when the charter of values was first announced.

Other counties are equally guilty. France, as is well known, has almost a decade banned headscarves as well as other religious symbols. But clearly this ban is directed against Muslims who want to wear the hijab.

Many xenophobic right-wing parties in Europe target Muslim immigrants in order to harvest votes. They have become popular not only in France but even in the Netherlands, which has had a centuries-long reputation for tolerance. Eurabia is the term that describes the fear of many Europeans, who see their countries being flooded by Muslims.

Russia, on the other hand, has always been xenophobic. Thus it is hardly surprising that in one of the southern republics where there are many Muslims the principal of a village school banned the hijab. This prompted President Vladimir Putin to explain, "There are no hijabs in our culture."

In Russia not only Muslims are under attack. Every dark-skinned person in that country reports being beaten regularly by skinheads. While this is not religious intolerance, it is an example of the blatant xenophobia that often expresses itself in attacks on people of other faiths, even other Christians.

I experienced this religious intolerance personally while teaching philosophy at Moscow State University. I had some Russian Orthodox colleagues who were priests and who objected to my presence there. Their attitude was aptly expressed in a comment that was overheard at an Orthodox school where I was invited to teach  a course, but that invitation was later rescinded, "What can we Orthodox learn from Protestants?" These priests were in part instrumental in forcing my departure from the university.

Religious intolerance is practiced by adherents of every religion. In India Hindus have destroyed mosques, while in Egypt Muslims have burned down churches. Religious minorities that are victims of intolerance in one country or region, often become intolerant when they form the majority in an other.

In Nigeria religious intolerance peaked with the reintroduction of sharia in many northern states. Under sharia, all women, including Christians, had to have their heads covered in public. While some countries banned the hijab, Nigeria insisted on it, at least temporarily, in some parts of the country.

Even the US, which prides itself as a bastion of freedom and religious tolerance, was shamed with the arrest of Pastor Terry Jones, who had threatened to burn 2,998 copies of the Qur'an -- one for every victim of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Israel, which was founded as a refuge for Jews after the Holocaust, has reduced the Palestinians, whether Christians or Muslims, to second-class citizens solely because of their ethnicity and religion. A people that should practice religious tolerance because of their history have become intolerant of another people whom they are unwilling to acknowledge as a people. It is ironic, but sad.

Throughout the Middle East religious intolerance has become the norm it seems. Except for the Christians there, who constituted the majority before the rise of Islam, but have now been reduced to an ever-dwindling minority, the majority religion in each country, whether Judaism in Israel and Islam in the rest, demonstrates its intolerance, even of fellow believers who happen to belong to another sect.

I could provide many more examples of religious intolerance, but these will suffice to prove the point.

The chief problem with religious intolerance is that, sooner or later, it explodes and a lot of innocent people are hurt. Not only those who practice intolerance but especially those who are the victims. The world needs to stand up and condemn this intolerance and protect those who have been hurt.

In Quebec it is extremely unlikely that the newly introduced legislation will pass without major changes. Yet serious damage has already been done. The provincial Parti Québécois has damaged the cause of separatism, but it has done even greater damage to many minority groups who will now become even more reluctant to stay in Quebec and integrate into Québécois society. The cause of immigrant women especially has received an unintended setback.

This is a tragedy that could have been avoided, if Marois and her government had not been blinded by the prospect of short-term political gain. The same sad story can be repeated in countries everywhere. Religious intolerance is tragic for everyone concerned, not only the victims but also those practice that intolerance. Let us stop religious intolerance and instead work together for the common good.

             

Start negotiations on Syria

The civil war in Syria has already led to the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians, and more than two million have fled the country. How long will it take and how many will have to die yet before this tragedy comes to an end? And what should the outside world do as the tragedy continues to unfold?

As I am writing this, the US Congress has not yet approved President Obama's request for a limited military strike in Syria. Increasingly, there are doubts that he will get the necessary support. I hope and pray he does not. Then the world has a chance to rethink the situation there and start negotiations with both Iran and Syria.

First, and perhaps the most important objection to military action is that it is wrong. Let me explain that I am opposed to war. As regular readers of this blog know already, I am an advocate of active non-violence. That may sound naive to many people, but it is based on a studied rejection of the just war theory that most Christians have endorsed for centuries, at least since Augustine.

I have to admit that immediately after the August 21 massacre of 1,400 or so people, many of them children, I too was so outraged that I felt that the Assad regime, which has been blamed for these deaths, allegedly by the use of sarin gas, should be punished in some way. This was a lapse on my part.

On further reflection, I realize that that is not the best or the most appropriate response. Like much of the world, I was enraged by the photos of dead children, but once again I have reverted to my anti-war stance. Something needs to be done, but a military strike is not the answer.

Second, the situation in Syria has become stalemated not only militarily but also politically and economically. The government there still functions and enjoys widespread support, while the opposition is fractured and has no central leadership. In addition, the country has been so devastated that the rebels have very little to return to and thus very little to lose by continuing the civil war.

Who should the world support in this situation? Some nations, like Russia and Iran continue to support the Assad regime, while most nations have sided with the opposition, although many do so with reservations. Saudi Arabia provides military aid, and the US now wants to punish the Syrian government with a missile strike. Yet only a few nations are willing to support military action by the US.

Third, the case against the Syrian government has not yet been proven. One the one hand, as some people argue, why would the Assad regime use such a weapon against its own people? The opposition, on the other hand, is so divided that one of these groups may have used it to alienate the Syrian government even further in the eyes of world opinion and thus topple the government, something they have been unable to do so far through the use of force.

As was the case in Iraq, the world is dubious about the US claims of mass destruction in Syria. The Russian government is demanding proof before it will approve military action by the US at the United Nations. The British parliament has already voted down such approval because the evidence is not there, at least not yet. Canada does approve, but will not provide any support other than moral.

World opinion increasingly is turning against any missile action. Much of the world no longer trusts Obama. Not only has he reneged on many of his promises but he is also responsible for raising the use of drones to a new level. Also the treatment of Bradly Manning and the hunt for Edward Snowden by the US are totally unacceptable to much of the world. At the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, this change in attitude to Obama was very evident. Much of the world is unwilling to endorse military action in Syria.

Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury

Even Christian church leaders have weighed in. The former and the current Archbishop of Canterbury, who is the nominal head of the world-wide Anglican communion, have both warned about the consequences of a military strike, even a limited one.

Fourth, the missile attack will prove difficult to limit, and eventually the Americans will probably have "boots on the ground," which is how many Americans define war. That, of course, would lead to the bloody and costly war that the US desperately wants to avoid, especially after Iraq and Afghanistan. American public opinion is so dead set against any further US further military involvement overseas that Congress will likely not approve Obama's request. I hope and pray that is the case.

If Assad would resign after such an attack, which is not likely, Syria would probably disintegrate into large chunks along ethnic and sectarian lines. Then retaliation would be the order of the day. Thousands of men, women, and children would be killed, and millions more would be driven from their homes.

This human disaster would be almost unimaginable in scope. It may eventually cost trillions to put the country back together again, money that could be better spent avoiding this disaster and providing much needed aid to those who are already suffering. The tragedy that is Syria today is great enough without compounding it.

What can be done, even at this late moment? Diplomacy is the answer. Specifically, the US must approach Iran and enlist Iranian support for negotiations to end the civil war in Syria.  The time is ripe for seeking Iran's help in ending the violence in Syria.

 President Hassan Rowhani of Iran

Iran’s new President Hassan Rowhani has just won a landslide majority after he campaigned on engagement with the West, and defeated the isolationist conservatives. After the attack in Syria he condemned the use of chemical weapons. Of all the election candidates, he is certainly the most open to overtures from the US. Even though the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is the one who ultimately makes the decision on matters of war and peace, the president has input and thus should be approached. The Iranian leadership is divided on how to deal with the US.

Iran has been the most stalwart ally of Syria for decades already. Even after the attack, Rowhani pledged that Iran would work with Russia to stop any military intervention and criticized the push for a strike on Syria as a political maneuver. But Iran is currently on a charm offensive in order its image world-wide. Thus now is the opportune moment for the US to send overtures to initiate discussions about everything, including Syria.

Syria needs Iran. Iran is the only country that is able to sway the Syrian government. Iran provides large credit-export loans and training to the embattled Assad regime and thus has huge leverage over Syria.

The US similarly has major leverage on Iran. Its sanctions have cut its oil exports in half and new sanctions that were recently declared commit it to cutting the other half. Rowhani has ambitious plans for the economy that are effectively on ice until these sanctions are removed.

The US should solicit Iran to help in pressuring the Assad regime to enforce a temporary cease-fire and come to the table. In the meantime, the US and its Gulf allies, should apply pressure on the rebels to do the same. The cease-fire may be precarious, but it is better than the current bloodshed.

The US has already reversed its position in trying to block Iran from participating in the Geneva II talks on Syria. Late last year, Iran drew up a six-point peace plan that called for an immediate cease-fire between the rebels and the government. 

I any discussions with Iran, everything should be on the table, including Iran's nuclear program. Ways must be found to address Iran's concerns without threatening the entire Middle East. 

By foolishly drawing a "red line" Obama has worked both himself and the US into a corner from which it is difficult to withdraw. Obama has already said that the infamous red line is the world's doing, but few people believe him. Congress should provide Obama with an exit by rejecting his request for military action. If that happens much of the world will give a huge sigh of relief; then the negotiations with Iran can begin in earnest. 

I am praying for such a resolution to the current crisis. I became of age during the 60's at the height of the Vietnam War when the anti-war slogan "Make Love, not War" was popular. Maybe it is time to resurrect that slogan and make it a reality today, especially in the Middle East.