Stop partisanship!

"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:27-28 ).

Partisanship is, without doubt, one of the most serious political problems. This term describes how political parties and politicians rip each other apart, especially at election time. Unfortunately, this problem is getting worse. In some countries, it is endemic and never seems to stop.

Partisanship is so serious that it threatens democracy itself. Democracy cannot function in a toxic environment that is marked by hatred and enmity. Compromise is what makes politics possible, but the type of hyperpartisanship that exists in certain countries preclude even the possibility of compromise.

In the recent Canadian federal election, partisanship played a prominent role and contributed to the defeat of Stephen Harper's Conservative party which has practiced it for a long time. A majority of Canadians voted against partisanship and for a return to a healthier politics.

Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal party which won the election, rejected the negativity that marked the campaign and promised a new attitude. While the Conservative campaign focussed on dividing Canadians, the Liberals preached unity.

Many Canadians have remarked, even before the new government was installed, that they already discerned a new spirit in the country. The divisiveness that marked the Conservative era seems to be gone. Trudeau set the tone in his victory speech on election night.

Harper's entire tenure as prime minister was marked by partisanship. Everything became politicized: it was always us against them. Politicians from other parties were regarded as the enemy. In fact, anyone who disagreed with Harper was treated the same way.

Harper also turned ethnic groups against each other. This is illustrated best by the niqab issue directed against Muslims. At the end of the campaign, he associated himself with the infamous Ford brothers in Toronto, who are noted for being hyperpartisan.

Harper, in desperation, hoped that the "Ford nation" would align itself with the Conservatives, but this did not happen. Instead, many Muslims and other ethnic groups rejected partisanship and voted against the Conservatives.

This sort of partisanship is largely imported from the US. While partisanship is not unknown in Canada, this fierce hyperpartisanship is foreign to a parliamentary system that allows for many political parties to be represented in Parliament, unlike the presidential system in the US where two parties are dominant and voters register as one or the other, although independent is also an option.

Any political system is adversarial by nature, but it does not have to be partisan to the degree that is evident especially in the US. The Canadian Parliament seats parties opposite each other as much as possible.

In Canada, as in Britain, the House and Senate chambers are separated by an aisle that is two sword lengths wide. Such a martial spirit is not common in Canada, where the only duels are fought with words.

Partisanship in the US has reached such heights that Congress has become largely unfunctional. The Tea Party is perhaps the most extreme example of partisanship since they not only refuse to cooperate in any way with Democrats but they reject any Republicans who do not endorse them.

The 2016 election is still more than a year away, but the Republican swords are already out for Hilary Clinton. The House Select Committee on Benghazi has met for 18 months now and they are relentless in their grilling of the former Secretary of State and leading Democratic candidate for the presidency.

The enmity between these two parties is palpable. This partisanship is due in part to the US having only two parties that count. But that does not explain the vehemence involved, especially on the part of Republicans.

As a person of faith, what concerns me, in particular, is the way Christians (and some people of other faiths) support and even encourage partisanship. It makes me wonder where their true allegiance lies: with the party or their faith?

Fortunately, there are always people who transcend partisanship. They are capable of forming friendships across party lines. That is the way it should be. Political opponents should not be treated as the enemy, but rather as colleagues who together can craft legislation that benefits the entire country.

When partisanship reigns supreme, there is no room for beneficial legislation. Instead, narrow interests driven largely by ideology or economics are the only beneficiaries. Obamacare is vilified by some Republicans in part because they despise the president. In this case, there may even be an element of unacknowledged racism that lurks under the surface.

Conservatives espouse small government, but this should not come at the price of cutting necessary services. A belief in low taxes must not benefit the wealthiest most of all. Instead, the poorest must be taken care of properly, not just those who contribute the most to political campaigns.

Where is the love of neighbor that Jesus teaches? However, Jesus goes further. He commands us to love our enemies, to bless them, and to pray for them. This is unheard of today!

Love does not leave any room for the sort of partisanship that is evident in the US and is now being exported to Canada. Hyperpartisanship is impossible those who sincerely want to obey this injunction.

Loving our enemies is difficult, but it is the only way for people to live and work together, especially when they are in close proximity, Justin Trudeau realized that when he in his victory speech he said, "Conservatives are not our enemies, they are our neighbors." If our political opponents are also our neighbors, then the partisanship that we witness in both the US and Canada should be ended.

Stop partisanship! That ought to be our cry today. Stop treating those who have different political views as the enemy. Instead, we should love them.

Admittedly, the word "love" sounds strange in the political arena or many other areas of life today. Such language is foreign to most people, but it is the language that is required in a pluralistic society where people of different faiths, different ethnic groups, different languages, and different political opinions live side-by-side. We must love each other. There is no other way to survive.

"Stop partisanship!" For the US, that means, for example, stop the Tea Party, Donald Trump, and others from dominating the political platform. These people are extremists who do not deserve much public support since their message is a negative one that is focussed on fear and even outright hatred.

Within one year in Canada, the political tone changed with the defeat of Rob Ford, as the mayor of Toronto, and Stephen Harper, as the prime minister of Canada. Trudeau has earnestly promised to usher in a new era that is marked by unity rather than divisiveness. 

In saying this, Trudeau follows in the footsteps of the late Jack Layton, former leader of the New Democratic Party whose quote has become iconic: "My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world."

Layton's closing triad is similar to St. Paul's even more famous one: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:11).

If we truly want to change the world, let us begin by eradicating partisanship. The only way to do that is through love. Am I being too naive when I cry, "Stop Partisanship!"? I hope not! And I hope you agree!

   

Wanted in Canada: A Good Leader!

I want to apologize to my readers who do not live in Canada for the numerous times that I have dealt with the Canadian election in my blog. The election will be over by next week as I am writing this, so bear with me one more time as I ask Canadians (who constitute about 7% of my readership) to vote for good leadership.

On October 19th, Canadians are going to the polls. Everyone, not only the politicians, is worn out by a 78-day election campaign in which many issues were raised, but many other issues were ignored. However, there is one issue that is paramount because it lies behind all them, and that is the issue of leadership.

During this campaign, the leaders of the main political parties have revealed their leadership abilities or inabilities. In this election, Canadians will indicate their preference for who should lead Canada for the next term. They should vote for good leadership as well as the programs offered by each party.

If you have not yet made up your mind about whom to vote for, I suggest that you consider the crucial issue of leadership in this election. And if you have made up your mind, perhaps you should consider this issue as well. You may yet change your mind if you do. In either case, go out and vote!

What is good leadership? I am not an expert in this area; thus I rely on others who have variously defined leadership. I have added a few of additional traits. Some of the major traits of good leaders include the following list. Evaluate each of the leaders carefully using these traits as your criteria.

The leaders of the three major parties: Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau

These traits are not in any particular order, but all are important even though no one person will possess all of them or to the same degree. Neverthless, a good leader has many of these traits.

• Honesty/integrity -- able to be ethical and convey it to others 

• Focussed -- able to think ahead without being distracted

• Visionary -- able to create a vision and impart it to others

• Flexible/Adaptable -- able to adapt and adjust to new situations

• Good Communicator -- able to listen and understand others 

• Respectful -- able to treat others with respect 

• Empathy -- able to feel what others feel

• Quiet Confidence -- able to be sure of oneself

• Humility -- able to have a modest view of one's abilities

• Enthusiastic -- motivated and able to motivate others

• Open-Minded -- able to consider all options and input from others

• Resourceful -- able to utilize resources and create access to new information 

• Rewarding -- able to recognize efforts of others and reinforce these efforts in others

• Well Educated -- able to know issues and act accordingly 

• Open to Change -- able to be willing to change 

• Evaluative -- able to evaluate and reformulate ideas or programs if need be

• Organized -- able to be well prepared and do things efficiently

• Consistent -- able to be coherent and not contradictory

• Accountable -- able to take responsibility for one's own actions and those of others 

• Delegate -- able to recognize talents and delegate responsibilities accordingly 

• Initiative/creative -- able to formulate and start new ideas and programs

• Wisdom -- able to discern the best thing to do at all times

• Unifier -- able to unite people and not divide them 

This list is not exhaustive nor is it intended to be, but I provide it not only as an example of what traits characterize good leadership but also as a standard to judge leaders, or those who aspire to become leaders.

Using this standard, I invite you to examine the leaders of the major parties and see how they measure up. Do not look only at their programs but also examine them as persons. Ask yourself this question: Who do you trust the most to lead Canada for the next few years?

We often select programs that benefit us personally or appeal to us because of our own world view. Programs are alright, but we must never forget the selfishness that motivates many of our choices. That, of course, is what politicians count on. 

Good leaders are careful not to use programs, especially at election time, that appeal to our baser instincts but also in order to benefit the whole country. Selfishness must not drive leadership but rather the common good.

Good leaders also recognize that, while not everyone shares their world view, we live in a pluralistic country where many world views are operative. Thus they will not try to force one particular world view on everyone, but will respect other world views. The current government, under Stephen Harper, has not respected other world views sufficiently and practiced a politics of division instead.

Similarly, as voters we must not just choose leaders just because their view is one very much like to our own, There are other considerations, such as leadership. that need to be considered.

Therefore, before you mark your ballot on the 19th, I invite you to think carefully about who would make the best leader for Canada, and then vote accordingly.

I am not going to encourage you to vote for any particular party. I have mine, as you probably know by now. My preference is still for Thomas Mulcair and the NDP. While he has his faults, as we all do, Mulcair is a man of integrity, which he demonstrated by his willingness to take a stance on issues such as the niqab which is unpopular in Quebec and may yet cost the NDP first place in the election.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals come a close second. Trudeau has shown strong leadership skills, although Steven Harper and Mulcair have repeatedly dismissed him as "not yet ready." He too is not perfect, but he may yet become Canada's next prime minister, following in the footsteps of his late father from whom he, no doubt, learned a lot about leadership.

Elizabeth May, the leader of the Green party, would win the.leadership contest with flying colors except for the fact that her party currently has hardly any seats in Parliament and thus has little influence politically. Ethically, however, May provides an outstanding example to her opponents in this campaign, especially to Steven Harper who is ethically-challenged.

Harper has many more faults when it comes to leadership -- too many to enumerate. Just look at my list and you will see what I mean. That is why many Canadians will vote ABC (Anyone But the Conservatives). They have measured and found him wanting.

Harper has many negative traits when it comes to leadership. His message in this election has been to trust the Conservatives at the helm, but after almost a decade many Canadians feel that it is high time for a change.

I respect your right to choose whatever party and leader you want. But vote wisely. You are voting first of all for your local candidate, but remember that each one represents a party and a leader.

So, when you vote, make sure that this leader is indeed a good leader, and not only that, the best one of all!

           

A "routine" shooting in Oregon

Mass shootings have become "routine" in the United States of America. The word "routine" is not mine but that of President Obama.

In a speech delivered soon after the shooting in Oregon, Obama used these words repeatedly: "Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine. My response here at this podium ends up being routine. We've become numb to this." 

Two paragraphs later, Obama repeated the word "routine": "And what’s become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation." 

He explained that "routine" response: "Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they’ll argue. Fewer gun safety laws."

Then, several paragraphs later he used the word "routine" again: "And, of course, what’s also routine is that somebody, somewhere will comment and say, Obama politicized this issue. Well, this is something we should politicize. It is relevant to our common life together, to the body politic."

To summarize the President:

Mass shootings have become "routine."

Media reports have become "routine."

The response of the National Rifle Association has become "routine."

And the charges of politicization have become "routine."

Now the question on everyone's lips is: When will these shootings stop being "routine"? Or even better: When will they stop entirely?

Obama put his finger on the problem, but the US is still far from a solution. These shootings will not stop until Americans change their attitude to guns.

Obama concluded his speech with these comments about his hope that change will happen:

I hope and pray that I don't have to come out again during my tenure as President to offer my condolences to families in these circumstances. But based on my experience as President, I can't guarantee that. And that's terrible to say. And it can change. 

May God bless the memories of those who were killed today. May He bring comfort to their families, and courage to the injured as they fight their way back. And may He give us the strength to come together and find the courage to change.

Obama is more hopeful, perhaps, than many people are, although his hope is tempered by realism. His Oregon speech was the eleventeenth on mass shootings during his term of office. His first was in 2009. In the latest, he said that doesn't want to give any more such speeches, but he realizes very well what he is up against. 

The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, and it is unlikely to change. Although polling, according to the President, shows that a majority of Americans, including the majority of responsible, law-abiding gun owners, understand that gun laws should be changed. Yet this is not likely to happen.

According to Mass Shooting Tracker, "a mass shooting is when four or more people are shot in an event, or related series of events, likely without a cooling off period." This includes all the people who are shot and not just those who are killed. It differs slightly from the FBI definition, which only counts three or more murders as a mass shooting. The MST listing is wider and thus better.

By their count, in 2015 there have now been 294 mass shootings in the 274 days until the Oregon shooting on October 1. That is an average of more than one a day. There have been a total of 994 mass shootings since Obama's reelection in 2012.

Only in the US have mass shootings become "routine." Other countries by crafting appropriate laws have largely eliminated mass shootings. In Australia, such shootings stopped after these laws were passed.

There are an estimated 300 million guns in the US, which is roughly one for every man, woman, and child, as Obama also mentioned in his latest speech.  The US has nearly half the world's civilian-owned guns. It is also home to 31 per cent of the world's mass shootings, despite making up only five per cent of the world's population.

I live in Canada, and I don't own a gun. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, do any of my neighbors. There have been killings here, but very few mass killings. However, the Conservative government has tried to blame all the killings on terrorists as part of a politics of fear that they hope will make their reelection possible.

In the US, most mass killings are caused by white males who have serious emotional and other problems. They are not ISIS-sympathizers or terrorists, as the government alleges in the Canadian killings. 

In the Oregon shooting, Chris Mercer, the alleged killer described himself politically as a "conservative, republican" whose hobbies were "internet, killing zombies, movies, music, reading" and who lived with his parents.

In regard to his religious views, he listed himself as "Pagan, Wiccan, Not Religious, but Spiritual." Not exactly a terrorist, although he had earlier expressed an admiration for the Irish Republican Army.

(Click to enlarge)

Apparently, Mercer told the students and the professor he shot, "I’ve been waiting to do this for years." He specifically targeted Christians. "Are you a Christian?" he would ask them, "and if you are a Christian stand up."  And if they did stand up, the shooter said, "Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second."

According to reports, Mercer had 14 weapons, six were with him during the shooting, while the rest were found at his home. All the weapons were legal. The question that the US faces is how to prevent troubled people from committing such horrendous crimes so that these "routine" shooting might stop.

I doubt that any solution can be found, except to keep these people away from weapons that they can use in these shootings. New laws are needed in the US to reduce these shootings as well as the daily ration of homicides. They have proven to be effective in other countries and they should prove equally effective in the US.

How many more "routine" shootings will it take before such legislation is passed in the US? 

Canada has its own problems. Here nearly all shootings are being blamed on terrorists. I am hopeful that this blame game will stop after the election on October 19. A new government must change this.

However, I am not so hopeful about the US solving its problem with guns anytime soon. Like Obama, I pray for change, but until then mass shootings will continue to be "routine." God help the USA!

        

Political lies

"All politicians are liars," or so the saying goes. It is not difficult to list all the politicians you know and then to check for truth or fiction on a truth meter that measures the degree of truth; everything from mostly true to pants on fire.

The truth is many politicians do lie. Just as many of us, do, they lie in order to gain favor, to deceive, to delay discovery, to cover previous lies, and to buy time. Lying is part of human nature, it seems.

But politicians excel at it. A recent university study in Italy on the topic of politicians and lying reported: 

Politicians make good liars because they manage to convince themselves they are telling the truth. And this has also made it easier to hoodwink the public because the best liars are the ones who do not realise they are lying.  . . . it may be that those who go on to become the most successful politicians are those who have most developed the ability to deceive themselves and to believe their own lies.

This is true of politicians everywhere. As Nikita Khrushchev sagely observed: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river." In the same vein, in Alaska some politicians built a bridge even though there were hardly any people living there.

This is also true in Canada where the entire nation has had front row seats during the federal election campaign. Now voters don't have to go to Ottawa to visit the politicians, but the politicians actually come to them -- even to their front door, or into their living rooms through clips on the nightly news broadcasts or via the staged drama of election debates.

What voters see of politicians, they don't always like. They witness them attacking each other unmercifully. The truth of H.L. Mencken's remark is evident to everyone: "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -- and both commonly succeed and are right." 

No wonder that this proverb of José Maria de Eça de Queiroz has become famous: "Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason." This needs no explanation, as every parent knows.

"A fish rots from the head down," is another proverb that also relates to a need for new and fresh leadership when the old leaders are failing. This ancient saying is, unfortunately, not completely true, since in reality it is the guts of the fish that begin to rot.

The more that leaders have to resort to fiction, the more the state of the nation deteriorates. They may claim that their words were taken out of context but after a while very few people believe them. They are then dismissed as chronic liars. This happens, especially, when they have been in power too long.

This year I witnessed all the election debates between the leaders of the major parties and I found them boring at times and very discouraging. Instead of dealing openly and honestly with the problems that voters face every day, politicians tediously offer their nostrums as if repetition alone would make the problems go away.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, these debates were accessible only to those who took the trouble to find them. Many were available only to those who had cable or used a computer. They were not made available to the major TV networks. Thus, many voters did not see these leaders perform, which is perhaps for the best. Seeing politicians up close like that can be discouraging.

Simplistic, but appealing, solutions are dangled before voters by politicians who would rather not tackle the really big issues that are crying for a remedy but will not win them the election. Populist measures such as a ban on the niqab are vote-getters, not the alleviation of poverty which is too complex and costs too much. By not telling the full truth is one way that politicians lie without realizing it.

Or -- perhaps even worse -- they try to buy support using the voter's own money, as the Conservatives are doing in this election by offering a benefit to the parents of children but which will be taxed back the next year. Are voters that naive? Apparently so.

During the election campaign, untold billions of dollars are promised as regularly as clockwork by each party, but few voters realize that all this money is coming out of their own pockets. That too is a form of lying since the full truth is not divulged. Who is going to pay for all this? That depends, of course, on whose ox is going to be gored. People don't care, as long as it belongs to the other guy.

Ultimately, lies destroy both those who do the lying and those who are being lied to. Both politicians and voters become victims of the lies that are distributed like candy. Unfortunately, the candy is toxic.

All politicians lie to us in one way or another because they know that people prefer a reassuring lie to the inconvenient truth. But they are often trapped by their own duplicity as George Bernard Shaw realized: "The liar's punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else." 

Fyodor Dostoyevsky was also well aware of this truth, as he warns everyone of the dangers involved in lying.

Another result of the duplicity of [politicians is that they must lie to themselves: "Every lie has two parts -- the lie we tell others and the one we tell ourselves to justify it."  The web of lies thus becomes more and more tangled; finally, no one can be trusted as telling the truth.

We all know that there are many types of lies, as Mark Twain famously proclaimed: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Half-truths are more dangerous than a total lie. Every lie must contain at least a kernel of truth if it is to be believed.

It is the half-truths proclaimed by the leaders that I found so discouraging. I was bothered especially by the current refugee crisis where the Candian government, instead of responding magnanimously to the plight of the Syrian refugees -- epitomized in the photos of three-year-old Alan Kurdi -- callously admitted only 457 of them thus far, and not the 10,000 as previously promised.

Stephen Harper keeps repeating the word "generous" to describe his government's response. But this is a blatant lie that is mitigated only slightly by a small grain of truth. Canada's refugee policies are mean and incompetent. While other countries, like Germany, have welcomed Syrian refugees, the Conservative government has taken little action to Canada's lasting shame.

Harper's lies are apparent to everyone except his diehard supporters and, perhaps, even himself, His mantra-like answers to every question that is posed to him makes me nauseous (if I may speak personally).

The half-truths that flow from Harper's tongue would not bother me as much if I knew that very few people believed him. Unfortunately, his base remains rock-solid in support of him and responds as if he were the Pied Piper of Hamelin.

Another word Harper uses ad nauseam is "security." While no one would argue against the need for security, it is one of the "dog-whistle" words that I spoke about in my previous post. Dog-whistle politics, as I explain further in that post, employs coded language in which words mean one thing to the general population but are understood in a different way by a targeted subgroup.

Dog-whistle politics is a form of lying. It is deceptive by its very nature. As I wrote there, the political message is not understood as such by those outside the target group of the electorate. But this message resonates and energizes the target group while it is misheard or misunderstood by others.

This is precisely Harper's intention. The words he utters will irritate those who do not share his convictions -- why does he keep mentioning security? they ask -- yet the same words will motivate his supporters -- it is red meat to them.

The foreign policy debate was probably the best of the whole series. All three leaders performed well, but the rhetoric became heated. Truth was the chief victim in all the debates. All three men stretched the truth at times in order to win debating points and, they hope, the election.

But Harper has made a habit of playing loose with the truth. The need to win trumps everything else, even his personal convictions as a Christian. In fact, he pointedly ignores any mention of his faith. That is something personal which does not belong in the public sphere where politics is practiced. 

       

A political pope

Pope Francis has received a warm welcome in the US. He has been treated like a rock star, with crowds lining up for hours to get even a glimpse of him. President Obama greeted him on the tarmac when his plane landed, a privilege that few foreign dignitaries receive.

He is the first pope to address a joint session of Congress where he was accorded standing ovations. He also addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations, and spoke as well to the UN staff, at least those who were lucky enough to win the lottery to hear him.

However, he ignored dinner invitations from Congressional leaders in order to dine with the homeless while in Washington. He also visited the site of the World Trade Center in NYC where he prayed for those who lost their lives on 9/11.

In his speeches in he US, Francis has spoken boldly about topics as diverse as climate change, peace, the danger of fundamentalism, religious freedom, the death penalty, refugees, poverty, and migrants. He has not been afraid to deal with these controversial issues.

What he said was music, no doubt, to those who support his stance on these issues. But those who disagree with him were appalled that a church leader would address issues that they regard as political. According to them, the pope should not meddle in politics.

The pontiff indeed got political in the political capital of the world. But why not? I would respond to those who critique him for making political remarks. If the pope cannot do that, what religious leader can? The Dalai Lama? Billy Graham? Graham made political remarks in private. Francis does so publicly.

The papacy is different from other positions of religious leadership. Popes are not only spiritual leaders but also temporal rulers. At one time, the papal states were immense, but they were reduced in 1870 to what it is today.

The Vatican is still an independent country which has embassies in many countries of the world. Whether one agrees with this or not, that alone makes popes politicians in their own right and, thus, different from other religious leaders.

But there is a more fundamental reason why the pope should be allowed to speak out on political issues. People of faith can, and indeed, must speak out on such issues, especially when the fate of the world hangs in the balance, as is the case with climate change but at other times as well.

Charges that the pope should not comment on climate change because he is not a scientist, as some of his critics do, is spurious and unfair. Francis relied on the expertise of many scientists in order to write his recent encyclical Laudato Si'. His speeches in the US were based on that excellent document which is rooted in his faith and motivated by his conviction that the issue of climate change is an urgent one.

Should scientists alone have the prerogative to speak out on climate change? Certainly not! Everyone should be able to do so, as long as they respect the scientific evidence. Climate change deniers often do not; they tend to disparage science or to cherry-pick the data.

Most fundamentally, faith and politics are integrally united; they cannot be separated. Therefore, to be a person of faith does not disqualify anyone from talking about scientific issues as long as the relevant scientific evidence is properly consulted and evaluated.

There are major ethical questions that must also be dealt with. Should a person of faith be excluded from such conversations because politics is involved? Is the pope, therefore, excluded? Or any theologian for that matter? On the contrary, such questions are not abstract but involve faith and worldview and thus should be discussed by the pope and other leaders as well, whether clergy or not.

Some people also want to dismiss the papal address because, in their opinion, it is not Christian enough since the name of Christ was not mentioned in many of the pope's speeches. Yet that is not true of his address to Congress where it is apparent that Francis refers several times to God and the gospel (in particular, the Golden Rule from Matthew 7:12).

One moral theologian wrote this about the pope's speech in his blog: "No one, it would seem, cares much about the substance of the pope’s faith regarding Jesus. And why should they? The pope hasn’t mentioned Jesus, so Jesus must not be an important part of the pope’s message to America."

But Jesus is an important part of the pope's message, even if he did not mention Jesus by name. In his address to Congress, the pope repeatedly affirmed that he is a Christian. After that, does anyone still dare to cast aspersions on his faith and the nature of his message?

The professor concludes: "Now the whole country is talking about the pope and the pope’s politics, but no one is talking about Jesus or the gospel. What a sad day. What a wasted opportunity" 

But was it a wasted opportunity?

Francis, like his namesake, has ministered to many people, but always doing so in Christ's name. Ask the! Not only migrants, refugees, prisoners, and poor people but also the wealthy whose greed contributes to many of the world's problems, including climate change, were all addressed by the pope; some with words of comfort and encouragement, others are reminded of their calling and urged to remember the Golden Rule.

That is the nature of the gospel: it brings both comfort and correction. Francis is reputed to be the Vicar of Christ, even if many do not accept this designation. The pope is both the Bishop of Rome and the Sovereign of the Vatican. As such, he is a pastor and a politician. His words are pastoral and, at the same time, political in nature.

Remember, in his address to Congress he was speaking to politicians who need both encouragement in the legislative task and warning about what urgently need to be done. He admonished them, but also blessd them.

If the pope is not allowed to integrate faith and politics, then none of his listeners would be able to do so either. Invoking the separation of church and state is an egregious error and, moreover, displays an American-centric view of the world.

Pope Francis is unlike any pope that I can recall. I studied the papacy carefully for his dissertation, but I do not remember reading about anyone like him. Even though he has expressed his unwillingness to change many fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines, his lifestyle and his concern for social justice have made him a hero for many inside and outside the Catholic Church.

I would suggest that if Francis had been a pope during the time of the Reformation, that event might never have occurred in such a cataclysmic way and a major schism might have been avoided. This is pure speculation, of course, but it is indicative of what he has done to change the Catholic Church.

The end of his reforms is not yet in sight, nor will he stop speaking out on many controversial issues, in spite of scathing critique from many, whether Catholics or not. The adulation of the crowds that gathered to listen to him or even get a glimpse of him illustrates that many people support Francis.

Francis concluded his remarks at the UN with a blessing and a request: "May he [God] bless you all. I ask you, please, not to forget to pray for me." The pope needs our prayers!
     

Security and "dog-whistle" politics

As anyone who has been following the interminable Canadian federal election knows, security is a word that has frequently been on the lips of Conservative leader Stephen Harper. It is a coded word, but one that appeals strongly to voters. After all, who in Canada is is not concerned about security?

Politicians anywhere can dismiss security concerns only at their own peril. Killings all over the world are easily ascribed to terrorists and thus used to justify such concerns. Since 9/11, many political leaders have played the security card in order to push through measures intended to provide greater security.

Stricter security procedures at airports are a direct consequence of 9/11. Whether these procedures are worth the billions of dollars that have been spent  on them is information that is not publicly available, but they have served to convince the public that governments are doing something to protect them.

Security is an important part of the vocabulary of what is called  "dog-whistle" politics. This is often described pejoratively because of its deceptive and distasteful nature, especially when used in a racist way. Although this is not always intended, it is often used that way.

Dog-whistle politics employs coded language in which words mean one thing to the general population but are understood in a different way by a targeted subgroup. The analogy is that of a dog whistle, whose high-frequency whistle is heard by dogs but is inaudible to humans.

The political message -- which may be exclusionary, distasteful and even racist -- is not understood as such by those outside the target group of the electorate. But this message resonates and energizes the target group while it is misheard or misunderstood by others.

The term can be distinguished from "code words" that are used by specialists in some professions, Dog-whistling is specific to the political realm.

The term apparently originated in Australian politics in the mid-1990s and was frequently used to describe the political campaigning of John Howard who was accused of communicating messages appealing especially to anxious, and perhaps racist, white Australian voters

For example, the Howard government's tough stance on illegal immigration was popular with voters. However, his government was accused of using this issue to send additional but veiled messages to voters with racist leanings, while maintaining plausible deniability by avoiding overtly racist language.

Dog-whistle politics has also been used effectively in the UK and US. In the UK, Australian political strategist Lynton Crosby, who had managed Howard's four election campaigns in Australia, was enlisted by the Conservative Party as an advisor during the 2005 British general election.

In the US, dog-whistle politics has been employed extensively by many presidents and political candidates, including Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Even Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton have also been accused of this. 

In Canada, the same style of politics is being practiced, especially during election campaigns. While no party is entirely innocent of this practice, the Conservatives have upped the ante this time by hiring Lynton Crosby who is notorious for using this tactic. Is this, perhaps, a sign of desperation on the part of the Conservatives?

Security has been the Conservative mantra throughout this campaign. This is dog-whistle politics which plays on the fears of those who are most susceptible to this tactic. Everyone wants security, of course, but not everyone feels threatened in the way that the Conservatives use the term. 

According to experts, security always involves trade-offs. We are willing to tolerate the hassle of airport security measures even though the threat of highjackings is extremely low. This is security theater, although most people are unaware of this.

Similarly, the threat of being attacked by terrorists is almost non-existent, the Conservatives has used this theat to justify such measures as the passage of the Anti-terrorism Act 2015, formerly known as the infamous Bill C-51 which the NDP, correctly, vows to repeal. 

Two military men were killed last year by people who may have been Islamic State sympathizers, yet that does not make ISIS them terrorists. The government used these attacks to push through their new anti-terror legislation. Mental illness is, in my ipimion, a better explanation of the behavior of the killers.

I would also argue that these killings might not have happened if Canada had not become involved in the co-alition fighting ISIS, which many Muslims perceive as ant-Islamic. Domestic terrorism would not be as much of a threat if Canadians were not bombing ISIS strongholds. 

The word "security" has become red meat for those who fall for the purported terrorist threat while many Canadians dismiss it a so much Conservative noise. Yet the other political parties cannot afford to ignore this word entirely lest they could be perceived a soft on terrorism.

A perverse logic operates among those for whom security is a major issue not only in this election but also in general. Terrorism is equated by them with Muslims. The Syrian refugees are mostly Muslim. Therefore, these refugees are potential terrorists and must be subjected to a rigorous security check before they can be accepted for admission by Canada.

In response to the photos of Alan Kurdi and the urgent need to help Syrian refugees, the government has relented and promised to admit a few more of them, even foregoing the requirement for recognition as UNHCR-approved refugees. Yet this is too little too late.

Yet the government refuses to budge on the security issue: "Security screening will remain the top priority," according to Chris Alexander, the minister of citizenship and immigration. Stephen Harper keeps on emphazing the necessity of security during his campaign stops.

Security is the key dog-whistle political term of the Conservatives. They want to campaign on the issue of their management of the economy, even though heir track record on the economy is dubious. Yet they continue to insist that Canadians should stick with them rather than entrusting the economy into the hands of the Liberals or the NDP whom they characterize as spendthrifts. Security, however, is what keeps their base in line.

A poorly-concealed racism is part of the attraction of this term with its perverse anti-Muslim logic for those who are so inclined. The same logic applies to the unfortunate phrase that Harper used during the recent leaders' debate in Calgary, where he referred to "old stock" Canadians while defending the government’s cuts to refugee health care.

The leaders of the other parties, naturally, jumped on this comment, alleging that Harper is dividing Canadians by suggesting that citizens can be sorted into separate categories depending on how long they or their ancestors have lived in Canada. 

"Old-stock" is similar to two phrases used in Quebec:  "pure laine," literally meaning pure wool, referring to those whose ancestry is exclusively French-Canadian; and similar term, "de souche," meaning "of the base of the tree, or root" and thus "old-stock." Both terms are racist, except in Quebec, where this type of racism is tolerated. These terms are another example of dog-whistle politics.

Here is one way to understood "old-stock"

Most Canadians, I believe, will not accept this racism. Therefore, they do not pay attention to dog-whistle politics and are not affected by it. Recognition of a problem is already half the battle. 

To those Canadians who are affected by it, I suggest that you become aware of what such dog-whistle terms are doing to you. Look into your heart and discover the racism that lurks there. Get rid of it!

No one can claim to be totally without any racist attitudes. All of us have inherited at least a smidgen of racist thinking as a result of the societies in which we grew up and whee we now live. Let us, if possible, rid ourselves of this residual racism. And let us demonstrate that by opening our hearts, our wallets, and our country to the hords of refugees who want to settle in our midst. 

Don't allow dog-whistle terms such as security or old-stock blind you to the needs of these men, women, and children who are desperate to leave their homelands and come to Canada aor other countries. Don't let security fears drive you; instead, let love motivate you.

They are the neighbors that God commands us to love. Many Canadians are already responding with open arms. Please join them by welcoming these refugees as well. If you don't live in Canada, you can do the same wherever you are. Let all of us welcome these refugees!

How should Canada (and other nations) respond to the Syrian refugee crisis?

The world is now witnessing various responses to the stream of refugees flooding Europe. Photos of these refugees, especially of three-year-old Alan Kurdi, whose body was washed up on a Turkish beach, have affected people all over the world, They have galvanized many into action, but they have also polarized the world.

A wide variety of responses was to be expected, of course: varying from the generous, loving response that this crisis demands to the hard-hearted response of those individuals and nations that would prefer to have nothing to do with these unfortunates.

I would suggest that the responses can be divided into two groups: good and bad. There may be nations (and individuals) that would like to place themselves in the middle, and thus avoid the label of either good or bad. But is such a middle position possible? I think not. Half-hearted love is not the love that is needed in this situation. Either one rolls out the welcome mat or one does not.

Germany is an example of a good response while Hungary typifies the bad. Germany has already expressed a willingness to accept 800,000 Syrian refugees as well as another 500,000 in succeeding years. Hungary, in striking contrast, has built a wall to keep refugees out of the country in order to preserve its "Christian values," as Prime Minister Viktor Orban has stated so bluntly.

Germany's response is a truly Christian one that is characterized by love and a willingness to welcome the stranger, which is a thoroughly biblical concept (see Matthew 25: 32-46). There may be other motives in that country as well, such the need for more workers, but that does not negate Germany's altruism. Iceland, where 12,000 people have already expressed their willingness to open their homes for Syrians is another example of the response that is needed.

On the other hand, Hungary's response is un-Christian, in spite of any talk about "Christian values." Other European nations have opened their borders to refugees, but many, including Britain, are reluctant to accept the quotas that the EU is imposing. Greece and Italy have already admitted more than their fair share because of the all the boats that have headed to their shores,

The Gulf nations are unwilling to accept any Syrians at all, although they are prepared to provide money to aid their co-religionists. These countries realize that Syrians, as well as many other Middle Eastern nationalities, speak Arabic and thus cannot be evicted very easily. Moreover, they represent a political threat to these regimes.

Canada and the US would like to be on the side of the good guys, but neither nation has thus far responded in a truly welcoming fashion. The US has done very little in the past to help relocate Syrian refugees.

In the next fiscal year, the US has promised to accept an additional 10,000, but this not enough for many Democrats.  However, this is too many for some Republicans who fear that  Syrian refugees will commit acts of terrorism. Republicans in the US and Conservatives in Canada are singing the same awful song that warns their citizens about the dangers of terrorism.

Canada has promised to accept an additional 20,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees but spread over four years, and all would have to be carefully vetted in order to eliminate any potential terrorists.

"Our country has the most generous immigration and refugee system in the world. We admit, per capita, more people than any other," is the claim made repeatedly by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers when asked about the Syrian refugee crisis.

Macleans magazine argues that this claim is false (see this article for the details). Due to public pressure in the middle of the current election campaign, the Conservative government has promised to do more for Syrian refugees and to facilitate their arrival, but security still seems to be the main concern of the Conservatives. In spite of the photos of the dire straits of these people. the government remain as hard-hearted as ever.

Why doesn't the Canadian government promise to arrange transportation for these refugees, preferably before they have to risk their lives fleeing to Europe? That is what previous governments did in 1956 in the case of Hungary and again in 1979 with the boat people from Vietnam and other parts of Indochina. 

At that time, Canada took in 37,000 Hungarian refugees and 60,000 Vietnamese. There are many other cases as well where Canada has accepted thousands of refugees. The Toronto Star tells some stories how these refugees were welcomed to Canada in its September 12, 2015m edition. Surely, Canada can do as much or even more this time!

The other parties have already indicated their willingness to accept more refugees, but even these promises pale when compared to the millions of Syrian refugees still stuck in Turkey or in Syria itself. 

Security should not be the main issue when faced with such needs. For many Syrians, it is a matter of life and death. The father of little Alan Kurdi has blamed the Canadian government for his death. Shame!

The Conservatives have now enlisted the services of  Lynton Crosby, a world-famous political strategist from Australia known as the "Master of the Dark Political Arts."   He is an ultra right-wing political strategist from Australia who specializes in campaigns loaded with racially charged code words that defend failed right-wing policies by vilifying vulnerable people, including refugees.

This is how long it typically takes to process refugees coming to Canada

Can Canadians really expect the Conservatives to be in favor of admitting many more refugees than they had promised earlier? Not likely! They are adjusting the numbers slightly, but they will only admit those who have been approved already by UNHCR. However, they are promising to match the amounts up to $100 million that individuals and groups are donating to help refugees, but that this aid would be directed to agencies that are working in the region, 

Yet they will continue to indicate their preference for refugees who come from minority groups (read non-Muslims). This discrimination is totally unacceptable, but it stems from the security concerns that the Conservatives have touted repeatedly. This "fear factor" is central to their election strategy. 

Macleans outlines six steps to enable Canada to meet the admit 200,000 refugees. All these steps are easy to implement, except the suggestion that the federal leaders discuss this issue and agree that the issue is too pressing to be settled after the election or to be held hostage by partisan politics.

Sad to say, even these 200,000 would hardly make a dent in the total number of displaced people in the world, which the UN estimates at more than 60 million. As the magazine admits, Canada would still not have "the most generous immigration and refugee system in the world." However, it would be a significant step forward, and one the rest of the world would notice. But it would be the right thing to do.

Canadian provinces and cities have already promised to finance more admissions of refugees, but they need the help of the federal government to admit them. 

There are millions waiting to go somewhere and flee the war in Syria. They cannot wait any longer. Winter is coming soon. Their situation is desperate. They need help now, Have a heart, Canada!

Canada must admit more refugees. Refugees are not all terrorists. How can a three-year-old child or an 82-year old grandmother be terrorists? Most of them only want a new home, at least until the civil war in Syria is over and they can return home. 

Canada must also do what it can to end that war. The main culprit in that war is not ISIS but the Assad regime. They pose a greater threat to Syrians than ISIS does,

Then, and only then, will Canada, a nation of immigrants and refugees from all over the world, regain the respect that it formerly received for its treatment of refugees. And then too Canadians can once more be proud of their country.

May this not be Canada's (and other countries') response!