Friday, April 10, 2015

Calling all #Christians in NorthAmerica James Lunney SO31 on Banks Religious and Economic Exclusion

Calling all #Christians in NorthAmerica


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Congratulations are due to Mr. Lunney for his intellectual honesty concerning evolutionism. I use the 'ism' suffix with purpose, because as he acknowledges, proponents of evolution as settled fact are in reality idealogues. Just as the term I coined years ago: homosexualists were idealogues seeking to use political and secular views on sexuality to engineer social change (whether or not they themselves were not heterosexual).

    Ever since my studies in biophysics at the university of Toronto (M.Sc. in 1980) I realized variants of Darwinism had already acquired the status of full-blown religious tenets for atheists and humanists. The tacit basis of such a tenet of reducing animals to random chance was an unexamined desire not to use the word 'creature', especially for man. There seemed (curiously enough) to be a higher status of individual intellectualism in concluding a thinker herself had arisen from random processes than that she had been created with purpose. The patent assumption that she was more evolved than he was also tied to the random, rather than even to a mythological she-goddess. Of course the question of how the two could get together in the first place, and tolerate each other, was never raised.

    A further point is that the open terms of our multicultural society are overrun with an ideological use of the term multiculturalism, which boils down to ideological pluralism ('isms' again intended). Canadian society is multicultural and plural in fact, but political intolerance of Christian views is pluralist in ideology. How so? Pluralism is a self-preserving system that cannot tolerate proselytization, because in principle a successful mission in religion could mean that everyone converts .. and then plurality is moot.

    So pluralists take all beliefs as equally (in)valid: there is no knowable truth, and it must ever remain thus. If there is (shudder) a base truth about man, it must be held as unknowable (and so pluralism is at root nominalist). The reigning absolute is that pluralism must be the ever overriding 'truth', and this means that the natural struggle in the religious market-place, so to speak, cannot be allowed to play out with fair competition.

    The game of ideas (which is then political and very monolithically so, leaving no room even for political dissent) must be forced into a mold of 'privacy', keeping private beliefs silent. The most feared outcome for a pluralist is a hegemony of belief, so of course he has to force a hegemony of disbelief. And it happens that evolutionism is a very useful tenet for that end.

  3. Subconsciously, (pluralist) evolutionists know that Christians, Jews and Moslems cannot believe in random mutation and selection at the macro level or any level that goes beyond intra-species adaptation, for explanation of the existence of two first human parents: not least because it is absurd to assume that stochastic randomness would have produced two compatible human beings in the same part of the world at the same time and with inter-personal communicative ability (common language), not to mention affection.

    Darwin saw that problem and shied away from promulgating a theory that went much beyond adaptation with minor genetic opportunism conferring limited survival benefits. Given that he had no knowledge of the interaction of environmment with hormones, and interaction of hormones with genes, he has to be admired as a conjectural thinker who was as much on the threshold of adaptive mechanisms as the founders of 'germ' theory were on the threshold of microscopic pathogens. With his apt misgivings Darwin held out selection as a useful posit the way Copernicus posed heliocentricity without knowing the sun is both spinning and moving around the Milky Way.

    As Mr. Lunney points out, it was for others with their own sweeping agendas to place the onus of species creation on random selection and mutation - which are frankly inadequate probabilistically to support the genetic outcomes or the complexity of a single cell. The animal cell includes 'foreign' genetic roots in its energy factory as distinct from its nucleus, roots which are akin to the genes of fungi within the soil from which God is thought by the above religions to have drawn or formed breathing creatures, especially man.

    That all this should ultimately come to political debate (or squelching) is inevitable in an aggressively secular state. Only recently the British parliament voted in favour of allowing the very unChristian technology of replacing the 'foreign' genetic material in a zygote with that of a third parent. The political force behind that diabolical step lay in the fact that in that the question of two particular sexes is there moot: two of the parents are of course same-sexed.

    Another political reason as mentioned by Mr. Lunney, is the future of technologies that depend for their acceptance on a reductionist view of life and a suppression of traditional religions, involving not millions but billions of dollars in authorized investment. A recent biological movement originating from Germany and Holland treats the person as entirely their brain; and genetic modifications to engineer 'better' more 'clever' and even perhaps less 'believing' brains are not outside the quest of imagination. Imagination itself is gradually being promoted to a higher political and normative mental status than sobriety and prudence as values in natural law.

    To paraphrase a Roman examiner at law some 1,982 years ago, "natural law ... what is that?"

  4. The above commentary (2 comments) were actually intended for those watching the YouTube clip (cf. ) interviewing Mr. Lunney after his resignation from the Conservative caucus over the issue of evolutionism, which less directly pertains to religious freedom.

    While I deeply respect Mr. Lunney's views on this topic, I think resigning just when he did creates very poor 'optics' with regard to his convictions including his just prior comments about Trinity Western (I misstated that as NWU in the above comments). The optics is that in his solidarity with TWU was perceived (if only by him) as an embarrassment to the Tories.