If you're going to question faith...have your facts straight!

In spite of comments from a few weeks ago, I really don't try to single out The Toronto Sun for sources of humour; really, I try to be equally constructive in my criticism to all (myself very much included).

But this I can't just leave there...

In his recent column Tales from the Crypt, Sun columnist Thane Burnett - admitedly voicing the concerns of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. of practicing Christians - expressed a fair amount of displeasure towards highly publicized and controversial documentary The Tomb of Jesus. As if Dan Brown hadn't done enough, now more doubt was being cast on the foundations of Christianity.

But here's Burnett's argument:

"If you're going to question the basis of Christian belief, you better make sure your case is airtight."

And if you're reading the way I am, what Burnett is saying is not to challenge faith in the centuries old, imcomplete diaries, written by many but edited by few over the course of centuries (I admit, my sources are largely Dan Brown books and recently completed The Last Templar by Raymond Khoury), unless your case is....actually, I can't think of a better word than airtight.

As airtight as the resurrection? Maybe.

But that's just it. You can't hold up faith in a court of law. There is room for and value in faith to be sure. But you can't ask that it be defended or disputed based on a logical case.

Faith isn't based on fact...it's based on faith.

Umm...where did February go?

Yikes! It’s happened again…a full month and a half since my last blog! Quite a bit can happen in month and a half. From the perspective of my blog, two things from the last six weeks stand out as undisputable highlights.

I got my first flaming blog comment.


It was in response to my blog entry All Irish are Drunks back in January, and it contained the word “ass.” Quite sincerely, I’m flattered that someone took the time to disagree with me…with a vengeance! I’ll have to concede some of the anonymous poster’s points, but I still wouldn’t change (may be add a couple?) a word.

The election threat has become eerily real.


Unfortunately, my immediate reaction to the election possibility wasn’t my typical enthusiasm, but dread; not of the phone or doorbell ringing during dinner; not of the growth of the daily junkmail pile that will start soon; not even of the countless pundit analyses seemingly broadcast on every news channel 24 hours a day; what I dread is how blatantly obvious it’s become to me how much partisan politics plays into policy and platform (how’s that for alliteration!) decisions. Few if any elements of the Conservatives’ environmental policies – for example – would survive long if the Liberals should regain control of the government, and it wouldn’t happen because the policies were unsound nearly as much as it would be a factor of the party behind them.

There were two events in the last 72 hour that drove this point home.

One was they keynote speech at last week’s Saskatchewan Council of Social Sciences conference in Saskatoon. Roy MacGregor owns the Globe & Mail’s page A2, he’s an Officer of the Order of Canada, he’s been described as “the heir to Peter Gzowski,” and his speech was about the Canadian Identity. His whole talk was mesmerizing, but one stands out. Roy was interviewing a textbook rural Prairies MP, leaning on the hood of the gentleman’s truck as virtually everyone who drove by honked, waved at and/or cheered on their local representative in Ottawa. One particularly muddy truck bounded by without honk, wave or cheer, only to skid to a grinding halt 100 feet down the gravel road. The truck promptly reversed, the window rolled down and a gruff voice hollered out, “what in the hell are you doing talking to Jack Layton?”

The other event was catching a talking heads debate between Conservative Strategist Tim Powers and Liberal Strategist (and former Martin speechwriter) Scott Reid about the Prime Minister’s recent, very generous cross-country tour. It was amazing to see the lengths to which each would go to discredit the other, even if it meant contradicting positions their parties previously held. They’re both smart guys, both social and confident, both relatively young. But beyond all similarities, their party loyalties are such that I’m sure they have different coloured blood running through their vanes. For all I know, they may go out for beers together after an on-air debate, but their stances are clearly defined and clearly opposed.

I know I’m wandering into existential territory here, but I’ve got to believe that we want human beings running our country – honest, hard-working, intelligent, motivating and committed are all ideal characteristics, but at a minimum, they’ve got to be human. Human beings make mistakes. It’s true. So…if you’re always right, you’ve never made a mistake in your life, and you never, ever waiver on an issue, I’ve got to believe you’re either a) a huge liar, and/or b) too slow to recognize your mistakes.

(Insert politician joke here.)

I can’t think of a better model of good government – except, perhaps, for an elected Senate – than our very own. But while a party-based system promotes effective and active governance, it almost guarantees that the best solution to a given problem is never an option, where the best long term plans won’t see enough light to make an impact. A significant sacrifice for sure, but one that – as far as I can see – is necessary for the purposes of action and progress in government, two measurements that define a government’s long term – if not in today’s polls – success.