“A wounded heart does not recover in the spiritual world without a change in the visible world. Resurrection never does enthrone the spirit in the same place where it left one body, as though nothing had happened. Something has happened; death has intervened. When I experienced an infinitesimal fraction of resurrection, I learned to my amazement how severe the law was which made it impossible for me to continue among the same people in the same place.”
~from The Christian Future, page 145
Watching this, it wasn’t much of a debate. It was two against one (three against one if you count the moderator). Dr. Peterson’s main argument is that it is never good to give the government the authority to punish people for not saying things a certain way. This is not so much an issue of what you can’t say; it’s an issue of what you must say, and Peterson rightly points out how dangerous that is for a free society.
Peterson’s opponents, Brenda Cossman and Mary Bryson, appeal mainly to kindness and an unquestioning obedience to the law. I’m quite sure that if this had been a debate about abortion, Brenda Cossman’s only argument would have been: “Abortion is legal. What’s the point in debating it?” She criticized Peterson for not knowing the law well enough. Well, you don’t have to be a lawyer to recognize bad law, and Peterson, who has studied totalitarian societies for years, does know how bad laws corrupt free society.
Hopefully Dr. Peterson doesn’t lose his job or his license to practice psychiatric care in the future. But if he does, will Canada still continue down this current path? Or, will someone throw a Trump brand monkey wrench into Canada’s PC machine?
Further reading on the debate:
If gender identity debate at U of T was about free speech, then the battle is truly lost
by Christie Blatchford
Intolerance Strangles Diversity
by Louis Kakoutis
Click here to sign a petition opposing Bill C-16
***
“[E]very boy or girl in this country learns the three R’s. Now, perhaps they would have better minds if they learned the Greek letters and language instead, but they have no choice. This English is their heritage. Long before they could choose, their elders have moulded their minds and made them into English speakers, English readers, English writers, and accountants. The young depend on the choices made for them by their elders. An heir is not somebody who can choose what he shall inherit; if he could make his choice, he would be self-made. But, in so far as his inheritance is determined, he is an heir, and under the laws of heredity. And to his heredity a man may say either yes or no, but he is caught in this one alternative which is not creative. He does, however, determine the background of the next generation.
“Hence, one’s generation’s background is due to the previous generation’s foreground. My father’s values determined my education. And by no action of mine can I cancel out the fact that his education preceded my own judgements. I am more the product of his intent or his omissions than his own life was. I am his heir. Only my own son or students may fully reflect my own choices.”
~from The Christian Future, page 221
This has been one of my most popular articles on this blog…
My time as a missionary in Cambodia has been teaching me that, most often, my abilities which are most useful to the people around me are the skills I learned back in Canada before I came out here.
If my son approaches me as he’s nearing completion of high school, and says he wants to be a missionary or a pastor and he wants advice on how to do that, my first instruction will be to stay out of Bible College.
Here’s what I’ll then tell him:
1) “Get a job in a construction trade, one that trains through an apprenticeship program. I’m an electrician myself, so I’ll suggest that one over any other.”
What will he learn in a trade?
a) He will learn how to value hard work and working with his hands.
b) He will learn how to be resourceful.
c) He will learn how to respect…
View original post 592 more words
“In the most varied conditions in countries around the world – whether in Third World countries or in economically more advanced countries, and whether in countries where the majority or the minority has the higher skills – those seeking either the leadership or the votes of lagging groups tend to offer them four things:
“In addition, racial or ethnic leaders have every incentive to promote the isolation of the groups they lead – despite the fact that isolation has been a major factor in the poverty and backwardness of many different peoples around the world.
“Where a lagging group is concentrated in a particular region of a country, leaders of such groups have incentives to promote secession from the more advanced part of the country… The people themselves may also benefit physically by being spared the public embarrassment and private shame of being visibly outperformed repeatedly by others in the same economy and society.”
~from Wealth, Poverty and Politics, page 268-269
Pursuit of Percipience 