Consequential Inconsequentiality

We have a tendency to declare things to be inconsequential,, as a society. In Canada in particular, we often look at certain laws, declare them to be inconsequential, and summarily ignore them. They're usually little laws: digital piracy, using a mobile phone while driving, under-age drinking, smoking marijuana, et cetera. Sometimes we're right, and sometimes, over a few years or decades, we're able to get those laws revoked in the interest of general freedom (though this happens only rarely). The problem is, we're just as often wrong: see my first three examples. Still, the citizenry considers themselves the end-all-be-all authority, and circumvent the laws they see no need for at their leisure... most people I know have, from time to time.

The problem is that we really don't know what we're doing, most of the time. What seems of no consequence at one moment can be of grave consequence in another, and very often, one evasion begets others. For example, what starts as lighting up with the fellas on the post-finals weekend might turn into nightly use, which might turn into keeping a potted plant in your closet under lights, which could potentially turn into filling the attic over your garage with several such plants.

The general scene around here seems to be that smoking pot isn't a crime. I mean, it is, on the books, but in general, you get your stuff confiscated, maybe spend a couple hours in a cell waiting for your parents or guardians to come pick you up, and are told very sternly not to do it again. By contrast, growing marijuana is serious business, netting real jail time and first-hand-experience of RCMP home invasion techniques.

This is just one example in a room and country full of them. I'm looking chiefly at those of you who pirated enough Eidos games that they went under. Thanks fellas. Now I have to put up with the lame SquareEnix reboot series.

Good Friday, and Where I Am.

Today was good for a Friday.

Okay, all joking aside, it actually was a pretty good day. I got to see Kitten, visit with her mother, and eat like a king, for which I am much obliged. I also attended a service for the holiday at their church, a respectable baptist outfit with quite the reputation for their music. All in all, a very enjoyable day, and one that bears repeating.

I don't normally put much thought into Holy Week, largely because, until recently, I wasn't up to speed on it. But today got me thinking about the meaning of the whole thing, which the most of you are familiar with by now, and not being properly equipped for apologetics, I'm going to skip to the latter part of my little thought process, which brings me, as it always does, to the idea of Christian Identity... specifically, mine.

I've never liked to feel confined, and I like labels even less. It's easy enough to answer when a person asks me what religion I am by saying "Christian", and most of the time that answer satisfies. But I get the odd person, usually an overly nosey denizen of the web, for whom that answer is not enough. They want to know a denomination.

I don't like denominations. For one thing, they sort of defeat the point of Christianity. For another, there's far more to unite the disparate Churches than divide them. Throwing a denomination on is sort of like throwing on a political party. I don't like the designation. It invites being painted with a broad brush, and marginalizes the ability to take contrarian positions.

I am, by all rights, a Catholic, and I've learned to recognize that it wasn't exactly a political choice - the Magisterial and I have as many points of contention as agreement when it comes to matters of the mundane world, which is probably a normal post-adolescent reaction to authority, more than anything else. The decision was made on other grounds: apostolic succession, mostly.

I remain a Catholic forever, baptised and confirmed as I am, even while lapsed. But I prefer not to identify. The differing churches do not get along, and I live largely in the middle of that situation. For a while, this has manifested as a sort of refusal to engage in anything that might be considered a Catholic practice.

But then I swung a little closer to the middle of the pendulum, as I usually do. I'm a catholic because I believe in a great majority of moral teachings. Where we differ (largely on the dignity of the person, and on ABC) is not enough to outweigh where we agree. In time, I might even come to change my mind about those, thought I doubt it.

Regardless of whatever church or religion you follow, your spirituality is a personal journey. That's why single life, married life, and religious life are all perfectly valid. When I'm meeting people, I don't pidgeonhole them in by their sexual characteristics or political views. First thing I look for is a mind at work. Then a good person.

I've railed against this before, but the quote is worth repeating. Catholic means universal. United. We are one body in Christ. The divisions between denominations are entirely artificial.

Bugs in my Beverage? Absolutely!

Starbucks in the US (and possibly here) is changing some of their ingredients.

Their Strawberries and Cream Frappucinio, which is the absolutely coffee-free beverage shown on the right, has inspired a consumer backlash. Why's that? Well, that's because they're replacing the old synthetic red dye with extract of cochineal, a natural red dye that was the benchmark for the hue we now call Crimson.

This is excellent news, right? One less synthetic ingredient in mass-consumed food.

But Zac, you only ever use this space to complain!

The Penalty for Slave Trading in Canada?

Toronto Star Image

We've come a long way from The Underground Railroad.

This is Ferenc Domotor, a Hungarian-Canadian man who today was sentenced for having lead what was called by the CBC "The leader of what has been called the largest proven human smuggling ring in Canadian history", along with his wife and son, who helped him orchestrate the slavery of 19 Hungarian men. They were held against their will and forced for years to work for table scraps, under threat of violence to their families back home in Hungary. The family and twelve fellow gang members essentially helped ruin the lives of these men and their families for years at a time.

Domotor was given a nine-year sentence for his part in the crimes, which, less time served (and sundry other deductions) means he'll be spending another four and a half years in federal prison, which is where I come in.

Palm Sunday Bombing of Planned Parenthood

NBC's Brian Miller reports a firebombing at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Wisconsin. Other sources report that the device used was of an incendiary nature. Nobody was hurt, and only minor damage was done to the building. An FBI investigation is ongoing.

The bigger story here is that this sort of thing hasn't just happened before, but that it can almost be called commonplace. Abortion clinics and abortion doctors  are threatened with violence, attacked, and killed more frequently in the United States than anyone is comfortable admitting. Whether you agree with abortion's legality or not, you must recognize that this is a serious problem.

This sort of attack weakens the pro-life argument. While nobody was inside at the time of the bombing, this was not assured, and even if it were, violating a law without hurting anyone is still violation of the law. If I want to defend a moral cause, say, the abolition of the use of condoms (this being only an example), and I do that by stealing a shopping cart full of condoms and setting fire to them on the sidewalk, not only am I personally going to look pretty crazy, but now the entire anti-birth-control crowd is going to be associated with that level of crazy. How much worse is it, then, when people get hurt?

The main argument for the pro-life side is that all life is sacred, and that life begins at conception. If we defend that life by taking away other lives, how is that internally consistent logic? There is talk all the time of moral relativism being a slippery slope, but it seems to be a slope with a cutting edge in both directions. Is abortion being the logical precursor to assisted suicide worse than abortion being the precursor to terrorism? I'll leave that for the individual conscience to decide.

Am I about to get an abortion? No. Does this sort of thing make me nervous? Not really, I live in a much different social climate. But does terrorism from the "Christian" Right make me, a Christian myself, absolutely furious? You better believe.