Finding common ground--the second step in effecting culture change

No matter what message you are about to deliver somewhere, whether it is holding out a hand of friendship, or making clear that you disapprove of something, is the fact that the person sitting across the table is a human being, so the goal is to always establish common ground.

Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State

I think the most effective forms of critique are ones that establish a common ground for people to occupy, and then appeal to the best nature of people on that common ground.
Mohsin Hamid, Pakistani novelist

While attending seminary in Illinois in the 1970s, I was exposed to some of the more curious American Christian leaders whose reputations had not crossed into the Great White North. These included such notable fundamentalist Protestants as John R. Rice, Bob Jones (both Sr. and Jr.), and Carl McIntire. 

John R. Rice was particularly intriguing to me. He struck me as a flat-out nutbar, but he had a considerable following among very conservative fundamentalist Americans. His books included such titles as What's Wrong with the Dance? (plenty, apparently), What is Wrong with Movies?, and the unforgettable Bobbed Hair, Bossy Wives and Women Preachers. His newspaper, The Sword of the Lord, hit a high of 100,000 circulation.

In addition to their fundamentalist understanding of New Testament teaching, all of the aforementioned leaders had this in common--they dismissed the iconic Billy Graham as a traitor to the true faith. He was hopelessly compromised because of his willingness to cavort with the dreaded liberals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Rice).

One would assume that the set of common beliefs, values, and religious objectives that Billy Graham shared with these men would be sufficient for them to get along while agreeing to disagree on that one significant issue; i.e., that Graham was willing to work with non-evangelical Christians in putting together his famous crusades. But this was not possible for the fundamentalists. Either there had to be total agreement on all points, or no common ground could be found.

Seems ridiculous, doesn't it?

Many people who have been successful in achieving important goals--whether religious, political, even economic--strongly argue that finding common ground with other parties who might have an interest in the matter at hand, even if they bring very different values and practices to the discussion, is indispensable to achieving that success (see the quote from Madeleine Albright above).

That has caused me to wonder what common ground I, as a member of the life sub-culture, could find with, say, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Planned Parenthood, or the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada. Could I learn anything from  organizations such as these? Should I ever consider borrowing from their ideas? Or should I shun and condemn them at every turn?--which is in fact what the pro-life movement tends to do (while getting it back in spades).

Do I do the John R. Rice thing? Or go Billy Graham?

Stay tuned.

Street cred--the first step in effecting culture change

I can't quite define my aversion to asking questions of strangers. From snatches of family battles which I have heard drifting up from railway stations and street corners, I gather that there are a great many men who share my dislike for it, as well as an equal number of women who ... believe it to be the solution to most of this world's problems.

Robert Benchley (1889–1945), U.S. writer, humorist.

I have worked for two different faith-based universities. Both had very good faculties, especially when one considers how much more money, and discretionary time, most of the professors could have had working for public post-secondary institutions, for which the vast majority were suitably qualified. 

The professors fell into three camps, in my opinion (for what that's worth). There were those who chose a private university with an emphasis on teaching rather than research because their interests were decidedly in the former direction. Some of these people, in my experience, were rather fearful of attempting to publish in academic journals, while others simply felt called to be instructors. The downside is that they remain retailers of second-hand ideas.

A second group enjoyed doing a least a little research and publishing, as well as attending academic conferences. But they tended to limit their arena of academic activity primarily (or even exclusively) to faith-based circles; i.e., journals and conferences run by, and for, faculty members of faith-based institutions, sometimes all within their own denomination.

The third group were drawn to the journals and conferences relevant to their academic disciplines, regardless of whether there were any faith element involved. Some attracted large research grants and even Canada Council chairs.  

As a Dean, I was content with having colleagues in the first two categories provided that there were a goodly number in the third. There is a tendency for faith-related institutions to stay within their "ghettos" and not be inclined to mix it up in the broader culture. This is regrettable for three reasons:

1. If we believe that our faith-informed perspective brings some unique and creative approaches to our disciplines, we should find outlets for these that don't amount to "singing to the choir."
2. Hiding in a ghetto of any sort arbitrarily cuts one off from what others, who employ different worldviews or approaches, have to offer. No one has the corner on all good insights.
3. Academics who don't encounter professors from the private universities will come to any number of conclusions about why they never meet these people, and will tend to fall back on stereotypes and uninformed biases that are seldom complimentary. 

In a nutshell, what I wanted the faculty to have was street cred--I wanted our university to be seen as contributors to the broader discussion, and as having earned the credibility to be listened to by the mainstream universities.

I feel exactly the same way about what I have been calling the "life sub-culture". If we are to have any influence upon behaviour, to have any recommendations that could be viewed as viable alternatives, and to be taken seriously by the all-pervasive media--we must spend our time on Main Street, not just Church Street. 

That's why I quoted writer Robert Benchley above. He was talking about the differences between men and women, not life groups. But what he was saying was that there are individuals (and I'm adding groups) who avoid the unknown, and don't seek out interactions with those with whom they feel they have nothing in common. Then there are those who are drawn to asking questions outside of their comfort zone; in fact, they see this as indispensable to addressing life's problems.

That's my first criterion for engaging in the broader public culture--credibility. The second is finding common ground. I'll deal with this next.

Culture conversion

Because culture is learned, members of a given society seldom question the culture of which they are a part, unless for some reason they become outsiders or establish some critical distance from the usual cultural expectations. People engage unthinkingly in hundreds of specifically cultural practices every day; culture makes these practices seem "normal." If you suddenly stopped participating in your culture and questioned each belief and every behavior, you would soon find yourself feeling detached and perhaps a little disoriented; you would also become increasingly ineffective at functioning within your group.

MARGARET L. ANDERSON, Sociology: The Essentials

In my last post (waaaayyy back on Jan. 11), I went into a long, piteous vent about how I feel somewhat to the outside of my culture--a status which I blame in equal degrees on my understanding of the principles of my faith, along with a tendency to non-conformity which appears to be almost hard-wired. I dressed up this behaviour by calling it the spiritual gift of prophecy. Others, of course, might simply regard it as either grumpiness, cynicism, or lack of social graces.

[Insert reassuring response here.]

But if I do not always feel like a mainstream player in the Canadian culture generally, I find that I'm sometimes on the outside of my beloved "life" sub-culture as well. My experience with the average Joe/Jill Blow in the pews is one of lip service to the notion that all of these abortions are not a good thing, but with little interest in addressing further what they see as primarily a political problem.

Even within the life movement, a good deal of effort goes into attempting to influence the political system to effect the desired change. Most notable among such groups in Canada is the "We Need a Law" campaign.

[Just as an aside, I also believe that Canada needs a law. But as I argued in my series of posts on the separation of church and state, I don't believe any law will be forthcoming before a major cultural shift in views on abortions occurs. See http://johnonlife.blogspot.ca/2014/07/how-to-be-christian-without-being.html and following posts.]
 

As for the image of the life sub-culture, its public face is perceived to be a highly moralistic and judgmental one. Our years of sign-waving have convinced the public that what are typically viewed as anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-equal rights fanatics (that's us) have nothing in common with Canadian values. While in some instances the signs have begun to change to feature more gentle messages in the last few years, our reputation is set and the protestors have been pigeon-holed. 

Yet many pro-life groups continue to give all kind of verbal support, and some money as well, to the likes of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR), that specializes in outfitting abortion trucks covered with graphic pictures of aborted fetuses, such as the one on the right. They are parked where not only young female university students (a common target group) and other adults can see them, but also any little children that happen to be walking by at the time.

Secondly, as I mentioned above, the preferred response in the life camp to what is seen as a culture that cheapens life, and often harms women, through aborting its children (nearly 100,000 in Canada each year; around 1 million in the Excited States), is to elect politicians to change the legal picture. In Canada, that would mean filling the existing legal vacuum by passing anti-abortion legislation, and in the U.S. repealing Roe v. Wade. See on the left another of CCBR's explicit pictures, this one aimed at Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Donning my prophetic cloak, as it were, I have argued in earlier posts that laws are seldom changed unless there is a grassroots call for such. I have also suggested that politicians of all stripes seek the political middle ground once in power, making the parties nearly indistinguishable (see http://johnonlife.blogspot.ca/2014/08/separation-of-church-state-3-why-i.html). That current middle is pro-choice and is highly likely to stay this way unless something is done to change culture.

[Consider this quote, for instance, from a young person responding to a pro-life ad expressing concern for the number of abortions: Are you going to be personally responsible for all the unwanted children? Are you going to make sure no-one gets pregnant from getting raped, and that every one has free access and education for birth control? What will you do for all the back alley botched abortions? Anti-choice thinking is NOT thinking--pro-choice all the way! I suggest that this response--as uninformed in some ways as it is--would be the mainstream view.]
 

I have not made a lot of headway with my arguments about changing culture versus street and political action. Waving signs and demonstrating for new laws require a certain amount of courage (given the typical reaction to such attempts, whether on the streets or in the media), but are otherwise fairly easy to do. But changing culture?--My opening quote suggests just how difficult that is. I just happen to believe that it is the only long-range strategy that is likely to be effective.

But this is why I said in the last post that I'm ticked. I've been taking this stand re: culture for years, and no one is inviting me to speak at their pro-life conferences. But now I find a well-regarded Canadian political commentator, Mark Steyn, saying the same thing, and he gets half a page in a national newspaper. The article, by Robert Fulford, is entitled "As Steyn Sees It", and it first appeared in the National Post on January 3, 2015, p. A14. Oh, the envy!!

Here is the quote I have in mind, taken from Steyn's book The [Un]documented Mark Steyn: Don't Say You Weren't Warned.

[Steyn's] careful observation of American life has brought him to a grim (for a conservative) conclusion: "You can't have a conservative government in a liberal culture." Schools in the U.S. are liberal and churches are liberal, he argues. The hip, groovy elite is liberal. Makers of movies and pop songs are liberal. Liberalism fills the air; it is the climate. 

Culture trumps politics, and in his view the U.S. proves it. "Liberals expend tremendous effort changing the culture. Conservatives expend tremendous effort changing elected officials every other November--and then are surprised that it doesn't make much difference." 

Nevertheless, there are life groups attempting to go the culture-change route, and doing some excellent work. I hope to highlight some of those in subsequent posts.

“A prophet is not without honour....

....except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”

Okay, now I'm ticked. Again. For the same reason as always. 

Allow me to explain. I've long felt that if I have a spiritual gift, it's the gift of prophecy. Now before you phone me up for tips on lottery ticket numbers, I hasten to add that I'm not referring to the ability to foretell events. The future is as murky to me, in terms of specifics, as anyone else. 

No, I'm using another meaning of the term. Often the distinction is made between foretelling and forth-telling. I believe that I have abilities in the latter category. To me, a prophet as forth-teller draws upon the following:

1. An independent, sophisticated understanding of principles and/or events. I wanted to include 'objective' understanding, but the truth is that no one is entirely objective. Knowingly or unknowingly, everyone has a worldview shaped by a host of factors, including upbringing, culture and subculture, education, experience, extent of exposure to a variety of points of view, deeply held beliefs, an inclination to conformity versus non-conformity, and so on. But to the extent that we recognize what these factors are, and how they influence the ways in which we regard ourselves and society, we can attempt to be objective as we consider the world around us. Given the fact that most people grow up immersed in a certain culture, rising above a worm's eye view of the world is a challenge.
2.  The creativity to see how principles should affect behaviour and decisions if the person who claims to hold to these principles is attempting to be honest, unselfish, and consistent in so doing. 
3. The ability to distinguish between the logical application of principles and the concomitant results, with what is actually going on. In other words, if a person or group who espouses certain principles routinely applies them in ways that are really a corruption of the intent of those principles, then the results will be nothing like what would be expected if the principles were used in an honest, logical way. A prophet can see this gulf clearly.
4. Sufficient insight to see where a continuation of the wrong behaviour/decision-making is likely to lead if not altered. 
5. The courage to draw this inappropriate, uninformed, or corrupt application of principles to the attention of the perpetrators, and to challenge them to mend their ways.

Watching the riveting television program The Book of Negroes last night on Mother Corps (The CBC) reminded me again of how biblical principles (including the equality of all people) based on God's love, mercy, justice, and grace were so corrupted by  professing Christians that blacks were treated in the barbaric way they were by believers who argued the merits of slavery with a clear conscience. It took God's prophets generations of marginalization, abuse, even death, to bring an end to its legal practice, first in the British Empire and later in the U.S. Of course, racism continues to this day despite those same biblical principles.

Moderate Muslims similarly assure us that the principles of Islam, properly understood and applied, do not allow for the horrific practices perpetrated by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and the Taliban. Nevertheless, these latter groups routinely say that they are the true representatives of their Prophet. Thus we witnessed the recent (from our point of view, wholly cowardly and obscene) attack on the French publisher Charlie Hebdo, resulting in a dozen deaths. ISIS lauded the attackers for honouring God through this slaughter.

But let's look at something far less dramatic than slavery or terrorism. It's easy enough for most observers to see the wholesale violation of principles in these cases. But take something much closer to home. My wife hails from the Old Order Mennonite branch of Anabaptism. Had her father, Jacob, not had an encounter as a teenager with a traveling evangelist and joined an evangelical church, my wife might have looked much like the women depicted on the left, cooked on a wood stove, and ridden everywhere in a horse-drawn buggy. Mennonites of this heritage comprise a goodly percentage of the population of Waterloo County, Ontario.

I and a cousin of my wife's were comparing the descendents of these Mennonites, who arrived in Ontario from Switzerland and Germany by way of Pennsylvania, with another brand of Mennonites in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. These latter people came from the same theological stock but their journey was from Holland and Germany to Russia (at the invitation of Catherine the Great), and eventually to Canada, particularly to the prairie provinces and British Columbia. I mentioned to him that the Mennonites here in BC primarily vote for center-right conservative political parties. He was gobsmacked. "Here in Waterloo County we tend to vote for the (socialist) NDP because of their commitment to social justice."

Presumably these two companies of Mennonites are drawing upon the same biblical principles, their interpretation and application coloured by their Anabaptist heritage. Yet they end up at opposite ends of the political spectrum. [There is another group of Mennonites here in BC that don't vote at all.]

All of the above is to say that the clear-sighted ability to identify, interpret, and apply fundamental principles--including faith-related ones--is notoriously difficult, which is probably why we tend to fall back on whatever the prevailing culture believes, or on rigid rules that eliminate the need for discernment.The prophetic task is to call people who claim adherence to certain principles to eschew both of these approaches and to become principled decision-makers. It's very hard to get people to do this, and ends up being a rather unappreciated task.

This is not supposed to be a self-absorbed boohoo session. I'm drawn to this type of life while fully admitting to having a dozen blind spots of my own. But people tell me that I've opened their eyes in some cases.

But if you are actually still reading, you may be asking, "What is Sutherland on about? Why is he bringing up this matter at all, unless out of some sort of vanity? What does it have to do with the purpose of this blog, which purports to address so-called 'life' issues?"

Very fair observations. If you can manage one more post, I'll tell you why I'm ticked.

Politics, law and morality - seldom in the same room at the same time

Having spent three months now examining the issue of the separation of church and state, I've concluded that politics is a poor method for obtaining moral objectives that are not already included in prevailing societal norms.

[By morality, I am referring to the concept as understood by Christians who draw their system of principles, virtues, ethics, and morals from the Christian Bible. In the U.S., this is typically referred to as Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, most of Christianity's moral positions are shared by the world's other faiths.]

There are precious few moral giants* among our current crop of political leaders, and not many modern-day Martin Luther Kings or Ralph Naders bringing influence to bear. Consequently, if one wants to pursue a moral objective (whether it is addressing aboriginal alienation, having affordable housing and homeless policies with teeth, or establishing fetal rights and ending abortion, to name a few that are important to me) where society generally is either opposed or indifferent to you, or is not changing rapidly enough to achieve a critical mass, then methods other than agitating for changes to laws must be found.**

With respect to issues related to fetal rights, abortion, and crisis pregnancies, much useful laying of the ground is happening, although a lot of it is being done on a shoestring by hardworking, unsupported, and unappreciated amateurs. I want to start highlighting some of these noble efforts in subsequent posts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A fascinating study has just been released by the Manning Foundation for Democratic Action (http://www.manningfoundation.org/our-work). 162 current and former politicians were asked to rate themselves on a variety of politically-relevant issues. They gave themselves a score of just 3.95 out of 10 for overall performance of politicians (Canadians generally give a rating of 4.49). Only one-third of the respondents believed that "ethics and integrity" was the most important skill set for a politician.

**I have had many opportunities to observe the political scene up close over the years. My late father

Donald J. Sutherland (pictured right) was quite active in politics as a municipal politician, campaign manager, and a federal candidate in Ontario. He was on a first-name basis with former Prime Minister Joe Clark and several federal and provincial cabinet ministers. I have been, as my reader knows, a school trustee since 1983, which requires frequent interaction with the Ministry of Education. Two of my former colleagues on the board of education are now cabinet ministers, one federal and one provincial. Others have served on our city's council. In addition, I was charged with lobbying the Ministry of Labour when I worked with CLAC, a labour union. I have been invited by three different provincial/federal parties to consider running myself. I couldn't say NO fast enough. Through it all, I have developed a fairly dubious attitude towards what can be accomplished politically, and what cannot, as a result of my experience.

Just today I read an article from Sun News (not a source I normally consult, but it was emailed to me and the headline grabbed my attention). The author has arrived at conclusions much like my own regarding a political leader's reluctance to step outside of societal norms (he calls it society's "sweet spot") despite their personal moral convictions (http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140912-154619.html).

Here is an excerpt. The context is the political scene in New Brunswick, where the provincial Liberals, under the leadership of Brian Gallant, are leading the polls. The author's observations could not be truer to my own experience.

Now most political know-it-alls from all parties will tell you abortion is like a third rail, take any position on the issue - pro-life or pro-choice - and you lose more votes than you can get.

Their logic is that the sweet spot in politics is in the middle and taking any position on abortion moves you away from that big-tent sweet spot and towards a place where there are fewer votes.

And yet, here is Gallant, leading in the polls in New Brunswick across every demographic, income level, education level, and gender.

And not only is Trudeau leading every poll these days, but in May, the Liberal party actually sent out a letter soliciting membership and support using his pro-choice stand as the hot-button issue.

Sounds like those parties are in a pretty sweet spot.

Meanwhile, the conservative opponents of Gallant and Trudeau - those to whom pro-life advocates in Canada look to champion their views and who they hope would legislate restrictions on abortion - are timid and weak in their opposition to the bold, moral certitude of Gallant, Trudeau and, it must be said, New Democrat leaders at both levels.

The best that both Alward's Progressive Conservatives and Stephen Harper's Conservatives have been able to do is to point to inconsistencies in their opponents' parties. Gallant, they note, will have pro-life Liberal MLAs in his caucus if he wins, just as Trudeau does right now.

Conservatives also like to mutter something about being proud that they would allow free votes on matters of conscience like abortion.

Except that conservative governments do all they can to avoid ever having a debate, let alone a vote, on any abortion-related issue.

And while Trudeau's Liberals sent a membership pitch using abortion as a hot-button topic, I guarantee you there has never been a fundraising pitch from a conservative party that reads, "Send us $5 to help us protect the unborn."

Now, this column is not an argument in favour of restricting or extending abortion access in Canada.
But it is arguing for truth and candour in politics.

On abortion, political leaders on the left are advancing their position in an honest, upfront manner.

But conservative leaders shun the issue, making weak "process" arguments about their opponent rather than dealing with the substance of the issue: Should abortions, as Hillary Clinton said in 2005, be "safe, legal and rare"?

Leaders of the federal and provincial Liberals and New Democrats are loudly answering: Yes. Their conservative opponents would rather you asked them something else.

I rest my case

There's no 'I' in team--nor is there any freedom of conscience

Brent Rathgeber is a former member of the caucus of the Stephen Harper government who was disciplined by the party for blogging his mind on government practices that no thinking person would agree with. This is what he wrote in an excerpt from his book that was printed in the September 9/2014 issue of the National Post (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/09/08/brent-rathgeber-from-an-ex-tory-mp-confessions-of-a-former-trained-seal/):

In the fall of 2012, the Conservative party leadership tried to discipline me when I refused to remove, or edit, several blog posts I had written that were critical of such non-conservative practices as ministerial opulence (e.g., expense claims for such things as $16 glasses of orange juice and parliamentary limousines), the F-35 fighter jet procurement fiasco, and taxpayer subsidies to private corporations.

In a riveting discussion of life on the backbenches of Parliament, he talks about fellow Conservative Member of Parliament Mark Warawa's experience with his private member's bill condemning sex-selective abortion, another topic on which Canadians are generally agreed:

In the Spring of 2013, Chief Government Whip Gordon O’Conner (pictured) took the team analogy to new and disturbing limits. Langley MP Mark Warawa wished to deliver a statement in the House of Commons, expressing his disappointment that his private member’s motion condemning sex-selective abortion would not be allowed to proceed to a debate. O’Connor justified denying Warawa the opportunity to speak in the House by stating that the caucus was a team and that he was the coach. As coach, he argued, he had the unfettered discretion to determine who gets to “play.”

As an illustration of how this treatment of MPs who don't "get team" is not restricted to the Conservatives, he cites the treatment received by two members of the current NDP caucus:

NDP MPs Bruce Hyer and John Rafferty, both rural Ontario MPs, split with their party leadership on the merits of the Long-Gun Registry and voted in support of a government bill to repeal it. Both faced internal discipline. As a result, Hyer left the NDP and sat as an Independent before eventually joining the Green Party caucus.

Of course, I have already cited in previous posts Justin Trudeau's requirements for current and future Liberal members that they park the heartfelt moral convictions against abortion at the caucus door. 

What is my point here? Simply this. Those well-meaning but deluded people who think that they can push for political solutions to heartfelt positions (such as pro-life) from within a government or any caucus* which is governed by today's crop of political leaders--guided as they are by polls and perceived societal norms--are dreaming (in my not very humble opinion) in technicolour. I'll give Rathgeber the final word:

I have participated in four elections and many election forums. In almost every one of these job auditions, the question is posed by pundits and voters: “How will the candidate, if successful, vote on a matter of local importance, if the position of the constituents is different than the official position of the party under whose banner the candidate is running?”

Invariably, the answer offered, especially by neophyte candidates, is: “Of course I will stand up for my local constituents.” 

The truthful answer should probably be something along the lines of: “I will support the party position and thereafter attempt to persuade you of the correctness of that position, because if I stray from the party position, I will be out of the caucus and off the team and I can do more for you inside the caucus than I can from outside the tent.”

I cannot recall how many times I have heard elected members use this logic to defend their refusal to fight against an objectionable decision the government had made. The reality is that the longer one has been part of the team, the easier it is to rationalize one’s decision to stay on the team as opposed to staying true to the principles that brought the member to Ottawa in the first place.

-----------------------------------------------
*The majority of the present Conservative caucus have voted in favour of various private members bill that have promoted pro life causes, even when their leader urged them not to. Wonderful. Courageous. Every bill has failed, and the government has vowed not to bring any life-related bills to the house, ever.

Separation of church & state 5: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder? Apparently not!

It's probably just the weird way my mind works sometimes, but when I think of the school district's sexual education program, which emphasizes abstinence, I always think of the old proverb about absence making the heart grow fonder.

[For the more literary minded, the Roman poet Sextus Propertius gave us the earliest form of this saying in Elegies: Always toward absent lovers love's tide stronger flows.] 

At any rate, the school district developed a sex education program some decades back that emphasized abstinence as the only sure way of avoiding sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, and all of the other ills that go with today's culture of twerking and rapid coupling. Abstinence-based sexual education is commonplace in school districts in the U.S., but less so in Canada. While birth control is taught, it does not extend to fitting condoms on bananas and so on. The contents of the program, by the way, were developed completely by teachers in the district.

While we have letters on file from medical people thanking us for this approach to sexual education, and have received inquiries from around the continent about it, here in British Columbia we have been laughed at, ridiculed, and are now being challenged by the human rights watchdogs for failing our students. Here's a sample:

The BC Humanist Association, a community of atheists, agnostics, and what they call freethinkers, has written a letter to BC’s education minister asking him to look at the Abbotsford school district sex education curriculum.
Executive Director Ian Bushfield says his group is opposed to focusing primarily on abstinence without teaching the use of contraceptives.

“We found a policy in Abbotsford which promotes what we see as a religious, morally inspired view of human sexuality that maybe deprives a number of non-Christian or non-religious students in the district of a full comprehensive sex education.”
Bushfield says abstinence should be a part of any sex education program, but not the only part. (Source: Star 98.3, Nov. 29/2012. Emphasis added).

This illustrates what I was suggesting in an earlier post; i.e., that moral positions that are not aligned with what are perceived to be current societal norms--as interpreted by the media, advocacy groups, pollsters, politicians, and so on--are pretty quickly vilified, ridiculed, dismissed, and worst of all, seen as religion intruding on an unwilling society.

This is why people like Justin Trudeau, who is all about societal norms, take the position that our current regimen of abortion on demand is the only acceptable one. While only about 30% of Canadians actually support abortion on demand, another third are accepting of abortion in some instances--everything from age of viability; to end of first trimester; to incidents of rape, incest, and endangerment of the mother's life (in this latter case less than 5% of all abortions, by the way). Since the 20-30% of Canadians who oppose abortion, and the 30 - 40% of Canadians who accept it with restrictions, by and large aren't kicking up a fuss about the issue, it is easiest for the politicians to stay the course and avoid criticisms from those who are most vociferous in supporting abortion on demand and who tend to get the national media's uncritical attention. See, for example, "Onward Christian Soldier" in the Full Pundit section of the National Post, August 28. 2014 where it is reported that in a documentary on Prime Minister Harper's evangelical beliefs, that Harper would like to reopen the abortion debate but won't because he knows that it's a political non-starter.

This is why I take the position that the political process is a poor way to bring down the abortion rate. On this issue our political leaders are, by and large, moral cowards for whom staying in power will trump almost any principle once held while out of politics or in opposition. 

Excuse the cynicism. On the other hand, show me I'm wrong.