The abortion debate continues to heat up, and the fire is showing up on both sides of the 49th parallel. It has engrafted itself into both the Canadian and American political process because there remains a conviction in the conscience of many North Americans that aborting a life is “wrong in itself.”

Many people have bought into numerous distortions of truth. The pro-choice position is that every woman has the right to choose what she does with her own body. However, it is a medical fact that the child in her womb is a totally different person and that life begins from conception. Many are now stating that this life should have the right to choose for his or herself – ie. they have human rights that need to be protected.

Why is it that the law can make it illegal for us to put a needle filled with heroin into our blood stream? Why is it that the law can intervene when they fear we will commit suicide or take the life away from our own body? Why is it that we can face a jail sentence for putting alcohol in our own body and driving? Why is it that we will most likely end up in the psych ward for mutilating any part of our body? The fact is that we all have limited freedom to choose what we will or will not do with our bodies, and that limitation is rooted into morality.

The pro-choice movement loves to trumpet the idea that morality cannot be legislated. Is this true? What do we call it when we tell people that they cannot murder, slander, rape, steal, or enslave? Aborting a child was considered a criminal act at one point in Canadian history, and now you can abort a child simply because the pregnancy interferes with a holiday cruise. Can you make something that was immoral and illegal moral and legal by simply saying it is? Well, we did, and now we have to pay the piper.

In Criminal Justice there are two types of laws: malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se is a Latin phrase meaning, “wrong in itself.” Most of us feel that murder is wrong, and so laws are constructed to outlaw it. Malum prohibitum means something is wrong because it is prohibited: eg. on this side of the Atlantic we have made driving on the left side wrong, and so sorry my English friends, prohibited.Malum in se laws are based on moral codes, much of which grew out of English Common Law, which in turn was based on Judeo-Christian perspectives of morality. So, those who decry the inroads of morality into public policy are a little too late. The roads have already been paved. However, you don’t have to be a Jew or a Christian to know something is wrong in itself. We all share a common conscience. That conscience will one day be our judge, and we will all have to face the consequence of violating that internal law of right and wrong.

The challenge with our culture is that we don’t tend to make better laws. Human nature tends towards law breaking. When our nation legalized abortion on demand, did they see the day coming when the most recent controversy would be sex-selection abortion? The medical profession is now lamenting “female feticide.”

Years ago members of the medical profession opened the flood gates to choice and said that women needed to achieve full autonomy over their bodies. Then, members of the legal profession embraced the idea that there was such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived, and children with Down Syndrome were targeted. Now we are told that some are having a tinge of conscience that we may have gone too far as sex-selection abortion has specifically targeted the female gender.

Those that fought so valiantly for the world of choice are trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. As one of my friends, Ted Gerk said, “You can’t cheapen life by allowing it to be taken for any reason and then go back and arbitrarily decide which death troubles your conscience.”

Perhaps if we had all held to the view that all human life was valuable and precious we wouldn’t find ourselves in this predicament. God help Canada!

There was a time when, according to Edward Gibbon’s history of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, “Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth and the most civilized portion of mankind.” It had a powerful and unified system of laws and manners that cemented provinces of the Empire into a realm that enjoyed an incredible level of peace.

Gibbon pointed to a singular major cause, moral decay as the precursor for decline in the Western Roman Empire. He provided evidence of this moral decline speaking about things like the failure of the patriarchal society, sexual perversity, infanticide, high levels of divorce, violent entertainment in the Coliseums, political corruption, the loss of a national work ethic, and ultra-multiculturalism, where Rome lost its core identity.

Some historians, like Arnold Toynbee and James Burke, have argued that the seeds of decline and failure were there right from the Empire’s inception. They portray Rome as a plundering economy that was based on the military looting existing resources rather than producing anything new, a system that was entitlement based and dependent upon importing slaves from the far corners of the Empire to do work they did not want to do.

Others point to decline as an accumulation of many causes coming together in a very short time. Students of the Empire describe the corporate impact of everything from deforestation, inflation, barbarian invasion, and urban decay to political corruption, disease and plagues, and military over-extension. Smallpox itself killed close to half the population which resulted in less capability to support the tax base and other necessary institutions.

Some see Christianity’s emergence as a cause of empiric failure, as many Roman citizens adopted pacifism and refused to protect the Empire. However, others saw Christianity as the stabilizing force for the Empire, as the Eastern Empire continued to exist close to 1,000 years longer than the West, mostly due to this unifying religious influence.No matter the theory for decline in culture, it is clear, as jurist Judge Devlin stated, that “an established morality is as necessary as good government to the welfare of society.” He went on to say that, “societies disintegrate from within more frequently than they are broken up by external pressures.” The condition of moral decline is seen as preceding or concomitant with the decline of the quality of life and the decline of nations.

Nations that refuse to heed the lessons of previous failing and fallen cultures are bound to repeat their mistakes. We need to incline our ear or we will be susceptible to decline just as other cultures experienced. If we will not protect our children from conception our nation will decline. If we will not value and preserve marriage and family our culture will devolve. If we will not train the next generation in character and a respect for discipline our country will lose its good future.

We have modern barbarians at the gates of Canada. Who is standing on guard? For years we have tolerated the barbaric treatment of the babes in the womb. Applauds to Members of Parliament who are medically challenging what may be an outdated Section of our code that states that children are human beings at birth, not conception. Abortion is indeed a human rights issue.

For years we permitted sexual predators access to under aged children and kiddie porn. For years we have tolerated our soil being used as a preferred destination for the sex trade and trafficking of women. For years we have undermined the strength of marriage and the family. For years our work ethic has been diminishing. For years we have fought the very voice of reason and faith and thrown back efforts to rebuild moral foundations.

General Douglas MacArthur stated, “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline.”

We are in critical days for the Canadian experiment. Whether Canada will incline or decline – whether it climbs mountains or steps on to the slippery slope – will depend on how it deals with growing moral decay.

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was on the hot seat this week regarding his review of immigration laws. First, he invoked a new regulation requiring new Canadian women of Muslim descent to show their faces while taking the oath of citizenship. This requirement was not considered onerous in that an open face is required to obtain driver’s licenses. A quick review of this demonstrates clearly that this regulation is not a violation of religious freedom as much as it is a challenge to culture.

Then, he ordered a crackdown on immigration fraud. Apparently, people have been using crooked immigration consultants to construct fake evidence of residency in Canada, and close to 6,500 people have now been linked to this fraudulent behaviour. This investigation may wind up exposing one of the biggest citizenship scams in our short history.

History hasn’t been that kind to Canada’s sense of responsibility towards those in need of refuge. In 1939, PM Mackenzie King rejected the SS St. Louis, a ship carrying 937 Jewish passengers who were desperately seeking refuge from the horrors of Nazism in Europe. He commented that “it is not a Canadian problem” and that “as far as he was concerned the admission of refugees perhaps posed a greater menace to Canada…than did Hitler.”

This moment has been portrayed in history books as the “voyage of the damned.” The mentality of many in our nation toward immigration then was that “none was too many.” That response, or lack of compassion, remains a dark spot on one of the pages of our nation’s history. It is vital that any residue of that attitude be wiped from our minds and hearts.

Canada likes to see itself as a sanctuary for the oppressed, but this view of ourselves may be at risk. In November 2000 Canadian clergy apologized for sending the ship back to its country of origin which led to their deaths, but as far as I know there has never been an official government apology for the rejection of the St. Louis, although a memorial for the Jewish refugees was unveiled on January 20, 2011 in Halifax at Pier 21.Unfortunately, the tragedy of unlawful immigration has infected the entire global community. Canadians, as well as many of these new immigrants, have been duped and taken advantage of. The promise of a new life has been threatened by the injustice of their old life. The stories of injustice break the hardest of hearts as we witness the inhumanity of humanity to humanity.

Canada needs to make sure that it focuses on correcting the right wrongs: bringing accountability to educational institutes that build on student visa scams; exposing fake or forced marriage services; prosecuting immigration documentation firms (ghost consultants) who have cheated immigrants of their monies; removing immigrants that are here on false pretentions; creating interagency support systems to identify undocumented immigration; and, incarcerating those who abuse our gentility and hijack immigrants into the sex trade industry.

Canada was built by immigrants. It is a generous nation with a gregarious heart to support and welcome those less fortunate. While holding the standard of compassion high, we must hold true to the principle that Canadian citizenship is not for sale and unlawful or deceptive entry cannot be tolerated. Citizenship is not a right, but a privilege.

I love the multi-cultural dynamic of our nation. I love it when I go to the mall and see a myriad of cultures inter-connecting. I love it when I go to church and see a diversity of cultures worshipping God together. Heaven is going to be comprised of people from every tongue, race, and nation. You may not like heaven if you don’t love the people of the world. Immigration – hospitality, stranger loving – is a Christian and Canadian tradition. God bless Canada. Merry Christmas, everyone!

A few weeks ago, Cardinal Raymond Burke, head of the Vatican’s highest court, noted that “secularism has become militant.” He conveyed that he could envision a time when the Catholic Church would come under persecution just by “announcing her own teaching” which would be considered “engaging in illegal activity.”

In Pope Benedict XVI’s address to the US Bishops he stated, “No one who looks realistically at our world today could think that Christians can afford to go on with business as usual, ignoring the profound crisis of faith which has overtaken our society, or simply trusting that the patrimony of values handed down by the Christian centuries will continue to inspire and shape the future of our society.”

I concur. Political, social and religious militancy has been on the rise for years. Few believe that a significant and bloody clash of values and agendas is not already occurring. The stage for determining what Canadian culture will morph into is in process right now.

Any thinking person would be concerned about the clear and present danger associated with the breakdown in the intellectual, cultural and moral foundations of social life. We seem to be surrounded by cynicism towards any staple value and authority. Our national ship is morally adrift, and the wind that blows the fiercest will eventually take us where it wants.

Right now that wind appears to be radical and militant secularism. Secularism’s roots are found in the ancient philosophy of Epicurus, the Enlightenment thinking of Voltaire and Paine, and find their way into our culture through agnostics and atheists like Bertrand Russell. Their highest value was the separation of government and religious values and beliefs. As modernists, they fiercely resist being impeded by religious or moralist thinking.

One case that illustrates that militancy is the Toronto District School Board’s policy of forbidding exemptions from the board’s radical pro-homosexual curriculum. Any parent who removes their child from class because they believe it promotes sexual behaviour contrary to their religious convictions would be penalized. Their child would be marked absent and “questions would be raised.”

At what point does questioning the primary rights of the parents in the raising of their children become intimidation and persecution on the basis of faith? Yes, we live in a multi-cultural environment and one where the human right of every citizen needs to be guarded and protected, but what about protecting the rights of a parent to remove their child from watching homosexuals engaged in simulated sex acts?

What about PayPal freezing the assets of a pro-life and pro-family activist because his agenda crossed purposes to a homosexualist organization? What about the full court press on legalizing euthanasia, which has less to do with pulling the plug on someone kept alive artificially and more to do with lethal injections? What about pro-life leaders being arrested just for praying on a public sidewalk?

Are public transit authorities allowed to be selective or censor expressive rights to private advertising on publicly owned property? Are our Canadian universities not subject to upholding student’s Charter freedoms (Sec 2.b) that stipulates that everyone has the “fundamental freedoms [of] thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication?”

Victor Hugo said, “You can resist an army but you can’t resist an idea whose time has come.” A clash of the titans is coming. Either secularism will rise and reign supreme in Canada or we are going to see the revival of religion. Canada will be profoundly affected by our choice. Rest assured: our freedom to be is hanging in the balance.

By nature, education, and political persuasion, I have always been a big “C” Conservative (Con). Wikipedia tells us that Conservatives carry an historic commonality. They “believe that government has a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviours.”

That designation suits me just fine. It is one of the reasons I write this column. I sincerely believe that the nation runs best, and its people are served best, when character and principles dominate leadership’s decision making over polls and pundits. Legislation happens, but what makes legislation good is not good intentions but strong, moral foundations.

Recently there has been a lot of talk about the future of Conservatism in Canada. According to Queen’s University political-science scholar James Farney, social conservatives (so-cons) “have become a spent political force in Canadian national politics” – that is, they have become irrelevant, indistinguishable, positioned on the outside looking in, and sidelined by a past morality. Link Byfield, a so-con himself, stated, “We’re now just seen as eccentric.”

There is truth to this. Conservative positions are not stamped in cement. They are much more fluid than they used to be. What used to exist, a broad and widely accepted traditional and Biblically based morality, is no more. I am constantly surprised by the scope of beliefs and values that so-called Conservatism embraces these days.We saw that paradox in the last election when Conservatives won with a landslide. Christians voted in droves to re-elect the Harper government. Yet, the Prime Minister forbade a debate on abortion, and then, to rub salt in the wounds, restored funding to Planned Parenthood. It tells us as much about the state of 21st Century Christianity as it does the present “Conservative” movement.

Statistics Canada stated in the last long-form census (2001) that 84% of Canadians self-identified a personal religious affiliation, with 77% self-identifying as Christian and 12% as Evangelical. It appears that many Canadians believe that they have a moral compass, but it also appears that they have divorced their sense of morality from the function of politics.

Maybe we need a return to old-fashioned Conservatism, a movement of retro-Conservatives (re-Cons). There are many Conservatives who believe that modern-day Conservatism has lost its way, and that it needs to find its voice again, its qualitative difference. Many believe that Conservatism is adrift morally and is demonstrating more concern for the preservation of power than the preservation of life.

Some of us may be considered theo-cons, a word coined by Don Hutchinson, VP of EFC. Our voice is found in a Biblical theology of life, love and liberty. Theo-cons believe that God is the Source of all authority, and that godly principles should guide every act of government. They will not go quietly into that dark night. They will not give up their voice because they understand a political reckoning will occur one day.

I know that names don’t make or break a person, and I realize that this generation in particular hates to be pigeon-holed into a position. This culture wants the freedom to experiment, to find itself in the political spectrum of diverse values and opinions, divorced from the feeling that they will ultimately be held accountable for their views.

However, political perspectives matter. What we align ourselves to matters. The people we elect to office matters. Holding people accountable for the way they conduct themselves and influence Canadian society matters.

It matters because our ceiling will become the floor the next generation builds upon. Let’s hold the standards high!

Every expectant mother is extremely grateful for policies instituted by our Canadian government to allow them to take leave from work with pay so that they can attend to the critical upbringing of their baby. When they see pictures of women carrying babies on their backs while working in the fields, they can only say that they are blessed to be living in Canada.

However, I am concerned about apparent duplicity in our legal system, laws grafted in that appear to fly under the public radar. I thought maternity benefits were targeted towards mothers who brought their baby into the world and were committed to caring for them. Apparently not!

Canada’s employment insurance guidelines reveal that a woman who aborts her child after 19 weeks gestation is eligible to receive 17 weeks of maternity leave, the same as a mother who gives birth. For an abortion occurring before 19 weeks gestation, the woman can collect sick leave for the same length of time. You can read it for yourself at our government site: http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/ipg/017.shtml.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation first identified this anomaly in federal policy in 2008. John Williamson, CTF’s executive director, alluding back to the Maternity Benefits Act of 1961, stated that the purpose behind the Act was to “allow parents bonding time with their newborn child.” This begs a critical question: “Why are Canadian tax payers paying maternity benefits to a mother who has aborted her child and will never experience bonding time?”This Benefit package challenges the very essence of the Act’s creation and the conscience of everyone who believes that abortion is morally wrong. By the way, just a reminder lest we forget: making abortion legal doesn’t make it moral or normal. Unfortunately, within our culture, the longer the law remains, the more the next generation interprets abortion as morally right.

This is why the pro-life voice will never go away. First, it is offensive to many that tax dollars are being spent to help people eliminate the next generation. Dr. Shumiatcher explained during the Joe Borowski Trial for Life in Regina that “we are accountable, not only to those generations who will succeed us, but to those who may never be allowed to succeed us.” We will live to regret the deaths of 110,000 Canadians annually.

Secondly, it is an offense against motherhood. Motherhood ought to be highly esteemed. Abortion is not a maternal act. To place motherhood alongside the abortionist in the Maternity Act is callous at best. To define that the process of abortion and the process of child-bearing and rearing is of relatively equal value to the Canadian government severely undermines the value of the child and mother alike.

Any loss of child – through miscarriage, stillbirth or abortion – is a travesty. I have seen the great pain associated with the loss of motherhood. However, in many cases, abortion stands apart. It is a violent act against the life of the unborn that results in loss of life.

Under Canadian regulations on employment insurance (EI), abortion is considered an “illness” which makes a woman eligible for tax-funded benefits. The tax department interprets abortion as a stillbirth because a pregnancy termination after 20 weeks is not considered an abortion according to present Canadian law and may be a result of serious medical complications.

I understand that some do not agree with my point of view. I understand that there can be many complications from an abortion. Every woman has a right to proper medical care and recovery. I believe it would be best that post-abortive care be removed from Maternity and placed under Medical.

I love my nation of Canada. I have lived in four of her provinces – born in New Brunswick, raised in Nova Scotia, trained in British Columbia, and cultured in Quebec. I have criss-crossed the country numerous times, by car, air and rail. It’s a beautiful land, home to a great people.

I know I am not that different from most Canadians. When we watch the news and see the “acts of God” manifesting around the world – and in our own land – it makes us a bit more spiritual. Are these natural or supernatural disasters? Do they occur as a result of the hand of man or the Hand of God?

We see the devastation of the Tsunami in Japan and fears of radioactivity on the Pacific West Coast. We watch the ongoing civil strife and rioting in the Middle East against kings and dictators. We look at the spread of ash from the Icelandic volcano, and growing global socio-economic problems.

Then, our eyes turn to North America. We see loss of life, limb and property as a result of tornadoes and drought in Texas. We watch the migration of people from thousands of homes due to flooding; what some are calling “fascinating, unprecedented and frightening…the greatest flooding in 150 to 300 years.” We see fires threatening communities in Alberta.

Whether you follow Glen Beck’s, An Inconvenient Book or Al Gore’s, An Inconvenient Truth you have to know something is going on. Some scientists are saying that it’s all about global warming trends, and believe that they can predict future catastrophes.Some say that the end of the world is near, May 21st to be exact. Wait just a second: California preacher Harold Camping confirmed another date in October, clarifying that the May 21 date was “invisible judgment day.”

Is it global warming or is it global warning? Is it natural disasters caused in part by our own greed and lack of stewardship of the earth? Is it supernatural disasters caused in part by God’s judgement as a result of man’s sin and disobedience? No matter which way you read into it, there is a common denominator – man.

Jesus, in His day, answered Galileans who were questioning why tragedies happened and why some suffered worse than others this way: “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them — do you think they were guiltier than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish” (Luke 13:1-5).

So, following Jesus’ example, I am going to answer as He did. It is not “yes” or “no.” It is “maybe.” “The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them” (1 Tim 5:24). In the midst of human suffering, regardless of what we believe to be the source of tragedy, “mercy must triumph over judgement” (Jas 2:13).

Every one of us needs to take spiritual inventory and repent – change our ways and come into agreement with God. The promise remains: “If My people, who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land” (2 Chron 7:14).

Jerusalem is unique: it is the holy city to three major Abrahamic religions – Judaism (since King David’s time), Christianity (since Christ’s crucifixion), and Islam (since the first Qibla, 610 CE). It has been called the “center of the world.” However, Yerushalayim, known as the “Abode of Peace,” has seen anything but that in its long history.

President Truman extended de jure recognition to the Government of Transjordan (making it a de facto Palestinian state) and the Government of Israel on the same day, January 31, 1949. This affirmed what was considered a final territorial settlement in Palestine stated in the General Assembly of the United Nations on Nov 30, 1948.

62 years later, President Barack Obama, at the most recent G8 meetings in Deauville, France stated, “The United States believes that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines… so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. As for security, every state has the right to self-defence, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat….”

Was this grandstanding or grand scheming? Ask most Americans whether or not they would support a UN resolution to give back Texas to Mexico? Remember the Alamo? Texans wanted Texas to be free from Mexican domination and Santa Anna’s grip. When invaded, the Texans defeated the Mexican troops, and declared independence.

Anyone remember the Six Day War (1967)? I was living in Montreal during the time of Expo 67. On June 5th, Egypt, Jordon, and Syria, along with co-belligerents from Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia and PLO, attacked Israel. Within six days Israel had decisive victory, along with effective control of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel reunified Jerusalem, giving freedom of access to all religions. They sought out intermediaries to discuss land they had acquired through war. The Arabs demanded immediate withdrawal before negotiations. Israel promised some land in exchange for peace treaties. But, in Khartoum, Sudan (Sept 1967) the Arab States declared that their position was “no peace, no recognition and no negotiation” with Israel. It remains intact to this day.

Prime Minister Harper appropriately stood his ground at the G8 in defence of a “two-state solution that is negotiated” and not coerced. Israel has stated that a return to the 1967 border undermines their security as a nation. It makes them 12 miles wide at a critical point, divides the capital, places at risk their fresh water supplies, and provides surrounding nations with easy invasion routes. Arab nations around them have made their goal clear. They will not stop until the Jewish population is exterminated and the state of Israel is wiped out.

At the G8, it was 7 leaders against 1, but our Prime Minister did the right thing. It cost Canada a seat on what could be called the UN inSecurity Council. He will be ostracized from the group as they try to press forward and negotiate Obama’s plan. He is being spoken of as the “odd man out,” but he is the “only man in” where it really counts – in the court of justice.

Image Courtesy Future Blogger

Last weekend I was invited to attend The Vancouver Symposium on Christian Education for the 21st Century, hosted at the extra-ordinarily beautiful Morris J. Wosk Center for Dialogue, Simon Fraser University, downtown Vancouver. I was deeply impressed, not only with the degree of professionalism demonstrated at each one of the venues, but also with the deep-down sense that this may become an historic event.

Eighty-six leaders from nations as far away as Russia, South Africa, Malaysia, and Australia assembled to brainstorm what education will look like in the foreseeable future and to share their wisdom, vision, and technical expertise on how to make the appropriate changes. The ultimate intention of the gathering is to formulate a pedagogical manifesto that will guide Christian Education over the next few decades.

One of my colleagues, Greg Bitgood, who has written a book on Discipling this Generation for a Digital World, has had a burden to see Christian schooling in Canada emerge as a model for modern education. He leads the Heritage Christian Schools’ movement out of Kelowna, BC. Heritage has a progressive campus and online component and is influencing how education is being done locally, provincially and globally – www.onlineschool.ca.

What an exciting day to be a student and an educator! Stephen Harris, from the Sydney Center for Innovation in Learning – www.scil.com.au, shared about blending architecture with new teaching strategies and has created an open, no walls approach integrated with virtual space. Dr. Mark Beadle of Sevenstar Academy – www.sevenstaracademy.org spoke about enhancing education in the classroom through digital tools like Mobile Social On Demand, YouTube, Twitter, social bookmarking, and so on.

I realise that not all technological advancement is necessarily good. Just because something is digital doesn’t make it better – just current. However, whether we like it or not, technology is here to stay and it is producing a type of tsunami in the educational sphere that few schools are prepared for. One leader shared, “If we are going to teach our children how to drive a car, you don’t do it by placing them on a horse.” Enough said.Therein lies the challenge. For some educators, technology is a threat to traditional ways and structures. For others, technology is changing so rapidly that youth have surpassed their teachers in terms of digital savvy and they feel insecure and ill-prepared. Others can’t wait for our schools to move from structures and systems defined by the Industrial Age, to new structures and systems based upon the Informational Age.

Of course there are concerns with cyber-space values versus inner space values. There is a potential to lose our sense of humanity when we do not touch, even when we are keeping in touch. All learning does not happen in digital formats or through dazzling technologies. Life requires engagement, not just of the head but also the heart. Literacy is not simply a matter of learning to read and write. It is as much about knowledge coming to kids and flowing through them for the good of everyone around.

Dr. Mark Daley, a professor in Educational Philosophy, has become a leading educator in distance learning. He shared that learning is pre-eminently spiritual in nature. We learn, not only to find out about our world, but also to find out about ourselves. As education invades cyber-space, it is my sincere prayer that we do not overlook educating the inner space of the human soul.

Well, the nation is singing the blues today. Last Monday, May 2nd, 2011, Canadians from coast to coast, witnessed an historic and demographic shift in our nation. We awoke to what many people were saying was impossible, a Conservative majority. However, the Tory blues hit the country, from one end to the other, and the miracle occurred.

Though this election attracted one of the lowest voter turn-outs in Canadian history (61.4%) – what some are referring to as voter fatigue – it may have become the catalyst for producing some of the most dramatic changes to the political landscape that have been seen in close to two decades. There were so many firsts and upsets, and so many ways to interpret the outcome.

Canada experienced what may well become a political tipping point, both in regional representation and in political philosophy. The Liberal Party, steeped in tradition and history, is now without a leader, and has lost its position as the Leader of the Opposition by a significant margin. The Party Quebecois, failing to see the shift within their province on sovereignty, lost their leader and their standing as a Federal organization.

The NDP, energized by a charismatic leader, loosened the grip the Party Quebecois had on their own province, and made significant inroads in other parts of the country to become a truly national party. However, they face some uphill battles on the hill with the rise of the blue. They can propose change but they cannot oppose change in the role they are now in. They were the kingmaker, but last Monday the Canadian people chose their king.Whether it was voter fatigue or not begs the question. It appears that many were also tired of five years of minority government. They believed that Prime Minister Harper had done enough to validate giving the Conservatives an opportunity to lead the country unencumbered by minority politics. It is also clear, contrary to the views of political pundits, that Canada’s loss of the UN Security Council seat and the Prime Minister’s public support for Israel did not cost him the election.

No question, this election demonstrates that Canada is more polarized than ever before. The choice has become clear. There is a right and there is a left: there is blue and there is orange. Politics will become much clearer and more defined now. Where these Parties stand on the issues important to the Canadian people can now be monitored and measured.

Prime Minister Harper has been given the opportunity to lead the nation. Who he is and what he really believes will now emerge. He can pass the budget he believes is best for the nation and the economy. He can proceed with the social and justice reforms that have been stymied so far in debate, or were postponed due to the electoral process.

I believe Canada is looking for a leader and not a pointer, a person with conviction and not an individual of convenience. I pray that the Prime Minister we saw as minority leader emerges into a Prime Minister who knows how to wield his majority powers compassionately and wisely.