Nothing about politics! Yay!

Last weekend I went to a camp called Deer Valley Meadows with the youth group from my church. This is the camp that I went to for a week every summer from late elementary school to high school, and I've been there for numerous other things, including camp cousnelling, over the years. But it's been three years since the last time I was there. So it was good to see the place again. I have many good memories there, and my times there have helped me grow spiritually too.

For me personally, this weekend gave me yet another reminder (I've had a lot of these reminders this year) of the need to be fully committed to God. Of course, I also have plenty of questions about what it means to be fully committed to God, and I also wonder if as Christians we're trying too hard to give kids and teens certainty when we may not be certain ourselves. Maybe we should be trying harder to teach them to question and find the truth themselves. (I'm not saying spiritual truth is relative, I'm just saying it's hard--maybe impossible--for us to be totally sure what's right.)

I also got to enjoy nature. I saw the northern lights, ate chokecherries, and had a great view of the Red Deer River valley, which was pretty foggy one morning.

Now on to federal politics...

Last time I talked about provincial politics, and today I'm talking about federal politics.

Back in January, I voted for the Conservative Party, and I was happy to see Stephen Harper become Prime Minister of Canada, although I did have some reservations about him. One of the main reasons I voted for them was to bring some more integrity into government, because the Liberal Party really seemed to be lacking it. But now the Information Commissioner is claiming the new accountability laws will reduce the public's access to information and make it easier for the government to cover up corruption. That bill passed the House of Commons, so now the Senate is the last place where it could get changed. And Harper doesn't seem to like the idea of the Senate challenging the democratically elected House of Commons, at least when it comes to other bills.

Meanwhile, Harper seems to want to stifle criticism about the war in Afghanistan by saying something about our soldiers needing to know that our country strongly supports what they're trying to do. While I can sympathize with that (it would suck to do any job--let alone risk my life--knowing that the people I'm doing it for don't appreciate it), it makes a convenient excuse for the Prime Minister to hide behind when he's being criticized. As Thomas Jefferson was misquoted as saying, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

And finally, we get to the issue of security certificates: those pieces of paper that allow the Canadian government to keep non-Canadians imprisioned indefinitely without a trial, based on secret evidence. If they would quickly deport these people without a trial if they're considered a threat to national security, I suppose that could be okay, but indefinite imprisionment without a fair trial shouldn't happen. And don't give me any of that crap about them "not deserving the very rights that they're fighting against by supporting terrorism." They're accused of supporting terrorism and they should have a fair trial to determine if that's true. Let's overcome evil with good here, rather than sink to the terrorists' level. And after what was revealed about the Maher Arar case this week, I don't think we can trust our government and police to always provide accurate evidence when the evidence can't be challenged by the accused.

But I'm not just blaming the Conservatives for all these problems. The Liberals have been quite involved in some of these things too. Maybe I'll vote for the Green Party next time.

Goodbye Ralph

So the members of Alberta's Progressive Conservative Party will be choosing a new premier for our province later this year. I don't know a whole lot about most of the candidates, but I've heard a few things.

First of all, Ted Morton seems overly right wing to me, and I tend to be a little bit right wing politically. Maybe he has a few good ideas, but he seems overly focused on disputes between the province and the federal government, and I'm not impressed with his views on addressing root causes of crime. Here's a quote from a September 13 Edmonton Journal article: "After Hancock said the province should tackle crime by tackling its root causes like drug addiction, Morton shot that his parents 'don't care about root causes,' but want criminals arrested and punished." Has Ted Morton ever heard of the statistics that show that longer jail sentences tend not to reduce crime rates? (Unfortunately, I don't know where those statistics come from. If anyone can tell me, please leave a comment.) I'm not saying we should abolish jails. I do think they form some deterrent, and at the very least, they keep violent people away from potential victims. But reducing drug addiction and other things that motivate people to commit crimes will probably make a much bigger difference than just being tough on offenders. Doesn't the US have tougher sentences than Canada, but more violent crime?

Meanwhile, there's a lower profile candidate named Gary McPherson who seems impressive. He's the director of the Canadian Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, which has something to do with using business to address social problems. Things like that make him look more caring than some other candidates. But his web site doesn't say much about his policy ideas yet. My friend Grace has met him and thinks he'd be good.

I think I'll keep an eye on this campaign. If a particular candidate inspires me, or if it looks like someone I don't like might win, maybe I'll join the party (it only costs $5 to influence the future of this province) and vote.

On top of the world

On Saturday I went hiking in Kananaskis Country with some of the guys from Navigators (one of the many Christian ministries at the U of A). We climbed Mount Allan, which is supposed to have the highest maintained hiking trail in the Canadian Rockies. There's some amazing scenery at the top, and some neat rock formations, like this ridge, where there was a (partial) wall of rock on either side of the path:


It was a good chance to enjoy nature, reconnect with a few friends I hadn't seen much over the summer, and get to know a few people I didn't know or didn't know well. And in the car, we got to have an interesting discussion on what bugs me about evangelical Christianity, a certain evangelical Christian belief that I'm not sure I agree with, and a bit of what I like about evangelical Christianity. (And yes, I am an evangelical Christian.)

Off to Kananaskis and Fort McMurray

It looks like I'll be out of town for parts of the next two weekends. This weekend I'll be in the Calgary and Kananaskis area on Friday and Saturday, and the weekend after that I think I'll be visiting my cousin in Fort McMurray. Yep, I just can't stay in one place very long.

It looks like both of my readers haven't answered my question in the previous post. I guess it's probably a tough question, so even if you're not really sure of an answer, please just post a response telling me what's on your mind about that subject.

Question about questions

So nobody wants to comment on nuking Iran (see my previous post)? Well, I sure hope nuking Iran isn't necessary.

Anyway, on to the main subject of this posting. My question today is for all the Christians in the room. It's inspired by a conversation I had today.

Is it possible for a church to uphold certain beliefs (such as the existence of God and the divinity and resurrection of Jesus), and yet give its members and even its leaders the freedom to question those beliefs?

An extreme solution?

Check out this article: We should nuke Iran

Sounds like a pretty extreme solution. Is this guy exagerating the danger posed by Iran? Could there be a less violent solution? Or is this writer correct?

Please leave comments and tell me what you think.