We recommend "Landscape" print layout.


Cognitive Dissonance
Condom Code
Court Party
Secular Humanism
Technological Society


Believers speak of the workings of Jesus Christ in regions like the states of the “former” Soviet Union or in China or South Africa.  Christians refer to revivals in cities like Saskatoon.  Citizens of a nation may declare on their currency “In God we trust” or petition God in their national anthem to “keep our land glorious and free.”  Drafters of national constitutions may proclaim the state founded upon principles recognizing the supremacy of God, and parliament may amend a national pledge of allegiance to declare the country under one God.  In these territorial contexts, Christendom refers to the community of all Christians at whatever level of examination - neighborhood, municipality, province, region, nation, continent or world.  Within Christendom, however one chooses to describe the territory, the Christian community is to be guided by Christian values in its politics, economics and social life, indeed, everything.  The one universal church of God is invisible - not an institutional but a supernatural entity.  All its members are in Christ and are knit together by a supernatural kinship.  All their gifts and activities should continue the work of Christ, should originate from Christ, and are co-coordinated by Christ to achieve His goals.  The visible churches and denominations, whether organized in episcopal, presbyterian or congregational structures, are the means by which the Holy Spirit uses Christians to increase the body of believers and fulfill God’s plan on earth.  The mission of the visible churches within Christendom is always Christ-centered – public witness, example and evangelism leads people to the Saviour; publishing, teaching and following the precepts of God’s Word proclaims Christ’s lordship; Christian nurture through fellowship feeds His lambs and disciplines His flock; and ministering to the needs of Canadians continues the work of Christ in Canada.     

Cognitive Dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant psychological tension when people find themselves doing things that do not fit with what they know or with the opinions they hold or with the natural realities they experience.  The level of psychological stress increases with the degree of discrepancy between cognitions (pieces of knowledge), and the number of discrepant cognitions.  To cope with dissonance, after a decision is made, people will attend to information that conforms to their attitudes and values while ignoring, denying or distorting information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.  People alter aspects of the decision alternatives to reduce dissonance, which leads to viewing the chosen alternative as more desirable and the rejected alternative as less desirable.  This effect is called the spreading of alternatives and is labeled the “free-choice paradigm.”

Condom Code:

The reality that anal and oral sex were both the basis of homosexual intimacy and the root causes of HIV transmission, required a political-technological solution to avoid: AIDS death; the admission of an ecologically defunct sexual culture; and the acknowledgment of the “natural” basis for historic anti-sodomy laws.  The Condom Code embodies a list of risk reduction practices and the absolute requirement to use a prophylactic at all times.  The reality has been a consistent level of AIDS infection within the gay community and the epidemic crisis in Africa and elsewhere.  The Condom Code has been an abject failure in underwriting the ideology of “free sex” ethos.

Court Party:

The label given to the stakeholders in the so-called “Charter Revolution” - an era of judicial activism aimed at “forging” a new homosexist social consensus through arbitrary legal rulings.  The Court Party is an elitist alliance of justices, parliamentarians, homosexual liberation advocacy groups and academics that claim to have higher insight into right and wrong than the democratic majority.    


Ecology is the science of the interrelationships that tie living things to their physical and biological environments.  Human cultures, from an ecological perspective, are more than just lifestyles; they are adaptive strategies for survival, ways to cope with the obstacles of nature.  Ecology reveals that multi-partner [more than one partner per year] anal and oral sex is a natural hazard, only abated by a technological fix  - prophylactics. 


A factum is a legal statement of facts by an intervener in a court case.  The United Church of Canada statement of facts before the Supreme Court in 2004 concerning the religious correctness of same-sex marriage was first submitted as a written factum.


The history of feminism is usually described in three waves.  The First Wave, during the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries, consisted predominantly of heterosexual women, many of whom were Christian, advancing the goals of female suffrage, education access, ownership of property and inheritance rights.  During the first half of the twentieth century, women like Emma Goldman and Margaret Sanger saw themselves as feminists, in addition to being called anarchists, socialists, and “free” love advocates.  These two were also activists for the liberation of homosexuals and for the use of abortion and birth control technologies for “family planning.”  They were devotedly anti-Christian.  The Second Wave refers to a period of feminist activity beginning in the early 1960s and lasting through the late 1980s.  In her twentieth anniversary edition of The Feminine Mystique, author and first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Betty Friedan, detailed her original statement of purpose for NOW: “take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof, in a truly equal partnership with men.”  She further clarified in her 1983 anniversary edition, that she never saw the women’s movement for equality in terms of women as a class fighting to overthrow so-called “patriarchal institutions” of society or to take away the power of men as an oppressive class.  Her vision of women’s liberation included men as equal partners in a new heterosexual relationship.  She considered the exhibitionist, down-with-men, down-with-marriage, down-with-childbearing rhetoric and actions as disrupting to her vision and the result of obsolete and irrelevant extreme left ideologies, too-long-buried women’s rage and a movement proselytizing lesbianism.  The result of not being leftist enough to endorse the theories of Friedrich Engels and having publicly declared that “we cannot permit the image of women to be developed by the homosexual,” she was dethroned in a lesbian coup.  Kate Millett, a lesbian, became the second president of NOW and the Organization subsequently adopted a resolution in 1971 that identified lesbians as the front-line troops of the women’s movement and declared a radical feminist analysis of male-female dynamics.  The feminist separation strategy of the 60s and 70s calling all women to lesbianism resulted in the highest ever proportion of  women claiming the attraction; however, the idea was unsound and in trouble from the start.  The total disregard for the institutions of marriage and family and the rejection of the need for procreation and child-rearing put the movement at odds with no small portion of society and the innate female desire for motherhood.  At the height of the Equal Rights Amendment battle of the 70s, anti-feminist Phyllis Schafly characterized women’s libbers as “anti-family, anti-children, and pro-abortion” and said that “Women’s lib is a total assault on the role of the American woman as wife and mother, and on the family as the basic unit of society…Women’s libbers are trying to make wives and mothers unhappy with their career, make them feel that they are ‘second-class citizens’ and ‘abject slaves.’  Women’s libbers are promoting Federal ‘day-care centers’ for babies instead of homes.  They are promoting abortions instead of families.”  In Canada, by the 1980s over fifty percent of the National Action Committee of the Status of Women (NAC) was lesbian although homosexual women represented 3 percent of the Canadian population.  The radicalization of the women’s movement in Canada resulted in formation of Real, Equal, Active for Life (R.E.A.L.) Women, and in the United States, Feminists for Life.  These  “feminist” organizations rejected the analysis that asserts abortion access is the cornerstone of women’s liberation and men are universal obstacles.  R.E.A.L. Women believes the traditional family is the most important unit of society and advocates equality for all women including homemakers.  After failure of the radical separation strategy the lesbian feminist goal reversed 180 degrees to achieving full societal integration, i.e. sameness and zero discrimination through equality rights and the deconstruction of all heterosexist institutions, including marriage.   In the book Manifesta: young women, feminism and the future, released in 2000, a group of women declared the so-called “Third Wave” feminist goals: (1) to safe guard a women’s right to be childless (i.e. guaranteed abortion access); (2) to fight for reproductive rights for lesbians and subsidized fertility treatments for all women; (3) to support the idea that sex is mostly recreational; and (4) to support and increase the visibility and power of lesbians and bisexual women in the feminist movement, in schools, colleges and the workplace.


Developed between 80-250 A.D., Gnosticism takes its name from the Greek word for knowledge (gnosis).  Gnostics claimed to possess a special “knowledge” which transcended the orthodox faith of the early Christian Church; a syncretistic blending of Christianity with religious elements drawn from mystery cults and heterodox Judaism, which culminated in the assumption of an unknown god.  The libertine Gnostic is taught to acknowledge no moral responsibilities.  Salvation from the world and body comes through wisdom.  The alien nature of the Gnostic god to the material universe, which it neither created and to which it is the antithesis is subsumed in Darwin’s theory of evolution.  The acceptance of evolution in turn has reinforced Gnosticism in modern thought.  God sets the universe in motion, but ever since that instant, the deity sits back and does nothing, bound by the unbroken laws of nature - providence and divine intervention are denied. 


Heterosexism is the view that humankind is made up of two purposefully designed sexes - male and female.  Like a lock and key, male and female are companion sexes anatomically designed for procreative union.  Heterosexism does not imply that all males and females must mate and procreate; however, there is the reality that survival of humankind requires that some do.  In most societies marriage has been the privileged sacrament for these men and women, institutionalizing their union and legitimizing their offspring before the state.   The family consisting of a father, mother and biologically connected children is seen as model.  Blended families by divorce and remarriage and other family variations, although common, are viewed as departures from this ideal.


Homosexism is a new cosmology (worldview) that asserts there is no “meant” relationship between anatomical sex (genitalia), sexuality and gender.  The meanings attached to male and female are seen as social constructs, which can be “deconstructed.”  Homosexists claim one’s sexuality is a given, not a matter of choice; and therefore, the acting out of one’s sexual attraction is seen as a morally neutral decision.  Gay and lesbians claim an innate orientation; transsexuals and gueers claim a fluid orientation; and bisexuals declare alternating and simultaneous sexual attractions.  Homosexists deny the possibility of sexual reorientation and negatively label all heterosexuals who challenge the tenets of their worldview as “homophobes.”  Homosexuals who criticize the ideology are seen as victims of “internalized homophobia.”  Homosexists contend it is the state’s responsibility to develop technological and pharmaceutical solutions to overcome ecological hazards of their lifestyle, rather than constrain their sexual practices within “natural” and “safe” limits.  Homosexists assert the inert nature of same-sex intimacy is not appropriate grounds to discriminate in the social institutions of marriage and family.  The worldview is wedded to the feminist analysis that claims heterosexuality is the “male-beneficent” organization of women’s labor, a patriarchal form of oppression.  Homosexism promotes a “free sex” ideology.         


State “indifference” can be seen as unmitigated, complete or absolute tolerance in its governance.  A state that tolerates everything (and anything) in point-of-fact values nothing, holds nothing dear, and is characterized by abject indifference.  For example, a state that is willing to tolerate any societal rate of abortion is indifferent to the act.  A state that is willing to open marriage to both homosexuals and heterosexuals is indifferent to: (1) the “unique” meanings each of these segments of society places on the act; and (2) the disproportionality of the tiny minority of homosexuals interested in marriage compared to the vast majority of heterosexuals.  A state that is willing to tolerate any family variation is indifferent to traditional heterosexual parenthood in comparison to other substitutes and places no unique importance to motherhood and fatherhood.  The homosexual argument for access to marriage is not based on the notion of a model or ideal of heterosexual marital coupling with tolerance of same-sex “union,” but asserts a claim of sameness with indifference to same-sex “marriage.”  The state decision to redefine marriage inclusive of homosexual couples signals the end of heterosexism with certain tolerances of homosexuality and its full replacement with the homosexist worldview and complete indifference to homosexuality and the tenets behind homosexism.  


Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal.  Liberalism has its roots in the Western Era of Enlightenment.   The belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights.  Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.  Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank or majority status.  Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. Religious liberalism, sometimes called “modernism” and “neo-Protestantism,” was a post-Enlightenment development in an attempt to harmonize Christian theology with popular tenets of the Enlightenment Era.  Religious liberalism contains implicitly or explicitly, in whole or in part, a denial of  historic doctrines of Biblical revelation.  It does this in two ways: (1) religious liberalism places higher authority on current scientic postulates than on scripture; and (2) liberal methodology places elevated importance on free religious experience as a basis for interpretation of Christianity.  Religious liberalism in Canada has led to the following heresies: (1) denial of the Trinity; (2) denial of the Bible as the Word of God and the final authority on matters of faith; (3) denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ; (4) denial that Jesus Christ is the only way of redemption; (5) denial of original sin; (6) denial of judgment; (7) belief that all will be saved; (8) denial of the Law and replacement with liberal morality; (9) condoning premarital, extra-marital and homosexual sex; (10) no normative theology; (11) no limits set to the free representation and theological speculation; (12) condoning abortion; (13) condoning sodomy and oral sex; (14) ordination of homosexuals; and (15) same-sex marriage.    


Materialism states that everything in the universe is matter, without any true spiritual or creative intellectual existence.  Physical matter is all there is.  Materialism can also refer to the term, Cultural Materialism - a doctrine that material success and progress are the highest values in life. This doctrine appears most prevalent in western society today.  Materialism as a philosophy is held by those who maintain that existence is explainable solely in material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness.  Individuals who hold to this belief see the universe as a huge device held together by pieces of matter functioning in subjection to naturalistic laws.  Since materialism denies all concepts of divine creation, it relies on the Theory of Evolution to explain itself, making beliefs in materialism and evolution interdependent.


Modernism is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology and practical experimentation.  Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new and, therefore, better ways of reaching the same objective.  The modernist movement argued that the new realities of the industrial and mechanized age were permanent and imminent, and that people should adapt their worldview to accept that new technologies and processes equaled the good, the progressive and the right.  Modernist thinkers rebelled against nineteenth century academic and historicist traditions, believing the "traditional" forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, social organization and daily life were becoming outdated; they directly confronted the economic, social, religious and political aspects of an emerging fully industrialized world.


Orthodoxy, the English equivalent of Greek orthodoxia (from orthos, “right,” and doxa, “opinion”) means right belief, as opposed to heresy or heterodoxy.  In the context of Christianity, the term is not Biblical; no secular or Christian writer uses it before the second century, though orthodoxien is used by Aristotle.  The word expresses the idea that certain statements accurately embody the revealed truth content of Christianity, and are therefore in their own nature normative for the universal church.  This idea is rooted in the New Testament insistence that the Gospel has a specific factual and theological content and that no fellowship exists between those who accept the apostolic standard of Christological teaching and those who deny it. 


Postmodernism is a term applied to a wide-ranging set of developments in critical theory, philosophy, religion and culture, which are generally characterized as either emerging from, in reaction to, or superseding, modernism.  Postmodernist “deconstruction” is a term used to denote the application of postmodern ideas of criticism or theory to a traditional convention or precept.  Deconstruction is meant to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the convention.  For example, someone who can pass as the opposite sex may be said to "deconstruct" gender identity, because there is a conflict between the superficial appearance and the reality of the person's gender.  Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from a recognition that reality is not simply mirrored in human understanding of it, but rather, is constructed as the mind tries to understand its own particular and personal reality.  For this reason, postmodernism is highly skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person. In the postmodern understanding, interpretation is everything; reality only comes into being through our interpretations of what the world means to us individually. Postmodernism relies on concrete experience over abstract principles, knowing always that the outcome of one's own experience will necessarily be fallible and relative, rather than certain and universal.  The paradox of the postmodern position is that, in placing all principles under the scrutiny of its skepticism, it must realize that even its own principles are not beyond questioning. As the philosopher Richard Tarnas states, postmodernism ‘cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself.’” (Source:   “Postmodernism does away with many of the things that religious people regard as essential.  For postmodernists every society is in a state of constant change; there are no absolute values, only relative ones; nor are there any absolute truths.  This promotes the value of individual religious impulses, but weakens the strength of 'religions' which claim to deal with truths that are presented from 'outside', and given as objective realities. In a postmodern world there are no universal religious or ethical laws, everything is shaped by the cultural context of a particular time and place and community.  In a postmodern world individuals work with their religious impulses, by selecting the bits of various spiritualities that 'speak to them' and create their own internal spiritual world. The 'theology of the pub' becomes as valid as that of the priest.  The inevitable conclusion is that religion is an entirely human-made phenomenon.  In a world where there is no objectively existing God "out there", and where the elaborate sociological and psychological theories of religion don't seem to ring true, the idea of regarding religion as the totality of religious experiences has some appeal.  Religion in this theory is created, altered, renewed in various formal interactions between human beings.  Images and ideas of God are manufactured in human activity, and used to give specialness ('holiness'?) to particular relationships or policies, which are valued by a particular group.  There is no one 'right' or 'wrong' religion - or sanctifying theory. There are as many as there are groups and interactions, and they merge and join, divide and separate over and over again. Some are grouped together under the brand names of major faiths, and they cohere with varying degrees of consistency. Others, although clearly religious in their particular way, would reject any such label."  (Source:


The current concept of “Sameness” embodies a 180-degree reversal from the homosexual liberation strategy of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s.   During these decades, the traditional institutions of society were ruthlessly assaulted and undermined by a movement that sought a “unique identity” and a “separate social space.”  In her book, Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, published in 1975, Margaret Small wrote of the potential for developing an alternative ideology, a new worldview.  She said, “Heterosexual ideology limits our vision of any alternative sexed, erotic community…You have to create the space that stands outside of all the boundaries of heterosexuality - assumptions about the family, about marriage, about motherhood, about housework, about childrearing, about rape, about illegitimacy, about spinsterhood - about everything that has to do with the relationships between men and women.  To stand outside of heterosexual ideology and to develop an alternative way that male-female relationships could exist is an incredibly creative act.”  However, by the 1990s, the failure to create this “unique social space” for gays and lesbians and to recruit sufficient numbers of adherents into this “separation” line of thinking required a change in liberation strategy.  The revised approach became a claim to “sameness” with the goal of full “integration” with heterosexual society, and where this met resistance, the tactic would be deconstruction of the heterosexist precept.  In essence, Sameness seeks to overcome the traditional view of homosexual pathology by asserting that homosexuals are normal people the same as heterosexuals.  The strategy assumes that heterosexuals and homosexuals have shared interests and asserts that: (1) the lifestyle of mainstream gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals - except for their choice of partners, is indistinguishable from that of heterosexuals, i.e. in the percentage of monogamous, double or single income couples, and in longevity, fidelity, and commitment to relationships; (2) sexual intimacy and marriage is fundamentally not about procreation; (3) societal tolerance of homosexuality is no longer the goal, erasing heterosexism is the end; (4)  homosexual parenting is not different from heterosexual parenting; and (5) the ecology of homosexual relations is not demonstrably different than heterosexual intimacy.  The bid for sameness is an attempt at trivializing differences in an emotional quest for equality.  After all, if everyone is the same, there can be no argument about who is better or worse in a particular respect.  But this quest is misguided.  By denying differences, the advocates must also deny the unique and irreplaceable values that each sex (male and female) embodies.  The homosexual “sameness” bid attempts to deconstruct heterosexist notions of gender.  By asserting that lesbian and gay couples can parent with equal effectiveness to heterosexual couples, the sameness argument implies there is nothing special about fatherhood or motherhood, no unique differences in how a male and a female approach raising children.  But of course, men and women are very different in their behaviors, traits, and inclinations, and there is a big difference between collaborative same-sex coupling and complementary pair bonding.  In collaborative unions two similar people perform the same function but more of it. In opposite-sex pair bonding the two complementary sexes perform different functions to achieve a synchronous and common goal.  The Sameness strategy intends to deconstruct all of the heterosexist notions that Margaret Small lists above.  And paradoxically, while assaulting these institutions under a claim of sameness, no small number of lesbian feminists are maintaining that they are raising a new generation of men who will be significantly different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual; and therefore, in their view, patriarchal families.  Their rhetoric reads: no one in a lesbian household says, ‘Take it like a man’ or ‘Big boys don’t cry’.  These feminists argue that lesbian parenting is a political act and a rebellion against patriarchy.  They hold a Utopian vision of lesbian parenting and its impact on future generations. Finally, the basis for a “human rights” claim that lesbian and gay couples should have full (the "same") access to procreative technologies, in order to overcome the inert nature of their sexual collaboration, remains unclear, if not hypocritical. 

Secular Humanism:

Many people may not see themselves as “declared” secularists, but most have nonetheless chosen to integrate their lives around the mood of their specific age rather than around God.  Secularists live as if material order is supreme, as if God does not exist.  Secularism advocates human betterment without reference to religion or theology.  While secularism may not indicate theoretical atheism, it certainly does represent practical atheism.  Secularism is deeply in debt to the rise of “materialism” and the “scientific paradigm” - the notion that the world of things is the whole of existence.  Secularism places the emphasis on temporal social enjoyment rather than on eternal spiritual values.  While it may not be fair to say all secularists are Darwinists, the reverse may very well prove to be true.  Although declared humanists make up only 0.007 percent of Canadians the impact of humanism on state governance is huge.  Humanism is a life-stance not dissimilar to secularism, dedicated to the betterment of society through the use of reason and ethics from a non-religious viewpoint.  Humanists do not believe in any deity and consider the notions of an afterlife and rewards and punishments after death by a supernatural god as meaningless.  Under the title “Resolution to Combat Religious Influence” on their website, the HAC proclaims: “The Humanist Association of Canada is a national association that includes humanists, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers, and non-church-affiliated people.  We believe that Canada could be a model for many countries on how to develop a free and democratic society composed of many different ethnic, religious, and philosophical groups living in harmony.  We believe strongly in the separation of church and state and the neutrality of the state in matters of religion …Many current practices are undemocratic and unfair… We believe in a secular school system for all… Another example is the recitation of prayers at official functions.  These are unacceptable…Although unsuccessful, many of our members signed a petition to have the reference to God removed from the preamble of the Canadian Constitution.  This petition was read out in Parliament by MP Svend Robinson on June 8, 1999.”  Tenets of the secular humanist worldview include: (1) universe created by a mysterious accidental explosion of energy; (2) Earth accidentally created by a fortuitous union of gases; (3) life on earth inadvertently created by the 1/1050 chance match (union) of DNA and RNA molecules in a primordial soup; (4) humankind created through a continuous evolutionary chain of random species mutations influencing either survival or extinction reaching back billions of years to the LUCA – last universal common ancestor; (5) there is no supernatural design behind the beauty, pleasure and mathematics of existence; (6) life has no extrinsic (higher) purpose or meaning; (7) fundamental law of nature is survival of the fittest; there are no absolute rights and wrongs, moral ethics are a derivative of societal evolution; and (8) Eschatology (end times) - there is no hereafter, humankind is just a chance sophisticated arrangement of atoms and molecules awaiting some accidental asteroid collision with Earth, which will simply rearrange these atoms in a less sophisticated pattern and re-start the Darwinian process.


A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area.  In Canada, the state is a federation of provinces and territories.  A state usually includes a set of institutions –  parliament, senate, courts, armed forces, civil service, and police.  In both Canada and the United States there exists no “state” religion – the federal government does not have clergy, either appointed or elected on its payroll, other than serving military chaplains in the armed services; no single church is favoured by the state in treatment over another.  The concept of the state can be distinguished by the form of government and the concept of the political system.  Canada is a democracy, Cuba ia a dictatorship.  A political system is a complete set of institutions, interest groups (such as political parties, trade unions, lobby groups), usually regulated by a constitution and legal system and governed by a group that is in power.   Wikipedia adds: “A political system is one that ensures the maintaining of order and sanity in the society and at the same time makes it possible for some other institutions to also have their grievances and complaints put across in the course of social existence.”  Some Canadians view the state as a secualar constitutional democracy; others see Canada as a constitutional democracy founded oupon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.  These conflicting views of the Canadian political system are at the heart of the unresolved controversy over so-called “separation of church and state.”  The former notion rejects all religious influence upon the affairs of state.  The latter view (aptly reflected in the lyrics to Canada’s National Anthem and in the Preamble to our Constitution) holds that Canada is a state under God; and therefore, its governance should reflect this reality where appropriate. 

Technological Society:

In 1954, French sociologist, Jacque Ellul, released The Technological Society and in 1980, The Technological System. In these he characterizes “The Technological Society.”  When man and computer are completely integrated and a virtual universe is created through dominant computerized communication the Techno-Society will be complete.  Utopia is the making of the technological system and society into the same.  As a system, technology has no intention, no objective, it merely roles along inexorably.  On the whole, technology maps out its own route autonomously from man’s control.  Technology tends to eliminate bit by bit anything that is not technicizable (love, faith, pleasure, rest) and it tends to reconstitute a whole society and human existence on the basis of technological totalization – i.e. rationalization, efficiency, standardization, automation, experimentation, observation, order and control.  What happens is no longer just the subordination of man to technology, but a new totality – human, social, political and economic.  Even spirituality mutates under its force.  The ideology of technology asserts that change is good, change is progress and that technology has done away with limits; nothing is impossible or prohibited in the Techno-Society.  However, technology is not neutral, it brings its own consequences.  Technology requires more and more time and education to master it.  Ellul writes: “When technique [technology, technological process] enters a new domain, it encounters older ways of doing things, from the pre-tech period.  They tend to be eliminated, for nothing can compete with anything technique.  Neither man nor group can decide to follow any road that is not technique.  Man is placed before this very simple dilemma: On the one hand, he can decide to safeguard his freedom of choice, he can go on using the traditional or personal, the moral or empirical means, and he then has to compete with a power against which he has no effective defense.  His resources are useless, they will be plowed under or be eliminated, and he will be vanquished.  On the other hand, he can decide to accept the technique necessity; he will then be the winner, but he will submit irremediably to technique enslavement.  Hence, there is absolutely no free choice.  We are now in an evolutionary stage of eliminating everything that is not technological.”  Creative technology advances new forms of life, enables new behaviors, sustains unhealthy practices, and offers new choices.  In this environment traditional values, morals, and ethics, are constantly under assault from the forces of change.  Technology never observes the distinction between moral and immoral use; it has no value system.  Not even the moral conversion of the technician will help.  At best they cease to be good technicians.  The notion that technology (as a whole system or as a discrete sub-component) evolves towards some end that is innately good is erroneous.  Technology pursues no end, professed or unprofessed.  It evolves in a purely causal way: the combination of preceding elements furnishes new technologies, which then birth subsequent discoveries and innovations.  The Techno-Society embodies a phenomenon blind to the future; it is impossible to foresee all the consequences of technology, and equally impossible to go back, to “de-tech” society.  Moreover, technology shapes public opinion; it mediates the environment between machines and people.  Humans in the Techno-Society live less and less in the realities of nature and more and more in a technological realm, they use technology to “control” their lives, but it systematically controls their reality.  For instance, the technologies of the Pill and abortion let women choose to be free of children; however, far from being an act of freedom, abortion becomes the chance to wipe out the consequences of one’s doings, and, therefore, access to the technology increases irresponsibility towards nature and moves one away from biological accountability for their actions.  As far as technology allows us to modify, interfere with, and turn back natural processes, it is obvious that “human” decisions replace “nature’s” decisions with the proverbial “technological fix.”  According to Bentley Glass, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the looming problem for humanity is population control and the need to sharply limit family sizes.  He told the Association mankind is headed toward The Golden Age when we can change man within himself.  When mankind acquires more fully the power to control its own genotype and direct the course of its own evolution, we can produce a Man who can transcend his present nature.  Glass described a Techno-Society in which parents will be able to have no more than two children and consequently, they will want to be sure that those children are perfect.  “Science [technology],” he said will come to the rescue, “No parents in that future time will have a right to burden society with a malformed or a mentally incompetent child.  Just as every child must have the right to full educational opportunity and a sound nutrition, so every child has the inalienable right to sound heritage.”  Glass predicted that parents will have their fetuses screened for a myriad of genetic defects, and will abort those fetuses that are imperfect or will use gene therapy to change the genes of their unborn children.  He predicted that young people, at an age when their sperm and eggs would be the healthiest, would store their gametes for use when they are older.  He predicted that embryos that are especially desirable, because of their perfect genetic inheritance, might be frozen for use by couples who want ideal babies, a process he called ‘embryo adoption.’  And George Gilder, in Men and Marriage warns that biogenetic engineering is redefining the meaning and prospects of the two sexes.  In vitro techniques and surrogacy make detached forms of motherhood possible for busy or preoccupied women.  He writes: “The very role of mother and the profound biological tie with her child – enacted in the women’s most intense sexual experiences in childbirth – become optional.  This development threatens to diminish further the perceived and felt authority of the basic connections of human life.”  He further warns: If the family should widely breakdown, then the world of artificial wombs, clones and child-development centers would become an important reality rather than a laboratory curiosity.”  And here, Jacque Ellul would agree.  Ellul describes a key in achieving the complete Techno-Society as the total liberty of the individual over societal interests of collectives and groups, in particular the family unit.  He refers to events surrounding the French Revolution, in 1789, as an example of the “atomization” of society corresponding to a huge leap towards the Techno-Society.  The Revolution involved a systematic campaign waged against all natural groups, under the guise of the rights of the individual.  The guilds, the communes, and federalism were attacked.  There were movements against religious orders and privileges of Parliament.  There was a struggle to undermine the family.  Revolutionary laws governing divorce, inheritance, and paternal authority were disastrous for the family unit, to the benefit of the individual.  Society already divided, would be atomized even more.  Ellul writes: “The individual remained the sole sociological unit, but far from assuring him freedom, this fact provoked the worst kind of slavery.  The atomization conferred on society the greatest possible plasticity – a decisive condition for technique.  The breakup of social groups engendered enormous displacement of people at the beginning of the 19th century and resulted in the concentration of population demanded by modern technique.  To uproot and cram people into squalor was only possible when the individual was isolated.  It was possible only when he literally had no environment, no family, and he was not part of a group able to resist the pressure, when he had almost no way of life left. Such is the influence of social plasticity.  Without it, no technical evolution is possible.  For the individual in society, only the state is left; the state was the highest authority and it became the omnipotent one as well.”  The ultimate questions for the Christian is whether the Techno-Society is moving mankind closer or further away from God?  And, if away, what can be done to slow or turn things around?  Although technology can be used for the good and bad, few would argue that it is not a profound distraction. Overwhelmed and overloaded by demands for our time and attention, we can be diverted from our search for the Kingdom of God. Technology diverts many, individually and collectively, from realizing their highest calling.


“Tolerance” has its origin in the Latin “tolerare,” meaning “to endure.”  The machinist works within tolerance from design and the doctor speaks of tolerance to pain.  The state associates tolerance with rights given or patience shown to opinions and practices that may be less than exemplary or in minority.   In 1969, the Canadian Government declared a new level of tolerance towards homosexuals when private sexual acts (including sodomy) were decriminalized.  By convention “tolerance” requires either an explicit or tacit notion of a normative or ideal model from which the tolerated deviate.  Tolerance of homosexuality implies a heterosexist worldview.  Indifference to homosexuality requires the replacement of heterosexism with homosexism.  Same-sex marriage is not an act of toleration, but a declaration of indifference (sameness) signaling the end of heterosexism and the state’s adoption of a homosexism.  The husband and wife, mother and father, and biologically connected offspring making up the traditional family and held up as ideal or model in a tolerant heterosexist state will no longer be privileged.  These heterosexist notions have been deconstructed in a state that has moved beyond tolerance to total indifference. 


A worldview is a set of beliefs about the reality and meaning of life, which acts as a framework for establishing the truth.  It is expressed in ethics, cosmology, scientific belief, religion, ecology, philosophy, ideology, voting and governance.  Differences in opinion are often rooted in contrasting worldviews.  A state and each of its citizens holds a worldview, either tacitly or declared, and it is conceivable to change these beliefs.