Henry Morgentaler - Should We Be Glad He's Gone?

Henry Morgentaler died today, at the age of 90.  Let's look at what this man did:

• he repeatedly, illegally opened abortion clinics and appealed jail sentences until the Supreme Court of Canada  decided that he was right after all
• he personally performed over 100,000 abortions (http://goo.gl/bmepp)
• his clinics performed "many hundreds of thousands more"
• his actions are largely responsible for the over 3.2 million abortions that have taken place in Canada since 1970 and the fact that these cannot be punished by law (http://cambridgerighttolife.ca/testepage/abortion/)

Thanks to him, legally in Canada:

• over 300 abortions are performed ever day 
• over 100,000 are performed every year
• more than 3 babies are aborted for every
• a live-born baby is killed after a "botched" abortion, once a week on average

All of this continues full tilt ahead as you're reading.

Dr. Morgentaler personally has the blood of over 3,200,000 babies on his hands, and the numbers rise.

So, shouldn't we be glad this monster is gone?

And about the Holocaust ... 

It makes me wonder about Dr. Morgentaler - why is it that having experienced the deadliest atrocity in history up to that time first hand, having miraculously survived it, that he would choose to be the leader of the only atrocity, the only large-scale, sanitized, clinicized mass-murder that overshadows that one?

Perhaps no answer will be discovered to that question.

A Lost Soul is a Catastrophe

As tempting as it is to say "good riddance," as good as it would feel for the moment, it is wrong.

One lost soul is a catastrophe, not a victory.  He gave his life to the Enemy, and that is sad. Yes, the 3 million lives he has cost Canada is a catastrophe.  But so is the fact that he died without (as far as I know or has been publicly stated) repentance.

I think of Dr. Bernard Nathanson who's life - despite having performed proportionally more abortions than Morgentaler - was a great victory.

God's Mercy

No, we cannot be happy that this man has died with the blood of so many innocent lives on it.  We cannot rejoice or claim any victory in this sad death.

God have mercy on the soul of Henry Morgentaler.

Why Are "Catholic lawmakers hostile to abortion even when more moderate on other social issues?"

Before I say anything, I want you to click on the link below.  I want you to look at the green number that appears at the top of the page.  First see how many millions are listed there, then notice how quickly that number is going up?

http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

When I opened the page it at 13,336,610.  It goes up by about 3 every second.

A law recently passed in Kansas limiting abortions

These are statistics for clinical murder.

The counter shows how many human beings are being murdered around the world every second - not total of murders, but only those murdered clinically, in a nice, safe, clean sterile setting that makes these murders seem like a "medical procedure."  This clean, clinical murder is called "abortion."

The total is the number of abortions that have taken place this year - since January. That's less than 4 months.  In less than 4 months, well over 13 million babies have been intentionally murdered in clinics.

That means that in less than 2 months, there were over 6 million clinically murdered babies.

According to the same webpage, the WHO reports that there are between 40 and 50 million abortions per year. That means that in less than 2 years, there are more than 75 million clinically murdered humans.

a precursor to abortionists

Why 75 Million Murders?

Why do I highlight the numbers 6 million and 75 million?  Well, about 80 years ago, a man took over the parliament of a prominent and very advanced European country.  He proceeded to start a program that led to and arranged for the clinical and systematic cold-blooded murder of over 6 million innocent people.  This program also lead to the deaths of 75 million people in the war which most people would consider the worst catastrophe in human history.

This man is an icon of evil; his actions and the way of thinking that led to those actions are unquestionably condemned by all reasonable humans.

Yet, the same number of cold, systematic, clinical murders that he committed in about 6 years was committed in the first two months of this year in the name of "choice" and "rights."

Of course, we're comparing planned, clinical murders in a handful of nations to those in the whole world .  So to make the comparison more fair, let's compare only to the U.S.  According to the WHO, there are about 3000 abortions a day in that country. That means there are 6 million every 5.5 years.  That means in the U.S. alone, abortion is outdoing the holocaust in a lesser period of time.

The same total number of people that died in horrendous 6-year war that evil man started have been murdered in abortions in only the past 2 years.  Both these numbers are world-wide.

A monster, because he made abortion look as dirty as it really is

The Holocaust of Our Progressive World

World War II and especially Hitler's Holocaust were horrible atrocities which should have never happened.  The numbers above show that abortion is an even greater atrocity - at least by 3x.

Abortion is the Holocaust of our modern, progressive, middle-class world.

Like the Holocaust, comfort, ease and - most importantly - the fear of shame or public humiliation for speaking out against it, make us quite us quite content to allow it to carry on quietly out of sight in safe, sterile clinics where it won't make us feel bad or guilty.

Unlike Hitler's atrocities, which eventually brought almost every other super-power nation against it, there is only one single nation in the world that has taken a decisive stand against abortion (Chile).  All other either endorse it as a "fundamental right" (increasingly more common) or turn a blind eye to it.

Many people are upset by what happened with Dr. Gosnell.  A few people are upset because he was murdering babies.  Most people are upset only because he wasn't as clean and clinically sterile as he should've been and - worst of all - that he let his filthiness spill out into the public eye to make us uncomfortable.

Like the brainwashed middle-class of central Europe in WWII, we are willing to turn a blind eye for the sake of comfort - we just want to be sure that it's kept comfortably clean and out of our sight.

Alberto Giubilini, advocate of "after-birth abortions"

The Final Solution

Post-birth abortion is not only a monster looming in the future used as a scare tactic by pro-lifers.  It is a common and accepted practice - even if it has not yet been given official legal approval.

It is already common practice for babies born live after botched abortions to be (a) left to die or (b) killed by the same techniques used in abortions.  This not a freak abuse limited to monsters like Gosnell.  In Canada, the government has reports of this happening to almost 500 babies in 10 years.  These are only the reported cases.  (In Canada, there is no legal requirement to report an abortion.)

Planned Parenthood practices both techniques (a and b) mentioned above.

The academic groundwork to justify "post-birth abortions" legally has already been laid by "credible" academics in influential places.  The justification is that a baby can be killed by the same techniques used in abortions “when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion."  They use the term "after-birth abortion" rather than "infanticide" "to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child."

(see http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-08/opinions/38362423_1_viable-babies-abortion-survivor-planned-parenthood)

Marc Thiessen - a critic of "post-birth abortion"

Basically, killing a baby just after birth can be justified by the exact same arguments used in favour of abortion. And these academics are right; there's no reasonable way you can justify that a baby is a conscious human being 1 minute after the leaving the mother completely if you did not recognize that status 2 minutes earlier when part of her was still inside her mother.

Currently, there are scientists studying the question whether a 2-month-old baby is a conscious human or not - and even a 5-month-old.  People should be paying much more attention to these studies, because if the "scientific consensus" answers the above question with "no" then we will soon be having academics, and then doctors and judges, talking about something like "pre-consciousness abortion" to describe a process for clinically murdering babies that are several months old.

Unlike the case with pre-birth abortions, for "post-birth abortions" we don't even need renegade doctors who want to be heroes. Planned Parenthood is already doing that quietly, behind the scenes, on public money and with public approval (given through silence.)  All it will take to implement this "final solution" is a couple of Supreme Court judges who want their names to be recorded in history as the fearless leaders of justice who overturned their nation's laws for the sake of "progress."


Saving a Mother's Live?

And the big question - how many abortions are procured to save a mother's life? This is after all, the end-all wildcard pro-choice argument that makes all pro-lifers shut up and be entirely ashamed of ever even thinking that abortion should be banned.

Reasons for abortions

In a U.K.study, 0.006% were in direct response to save a mother's life (i.e. she was dying and the abortion saved her), and another 0.37% were due to risk of the mother's life (i.e. it was unsure if she would've died or not, but the risk was high.)

That means, of the 13 million babies clinically murdered since January, probably only 78,000 - worldwide - were in direct response to the immediate threat of death for the mother.

Abortion is not right in any situation, but the point here is legal abortion has nothing to do with saving mothers' lives. 99.994% of abortions are carried purely for a matter of personal preference or convenience, justified on the assumption that the baby is not in fact a human.  This lends itself very nicely to post-birth abortion arguments.

(*U.S. stats will list 2.8% as "maternal health concerns." This does NOT indicate danger or even risk of death, but "health" in a far broader context. "Danger of death" does not show up on stats - I'm assuming because the cases are so rare.)

Me, holding my babies minutes after they were  born.
They were humans then, just as they were 8.5 months
before, at the moment of conception.

Some More Stats

• Worldwide, there are 125,000 abortions per day - that's the entire population of Waterloo, ON, or Playa del Carmen, MX, murdered every day
• In the US there are over 3000 abortions every day - that's the population of the township I live in
• That's a total of about 20% of all babies in the U.S.
• In Canada, there is one abortion for every 3 live births; that's 25% of all babies

So ...

I couldn't name a worst atrocity than this one. Go back to that counter again - http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/. Every time that number turns over, imagine a person in nice clean clinic, having surgical scissor being jammed up through her neck into her brain, or having her spinal cord severed, or being burned in chemicals or cut to pieces alive - of course, in each case this person is nicely sedated and muffled to ensure that other people in the room don't feel uncomfortable about the process - they might see her squirm a little, but doctors and scientists can reassure us that that's just an non-conscious reflex. Pleasant thought, isn't it?

Back to the Main Question

Why, then, is that "Catholic lawmakers in particular are often hostile to abortion rights even when they are more moderate on other social issues"?  Tara Culp-Ressler at ThinkProgress.org points out this fact as though it's absurd, some sort of silly contradiction.

I hope the numbers and comparison I shared above answer this questions satisfactorily. Abortion is not simply another "social issue."

The Joy of Living and Walter Ostanek

Back in October, someone made a comment about polka, and brought back memories of seeing Walter Ostanek on T.V. back in the 80s.  Something always struck me about Mr. Ostanek; I don't think it was his music per se, but more the fact that he always looked incredibly happy.  Take a look:

How many pop/rock/other famous musicians do you see with a smile like that on their faces these days?  Either they look depressed or angry, or they take themselves far too seriously to smile.
In any case, there seems to be some joy in the polka party.

This kind of joy in the simple things in life is something I saw and experienced much more in Mexico than here.  In Mexico, there is a greater tendency to find joy in whatever you have in life, even if it's little, and whatever situation you're in.  Could it be that more limited economic opportunities and a lesser degree of stability have made everything seem a more fleeting, thus making everyone happier for what they have?  Or is it that their mentality on life has been shaped by a different set of values, different religious background, etc.?

In any case, although Walter Ostanek is still alive and well (and living in St. Catherine's) the days of the polka fest seem to be past their prime.  In the past, the unfinished sanctuary of the church I currently attend was used as a community dance hall for about 3 decades (until they had the money to finish it and use it as a sanctuary.)  There are no community dances any more.  I think there's only one at New Years, and it's only for those of age; this strips the sense of community out of such events.  The interest-focused "communities" we like to talk about are really not communities at all.  A true community includes people of all ages and tastes.  A true community, like a family, simply finds joy in being with each other.

Perhaps Canada's past was a little more festive and joyous as well?  Who knows.  In Canada, there is a lot of focus on pleasure, but little joy.  It most certainly exists (see A Mexican Chistmas Celebration (Posada) in Ontario's Countryside) but it seems the exception rather than the rule.

A Mexican Chistmas Celebration (Posada) in Ontario's Countryside

Now that Christmas time is here, I finally have some time to write again, as well as some nice events to write about.

First and foremost, one of the most exciting events to celebrate the coming of Christmas was a Mexican Posada. In Mexico, the tradition is that during the 9 days leading up to Christmas, neighbours and extended families will gather to act out the story of Joseph and Mary looking for an inn in Bethlehem, followed by a celebration with food, hot drinks and piñatas. The celebration is called a Posada, which is the Spanish word for “inn.”

In our village here Ontario, we celebrated a Posada on Sunday, Dec. 16.  The priest at our parish first proposed the idea of holding this celebration here a few weeks before.

He had heard about these events, and had been excited to hold one; when he found out that my wife is Mexican, he thought it was an excellent opportunity to bring this rich Mexican tradition to Ontario's countryside!  Several people from our parish and from the rest of the community worked together to organize certain parts of the event.  The priest played the key roll of bringing the various people together and covering some of the central details, for which we're very thankful!


In the Mexican fashion, the first part of the celebration was held outside; starting at the main intersection, people carried candles and sung Christmas carols walking about 4 blocks to the parish.  In Mexico, a couple of people are usually designated to hold little figures of Joseph and Mary (usually the ones from a household nativity scene.)  However, the community went all out, and Mary, (a roll taken by a local teen) arived on horse-back, being led by her brother who took the role of Joseph.

Arriving at the church, following the Mexican tradition, Joseph and Mary (and the rest of the crowd) was greeted by a less-than-welcoming Innkeeper.  After a back and forth dialogue in which the Innkeeper even threatened to give Joseph a beating (translated from the original Mexican songs), the Innkeeper finally realized that Joseph’s wife was Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and gave them a warm welcome, inviting them and the crowd inside for food and drink.

The celebration followed in the church basement. My parents provided Mexican food ("gordas" and a type of enchiladas), with additional snacks provided by some ladies from the church.  There were also plenty of candies, cake and coffee to go around!

The atmosphere was festive and everyone present had a good time!  At one point, a woman stood up and led the group in song.

After dinner and desert, 3 large piñatas were brought out and smashed by blind-folded children holding a broom handle.  My family and I had prepared the pinatas; this was a bit of an adventure in itself since it was our first go a making them.

They turned out well and looked good, but I had used the wrong kind of string; at the time of breaking them, 2 of them fell to the ground at the first hit!  Since one of them didn't break, I tossed it up into the air, and one kid swung at it like a baseball.  Candies flew everywhere and the kids were excited.


Despite drizzly weather, the turn out for the event was considerable; our priest had expected about 30 people, and prepared food for about 50, thinking the left overs could be sent home.  My wife and I suspected that this would overkill, and would've been quite happy to see 25 people.


However, approximately 95 people were counted at the mealtime, and most of these had joined the procession and carol singing!  When the group arrived at the church, extra tables had to be set up, almost filling the space available.  Fortunately, the food was enough to go around, and there were even some leftovers.  The priest and some others said something about the story of the fish and loaves.

Members of St. Mary’s Parish, neighbours from Linwood, residents of St. Clements and even an entire table of visitors from Toronto were among those attending the event. (Both Catholics and non-Catholics joined in.)

Leaving the event, many people commented on looking forward to repeating the Posada next year.  With the excellent turn-out and the festive spirit of all who attended, we're definitely planning to repeat the Posada in years to come, making plans to accommodate a larger group!

My family followed up on this event with a little Posada just at our own home with only a handful of people, on Christmas Eve.  It seems that a fairly wide-spread Catholic practice is to leave the manger empty in Nativity Scenes until Christmas Eve, when the Baby Jesus is placed in the manger.  The Mexican version of this tradition combines it with the last Posada on the night of Dec. 24.

As Mexican families will do, three people were outside holding the figures of Mary, Joseph and Jesus; when they were allowed in by the "innkeeper" (those of us inside), the entire family gathered around the nativity scene and the person holding the figure of Jesus (my oldest son in this case) placed him in the manger as we sang Christmas carols!  This final Posada usually comes after the Christmas Eve Mass and "kicks off" the Christmas celebrations (dining, music, dancing, etc.) which, in Mexico, can last till dawn.

I'll write about our household Christmas celebrations another day.

A Different (and Wonderful) Kind of Gift for Families with Newborns!

For parents of newborns a meal they don't have to cook is a great help!

3 weeks ago, my twins were born!  Since then, we've had many visits from family, friends and neighbours.  Besides the pleasure of seeing people and the joy on their faces when they held our babies, almost everyone also brought gifts. We are very thankful for all the gifts and - most importantly - the love and support so many people have shown us!

Yet, there's something different that happened this time.  Anglo Canadians, like Mexicans, bring gifts of clothes, toys, bottles, diapers, soothers, etc.  All very helpful and useful items, and all received with gratitude! However, something new for both me and my wife was the kind of gift that the our Old-Colony Mennonite (also known as Mexican Mennonites or Low-German Mennonites) friends, neighbours and relatives have been bringing us; they bring meals! (Sometimes in addition to the other kind of gifts.)

The first (Mennonite) family that visited us - some new friends who we've been getting to know this summer - called us one day shortly after the twins were born and asked if they could bring supper over around 5 pm.  All of us being over tired and not in the mood for cooking, we were delighted with the idea.  My mother-in-law (who has flown in from Mexico City, just to help out) and I hurried around to see if we could find enough dishes for the guests.  When they arrived, they passed dinner to us, and we asked them to come in.

"No, it's OK," they answered, "we just wanted to bring supper.  We'll be on our way and come to see the babies in a couple of days when you aren't so tired."

(They did come back in a couple of days, and we weren't so tired.)

At first we thought it was just a one-time idea that a friend had thought of; but as the weeks went on and neighbours we hardly know started bringing us dinner, we realized that this must be some sort of custom; we have no idea if all Old Colony Mennonites follow this custom or if it's just a local thing.  In any case, it really is a great idea.

(As a complete side note, I noticed that the meals all included [delicious] home-made chicken noodle soup; in Mexico, people believe that eating chicken soup is good for the mother of newborns.  Perhaps these people - most of whom spent most of their lives in Mexico - believe the same thing?  It was delicious - I hadn't had this kind of soup in a long time. The rest of the meal varied greatly, from Mexican-style stuffed peppers to fried chicken.  All very tasty!)

Over the next few weeks (in fact, right up to today) we've had neighbours bring us supper about 3 or 4 times a week.  It's incredible how much this has helped us.


Next time someone who lives nearby has a baby, we're going offer to cook a meal or two for them ... and "Thank You" to all of our friends, family and neighbours who cooked for us!

Poverty Is NOT a Problem ...

This says: "I have time and money to waste ..."

... in  a place where people so much money, food, possessions, etc. that they take a complete papaya, nice, ripe and perfect for eating, and smash it against a wall, letting it rot on the sidewalk, just because they feel like it.  Or in a place where kids have enough money and time at their disposal to buy spray paint and graffiti walls all night.  Or where people can buy their kids a coca cola and large bag of chips every day for their snack.  Or where people can buy take out food and throw half of it away.  Or ... I could make this list much longer, but I won't.

I live in a community which by many people would be considered "poor" or at least (even in Mexico) significantly below average.  I've estimated that the average household income in our neighborhood would probably be a bit over $7000 CDN, annually.  (Based on the cut off for mortgage requirements for buying a home.)  From my experience, the cost of living is about 1/2 of that in Canada, so by Canadian standards we could say it's equivalent to about an annual income of around $14,500.  By all the standards, it's well below the Canadian poverty line , which is about $30,000, I believe.  (The Canadian "poverty line" is a joke anyway, since it has no relation to poverty; it's measured as the bottom quarter of household income, not by basic needs or standards of living, but that's a different story.)

Too much money? Too much to eat? (A papaya)

The average household income in Mexico is about $10,000 USD per year, according the CIA Word Factbook.  So it's even noticeably below this country's average.

So, my community is officially poor. Yet, at the same time, I walked out of my house this morning to take my son to school and saw a papaya splattered all over the neighbour's house and sidewalk, left there to rot.
I go for walks every day, and every day I see new graffiti on the walls.  I see garbage bags ripped open by dogs with half-eaten take-out meals strewn all over the sidewalk.  I've been to countless parties where people pick a few things off their plate and throw the rest away.

On one level it's annoying that the first three habits make my community dirty, but that's a different issue.  The issue here is that people are absolutely wasteful.

I think our definition of poverty has been very, very skewed.  If we define poverty in terms of material needs - food, clothing and shelter in their most basic and necessary sense - then I've never seen poverty.  I know it exists somewhere, but I've never seen it.  I'd guess that people who REALLY were poor would absolutely never consider destroying any kind of food, just for fun, even to prove a point.  I'd guess that knowing what hunger really is like, from experience (which I don't, and, as far as I know, no one I know does) would simply eliminate that possibility that you could throw away food.  I'd guess that you'd never consider wasting what little money you had on a can of spray paint to graffiti your neighbour's wall.

Yet, all of these these problems are usually associated with poverty.  It's strange, isn't it?  I'd say the problem is abundance and idleness, not poverty.

The person I know who is closest to poverty does not consider himself poor.  While his living conditions are substandard (by our standards), he does not feel he is lacking anything in life, and would never ask anyone for anything.  He works hard, every day of his life.

Yet the "poor" people in my neighborhood can throw away food, give their kids money to buy spray paint, etc., etc.  Then they complain about the government and big companies.



While it's less visually obvious, I'd say the problem is just as big in Canada.  And we like to talk about the 99% and all of that.  People like to talk about poverty, yet I see so much complete wastefulness, that I can't take it seriously.

My wife and I believe in helping the poor.  And we do.  We help the poorest people we know every time we have a chance.  But as long as people have enough money and idle time to waste food and vandalize their neighbourhood, I don't feel sorry for them.

Come to Mexico for a Great Vacation ... at Starbucks?

Playa del Carmen's Beaches

I've complained before that people come down for vacation to Mexico and in reality see nothing of Mexico.  But forget about culture, history and tradition.  We know 95% of tourists simply don't care about that stuff. But what about the wide, beautiful beaches that made places like Playa del Carmen and Cancun so famous?  It's the same story.

This afternoon my family and I went down to the beach. Weaving our way through the crowded Fifth Avenue (the main tourist street, running parallel to the beach, a block or two away) we saw crowds of mostly non-Mexican tourists (including many Americans, Canadians, Europeans, etc.)  A block and a half later, after about 2 minutes of walking, we arrived to the beach.  I would say about 90% of the people were Mexicans - a complete turn around from the trendy main drag, filled with stores and restaurants that you could easily find in any major North American city.

We arrived in the mid afternoon when it was still warm and sunny, and stayed until the early evening when the sun had gone down.  I waded in the water with my kids, and later went into the water alone, floating on my back and looking at the stars and moon above me.  It was absolutely beautiful!

Yet, I couldn't help but wonder; why do all these Americans, Canadians and Europeans spend so much money to come to come to the beach, and then not go to the beach?  The big selling point here in Playa del Carmen is the beaches, which are some of the world's most beautiful - so beautiful and relaxing, in fact, that they made me (a former and very decided hater of beaches) fall in love with beaches.  Yet instead, they go to drink beer at a bar.

It's not only downtown.  I've been to resorts and seen pictures of others, where it's the same story.  The pools, beach clubs, restaurants and tennis courts are full of people and alive.  If there are lounge chairs or canopy beds down where the sand begins, an adventurous spirit may wander down.  But the actual sand of the beach is empty of northern tourists, and you would think there's something wrong with the water, since no one's in it (even now in the middle of "winter" the water is comfortably warm; these tourists wouldn't know that, though.)

So, just my same question again - why would you spend all the money to come down here, and instead of enjoying some of the most beautiful beaches to be found, go to Johnny Rockets and Starbucks?

How do You Show Reverence?

I while back I think I posted about the difference between how we northerners tend to see morals (prohibitions) and how Mexicans tend to see morals (positive actions.)  (I can’t find the post now – maybe it’s just something I told someone.  If I find it, I’ll share the link.)

 

A closely related idea is how we see reverence. I recently saw a review of a movie (“The Greatest Miracle”) which attempts to depict the spiritual events which take place in the Mass.  The writer took issue with the fact that in the movie, the characters were getting up and moving around the church during mass, even approaching the sanctuary.  The movie takes place in Mexico, and I realized that this issue was actually connected to the fact in Mexico, people have a different concept of reverence.  The following are some comments I made about the review:

 

While Canadians who arrive late for Mass I think would try to sneak into the back pews unnoticed, I’ve seen Mexicans arrive very late DURING MASS and walk right up to the steps leading to the altar to genuflect and cross themselves before sitting down. (During the movie, the angel actually complains about a family that arrives late.)  They also get up and move around during Mass more readily.  I think there are two factors involved in this.  One is that Mexicans have slightly different idea of reverence; Mexicans can go to great lengths to show outward signs of reverence (crossing themselves, genuflecting, bowing, fully participating in the appropriate prayers), but not feel they are being irreverent by changing places in the church during Mass. In fact, if you just finished confession, you will always be moving to your “normal” spot, and (in my experience) this happens every Mass when 2 priests are available. … Mexican morality (and reverence) is more heavily based on active outward signs (bowing, etc.) more freely expressed, not only the prescribed time, while we Anglophones tend to focus on prohibitions (you shouldn’t get up or make noise during mass, you shouldn’t show up late, etc.) I suspect a balance of the two is necessary (I’m too new to Catholicism to say if either approach is more correct than the other), but I’ve seen enough of Canadian and Mexican culture to know that this factor is definitely related to how each culture views “reverence.”

 

The second factor of people moving around is that in Mexico Catholicism is the default religion.  In the U.S., Canada and many other places, Catholics are a minority - a large minority, but for all but 2 days of the year, the only people who show up for Mass are the more devout Catholics.  This means these devout few will be more dedicated to showing reverence and respect through silence and staying still.  In Mexico, since it’s the communal religion, anyone and everyone - devout or not, sometimes even non-Catholic - shows up for mass.  This means that you’ll have non-devout people in the Mass who may not understand or value reverence.  So why do they go then?  Because it’s the only place where you go to experience God more closely.  Some people think they have to go, even though they are not devout.  In many parts of Mexican culture, it’s almost just automatic.  It’s what you do.  So while you have some devout and reverent people who don’t feel it’s irreverent to move about, there are also plenty of non-devout Catholics who simply don’t know better or care much about reverence.

 

Closely related is that I’ve seen people in Mexico who just happen to be wandering by, or feel down on life, and stop in for a prayer - during Mass or not.  Sometimes they stay for the whole Mass, other times they leave when they finish their own prayer.  In fact, this is the whole context of the movie; it’s just that the story conveniently has the three main characters show up just as mass is beginning.  If you imagine a real culture (like Mexico) where people will tend to go to the church as a refuge in times of personal turmoil, it’s not always going to work out so “neatly” that they show up just on time for mass.

 

Just to be clear, I agree with our northern ideas about reverence.  Also it’s not that every Mass in Mexico has noisy distractions and lots of people moving around (depending on the specific community, there are churches that wouldn’t have this at all), but what I saw in the movie looked “normal” in the context of Mexico, and I think it helps us to understand why they made the movie that way.

 

So, how do you think reverence is shown most appropriately?  Silence/prohibitions?  Outward signs and visible affection? Both?  Or maybe not at all?

A Trip to the Library – Educational or Entertaining?

When I was visiting a library in Halifax this summer, I overheard a German family discussing some videos that the pre-teen children were choosing.  The parents were looking over the case of a video somehow related to Shakespeare – I’m guessing it might have been that version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio.

“Is this really educative?” asked the mother. (She said “educative” rather than “educational.”)
The father took the case. “I don’t think they have anything to do with Shakespeare these days,” he observed.
They proceeded to discuss the item in terms of morality, quality, entertainment and educational value.

Listening to the conversation, I realized two things; one is that this is probably a good thing; the other is how rare this kind of care is among parents these days.  In the whole week I spent in that library, this was the only family in which the parents were actively engaged in the values of their children’s choice of material.  Everything about it would be foreign to so many people; encouraging kids to go to the library, going with them as a family, reviewing and discussing the material they choose, caring, talking to them about it, knowing something about it …

For me, it was as though the conversation was from another world.  Where I live in Mexico, libraries are few and far between, and the few that exist are way underused. It would be a miracle that parents even encourage their kids to go to a library, let alone care what their kids are doing there.  When my wife and I arrived to Canada, she was simply overjoyed to have a good library right in the community, within walking distance.  While I think there’s a better culture for visiting the library, but I suspect it’s much more for entertainment than for learning. I also suspect that few parents actually supervise and discuss the educational, moral and quality value of what their kids choose.

With only a 3-year-old, I it’s not much of a task to review the content of the books yet. That’s coming in a few years.  I suspect one day we’ll be that odd family in the library who actually cares about all of that stuff.

Local History Expert – A Homeless Man in Halifax

Although in some sense they may be less reliable in accuracy sometimes, local, home-grown, self-made history experts are far more interesting than than the official ones.

I had a chance to experience such an expert in Halifax.  While my brother and I, along with our families, were walking down the street in Halifax past the historic church building known as the “Little Dutch Church” (pictured) and chatting about why this Anglican Church had been built for Lutheran German immigrants, a homeless man walking by overheard us, and took it upon himself to jump in the conversation and share what he knew.

Yes, the church was Anglican, he confirmed, even though the parish members were German immigrants.  The round church building just a block or two away (St. George’s) was also Anglican.  He knew about their history; he had slept in both churches in the past.  The one we were looking at – the “Little Dutch Church” – had been the scene of some archaeological controversy as well; some excavation under the building had unearthed some bones, which were recorded by archaeologists and then re-buried (see picture.)

These stories were told with the enthusiasm and eagerness of someone who simply wanted to share what he knew, and had no agenda, purpose, format or guideline in doing so.

We never learned the significance of the bones since at that point we reached the soup kitchen where the man was headed.

The Great Canadian … Gut!

2 or 3 months after moving to Canada, my wife and I discovered a problem; our pants were getting too tight! We found a scale, weighed ourselves and discovered that we had each gained about 10-15 pounds!

 

While weight comes and goes depending on different factors in lifestyle, there was no question about it; we had both gained considerably more weight during 3 months in Canada than we had at any point during our 5 years together in Mexico!

 

We have a few theories, some of which can be discarded, and others more plausible. 

 

The discarded theories include:

• Relatively recent childbirth: It’s a fact that most women gain weight during and after birth.  But there are two problems; this doesn’t offer me any excuse, and my wife had actually lost all of this extra weight before we moved to Canada, and she was down to her normal weight!  So this one’s out the window.

 

• I started a second blog: More blogs means more sitting time. But this is no excuse for my wife.  Also, I cancelled this blog, and we found no difference for the two weeks when we were in Halifax, and I wrote no blogs whatsoever.

 

• Canadians eat more fat and more carbs: True, Canadians seem to know no limits to these two nutrients; even “healthy” Canadians seem to think that eating fried steak with fried eggs and mayonnaise is a good low-carb diet. But Mexicans are at least as bad.  In fact typical Mexican food is probably worse.  Mexicans eat lots of bread loaded with sugar every day, plus tacos and tortas and tamales with grease dripping of them. See ().

 

We came to these more acceptable conclusions:

 

• Canada is built for cars: In Mexico, if you don’t have a car, you end up walking a lot more and getting more exercise. I would say 3/4 of the country’s communities are designed to be walked in. In Canada, most people have a car; if you don’t have one, you simply don’t go anywhere.  Most communities are not designed to be walked in, and don’t have anywhere to walk to. (There are, of course, major exceptions.)  We live in a small village that takes 5 minutes to walk across, which hardly offers any exercise. We’ve been fortunate enough to have a car made available to us when we need it.  (We are really thankful for this!  But we’re also sure the guts are somehow related …) We started daily bike rides, but it’s one thing to have daily bike rides as an optional form of entertainment, and a completely different thing to have a couple of hours of biking or walking as a normal, non-optional part of your daily routine (= our life in Mexico.)

 

• It’s easier to eat healthily in Mexico: While the typical Mexican diet is at least as bad as the Canadian one, it’s easier to be healthy in Mexico if you want to.  Fresh fruit and vegetables are cheap, as is freshly caught fish.  Someone pointed out how much oatmeal we eat for breakfast; in Mexico, we ate twice much oatmeal for breakfast, but we also ate twice as many fruit and vegetables, and we almost never ate desert or sweet things, since it’s so easy by cheap and good alternatives (fresh fruit.)  Red meat was a once a week meal, rather than the 2 or 3 times a day many Canadians seem to like. 

 

The difficult thing is that it’s really hard to eat differently in Canada; fruit and vegetables are expensive, often imported from the other side of the world, and rarely of good quality.  The fall is an exception here, since there is a good deal of local fruit available; yet if you are eating the fresh blueberries with Canadians, they like to mix them into ice cream!  Fish is outrageously expensive (compared to Mexico.)

 

I guess the bottom line is, even though most people in Mexico aren’t interested, it’s much easier to be active and eat healthy on a low budget than in Canada.  We’re hoping the guts will disappear when we get back to Mexico, and for our next time around in Canada, I think we’ll have to do more careful planning for exercise and healthy eating.

Made in Canada from Imported Ingredients

A while back, my wife and I bought a bag of peanuts in their shells.  Nothing terribly exciting interesting.  However, out of habit, I like to read the list of ingredients even on the simplest products.  The bag reads:

Ingredient

Peanuts.

May contain tree nuts.

So far, so good. Then, out of sheer boredom, and something to do as I peeled and munched on peanuts, I read the other side of the bag.  This is how the first two lines read:

MADE IN CANADA FROM

IMPORTED INGREDIENTS

 

I understand one part of this: the one ingredient (peanuts) is imported.

What I don’t understand is exactly which part of it was “made in Canada.”  Perhaps if it said “packaged in Canada” I could understand what they mean.  But “made in Canada??”

 

I didn’t think we as Canadians cared enough about whether a product was domestic or not to make this kind of absurdity necessary.  Then again, I could be wrong.

 

I guess I could call that toll-free number to find out exactly how a peanut can be made in Canada from imported ingredients.

On Prohibitions and Obligations

If we divide morals into two categories – things we shouldn’t do, and things that we are obligated to do – in general I would say Canadian culture has more focus on the first, and Mexican culture more on the second.  Of course, this is a very broad generalization, but I would say there is a definite tendency.

 

In Canada, when people speak of morals we generally formulate the idea in prohibitions; I remember my teenaged years that the measure of a moral life was often that of what we didn’t do; we weren’t supposed to listen to music that might have a negative influence on our lives, do drugs, etc.  Even in adult life, we tend to look at doing good in these terms; men shouldn’t cheat on their wives, people shouldn’t steal or commit fraud, etc.

 

Even people who have “liberated” themselves from morals usually see life from the same point of view; the basic question is “How much can I get away for my own sake?”  On the “moral” side people will tend towards saying “nothing” – we have to follow the prohibition.  On the “non-moral” side people tend to towards the idea that you can get away with what ever you like for your own sake.

 

The downside of this angle is that the focus tends to be on a prohibition and how far someone can bend that prohibition to their own convenience – in the end the debates concerning these prohibitions tend to be self-centered.  Of course, the good side is that there definitely are actions which are bad for us, or are unfair to others to whom we have responsibility, etc. and so they really are best avoided.

 

In Mexico, there seems to be less of a concern for prohibitions and a higher concern for obligations.  From my experience Mexicans will see their morals in light of what they should do for other people; I should call my mother, because she’ll feel good, I should give things to other people who need them, I should let people stay in my house, even if I don’t know them, etc.  Of course, a Mexican could reject this kind of morals as much as Canadians could reject prohibitions. The difference isn’t in how moral people are, but how those who see themselves as leading a moral life define those morals.

 

I’ve found along with this tendency in Mexico, people either take the prohibitions for granted, or simply ignore them altogether.  There is less debate or tension about how far prohibitions can be taken.  Of course, the second situation (ignoring the prohibitions all together) leads to some problems; i.e. a man helps his neighbours with work and gives to the poor, but cheats on his wife.  He’s active in moral obligations, but not terribly concerned with prohibitions.

 

Again, these are very broad generalizations.  Both Canada and Mexico include both views, but it’s a question of tendency.  It makes a difference in how we view the other culture; at a first glance Mexican culture may seem very immoral to a Canadian concerned with morals because of the apparent lack of inhibitions.  On the other hand, Canada may look very immoral to Mexican eyes – it may look self-centred, cold or even greedy. Understanding how another culture defines a moral life is important.

Wearing Religion on Your Sleeves

Recently, in a Q & A post for a very popular expat blog, a soon-to-be expat in Latin America was worried about finding a girlfriend in a very religious country; the soon-to-be expat was atheist.  The blogger reassured the concerned would-be expat that Latin Americans, although with very deep-rooted religious beliefs, don’t usually “wear their religion on their sleeves.”

 

I both agree and disagree.

 

In the normal meaning of this expression, meaning that someone talks about their religion to the extent that it might be uncomfortable for other people, I agree.  Most religious Latin Americans I know (even some that I would call “very religious”) would not usually discuss their faith or try to push it on other people.  They simply don’t seem to find that necessary.  In this way, they’re very discrete and not at all obtrusive in their beliefs (again, generally speaking.)  For this concerned expat, this would probably be enough; any girlfriend he found would probably not be pushy, even in this kind of relationship.

 

Yet, in another sense of the idea, I would disagree.  If we consider the “concrete” (although definitely not usual) meaning of “wearing your religion on your sleeves,” I would say Latin Americans do; i.e. they actually wear their religion on their sleeves – or at least on their arms.  Bracelets similar to the one in the picture are fairly common, in my experience.  Mexicans who wear the Virgin of Guadelupe or Saint bracelets may not talk about them, or even expect or hope that other people will notice; I suspect (although I can’t confirm) that they wear them to remind themselves of something or perhaps to use them for prayer more so than to show other people something.  While they wear their religion on their sleeves in the concrete sense, they don’t “wear their religion on their sleeves” in the sense that they are pushy and obsessed or are going to try to convert you or even talk to you about God.

 

I suspect many North Americans who wear “What Would Jesus Do” bracelets or the coloured bead bracelets would do so for a similar reason – primarily, even if not solely, to remind themselves of something. Yet, in English-speaking North America, we have a stigma that people who use these things will be obsessive about their faith.  Although this is definitely not true all the time, it is true more often here (Canada or the U.S.) than in Latin America.

 

For Latin Americans, the same is true of household altars, icons, statues, rosaries, etc.  You might see all of these things in someone’s home, car or bus (bus drivers take a lot of liberty in personalizing their vehicles,) but they probably won’t seem in any other way preoccupied or focused on the related themes.  In the worst cases, any of them could be “trends” or just the thing to do in your family or community; in the best cases, I suspect that these people use these items to remind themselves of their faith, to pray, etc. but are content to leave it that. They’re instruments of personal devotion, not of outreach or conversion.

 

I suspect that for this concerned would-be expat this would also be OK.

Are You English, German or Spanish?

While I would describe my ethnic background in the fairly universally understood terms of “Canadian of Mennonite background,” the people still belonging more fully to this group have other terms by which they describe ethnicities.

 

For example, they might describe my immediate family thus:

 

“His parents are German, and he grew up German.  But now he and his sons are English and his wife is Spanish.”

 

Anyone who knows my wife, my kids and me knows that there’s nothing English, Spanish or German about us – least of all in terms of ethnicity or culture.  Of course, what these people are doing is referring to ethnicity/culture by the language spoken.  I’m English because that’s my primary language; my parents are “German” because they still speak the Mennonite dialect of the language between themselves; likewise my wife is “Spanish” because of her mother tongue.

 

I don’t know the exact reasons for this choice of terminology, but I can guess as to some of the underlying ideas:

 

• An idea seems to have come about that there’s something inappropriate, embarrassing or sometimes even insulting to refer to people by their true ethnicity; while in the parts of Mexico where I lived, most Mexicans are proud to be called “Mexican”, a number of Mennonites who have lived in Mexico seem to feel that the people consider it insulting.  I don’t know if this is true or if it’s just their impression.

 

• On a similar note, numerous Mennonites whom I’ve talked to  “correct” me discretely, yet pointedly, when I refer to them as “Mennonites.”  For example, if I ask them if there were many Mennonites at the community picnic, they will answer that there were a lot of “German” families, slightly emphasizing the word “German.”

 

• This leads to another point; while Mexican is clearly a national ethnicity, Mennonite is officially a church denomination; strictly speaking it refers to someone’s faith and religious views.  A very strong case could be made that the nature of the denomination (which sometimes, but definitely not always, dictates laws about clothing, transportation, entertainment and even language of its adherents) has in many cases created a corresponding ethnic culture; a similar case could be made about certain Jewish groups.  For this reason, it’s common to refer to anyone belonging to that ethnicity as “Mennonite” even if they have never joined that church, don’t adhere to its beliefs or have been excommunicated.  On the other hand, there’s justifiable hesitation in calling someone Mennonite after they’ve joined a new church, even if they retain the cultural practices.

 

• Finally, there’s a problem with calling the Anglophone population of southern Ontario “Canadians;” the problem is that it implies that the German-speaking Mennonites are not Canadians, when in fact many of them are.  They are NOT immigrants – at least not most of them.  They have been Canadian citizens for a longer time and for more generations than most Anglophone Canadians, having arrived to the Prairie Provinces during the mid- to late-1800s.

 

• A similar problem arises with the term “Mexican;” a growing number of Mennonites are now Mexican citizens, since that’s where they and their parents were born.  So, calling the Hispanic Mexicans only “Mexican” incorrectly implies that these Mennonites are not Mexican, when they are by all legal rights.

 

The biggest problem is that while ethnicity is clear, there is no clear rule for determining religion or citizenship of ethnically “Mennonite” people.  So, in light of all of this, I could  re-word the description of my family given above as follows;

 

“His parents are ethnically low-German speaking Mennonites of Canadian citizenship, and he was raised in this same culture; he and his children are now ethnically Anglophone Canadian but his wife is Hispanic Mexican.”

 

I'm not sure if this would go over so well with most people, though.

Our Daily Bike Ride – Part II – Leisure vs. Practicality

I’m happy that we’ve started the habit of our daily bike ride here.  It’s not only good exercise, but excellent family time.  I’ve always loved biking, and I’ve always used a bike whenever I’ve lived in a place where it’s possible.  I’ve noticed that my bike usage has changed.

When I lived in Playa del Carmen (as in Toronto several years before), I rode a bike for transportation; it was a practical tool.  Sometimes I used it for personal exercise in the morning.  Now, as during my teenaged years, I ride my book for pleasure.  I go out with my dad, my wife, my three-year-old, and the two girls of the family we share a house with; it’s a big happy family/community bike ride. (My mother very kindly stays at home to take care of the baby.)

The bike rides are wonderful and I’m glad we’re in a place where we can enjoy them.

Another Odd Job; Butchering Chickens

During the past week, some of the Mennonites ladies who live in the community found a new way to generate some income.  They bought living chickens for 75 cents a piece, butchering them, removing feathers and gutting; then they sold the chickens for $3 a piece.

Recently, these ladies had been inviting my wife to join in their enterprises (including the garlic scrape cutting job I wrote about a while back.)  However, although my wife spent a few months every year of her childhood on her grandpa’s farm, she could not, for the life of her, get herself to kill, pluck or clean chickens.  What she could do was take pictures – of everything but the beheading.

Enjoy the pictures.

P.S. – I would have expected this to be a part of my Mexico experience rather than my wife’s Canada experience, but in any case, here it is.

Ontario’s Cottage Country

 

(Written May 21) I believe that today the first time I’ve been back to Southern Ontario’s cottage country since I first went to Mexico 4 and a half years ago.  It’s as beautiful as I remember it!  The winding roads, the forests of rugged pines, and tall spruce, the hills and stony cliffs, and, of course, the many beautiful, small lakes.

As I sit here on a deck overlooking one of these lakes watching the lights of the cottages turn on as the sun sets over the trees, and shores become dark, I realize I still love this part of Ontario, just as many other Ontarians do.  There’s only a few sounds; the water lapping against the small, wooden boat dock, the chirping of a bird now and then, and even the call of the loon.

It’s a part of the world that I miss, and I hope to bring my wife and children some time soon.

Renovation, the Canadian Way

My brother, myself and my dad, hanging drywall

In Mexico, drywall, wooden beams and insulation have nothing to do with house construction or renovation.  Here's a picture of my father, my brother and me working to hang drywall on a ceiling of a room that we're renovating.  My wife, who took the picture was fascinated by all of this stuff, and by seeing me with a drill in my hands doing renovation work; I'm not the do-it-yourself sort when it comes to home renovations, whether the Canadian style or Mexican style, so the rare chance to see me do this stuff was a delight for her.

Growing Up in Story Book

When my wife first got to know me, to her I looked like Tom Sawyer – or at least the way she imagined Tom Sawyer.  I think she imagined me as a boy, running around in a picturesque little town, barefoot wearing denim overalls and messy, curly red hair - like in story book.

Visiting, and now living, in Canada has only confirmed her imagination.  Seeing the Mennonites’ horses and buggies, rustic bicycles with large baskets leaning up against old, red-brick store buildings (without locks) and the little red-haired, freckled children (to her, we all look like we have red or blond hair) run around in the large, open, fence-less grassy spaces of our village has made her more convinced than ever that I grew up in a story book.  I didn’t grow in the village where we live now, but my hometown (Elmira) is still small, and to her still looks like it’s from a story book.

When I tell her that this is just normal life in these towns (until the kids become teens), and those who live here find nothing romantic about it, it again reinforces her suspicions; only those who grew up in a story book wouldn’t find it romantic - just like her grandparents, aunts and uncles find nothing romantic about growing up in an adobe house with a mud floor in Mexico’s isolated hills.  As you can tell from my blog posts (see “Grandpa”), I also think that their life was charming.

I haven’t yet been able to convince my wife that I wasn’t Tom Sawyer at some point during my childhood.