OXYMORON: THE BIBLE IS NOT THE PRODUCT OF ILLITERATE WRITING

Last week I published a piece addressing the federal government's imposed Summer Jobs for Teens application form attestation on the principle that it violates all Canadian's right to religious freedom. In practical terms, this means an employer will have to side with the Liberal Party position on abortion, gay marriage, transgendered rights and all sorts of legislation in the House of Commons, otherwise be ineligible for program funding.  I anticipated feedback on this controversial issue and one individual did not disappoint.

Writing anonymously, and obviously an atheist, the respondent attacked the tennants of all Christian belief: "I don't believe the PM (Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) is attacking anybody or any religion with his views. He's using common sense. I can't emphasis enough that just because it (supposedly scripture) was written in a book (The Holy Bible) by illiterates hundreds of years ago doesn't make it the truth. Sadly, its quite the opposite of truth, full of lies and contradictions." He/she (I lean more toward a male) went on to reinforce "the right to abortion" by suggesting "a woman's body is her own. It's her choice if she wants an abortion, and he (Trudeau) is trying to get early 1st century thinkers to come into the modern world."

I rarely acknowledge anonymous comments but I permitted this one (see post and responses below) because I suspect it reflects the views of many others today.  The abortion matter and the Teen Summer Jobs program aside, however, I cannot allow the Bible being written by "illiterates hundreds of years ago" belittlement of Christian beliefs to pass without a response. To add further injury to insult, another bothersome, commonly heard catchphrase that fundie atheists love to bandy about is: "The Bible was written by illiterate Bronze Age goat herders!", which apparently is supposed to mean that it's full of outdated views from idiotic simple people. It's hardly a surprise that this first appeared in one of Richard Dawkins' books "The Greatest Show on Earth," although he did phrase it "Bronze Age desert tribesmen". Besides that being an unjustified, generalistic insult to goat herders or tribesmen, it is completely factually wrong, and raises the question of how illiterates could pen the best selling book in history. (A miracle?)

Scientists have discovered the earliest known Hebrew writing — an inscription on a shard of pottery dating from the 10th century B.C., during the period of King David's reign. The breakthrough could mean that portions of the Bible were written centuries earlier than previously thought. (The Bible's Old Testament is thought to have been first written down in an ancient form of Hebrew.) Until now, many scholars have held that the Hebrew Bible originated in the 6th century B.C., because Hebrew writing was thought to stretch back no further. But the newly deciphered Hebrew text is about four centuries older.

Initially, let's get one thing straight. An illiterate is someone "who cannot read or write", so it is not correct to say that biblical scriptures were "written by illiterates."  Here's why:

As a way of trying to tear down what the four gospels of the Holy Bible have to say, skeptics often launch an attack by stating that the 12 disciples were illiterate, uneducated men who couldn’t read or write. Therefore, they could not have written the four gospels and/or the epistles that bear their names, especially since the manuscripts are in koine Greek, a language they didn’t know.

Are the skeptics’ arguments valid? To back up these claims, they often quote the following scriptures (which is odd, considering they claim the scriptures are false, then turn around and assume them to be true for their illiteracy arguments):

-- "Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.  And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" John 7

-- "Now when they [the Jewish council] saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus". Acts 4

However, like they do with all the scriptures, skeptics quote such things out of context and then draw their conclusions in error. The context of both passages is of the leaders of the Jews taking note that neither Jesus nor his disciples had formal training in teaching scripture and explaining the meaning of the scripture. They had not attended the rabbinical schools of their day, yet they knew how to quote and explain scripture better than the rabbis.

If skeptics took the time to read the whole New Testament and learn about the culture of Israel, they would discover that Jesus and his disciples were not only literate, but knew Greek. When Alexander the Great conquered Israel, it became a colony run and occupied by Greeks who lived alongside the Hebrews and many Jews became Hellenists, meaning they adopted the language and customs of the Greeks. Israel became a bilingual nation. Then when Rome took over, the third language of Latin was introduced. This is why Pilate had the inscription above Jesus’ head on the cross written in the three prominent languages of that day in Israel.

But we have several places in scripture that show us Christ’s literacy and the literacy of his disciples. In Luke 4:16-21, we find that Jesus went to the synagogue in his hometown of Nazareth and stood up to read from the book of Isaiah and after he finished reading it to the congregation he told them he was the fulfillment of the prophecy.

In Acts 15, when a dispute arose in the Church about obeying Jewish customs, the disciples/apostles came to the conclusion that they would not burden Gentiles with Jewish customs and they decided to write letters to all churches throughout the Greek-speaking world about their decision (Acts 15:19-20, 23). It’s obvious they knew how to write and speak Greek. Then when you add to the fact that Matthew was a tax collector, the idea of illiteracy among the disciples is a fallacy that continues to fall like a house of cards. As a tax collector for Rome, Matthew would have to have kept detailed written records of his transactions. He would have also been required to know Hebrew, Greek, and Latin to demand taxes from the population in the district to which he was assigned and to report to his Roman bosses.

Additionally, Luke, who was a Gentile doctor that converted to Christianity after Christ’s ascension, tells in chapter 1 of his gospel that many of the eyewitnesses who participated in Jesus’ ministry had written what they saw and were the inspiration for him writing his gospel (Luke 1:1-3). So the idea that Jesus’ original apostles could not have written the gospels or epistles because they’re in Greek, is a hyped-up error by those who portray themselves as knowing a lot when they are really deceivers who really don’t know what they don’t know.

From Spoken Words to Sacred Texts

Countless generations of believers have devoted endless hours to reading, studying, and analyzing some of the most famous writings ever produced​—those of the New Testament, as the Christian Greek Scriptures are commonly called. Those writings, along with the rest of the Bible, have greatly influenced our world, framed morals and ethics, and provided inspiration for literature and the arts. Above all, they have helped millions of people ​gain knowledge about God and Jesus.​—John 17:3.

It is pertinent to note that The Gospels, as well as the rest of the Christian Greek Scriptures, were not written immediately following the death of Jesus. Matthew apparently wrote his Gospel about seven or eight years later, and John wrote his about 65 years later. How were they able to record the words and deeds of Jesus?

During the past century, some have speculated that Jesus’ early disciples were not inclined to write down the teachings and deeds of Jesus but that they passed them on by word of mouth. For example, one scholar states: “There was a gap of several decades between the public ministry of Jesus and the writing down of his words by the authors of the Gospels. During this time what was known about Jesus was handed on orally.” Some researchers even argue that Jesus’ early disciples “were technically illiterate.” Further, they say that during the decades of oral transmission, the accounts of Jesus’ ministry were expanded on, adapted, or elaborated on. The result, they claim, was far from an accurate account of the events.

Another theory favored by some scholars is that Jesus’ close Jewish disciples probably followed the rabbinic method of teaching -- ​memorization by routine and repetition -- ​which contributed to the accuracy in oral transmission. Did the disciples rely solely on word of mouth? Or could writing have played a role in the preservation of the record of Jesus’ ministry? While we cannot be absolutely certain, it is possible that writing did play such a role.

Everyday Use of Writing: In the first century, people of all sorts knew how to read and write. On this point, Alan Millard, professor of Hebrew and ancient Semitic languages, observed: “Writing in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew was widespread and could be found at all levels of society.” He adds: “That was the environment in which Jesus worked.”

Regarding the assertion that the Gospel texts “arose in an entirely illiterate society,” Professor Millard writes: “That is an unlikely picture, [as] writing would have been known about everywhere . . . Consequently, there were usually people present who could have written something they heard, whether for their own reference or to inform others.”

Apparently, waxed writing tablets were readily available and could be used to jot down information. An example of this is found in the first chapter of Luke. Zechariah, who had temporarily lost the ability to speak, was asked what name he wanted his son to have. Verse 63 says: “He asked [apparently using gestures] for a tablet and wrote: ‘John is its name.’” Bible dictionaries explain that the word “tablet” may have referred to a wooden writing board probably overlaid with wax. Someone present may have had a writing board with him, readily available for Zechariah to write on.

Another example illustrates that writing boards and their use were evidently known at this time. In the book of Acts, we read that Peter was speaking to a crowd in the temple area, exhorting them: “Repent . . . get your sins blotted out.” (Acts 3:11, 19) The expression ‘get blotted out’ comes from a Greek verb that means “wipe out, erase.” The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology explains: “The image expressed by the verb here and perhaps elsewhere is most probably smoothing the surface of a wax writing-tablet for re-use.”

The Gospel accounts also show that Jesus’ followers and audiences included people who likely used writing in their everyday work. There were, for example, the tax collectors Matthew and Zacchaeus (Matthew 9:9; Luke 19:2); a synagogue officer (Mark 5:22); an army officer (Matthew 8:5); Joanna, wife of a high official under Herod Antipas (Luke 8:3); as well as scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and members of the Sanhedrin. (Matthew 21:23, 45; 22:23; 26:59) No doubt, many​—if not all—​of Jesus’ apostles and disciples were able to write.

Students, Teachers, and Writers: To be Christian teachers, the disciples needed not only to know what Jesus said and did but also to understand how the Law and prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures applied to the Christ. (Acts 18:5) Interestingly, Luke recorded one meeting Jesus had with some of his disciples shortly after his resurrection. What did Jesus do? “Commencing at Moses and all the Prophets he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.” Shortly thereafter, Jesus told the disciples: “‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.’ Then he opened up their minds fully to grasp the meaning of the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:27, 44, 45) Later, the disciples “called to mind” the insight Jesus had given them.​—John 12:16.

These accounts suggest that the apostles and disciples must have applied themselves diligently to searching and studying the Scriptures so that they could fully understand the meaning of what they saw and heard with regard to their Lord, Jesus Christ. (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 17:11) On this, Harry Y. Gamble, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, writes: “It can hardly be doubted that from the beginning there were Christians, probably groups of them, who devoted themselves to the close study and interpretation of Jewish scripture, constructing from it the textual warrants [proofs] of Christian convictions and making those texts serviceable for Christian preaching.”

All of this indicates that rather than depending solely on oral transmission, Jesus’ early disciples were very much involved in studying, reading, and writing. They were students, teachers, and writers. Above all, they were spiritual men who relied on the holy spirit to guide them. Jesus assured them that “the spirit of the truth” would ‘bring back to their minds all the things he had told them.’ (John 14:17, 26) God’s holy spirit helped them both to remember and to put into writing what Jesus did and said, even lengthy quotations, such as the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew, chapters 5-7) The spirit also guided the Gospel writers in recording what Jesus at times felt and what he said in prayer.​—Matthew 4:2; 9:36; John 17:1-26.

So while the Gospel writers doubtless made use of both oral and written sources, the things they recorded had a far more reliable and supremely elevated source​. That's why we call it "The Word of God."  Quite appropriately, "Spirit" may well replace "Word".

In the end, we are at the mercy of hundreds of translations and interpretations over the years and we believe what we want to believe as the basis for our faith...The teachings of the Bible are an undeniable blueprint for living, even in the 21st. century, whether we believe that fact or not.

I have prepared this post soley in honor of the millions (billions) of Christian worshippers the world over, who have remained loyal to their faith over the years and passed it on to future generations, including my parents Grace (1903-1994) and Ken (1899-1952) Wright.

That's all I have to say on this subject...I don't preach any more!!!

THE CHANGING MORES OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR

I'm so glad that I am a literal nobody flying under the radar of critical public scrutiny.

You cannot pick up a newspaper these days, nor turn on the TV, without learning of another politician, entertainment personality or business leader being accused of some past sexual indiscretion or misconduct.  It has truly reached epidemic proportions, for want of a better expression.

I will not add to the muck raking by mentioning names in this piece, but I am particularly amazed by the growing number of women coming forward in recent weeks to publically accuse noted politicians of some form of sexual misconduct.  Quite honestly I think that, given the era we grew up in, there a very few males alive today with absolutely squeeky clean backgrounds.  But that is no justification...For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone with the slightest hint of any type of indiscretion in their past, would ever gamble with their reputation by entering the field of politics.

Equally mysterious to me is why anyone would condone an individual with a known questionable past as an elected official representing their interests. But perhaps there will be some good coming out of all this ignorance and resultant humiliation with long-term devestating ramifications for close associates and family members.

At some point the torrent of scandal will wane, if only because the current tempest is unsustainable. But it seems unlikely things will revert to the way they were before. Women aren’t merely angry, they are fed up. Younger women in particular evince a growing unwillingness to shake off a man’s bad behavior as “just the way things are.”

There’s scant research on generational differences in outlook regarding sexual misconduct, but a recent NBC/WSJ poll found younger women more likely than their older counterparts to say that they had ever experienced harassment at work. Similarly, a YouGov survey of British women found that younger women were much more likely than those over 55 to disapprove of behavior like wolf-whistling and even winking. So the tide is indeed shifting.

Psychosocial forces, including a sexism that appears to have existed from time immemorial, as well as the patriarchal society we still inhabit, play a major role in this longstanding sexual oppression of women.  One question going forward is the degree to which the law will—or even should—catch up with the changing mores.

And here we could talk about the vital importance of modifying our educational system—from grade school on—so that it’s more likely to make male children and adolescents more sensitive to the opposite sex (and vice versa). Plus, better teach them the fellow feeling and empathy that so many of them lack, particularly when they hit puberty. And it’s every bit as imperative to train men in the workplace to develop greater sensitivity to issues regarding sexual molestation and harassment.

In both cases, if we’re to effectively counter males’ largely lust/hormone-inspired transgressions, it’s imperative that they learn how to emotionally identify with the abusive experiences inflicted on the opposite sex. So they can begin to experience—“first-hand,” as it were—the adverse effects of their carnally callous behavior.

Admittedly, I have offered nothing profound with this disertation...You will have to go further to the court of public opinion on Facebook and Twitter for that.

Just for the child in all of us...

THE CHRISTIAN JUSTIN TRUDEAU: HERE TODAY, GONE TOMORROW?

This post is not in defense of pro-life advocacy any more than it is favoring abortionist theories. It IS about principles of equal rights and a government seemingly determined to tread a very fine line in imposing unfairly on an underserving segment of our faith community.
  
In his memoir, Common Ground, our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wrote that the tragic death of his brother Michale, prompted him to "welcome God's presence into my life" and to "reaffirm the core of the Christian beliefs I retain to this day." When the Ottawa Citizen probed those beliefs several years ago, a still virtually wet-behind-the ears Trudeau explained that some of those beliefs were shaped by his attendance at Alpha, a 12-week course in Christianity.

"I was schooled by Jesuits to a certain extent and my father certainly was Jesuitical in his thinking. So I’m always up for a great theological conversation and debate," he explained at the time. "The Alpha course – the message there was: Don’t feel you have to do it all alone. Put your trust in God every now and then. Be comfortable about saying I need help. And recognize that. It came at exactly the right time. Trusting in God’s plan. For someone as rational and scientific and logical and rigorous as I am to accept the unknowable and to re-anchor myself in faith was really, really important to me. And ended up being of solace at a very difficult time. Since that moment, I still consider myself and have re-found myself of a deep faith and belief in God. But obviously very aware of the separation of church and state in my political thinking,” Justin explained further.

Now turn the clock ahead to January of 2018 and you hear an entirely different Justin Trudeau speaking. Consider the following:

In a recent town hall meeting, the Prime Minister announced his reasoning for not permitting people of religious persuasion to apply for Canada Summer Jobs. By implication he said that those who seek to restrict abortion are "not in line with society".

The Canada Summer Jobs program provides over $200 million per year to fund some 70,000 students with seasonal employment. Just before Christmas, Trudeau changed the requirements for funding which now demands that applicants and employers sign a document to attest that they support women’s reproductive rights, and the rights of gender-diverse and transgender Canadians. Of course, no bible believing Christian can sign such a document therefore the result is clear, Christians need not apply.  They can obviously lie on the job application form and in the process denounce their beliefs.

In an online post Charles McVety of the Canada Christian College said "It appears that our Prime Minister does not recognize that each and every Canadian must be treated equally before the law and receive equal benefit including opportunity for students to be employed under the CSJ program."

McVety went on to emphasize that Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedom says: Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law. "Some may argue that his discrimination is not overt in that he does not explicitly name Christians; however, his descriptions are crystal clear. Christian individuals and organizations are at the forefront of fighting for person status of unborn children and protection of children from radical sex education teaching."

One would hope that Trudeau's discrimination is temporary; however, back when he was first elected as Prime Minister, he told local Toronto pastors that "Evangelical Christians are the worst part of Canadian society."  How Trumponean was that? OMG.  You can't get much more judgemental.

Hundreds of Christian organizations and thousands of Christian students have now potentially lost funding for this year's summer jobs. Church leaders have begun to push back. If the government is allowed to blatantly deny Christian students employment, it won't be long until other Christians feel the threat of losing their jobs simply for practicing what the Bible teaches. In fact, it has been reported that this prohibition has already expanded to other programs such as the Canada Service Corps including the YMCA.  See what I mean!

Late last week in an effort to suppress a burgeoning controversy, both Trudeau and Employment Minister Patty Hajdu said that the changes were not meant to affect all Christian organizations, but rather, only those whose "core mandate" was one of suppression of abortion rights. The implication was that other religious groups should simply check the box, knowing it was not meant to target them.

It all comes down to the group or organization’s “core” mandate, she noted. Many groups, including religious ones, have varying missions like spreading the word of God, helping the poor, and working to alleviate suffering in their communities. But their (*)core mandate is the key, she said adding "If that conflicts with the Charter or with other fundamental rights, that’s when there can be a problem."

“I don’t think there’s anything conflicting in the statement that an organization’s primary mandate and that the job description (for the student) respect the Charter of Rights and other fundamental rights. Each organization will need to make a decision about checking off the attestation box “based on their own comfort level,” the minister added.

This "solution," however, shows a complete lack of awareness of what it means to be ethical. Here, the Liberals are advocating regular Canadians mimic their practice of equivocation and mutable morality, which we've seen in their about-face on electoral reform, as well as the prime minister's own ethical breaches. That Trudeau and his team are apparently so at ease encouraging conservative Christians and other religious Canadians to betray their conscience should cause many across the country great unease. Even those who are solidly pro-choice will appreciate the dangers inherent in that precedent.

Another aspect of the Liberals' reasoning should give the public even greater cause for concern.

When asked to justify holding back grant money from organizations they deem too dedicated to a pro-life position, the Liberals have implied that to give such groups funding would violate the charter and, thus, Canadian law.

Hajdu explained: "Our ministry believes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and these are fundamental expectations of Canadians, and we stand up for those rights — and we [will] ensure that the money that we disperse on behalf of Canadians is not used in a way that violates those hard-won rights."

But here's the thing: there are no rights being violated here. 

Hajdu's nod to "hard-won rights" is a reference to the Supreme Court's landmark 1988 Morgentaler decision. But that decision didn't recognize a constitutional right to abortion under the Charter. While it did nullify Canada's existing abortion law, the Court left it to Parliament to come up with new legislation that would balance the rights of women with the state's interest in the protection of the fetus, within the bounds of the charter.

Indeed, commenting at the time of the decision, law professor Daphne Gilbert wrote, "The Morgentaler decision didn't say a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, it didn't go that far."

Canada is the only Western nation without any law regulating abortion. Successive governments have avoided crafting such legislation for fear of dividing the country, but the Liberals have discovered an easier solution: simply make people believe that a law already exists. (One, incidentally, that just happens to match Liberal ideology exactly).

Conservative Christians and those of other faiths supporting pro-life positions should not be subjected to an ideological purity test to qualify for federal funding. The beliefs they hold about abortion are completely within the bounds of the law and can be voiced upon and advocated for freely and publicly. Even organizations that are solely dedicated to opposing abortion contravene no law.

Their only "crime" is that their values don't align with those of our prime minister. It's ironic that Trudeau insists Canadians support "diversity and inclusion," when he himself does not.

All of which leads me to ask: Was Trudeau lying in his memoir when he firmly attested to his Christianity or has something happened since he took office to change his beliefs?  Perhaps he has been ill-advised...Could be that he has forgotten about separation of  church and state...Then again maybe he is just a confused, mixed up young man who does not yet know what he believes.  Surely it has nothing to do with a political death wish.

As I stated in an earlier Facebook comment, I have defended Justin Trudeau from the word go as he has adjusted to the responsibilities of the highest office in the land, but in this case he has gone a step too far and there will be consequences.  I also acknowledge that there will be those who will misread, misinterpret and disagree with my premise by going off on unrelated tangents-- it was ever thus in a public democracy where the world of electronic social media provides a platform for all and sundry.  

Personally, however, I am gravely disappointed and concerned about the future of our country.  It is doubly disturbing that in today's Canada -- and in most Western democracies, for that matter -- you can get away with criticizing or victimizing a Christian far more readily than you can for criticizing a Muslim, even if you're talking about the same social beliefs.  God, in your mercy, help us!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

UPDATE: Faith-based organizations say it’s wrong to think their religious beliefs are separate from their (*)core mandate. Some groups who don’t have a stance on abortion feel it’s wrong to be forced to take a side by signing the attestation. Others are also opposing the attestation on the principle that it violates the Charter’s right to religious freedom. It is not just Christian groups who are expressing concerns. Earlier this week, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jewish and other organizations gathered in Mississauga (at the initiative of a Conservative MP) to discuss the attestation and consider potential next steps in speaking out against it.

ARE YOU NICE OR ARE YOU A REBEL?

NOTE FROM DICK:  Okay follks, I know that some of my posts on FB and Wrights Lane are not easy to like or to understand...It's the same with my inquisitive mind which tends to work overtime and often sends me off on thought missions that satisfy only my own need to know...While I strive for one-read prose, occassionally my work requires reading a second/third time to enable edification. Some may call it a colossal waste of time!!?? To me at least, it serves as a mental laxative.

I study personalities…It helps me understand contrary people in particular and why they do and say certain things -- and why they advocate issues that are not always popular with the “agreeable” mainstream, whatever that may be.

Curious about a person's willingness to obey an authority figure, social psychologist Stanley Milgram a few decades ago began trials on a now-famous experiment. In it, he tested how far a subject would go with electrically shocking a stranger (actually an actor faking the pain) simply because they were following orders. Some subjects, Milgram found, would follow directives until the person was actually dead.

A new Milgram-like experiment published recently in the Journal of Personality took this idea to the next step by trying to understand which kinds of people are more or less willing to obey these kinds of orders. What researchers discovered was surprising: Those who are described as "agreeable, conscientious personalities" are more likely to follow orders and deliver electric shocks that they believe can harm innocent people, while "more contrarian, less agreeable personalities" are more likely to refuse to hurt others.

For an eight-month period, the researchers interviewed the study participants to gauge their social personality, as well as their personal history and political leanings. When they matched this data to the participants' behavior during the experiment, a distinct pattern emerged: People who were normally friendly followed orders because they didn't want to upset others, while those who were described as unfriendly stuck up for themselves.

"The irony is that a personality disposition normally seen as antisocial — disagreeableness — may actually be linked to 'pro-social' behavior,'" writes Psychology Today's Kenneth Worthy. "This connection seems to arise from a willingness to sacrifice one's popularity a bit to act in a moral and just way toward other people, animals or the environment at large. Popularity, in the end, may be more a sign of social graces and perhaps a desire to fit in than any kind of moral superiority."Some people who are religiously rigid (yes, even Christians) may well fall into the "agreeable, conscientous behavior" category. I can think of a lot of examples, but will let readers make that judgemental call.

The study also found that people holding left-wing political views were less willing to hurt others. One particular group held steady and refused destructive orders: "Women who had previously participated in rebellious political activism such as strikes or occupying a factory."

The findings lend themselves even further to Milgram's original goal in the '60s: trying to understand the rise of Nazism. Milgram began his experiments in July 1961, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. He believed his findings might help explain how seemingly nice people can do horrible things if they are ordered to do so.

Does that mean the Nazis were just nice people trying to follow Hitler's orders and be polite? You probably wouldn't want to go that far, but suffice to say, it turns out nice people just want to appease authorities, while rebels stick to their guns on moral grounds.

For me, I now try to be more understanding of rebel types because they just might be more morally social-minded than meets the eye. In all honesty, I sense some rebellious tendencies in myself and that is not necessarily a bad thing, I am happy to discover.

SOUTHAMPTON BOY AFFLICTED WITH PANDAS DISEASE

When it comes to health, you never know.

You never know when a disease will strike at you or a loved one. In the case of the Luscombe family of Southampton, it struck out at their little boy, Ben, in the form of the disease PANDAS three years ago.

PANDAS stands for Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptocococcus or Autoimmune Encephalopathy. It describes a subset of children or adolescents who have either an abrupt onset of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder or Tic Disorder symptoms following a Streptococcus infection.

Ben and mom, Terra

One in 200 children may be affected which is equal to statistics for Pediatric Cancer, Pediatric Diabetes type 1 & 2 and ALS. The average age of symptom onset is between four and seven years of age. Strep is indicated as the primary infectious trigger in more than 80 per cent of cases.

Ben's mother Terra is a nurse who has worked with young children and who says that almost overnight "...he became a different child."

He developed seizures that resulted in damage to his visual and auditory processing and has numerous other life-changing symptoms, including behavourial regression into baby-talk and tantrums, urinary issues such as bed wetting, joint pain and inability to control tears or laughter.

Ben has had hospital stays, an MRI, CT Scan, Lumbar Puncture and numerous EEGs and bloodwork.

They've been to London Health Sciences Neurology, MAC Neurology, Thames Valley Children Centre Developmental Pediatrician, Sick Kids Psychiatry, Sick Kids Pediatric Outpatient Pediatrician, Sick Kids Infectious Disease and now Sick Kids Neurology.  They are now awaiting an appointment with a specialist in Rheumatology in Calgary at Alberta Children's Hospital.

As a single mom," Terra says, "this has cost me all my savings in therapies and medical appointment travel." She still finds time to be involved in fundraisers for the Humane Society and is on her son's School Council at G. C. Huston Public School.

They are now trying to raise funds for a consultation with the Rhumatology specialist at Alberta's Children's Hospital and another in Washington DC as there are none in Ontario. The approximate first-round cost is anticipated to be approximately $15,000 plus $1,000 for travel.  To that end, a 'gofundme' account has been established for Ben at https://www.gofundme.com/ben-luscombes-pandas-treatment.

I merely put this story out there as one way of showing my support.

(With thanks to Sandy Lindsay and the Saugeen Times)

SINGER JANN ARDEN: MY KIND OF OUT-SPOKEN CANADIAN GAL

I don't mind confessing that I am a fan of Canadian singer-songwriter Jann Arden.  In particular I admire her candid commentary, outlook on life and sense of humor often sprinkled with off-color remarks. She is about the same age as my oldest daughter.  I honestly wish that I knew her better and I guess that is why I follow her on Facebook and have even evoked some comments from her.

Jann Arden: eight-time Juno award winner and
new member of The Order of Canada.

Jann is a spontaneous human being. "I say things and do things and immediately know whether or not that the sentence or the action is going to get me into trouble," she stated in a post today. "Sometimes it is the very 'trouble' that I seek. It is the response -- the outcome and the reaction that I want to explore. They aren't always pleasant, but it certainly keeps my life interesting. You can't be afraid of offending people, because that's gonna happen no matter what you do..."

I knew exactly where Jan was coming from and could not resist the impulse to share her views on Wrights Lane.  She expresses my own philosophy to a T.

"If I am safe all the time, I'm never going to be anymore than I am now. And I want to be MORE. I want to stretch myself in every possible way," she went on to explain. "My grandmother said a profound thing to me one dreary afternoon many, many years ago. 'Jann' she said, 'You need to spread yourself as THIN as possible. You cannot expect a seed to grow when it is clumped together with a thousand other seeds. It's got to have room, a LOT of room.'

"I'd always heard the opposite, that you couldn't spread yourself thin and expect to get anywhere, and here she was telling me it was quite the contrary. I've never forgot it and I've been trying to put myself out there ever since. I don't have to be good at something in order to try it. I don't have to succeed at it, I don't have to win. I just want to do things and be as bold and as fierce as the Universe allows me to be.

"Meeting new people has been my most precious "thing" this past few years. Finding like minded souls that are traveling through the mire with you is so spectacular. Finding that 'one' person that makes you want to write a million songs. Finding that kindred spirit...Attraction is so deliberate but it is so very rare. I know that for certain. It is rare indeed to connect with another person, so when it happens, put them into a jar and screw the lid on (punch a few air holes though, you'll need them)."

As a parting thought, Jann challenged readers to "Go do things...Piss people off and ruffle feathers and rub the world the wrong way every now and again.  Get people talking.  Get people thinking. Wake them up...Most of them don't even know they're sleeping."

Right on Dear Jann!

As for me, I've already placed you in a jar -- and punched a few air holes in the top.  The last thing I would want to do is to snuff out your candor and freshness. You're a keeper!