I would like to extend a welcome to all my friends and family who are checking out the blog for the first time.
As many may or may not know, I am going to the Tertio Millennio Seminar in Poland this summer. I leave in 8 days where I will spend the first 3 days in London and leave for Poland from England on the morning of July 2nd.
The Tertio Millennio Seminar is an opportunity for young Catholic professionals to get together to learn and discuss the implications of Catholic Social Teaching and how to apply to democracy.
It is an opportunity for older democracies (US generally, but since I'm going, Canada is also included this year!) to learn from and bear witness to the newer democracies (i.e., the old Communist countries such as Poland).
It is sounding to be one heck of a time and I am feeling blessed to be chosen to go. God is good and I thank Him for this opportunity!
Anyways, I am very excited. I will be posting on my blog while I am away about the experiences I am having there, at least as much as time will permit. So for those of you who are regulars to this blog, you will see updates from that trip on here while I'm away.
-Harrison
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Interesting
I was doing my daily Blog jaunt when I came across AmericanPapist's posts for the day. I was looking over his news wrap for the day, and the common thread is eerily interesting:
Check it out
Anyways, it seems that freedom of speech and the jurisdiction of the Church is being slowly impeded upon by the State. I give us 10 years max to seeing priests and deacons being jailed for their refusal to marry gay couples. So much for Democracy, we are allowing the State to grow in its totalitarian grip.
-Harrison
Check it out
Anyways, it seems that freedom of speech and the jurisdiction of the Church is being slowly impeded upon by the State. I give us 10 years max to seeing priests and deacons being jailed for their refusal to marry gay couples. So much for Democracy, we are allowing the State to grow in its totalitarian grip.
-Harrison
Books
Well, I FINALLY got my book shelves moved over to my place (took over a month, but it finally happened!).
Anyways, I spent the entire night re-organizing my books. The old system I had at the Cathedral was by subject, but I have grown accustomed to my "By author" system. So they are now in a nice neat order.
What did surprise me, though, was that I needed the 4th bookshelf. I had just purchased a nice, large bookshelf from Ikea that I thought would take sufficient room of books for the old small (4 shelves only) bookshelf. Well, I was wrong. I guess I've continued accumulating books faster then I had thought.
So now my room is stuffed with bookshelves. For those who have been in my room, you'll know it's not the biggest room in the world, but I'm surrounded by what God has given to me as a great love.
My small 4 shelver is my exclusive shelf. 2 rows for books by Ratzinger, 1 row for JP II, and one row for Von Balthasaar. I know that, eventually, that bookshelf will be outgrown as I go deeper into the collections. My goal, at the moment, is to get all the writings of BXVI as he is my absolute favourite. I have almost every modern book that is in publication by him right now (save 3 that I am planning on getting upon my return). I need to, however, get his old stuff, like his doctoral dissertation and so forth.
After BXVI is complete, I do hope to grow in my collection of Edith Stein as she is someone I would like to study more in depth.
Needless to say, it has been tiring, but well worth it :).
-Harrison
Anyways, I spent the entire night re-organizing my books. The old system I had at the Cathedral was by subject, but I have grown accustomed to my "By author" system. So they are now in a nice neat order.
What did surprise me, though, was that I needed the 4th bookshelf. I had just purchased a nice, large bookshelf from Ikea that I thought would take sufficient room of books for the old small (4 shelves only) bookshelf. Well, I was wrong. I guess I've continued accumulating books faster then I had thought.
So now my room is stuffed with bookshelves. For those who have been in my room, you'll know it's not the biggest room in the world, but I'm surrounded by what God has given to me as a great love.
My small 4 shelver is my exclusive shelf. 2 rows for books by Ratzinger, 1 row for JP II, and one row for Von Balthasaar. I know that, eventually, that bookshelf will be outgrown as I go deeper into the collections. My goal, at the moment, is to get all the writings of BXVI as he is my absolute favourite. I have almost every modern book that is in publication by him right now (save 3 that I am planning on getting upon my return). I need to, however, get his old stuff, like his doctoral dissertation and so forth.
After BXVI is complete, I do hope to grow in my collection of Edith Stein as she is someone I would like to study more in depth.
Needless to say, it has been tiring, but well worth it :).
-Harrison
Apparently Catholics are Liturgical Morons
George Weigel has written an excellent article this week. There is a Bishop in the US, who is the head of the Liturgical Commission for the USCCB, who has been complaining about the soon to be new translation for the Mass in English to be released by ICEL. Anyways, the Bishop complains that "Mary and John Catholic" won't know what these new words mean because, I suppose, we are not smart enough to research this stuff.
Check it out. George Weigel at his best in my opinion.
http://www.archden.org/dcr//news.php?e=424&s=3&a=8902
Check it out. George Weigel at his best in my opinion.
http://www.archden.org/dcr//news.php?e=424&s=3&a=8902
Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
Francis Beckwith, a recent revert to the Catholic Church, has posted an excellent article on the irrational stance of Richard Dawkins. I recommend that you check it out.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=776
-Harrison
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=776
-Harrison
Frustrations Part 3 - Irrational
So far we have discussed the frustrations of the terms applied to religious believers as "fanatics" and "fundamentalists". The third issue I would like to now confront is the label of "irrational".
Before I get started on that, I would like to state that it seems that these are labels that can be applied to a small minority. Unfortunately, however, it seems that such terms are then labelled on all religious believers because there is a minority of them.
Now, I cannot speak for all faiths in this regard. However, Catholics, I can guarantee, are incredibely rational.
If you look at the history of Western thought, it is largely dominated and guided by the thought of Catholic greats. The first and foremost is St Augustine who guided the ideal of faith seeking understanding that has taken root and has since been a staple of Catholicism.
From there we can go into greats such as Boethius, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Bl. John Duns Scotus, and so on and so on. I know I'm only naming a couple, but the fact of the matter is that the list is endless.
Even in our modern times we have great thinkers like the Servant of God, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
The idea that people of faith are irrational utterly confounds me to be perfectly honest. It is a result of great Catholic thinkers that we think the way we do about the world! The Empiricist ideal of "There is nothing in the mind that is not previously perceived through the senses" is essentially a scholastic principle.
Pope Benedict XVI has been confronting the idea of irrationality in religion head on. One need only read his Regensburg lecture to see this.
However, I may like to throw the challenge the opposite direction. Many claim that all religious believers are irrational because of the idea of faith in their lives.
The Pope's Regensburg lecture, however, seems to turn the table around. He is not stating that all secularists, for example, are irrational. What he is claiming, however, is that the West is losing "faith in reason".
You see, faith is an essential property to reason. I would argue that there is a hierarchy of faith. We all have faith in the world, some are more basic and less "risky" then others. The highest form of faith is of course faith in God.
However, there are lower forms of faith as well. Faith, for example, is present in reasoning. We have to have faith in Logic. That is to say, stating that "Logic is true" is an axiomatic belief we must all hold. You see, the value of "true" is a logical statement. Thus to say that logic is true, and to try and prove that through reason, would be circular because it is logic that we use to make reasonable arguments. Hence, one must accept as an axiomatic belief that "Logic is true".
Instead of people in the West saying why religious people are irrational, it seems instead, unfortunately, that many are angry at religious people. Look no futher then the writings of Richard Dawkins and company. I am yet to see reasonable argumentation in their writings. Instead, I see anger and contempt, which is unfortunate.
And so this is happening more and more as relativism and the socialist ideal of man slowly seeps its way into way man thinks of the world. Trying to convince someone who is a relativist that the Principle of Non-Contradiction is an essential principle to stand by is like pulling teeth. Because they are a relativist, they see that anything can contradict anything, because there is no universal truth.
This brings me to the absolutely frustration position of relativism. They claim that truth is relative. Following that, then, so is language. Language is built upon the nature of logic, and so if truth is relative, then logic is relative, and thus language is relative. This leaves us with no universal language in which to communicate our ideas because words can mean whatever one "feels they ought to mean". Thus, there is no way to discuss because "chair" (yes, I am using the chair example, you can tell I got a Philosophy degree) can mean "something in which someone uses to sit on and is built specifically for that person" for one person and for another can mean "a person who is sleeping". Chair can mean whatever one wants it to mean. Language becomes obsolete, and so does the human person.
This post is more of a vent against the world who claims that religious people are irrational. I ask, however, why the many in the west are irrational about things.
Faith is something that is inharent to the human character. It is not something that we can deny. For some it is simply stating "I have faith that my experiences are true", for others, such as myself, it goes deeper, to the claim that the Nicene Creed and all that follows from that is true.
I would like to end with a quote from St Anselm, one of my favourite quotes:
"I believe so that I may understand, for this too I believe, for unless I believe, I cannot understand".
-Harrison
Before I get started on that, I would like to state that it seems that these are labels that can be applied to a small minority. Unfortunately, however, it seems that such terms are then labelled on all religious believers because there is a minority of them.
Now, I cannot speak for all faiths in this regard. However, Catholics, I can guarantee, are incredibely rational.
If you look at the history of Western thought, it is largely dominated and guided by the thought of Catholic greats. The first and foremost is St Augustine who guided the ideal of faith seeking understanding that has taken root and has since been a staple of Catholicism.
From there we can go into greats such as Boethius, St Thomas Aquinas, St Bonaventure, Bl. John Duns Scotus, and so on and so on. I know I'm only naming a couple, but the fact of the matter is that the list is endless.
Even in our modern times we have great thinkers like the Servant of God, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
The idea that people of faith are irrational utterly confounds me to be perfectly honest. It is a result of great Catholic thinkers that we think the way we do about the world! The Empiricist ideal of "There is nothing in the mind that is not previously perceived through the senses" is essentially a scholastic principle.
Pope Benedict XVI has been confronting the idea of irrationality in religion head on. One need only read his Regensburg lecture to see this.
However, I may like to throw the challenge the opposite direction. Many claim that all religious believers are irrational because of the idea of faith in their lives.
The Pope's Regensburg lecture, however, seems to turn the table around. He is not stating that all secularists, for example, are irrational. What he is claiming, however, is that the West is losing "faith in reason".
You see, faith is an essential property to reason. I would argue that there is a hierarchy of faith. We all have faith in the world, some are more basic and less "risky" then others. The highest form of faith is of course faith in God.
However, there are lower forms of faith as well. Faith, for example, is present in reasoning. We have to have faith in Logic. That is to say, stating that "Logic is true" is an axiomatic belief we must all hold. You see, the value of "true" is a logical statement. Thus to say that logic is true, and to try and prove that through reason, would be circular because it is logic that we use to make reasonable arguments. Hence, one must accept as an axiomatic belief that "Logic is true".
Instead of people in the West saying why religious people are irrational, it seems instead, unfortunately, that many are angry at religious people. Look no futher then the writings of Richard Dawkins and company. I am yet to see reasonable argumentation in their writings. Instead, I see anger and contempt, which is unfortunate.
And so this is happening more and more as relativism and the socialist ideal of man slowly seeps its way into way man thinks of the world. Trying to convince someone who is a relativist that the Principle of Non-Contradiction is an essential principle to stand by is like pulling teeth. Because they are a relativist, they see that anything can contradict anything, because there is no universal truth.
This brings me to the absolutely frustration position of relativism. They claim that truth is relative. Following that, then, so is language. Language is built upon the nature of logic, and so if truth is relative, then logic is relative, and thus language is relative. This leaves us with no universal language in which to communicate our ideas because words can mean whatever one "feels they ought to mean". Thus, there is no way to discuss because "chair" (yes, I am using the chair example, you can tell I got a Philosophy degree) can mean "something in which someone uses to sit on and is built specifically for that person" for one person and for another can mean "a person who is sleeping". Chair can mean whatever one wants it to mean. Language becomes obsolete, and so does the human person.
This post is more of a vent against the world who claims that religious people are irrational. I ask, however, why the many in the west are irrational about things.
Faith is something that is inharent to the human character. It is not something that we can deny. For some it is simply stating "I have faith that my experiences are true", for others, such as myself, it goes deeper, to the claim that the Nicene Creed and all that follows from that is true.
I would like to end with a quote from St Anselm, one of my favourite quotes:
"I believe so that I may understand, for this too I believe, for unless I believe, I cannot understand".
-Harrison
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Frustrations Part 2 - Fundamentalism
So my last post ended off with my frustrations that religiously inclined people are fanatics and what that word entailed.
I would now like to focus on the next stereotype people generally use to refer to anyone who seriously practices their faith.
Fundamentalism
Unfortunately this is a word that is thrown about without many people knowing what exactly it means.
The term "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalists" emerged in the early 20th century. It is a Christian movement that tried to get "back to the source" of Christianity, basing their beliefs on the 5 "fundamentals" which is where the name comes from.
These 5 fundamentals are:
I am of the opinion that the fundamentalists (not all though, this is my basic experience though of many) is that there is this idea of imposition of will and lack of dialogue that is in Christian Fundamentalism that is definitely present in Jihadist Islam.
This similarity leads me to the view of what people see as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is seen as anyone who believes in what they see as obviously false views and is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that the entire world submits to this view. This is, really, though, fanaticism as discussed in the previous post and nothing else.
However, people look at Fundamentalist Christians now and paint them as fanaticists who, if they could, would lay siege to the whole world to ensure that everyone submit to Christ to be saved.
First, that is a false perception of Fundamentalist Christians that has been tainted by a false understanding of fundamentalism that has been attached to them through Jihadist Islam.
Secondly, Fundamentalist Christians that I have known, and I can really only speak from experience here, would not be the type to kill you if they could if you would not submit to faith as they have.
This brings me now to the view that all religious people who hold views contrary to the norms of culture are fundamentalists and bad.
However, as shown in the previous post, Christians and Catholics are not fanaticists. They want to propose their truth to the world. Christianity is about proposition through the aid of reason.
I bet you if you ask anyone who labels and devout Christian as a fundamentalist, they would be prescribing the word "fanatic" over "fundamentalism".
The other big issue is that many non-Christians believe that "fundamentalists" are dangerous because they don't think and base all they believe on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
First, I would like to point out that Catholics do not take the entire Bible literally. We do not think that God created the Earth in 7 literal days.
But this leads us to a deeper, perhaps the deepest, objection to Christians in a pluralistic society. Christians, they say, are people who don't think, they lack the true use of reason.
This will bring me to the 3rd topic which I hope to write on Friday. Are Christians reasonable?
-Harrison
I would now like to focus on the next stereotype people generally use to refer to anyone who seriously practices their faith.
Fundamentalism
Unfortunately this is a word that is thrown about without many people knowing what exactly it means.
The term "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalists" emerged in the early 20th century. It is a Christian movement that tried to get "back to the source" of Christianity, basing their beliefs on the 5 "fundamentals" which is where the name comes from.
These 5 fundamentals are:
- The inerrancy of scripture
- Christ was born of a virgin and is Divine
- One is saved by faith alone through grace alone
- Christ rose from the dead
- Christ's miracles and life are all true events.
I am of the opinion that the fundamentalists (not all though, this is my basic experience though of many) is that there is this idea of imposition of will and lack of dialogue that is in Christian Fundamentalism that is definitely present in Jihadist Islam.
This similarity leads me to the view of what people see as fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is seen as anyone who believes in what they see as obviously false views and is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that the entire world submits to this view. This is, really, though, fanaticism as discussed in the previous post and nothing else.
However, people look at Fundamentalist Christians now and paint them as fanaticists who, if they could, would lay siege to the whole world to ensure that everyone submit to Christ to be saved.
First, that is a false perception of Fundamentalist Christians that has been tainted by a false understanding of fundamentalism that has been attached to them through Jihadist Islam.
Secondly, Fundamentalist Christians that I have known, and I can really only speak from experience here, would not be the type to kill you if they could if you would not submit to faith as they have.
This brings me now to the view that all religious people who hold views contrary to the norms of culture are fundamentalists and bad.
However, as shown in the previous post, Christians and Catholics are not fanaticists. They want to propose their truth to the world. Christianity is about proposition through the aid of reason.
I bet you if you ask anyone who labels and devout Christian as a fundamentalist, they would be prescribing the word "fanatic" over "fundamentalism".
The other big issue is that many non-Christians believe that "fundamentalists" are dangerous because they don't think and base all they believe on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
First, I would like to point out that Catholics do not take the entire Bible literally. We do not think that God created the Earth in 7 literal days.
But this leads us to a deeper, perhaps the deepest, objection to Christians in a pluralistic society. Christians, they say, are people who don't think, they lack the true use of reason.
This will bring me to the 3rd topic which I hope to write on Friday. Are Christians reasonable?
-Harrison
My Frustrations With The World
Well, ask my roommate Del and he can tell you of my frustrations with the world.
Religious people are defined by the rest of the world (yes, I am creating a dichotomy and, *gasp*, division!) as "fanatics, fundamentalists, and people who are not reasonable".
I would like to address all three of these topics briefly as I believe they are incredibely false as I most definitely do not fall in any of those three categories nor does most of the Catholics I know.
Fanatics
Fanatics are seen as people who have an ideology to push. Now it is interesting what the term ideology is perceived to be. Ideas and ideologies are not the same thing. Ideologies are seen to be supreme truth that only a select know and the only way to make the rest of the world know the same truth is by supreme force on the will of others to submit to the truth of the ideology.
An idea also promotes a truth. However, it sees itself in accordance to reason and thus wishes to be thrown in the arena of ideas, in which proper dialogue according to the standards of reason occur, so that, if this idea is true, it will hold up against other ideas that would not be true and show that they are lacking certain propertie that make them claim to be in accordance to reason.
In other words, ideologies impose, ideas propose. There is no room for discourse or dialogue in ideologies, but that is the central idea in ideas.
Fanatics are people who are ideological.
I do not consider myself nor the Church in general in that camp. If people actually read what the Church has to say and what many Catholics do have to say (I can only talk from a Catholic perspective in these 3 cases), they would see that proposition is the essential nature of the Church's mission. We cannot impose our faith because that is contrary to the idea of faith.
Even when it comes to things such as abortion, we hold it to be true, but we put our idea into the realm of discourse to see if it is in accordance to reason. We believe that it has withstood the opposition of other ideas and that this is a truth that is universal and in accordance to reason. I will approach it later, but reason implies a necessity of universal truth.
Also, ideologies are not limited to religious groups (I am the first to admit there are some out there), but reading, for example, the abortion debate on Facebook has shown me that there are fanatics on the abortion side who refuse to apply their ideology to reason, but instead just yell and scream until others get fed up with them.
Parts 2 and 3 are to follow.
-Harrison
Religious people are defined by the rest of the world (yes, I am creating a dichotomy and, *gasp*, division!) as "fanatics, fundamentalists, and people who are not reasonable".
I would like to address all three of these topics briefly as I believe they are incredibely false as I most definitely do not fall in any of those three categories nor does most of the Catholics I know.
Fanatics
Fanatics are seen as people who have an ideology to push. Now it is interesting what the term ideology is perceived to be. Ideas and ideologies are not the same thing. Ideologies are seen to be supreme truth that only a select know and the only way to make the rest of the world know the same truth is by supreme force on the will of others to submit to the truth of the ideology.
An idea also promotes a truth. However, it sees itself in accordance to reason and thus wishes to be thrown in the arena of ideas, in which proper dialogue according to the standards of reason occur, so that, if this idea is true, it will hold up against other ideas that would not be true and show that they are lacking certain propertie that make them claim to be in accordance to reason.
In other words, ideologies impose, ideas propose. There is no room for discourse or dialogue in ideologies, but that is the central idea in ideas.
Fanatics are people who are ideological.
I do not consider myself nor the Church in general in that camp. If people actually read what the Church has to say and what many Catholics do have to say (I can only talk from a Catholic perspective in these 3 cases), they would see that proposition is the essential nature of the Church's mission. We cannot impose our faith because that is contrary to the idea of faith.
Even when it comes to things such as abortion, we hold it to be true, but we put our idea into the realm of discourse to see if it is in accordance to reason. We believe that it has withstood the opposition of other ideas and that this is a truth that is universal and in accordance to reason. I will approach it later, but reason implies a necessity of universal truth.
Also, ideologies are not limited to religious groups (I am the first to admit there are some out there), but reading, for example, the abortion debate on Facebook has shown me that there are fanatics on the abortion side who refuse to apply their ideology to reason, but instead just yell and scream until others get fed up with them.
Parts 2 and 3 are to follow.
-Harrison
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Trying to get back into the swing of things
Hi everyone.
I am really trying to get the blog going up again. It is tough because I've been so busy.
My time right now has been filled with getting my fundraiser together for a young adult pilgrimage group from Victoria BC going to the Eucharistic Congress next year. I also have been studying intensely for the Tertio Millennio Seminar which begins on July 2nd. I'm only about 40% through all the reading materials. Some have been interesting, while other articles have been unfortunately a bit dissapointing. Between those 2 things, my regular work, and the extra-carriculars, I have been a busy man!
However, I am going to do my best. I hope to give constant updates while I am in Poland too for the Tertio Millennio because that is going to be 3 weeks crammed with intellectual, cultural, and spiritual stimulation, not too mention some good Polish beer!
I am really trying to get the blog going up again. It is tough because I've been so busy.
My time right now has been filled with getting my fundraiser together for a young adult pilgrimage group from Victoria BC going to the Eucharistic Congress next year. I also have been studying intensely for the Tertio Millennio Seminar which begins on July 2nd. I'm only about 40% through all the reading materials. Some have been interesting, while other articles have been unfortunately a bit dissapointing. Between those 2 things, my regular work, and the extra-carriculars, I have been a busy man!
However, I am going to do my best. I hope to give constant updates while I am in Poland too for the Tertio Millennio because that is going to be 3 weeks crammed with intellectual, cultural, and spiritual stimulation, not too mention some good Polish beer!
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Yet another example of Canadian "Reason"
Here is a recent article that was published in our National Post.
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e5dad385-c1d5-4ae2-9681-8aa188f5496a&k=76351
Reading this article infuriated me, not because of its conclusion, I think it is great that there are less pregnancies among teens. However, it is the way they attempt to support, by saying that it is a contraceptive world that has brought this about. Needless to say, this article, I found, to be completely lacking in the realm of reason and so felt that it would be necessary to reply to the article by writing a letter to the Editor and this is what I wrote:
The article on Teen Pregancy in Canada is a perfect example of the logical leaps that people make, all in the name of what they believe to be is reason.
You suggest that because sex-ed and contraception is more readily available, and that teens are roughly having sex at the same rate, that therefore it is the logical conclusion that it is because of sex-ed and contraception that is leading to less pregnancies.
This is a faulty conclusion. Just because it is more available does not entail that it is the main cause of less pregnancies among teens.
You never mention once that while many teens do indeed have sex (something the article is more then willing to make known), you never mention once the increasing movement of teens embracing a life of abstinance until marriage. The article simply says, albeit vaguely, that "it (the result of less pregnancies) does not mean teens are less sexually active or routinely engaging in safer sex."
And yet, while the article is steeped with statistics to make its point look valid, it has no statistics on the result of teens having sex, it just says that they are.
I think it is unfortunate that Canada has gone so far off the track that it is no longer able to look at things in a reasonable manner, but instead cites statistics and experts for the appearance of reasonableness without applying the facts to reason itself.
-Harrison
http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=e5dad385-c1d5-4ae2-9681-8aa188f5496a&k=76351
Reading this article infuriated me, not because of its conclusion, I think it is great that there are less pregnancies among teens. However, it is the way they attempt to support, by saying that it is a contraceptive world that has brought this about. Needless to say, this article, I found, to be completely lacking in the realm of reason and so felt that it would be necessary to reply to the article by writing a letter to the Editor and this is what I wrote:
The article on Teen Pregancy in Canada is a perfect example of the logical leaps that people make, all in the name of what they believe to be is reason.
You suggest that because sex-ed and contraception is more readily available, and that teens are roughly having sex at the same rate, that therefore it is the logical conclusion that it is because of sex-ed and contraception that is leading to less pregnancies.
This is a faulty conclusion. Just because it is more available does not entail that it is the main cause of less pregnancies among teens.
You never mention once that while many teens do indeed have sex (something the article is more then willing to make known), you never mention once the increasing movement of teens embracing a life of abstinance until marriage. The article simply says, albeit vaguely, that "it (the result of less pregnancies) does not mean teens are less sexually active or routinely engaging in safer sex."
And yet, while the article is steeped with statistics to make its point look valid, it has no statistics on the result of teens having sex, it just says that they are.
I think it is unfortunate that Canada has gone so far off the track that it is no longer able to look at things in a reasonable manner, but instead cites statistics and experts for the appearance of reasonableness without applying the facts to reason itself.
-Harrison
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
