Destroy democracy by destroying religious freedom

Dear Editor:

A few years ago, a friend (Robert D. Hales) taught me four cornerstones of religious freedom to rely upon and protect.

I share them because I believe if they are protected, they will help bring an increase of peace, safety and happiness to our nation.

The first is freedom to believe that there is or is not a God in our universe, and, if a believer, what His laws are. No one should be criticized, mocked, persecuted, or attacked for religious beliefs.

The second cornerstone of religious liberty is the freedom to share faith and religious belief with interested persons. Parents rely on religious freedom and should always have the right to teach their beliefs to their children.

Governments must not be allowed to impose doctrines on children in schools, nor should they threaten reprisals on individuals for expressing beliefs they hold dear to their hearts, including gender or birth issues.

The third cornerstone of religious liberty is the freedom to form a religious organization, a church, a place to worship peacefully with like-minded individuals.

The privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of one’s conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may, should be an undeniable right.

The fourth cornerstone is the freedom to live according to one’s religious faith — freedom to exercise faith not just in the home or a chapel but also in public places.

Godless politicians and dictators well know that the way to capture a nation from within is to remove the cornerstones of religious principles and freedoms from the people.

They understand that by doing so, they will destroy freedom of conscience, choice, accountability and responsibility, hence, they can usurp the nation.

North America, the bastion of religious freedom, today is under a concentrated and well-planned attack to destroy these cornerstones of religious liberty in two of the most prosperous democracies ever founded, Canada and the United States.

Those who attack the cornerstones of religious belief are the enemies of democracy and of all freedoms.

Unfortunately, too many are embedded in our government like wolves among sheep.

They care only about themselves, their power and personal glory, not about you or me or this great land.

They oppose keeping it ‘glorious and free’ usually by rigorously opposing Hales’ four cornerstones of religious freedom.

Garry Rayner, Coldstream

Inflation small price to pay for saving economy

Dear Editor:

The recent federal government’s fiscal update also afforded us the Official Opposition version of Economics 101.

Their economic premise is that if it weren’t for the Liberals, there would have been no pandemic, no economic lockdown, no supply transport issues in the Suez Canal or off the Canadian coast, no supply chain issues in factories globally and no worldwide freefall of oil prices.

Their analysis is very simple and they show no shame voicing it, possibly because repeated senseless soundbites are useful propaganda.

The interpretation is plain: if the Liberal government had not provided free rapid tests and vaccines, and funded business and individuals during this pandemic to prevent the economy from irretrievably bottoming out, Canadians would not now be (in the Opposition’s words) “sitting on savings, creating a demand for goods, causing inflation.”

It’s a sort of unspeakable “Let them eat cake” philosophy with a twist: “Don’t let them eat anything at all.” Hence no deficit, no 4.7% inflation, no economy.

Inflation, not surprisingly, is at a 30-year high. We are in the midst of a pandemic, the likes of which has not occurred in a century.

One hundred and thirty-four OECD countries are averaging a 5.2% inflation rate. Canada has recovered 106% of pre-pandemic jobs and compared globally, is in a good position economically .

Those who cater only to the 1% don’t feel the rest of us need to survive. That was made very obvious in 2015 when the Harper government left a sinking ship after using the “scorched earth policy” to empty the country’s coffers.

Elaine Lawrence, Kelowna

Debate continues over evolution

Dear Editor:

Re: “Don’t confuse evolution with magic” (letters, Dec. 9) 

Letter writer Marie Sorge says she consulted several websites, but doesn’t say if she consulted the technical books I mentioned in a previous letter, that are often used to teach evolution in colleges and universities.

How many examples of macroevolution are mentioned in these books? Zero.    

Sorge: “Microevolution relates to changes in a single species over a short term. Individuals do not evolve, a population evolves.”

When science writer Jonathan Weiner’s book “The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time” was published in 1994, he described the changes in the size of beaks of Galapagos finches during a severe drought (1977) as “evolution in action” — even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended. The drought had caused a shortage of easily available smaller seeds, so the finches with larger beaks survived better because they were better able to crack larger seeds. 

The reality was these beak changes can be more accurately described as “minor variation in action.” A more accurate title for Weiner’s book would have been “The Beak of the Finch: Minor Variation in Real Time.”

Sorge says “rather than focusing on the evolution of one beetle species over a brief period (microevolution), macroevolution studies the whole beetle clade, all 400,000 beetle species.” The oldest known beetle is Coleopsis, dated by evolutionists at around 295 million years. Is it possible to document from the fossil record the series of transitional forms leading up to this beetle? 

Sorge continues: “The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.”

True. But a minority of scientists are skeptical. Google: “Dissent From Darwin” ( The header to the document reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Sometimes “current science” gets it wrong:

1. Bloodletting persisted into the 20th century and was still recommended in the 1923 edition of the textbook “The Principles and Practice of Medicine.”

2. The oldest known coelacanth (fish) fossils are dated around 410 million years. Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct around 65 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 by fishermen off the coast of Madagascar.

3. In the 1960s, millions of kids had their tonsils removed because evolution predicted the tonsils were “vestigial organs” and had no useful function. Today we know the tonsils are involved with the immune response against disease. 

On Dec. 8, the University of Texas at Austin announced the most comprehensive study of the pterosaur yet. Quetzalcoatlus is the largest flying creature ever known, with an 11-12 metre wingspan.How does evolution explain pterosaurs gradually developing fully functional wings, with their long bony fourth finger? Is there any fossil evidence for their transitional forms from a pterosaur-like creature without wings? The same question applies to bats from a supposed non-winged ancestor.

David Buckna, Kelowna

Is China too big to be intimidated?

Dear Editor:

Re: “Canada, allies must unite against China: Trudeau,” Dec.22

The Justin Trudeau government is likely being heavily pressured by Canada’s telecom giants to say yes to China’s Huawei, because they have already largely built its 5G tech into their systems. Powerful business interests can debilitate our high-level elected officials through implicit or explicit threats to transfer or eliminate jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability, if corporate ‘requests’ aren’t accommodated.

It’s a political crippling that’s worsened by a blaring news media that’s permitted to be naturally critical of incumbent governments, especially in regards to job and capital transfers and economic weakening. 

Before Canada, or any nation, might successfully compel China to do anything, we must at least possess a consumer base, thus trade import/export bargaining chip compatible with China’s nearly 1.5 billion consumers.

Even then, China’s restrictive control over its own business sector may give it an edge. Canada, with less than 38 million consumers, cannot do it alone. (Military threats likely wouldn’t intimidate Chinese officials. The only other thing that might have an effect on them involves their economy, via the international marketplace.)  

Maybe some securely allied nations, including Canada, combining their resources could go without the usual bully-Beijing trade/investment tether they’d prefer to sever, instead trading necessary goods and services between themselves and other interested nation economies. 

Then, again, maybe such an alliance has already been discussed but rejected due to Chinese government strategists knowing how to ‘divide and conquer’ potential alliance nations by using economic/political leverage custom-made for each nation. 

Perhaps every country typically placing its own economic and big business bottom-line interests foremost may always be its, and therefore collectively our, Achilles’ Heel to be exploited by huge-market nations like China?

Frank Sterle Jr., White Rock