The age of reason is not over.

I don't know, as a parent I want some vetting of people teaching my kids, a check of crimmanl records seems pretty valid to me.

Seems a little bit simplistic to me. I can't rightly connect having a criminal records check to do volunteer work that involves young children to socialism. After all the pedophilia that has taken place in the name of volunteerism, it seems only reasonable to check someone's background and then watch them like a hawk. Especially if its my child thats involved.

With all that, one does realize that it sure pours a lot of cold water on wanting to volunteer to do anything if you're going to have to do a virtual strip search in order to give something to your community.

The original post was a response to a story about "forced" sensitivity training in the workplace. It reminded me of a friend telling me about being offered a job, but there would have to be a psychology test for evaluation. This was not an eyes-only or high-security position.

Toss out the decades of experience and excellent reputation, now the applicant has to submit to (what I consider to be) a violation of privacy and unreasonable demands from a prospective employer. Might polygraph testing be next? Who writes the questions? What are the "correct" answers? Sounds like filtering for the "proper" (as opposed to best) people to me, backed-up by some disinterested third-party checking off boxes in some standardized form created by someone they don't even know .

And you're right Vit, the age of reason is NOT over.

I blame lawyers for most of what is wrong in the world. There is no black and white when lawyers are at hand, only grey. Because if it's black and white, they're not needed. So the twist, and warp, and obscure, in order to find the grey they need to justify their existence. But what really bothers me, is why the bigmouthed busy bodies on the left allow the law industry to run unchecked, where the wealthiest clients hire the priciest lawyers, and get the best service, while the average joe, or the "have nots" suffer with inadequate representation. Why hasn't the left cried out for "universal law care"? Why should the chances of success in the court of law be dictated by how much money you have? Of all the "just" causes the left like to champion, why have they completely ignored this one glaring injustice that so badly needs to be addressed?

"...it is easier for institutions and corporations to become the handmaidens of fraud-peddling social engineers, abusing and insulting volunteers or employees rather than taking a principled stand against this abuse."

Verily, as they used to say quite a long time ago. There's gotta be a hundred men who spout the correct jargon about 'abuse' and 'victims' for every one who'll put his fists up to do something about it when he sees it.

Interrogate the innocent in the name of putative social engineering, and then when something happens, blame everyone else for their insufficient pliability for indoctrination -- not exactly a recipe for Reason, and yet, strangely, the proponents of this self-sufficient smugness truly belive they're moving the rest of us into a glorious, golden era of reason.

Classifying is easier than reasoning, as Proteus noted, and when you add to that the fact that cowardice itself is an abnegation of reason we're left with a lot of weak, false-hearted busybodies pimping their own certainty like knights errant.

@CanuckInMI:
"After all the pedophilia that has taken place in the name of volunteerism . . ."

This is exactly what the writer was commenting on. I've never seen any numbers that confirm that this is a problem - only that it has happened once in a long, long while. If you actually believe this, then the author is correct: our society is becoming a society of gullible fools. Next comes a belief in global warming, the purity of primitive cultures, affordable housing, global poverty, and the evils of corporations. You see, the volunteer at Sunday School is actually _you_, not some strange man with a trench-coat.

Posted by: JJJoseph>

The “global poverty” part strikes a funny bone with me. When did this occur and by who’s standards? It’s very similar to the saying “Blacks or Asians are minorities” which only occurs in so called “white societies”, but we would never factor in global populations.

Other countries are indeed poor ie: they don’t have the standards of living that western countries enjoy. But when did it become a mandatory philosophy that they do? Haven’t most third world nations been in their state of existence for thousands of years? Some with periodic windfalls through conquer and then again decline.

The only “global poverty” that exists today are those countries that have measured themselves against unachievable western standards and have overpopulated themselves due to western intervention. The third world exponentially grows with less population cropping wars, less natural deaths by disease and a never ending supply of life prolonging food aid.

Cheaper AIDS drugs allow prolonged misery and multiple AIDS baby’s for example. In turn prolonged treatment of those babies’s allows AIDS grandchildren and so on.

I just wonder when it became a mainstream “reality” that every nation on earth needs to be able to house their population in a Mcmansion with two cars and a gaggle of University brats. And somehow it’s our fault that it doesn’t seem to be working out well for the rest of the world and we must somehow strive harder and give more.

The only reason these societies fail is because of our interference in their society’s natural rhythms and the promotion of our standards as the norm for all.

Just a comment on volunteers. I attended the Clubhouse Thanksgiving dinner in Mesa last night, same small group of volunteers did all the cooking & grunt work. A gentleman from California told how he volunteered last year to cook meals for the Homeless.. The project was cancelled this year. Volunteering is fading fast into the past

Criminal background checks are now SOP for formal volunteer organizations, from church groups to the Canadian Red Cross. Unfortunately, there have been a number of sexual and pedophilic incidents in years past that put the organizations at serious financial risk due to liability and as a consequence, they now check. You won't find the info readily because most of the incidents are kept confidential to protect the victims. There is simply, a lot more going on in the world then you'll read about in the media, or even in court documents.

Sorry, but this post is just plain wrong. You see, there are some sick people out there who will show up at a church, smile a lot, and say that they like working with children. And unfortunately Christians can be too trusting.

Our church has done police record checks in the past, and we are in the process of renewing the checks. We've also spent a couple thousand dollars making sure that almost every door has a window (with exception of the bathrooms). We have stated policies for dealing with children, and we've recently instituted additional security during the children's program.

All of this is a burden. And yes, the lawyers will tell us that we need to show due diligence in case something ever did happen and in case we were sued. However I think these policies are worth having in place, not just to control lawsuit damages, but more importantly to protect the children. No program can guarantee children will be protected, but if our record checks and policies and security measures can prevent one precious life from being wrecked by the tragedy of abuse, it is worth it.

As for the checks themselves, I'm sorry but we can't have a grandfather clause. As a church we would tear ourselves apart if we started granting exemptions to some people and not to others. Better that we should have a check for all.

For those who don't want to have a check, that's fine. There are lots of other ministries in the church that you can help out with. But not in the childrens program. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

By no means is this driven by socialism, unless you consider the requirements of liability insurance socialism. And people who get offended about having to get a CRC to volunteer with a church kids program really need to get over themselves..

Unfortunately that's the way things are today. Churches are hard pressed to obtain liability insurance unless they put such policies in place.

And the reason for this is not some socialist spillover from schools. The gold standard of these programs was developed by the Alliance church in Canada in the early 1990's before it caught on in schools.. A real hotbed of socialism!

The fact is that predators find churches to be place of easy access to churches. Sick and vindictive people make false accusations. Parental child abductions occur in churches. Some people hurt kids and some occasionally wander off on their own. People today will sue churches over such incidents, not because of socialism but because that is now a major industry.

It only starts at police checks, references and interviews, even for longtime members. There are restrictions on the age of the volunteers, how many can be teaching a class, who can retrieve the children etc.

Failure to comply with any of these requirements could result in charges against the church should an incident be reported, even if it is unrelated to the incident.

Don't hatred of socialism, however noble it seems overpower your love for the kids.

There was an Age of Reason??!!

Seriously though: I realize this is heresy, but I think EjectEject is highly overrated. That stupid "Tribes" piece he wrote a few years ago, in which he parotted the whole "we're all alike under the skin" liberal lie? "I could take a hundred 'primitive' Zulu tribesmen and turn them into model modern Westerners in a year" or whatever he wrote. Good luck with that.

And now he writes about workplace sensitivity training, as quite possibly the last free range man on earth to finally experience it.

He was wrong about McCain, too.

I don't get Bill's mass appeal among the Right blogosphere. Anybody?

The general tenor of comments here are all too sadly correct. Incidents and potential lawsuits have led to an overprotective society fearful of the small possibility of an incident. Small wonder of the fear given the consequences.
What people are failing to point out however, is that if we dealt far more harshly with the pedophiles there would be a lot less chance of these incidents occurring.
Baffin Island has an excellent use that we have not taken advantage of.

Gramsci is planning a little dance party in Hell tonight. No one is immune from his poison.

Why just look at all the comments sympathetic to Nanny State solutions.

Even Shaidle is a doubting Thomas.

BTW, Kathy, it has to do with people who value individual liberty and responsibility over total control of the state.

'primitive' Zulu tribesmen and turn them into model modern Westerners in a year"

Kathy you are misquoting Bill and changing the context of what he said. He didn't say he could take the tribesmen and change them in a year, he said (in brief) he could take THE CHILDREN of {name a group} and turn them into something else that their parents never were. One of his specific examples the children of Voodoo worshipers becoming nuclear physicists, chemical engineers and computer scientists.

The point of that whole discussion was to show that the way a person is brought up by their parents, and the influences of the society around them has everything to do with the personality of the individual as an adult.

Race has nothing to do with it.

(Unless you believe otherwise. Are you stereotyping maybe?)

Once upon a time when I was a boy, we used to run out the door after breakfast and never be seen again until supper. Today that would get you a visit from Children's Aid.

Today, in our school district you have to submit (and I use the word in its true sense of bowing to higher, lordly authority) to a criminal background check if you want to accompany YOUR OWN CHILD on a school trip.

Are there so many more pedophiles and child snatchers now than there were when we were children? No. In fact according to the numbers I've seen over the years there are less. Fewer children are killed, molested, kidnapped by strangers. In fact it hardly ever happens. Your child has a higher risk of being struck by lightning than being kidnapped by a pedophile.

So I must disagree with CanuckinMI, Mike S. and Sean Abigail. What has changed is the official view regarding the rights, freedoms and most of all the -abilities- of the individual in our Canadian society. Specifically, we have in essence shifted from a society of free men who are innocent until -proven- guilty, to a society of incompetent @ssh0les who have to be watched every single minute. Past behavior counts for nothing. Guilty until proven innocent.

Anyone could snap and kill you at any time so we must have gun control. Employee's competence must be not only evaluated but -certified- by licensing bodies, and indeed re-certified in case they forget everything. We must have licensing bodies for EVERYTHING, with semi-annual re-testing to make SURE they don't go bonkers after a while.

Volunteers must have background checks because they might have ulterior motives you know, and then somebody could get sued. Such as the church could get sued by the weirdo volunteer on day pass from the prison halfway house if they ask the guy to maybe do something other than Sunday School because they don't like the way he looks at the little boys. We must have background checks in case somebody snaps.

Only the Mighty Police Force is empowered to make these kind of decisions. Only government has the wisdom to decide who shall babysit and who shall not. Only Big Brother sees all, knows all, decides all. Freedom is a privilege, not a birthright.

People are stupid and must be controlled. This is the central theme of the culture war we are fighting in Canada.

I don't fight for that side. I fight for the other side, and I've got the battle scars to prove it. My side thinks people are good. My side thinks you are innocent until proven guilty.

So I don't submit to volunteer background checks, sensitivity training or any other forms of PC verification, certification and homogenization that have become popular. They are an insult to my honor, and I refuse to cooperate. They can trust me or do without me.

And Bill didn't write that...

My church implemented background checks for everyone who works with kids a few years ago. We did it to maintain reasonable insurance coverage and to protect the assets of the congregation. It's a simple case of wise stewardship. We've had only a few people refuse.

People have commented on church policy here. I'll give another 2c.

The primary drivers behind criminal background checks (CBCs ... ugly acronym) are: 1) concern for the well-being of children and 2) avoid complete financial wipeout and loss of credibility due to a sexual assault/abuse suit.

Lawyers have advised our church that while programs (like Plan to Protect) may not absolutely guard the organization against a sexual predator, it does put processes and hurdles in place to mitigate risk. Further they provide a legal defense framework based on proactive deterrence. The organization has the ability to defend itself in the event something awful occurs.

Church-going Christian parents, like any other loving parents in the world, do not want their children to be sexual assault victims. Sadly, the church is a target for sexual predators because Christians assume too much good will from those who walk through the door, as has already been mentioned. I have been CBCed on multiple occasions now and gladly submit myself to it knowing that everyone else who comes in contact with my child within the walls of the church as part of the kids program has gone through the same check.

I don't understand how that makes me a socialist.

MikeM, at a certain point you and your church are going to have to decide if you want to keep feeding the monster or not.

People draw the line at different places. I drew mine a while ago, when I worked in health care and discovered there are people who will risk killing a sick old person to follow company policy. I protect the patient not the policy, crazy as that seems. An unpopular choice as it turned out, but I'm still kicking so it worked out for the best.

I won't feed the monster any more. I won't work for a company that does. This does not mean I'm a hero, it just means I'm too f-ing cranky to fit in and follow orders. On the plus side, I can look myself in the eye when I shave and I don't feel sick to my stomach when I get up in the morning.

Great post Kate! It goes very well with the recent posts on lunchroom conversation facilitators and native healing circles.

I've never attended a sexual harrassment or diversity training seminar, but I understand what Bill Whittle's getting at: why shout fire when there isn't even any smoke?

Time and effort would be better spent to toughen up people easily offended by differences. If we're going to be an open and honest society we all need to develop the character to handle being offended. That's far better than putting everyone through a vanilla flavoured whitewashing machine so everything "appears" to be fine.

Having the right to be offended is an integral component of individual freedom. Without offense there is no honest public debate on important issues. That's a huge stumbling block to making positive changes that marks progress for individuals and society as a whole.

In our age of reason, progress is what it's all about. I'm much happier knowing there's many more flavors at the ice cream shop on a hot day than just plain 'ol vanilla.

My point was to say that even if the lawyers were not suggesting this, I believe it is a good idea. So ultimately this is not something imposed by the State, but it is the leadership of a church taking steps to protect children. If someone doesn't want to have a records check done, I respect their decision and I suspect we can find a ton of other ministries for them to be involved in.

Is this a matter of presuming guilt? No, this is simply to let us know if someone has already been proven guilty in a court of law. It won't protect our children from first time offenders, but it is a reasonable step in protecting our children from repeat offenders.

Sorry folks, but the cost to the children of ignoring due diligence is way too high. Get over it.

PiperPaul at 1:15: "It reminded me of a friend telling me about being offered a job, but there would have to be a psychology test for evaluation. This was not an eyes-only or high-security position.

Toss out the decades of experience and excellent reputation, now the applicant has to submit to (what I consider to be) a violation of privacy and unreasonable demands from a prospective employer. "

Take a good look at a Firearms Application. They need to know about your sex life for you to become a duck hunter!

My daughter volunteered in the church in the 2-3 year old class. Helpers were not allowed to hold the kids. This meant children had to be pushed off laps because they would clamour up as soon as someone sat down to read a story.

They were also not allowed to close bathroom doors while helping children with their abolutions which resulted in the children wetting themselves because they were too modest to use the bathroom with the door open.

My daughter quit helping when she was told to submit to a police check. She was twelve years old.

People rail against the Catholic Church all the time about the sexual abuse scandels. It's become part of the image of the church now.

Look at the news on a regular basis and you'll see how much improper sexual conduct happens between school teachers and students.

The resoning behind the CBCs for church volunteers is sound. If you don't want to be checked, fine, don't volunteer to be around children then. As a parent I'm happier knowing that the people around my children have been checked. Is it 100%? No, but it's a good hurdle.

My opions on this solidified the day I assisted an usher at the church remove a man from the sunday school classroom area. He had come in and wasn't looking for the bathroom, nor did he have children in the programs, nor was he looking to participate in the service. He was looking for children.

I had a jr high school teacher who was removed from teaching to due inappropriate conduct with students.

These situations are not theoretical, they happen with great regularity. It's the nature of our fallen world.

Just keep this in mind - pedophiles deliberately seek out jobs or volunteer activities which will put them into contact with children. While some of you are indignant at the idea that people working with children have to undergo a criminal background check, I daresay that any child who has been molested by a pedophile would have a hard time understanding your position.

My wife is the kids ministry director at a large PAOC church where Plan To Protect is fully implemented. It is a bit of an administrative headache and inconvenience for the volunteer, but once they are fully informed of the value of the program, they are quite happy to ensure that it works.

Yes, it costs money and requires a larger volunteer base, but it will reduce the risk of incident occuring. And they do happen, not often, but they do. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head in the sand. It isn't always the creepy, smelly guy in the trenchcoat, but very well could be a member of prominent church family. Anyone who has been around churches long enough knows this to be true.

This is not a case of guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps more frequently there are incidents of false and malicious accusations that potentially destroy the lives of innocent volunteers.Programs like plan to Protect will protect the volunteer from malicious attacks.

This is about not creeping socialism.This abuse does happen, despite the denials of some here, and it happens frequently enough to warrant action to prevent it. And it gives us the power to stop false allegations of abuse.

For those who dismiss this as political corrctness, try doing a little research.

I understand the rationale behind the thinking of background checks, but I think it is ridiculous. I tried to help out at my daughter's daycare ( spring cleanup ) and was told I had to submit to a police background check and some sort of child welfare check as well. All this to help rake the grass for an hour or two.

It turns off so many people from volunteering. I will eventually submit to these checks, as I plan on being involved in my daughter's lives, but it sure kills the spur of the moment, "sure I'd love to help out" type of volunteerism.

My not so subtle answer to this is: First offense for any sort of pedophilia, life in prison. Gen pop too, none of this protective custody crap. :)

Mike S. said: "For those who dismiss this as political corrctness, try doing a little research."

Mike, let me just say I've done a great deal of research into this and other issues like it that bear on the whole issue of personal freedoms eroded in a "good cause".

Let's first be clear, these policies of police checking volunteers are not in place to protect children. They are there to protect the church/school district/company/organization from ruinous lawsuits.

The truth is that while incidents of molestation by strangers -do- happen, they are extremely rare. On the order of 1 or 2 incidents per 100,000 children annually, according to the numbers I've seen over the years. If anybody has a quote in support or refutation it would be helpful to the conversation.

Meaning, the kids are NOT IN DANGER. What is in danger is the church. So in order to protect the church from roving lawsuit artists looking for a nice big score on a soft target, you've decided it is reasonable to call into question the integrity of everyone who volunteers.

Speaking only for myself, I've about had it with people questioning my integrity to keep lawyers happy.

I'm a trained, licensed physical therapist. I've been educated, tested, checked out, re-tested and evaluated to an extent you can't even imagine unless you've been through it yourself. There's less hoops to jump through to be a cop than a physical therapist. The only people who go under the microscope more are doctors, they get the full-on anal exam with the midget submarine.

I have been qualified to not only be around children, but to -do things- to them. Things like manipulate their bones and muscles, suction lungs, dress hideous wounds and all manner of dangerous potentially harmful if done wrong stuff.

I need a f-ing police check to wipe noses at Sunday School? Yes I do, because I could secretly be a fruit loop and snap some day according to your insurance company. So does my doctor. So do pediatric nurses. Hey, they could snap too.

Mike, if faced with the dilemma of personally affronting well intentioned, honorable people just to get insurance, I'd shut it down and lock the door. Have my meetings in the park, at people's houses, whatever. Works for Falun Gong, right?

Its called oppression, Mike. You either fight it or go along with being oppressed.

Oh, for Christ's sakes!!

Vetting to make sure the guy hanging out with your kids isn't a f'ing pedophile isn't the end of civil society as we know it - it's a f'ing no-brainer basic check to protect the kids. They make soccer coaches do the same thing.

How in hell can we go up against the NYT left and demand anti-terror legislation and then crab like a f'ing baby because we feel the state protecting kids from sexual predators is the "slippery slope" to gassing Jews?

Someone needs to give their head a few bashes against a nice strong wall.

I have not read all the comments so I apologise in advance if my comments are merely a repeat.

I cannot imagine being offended regarding a criminal records check that must be performed in order to work with children. I am one of several pastor`s at a particular church that has implemented a plan to protect children that attend our functions.
One has to attend the church for at least six months, must have character references and must undergo a criminal record check.
I have been at this church for over a year in an official capacity and in all our discussion regarding these standards not once did the subject of protection from lawsuits come up. The prevailing attitude is that we must protect children. No other population is more vulnerable to exploitation and the potential damage that may be inflicted upon children is so vast and deep that we will risk offending people.
If you can`t hack a record check then that is just too bad. I am infuriated that you are so offended. What is your right to be coddled compared to the right of a child not to be molested and/or exploited.
How hard is it to get a check, what violation is there? Don't be a baby. I know chances are a child will not be molested, but the cost is too high.
How is this the first step towards Nazism? Give your head a shake.

Phantom, hpw do you make the leap from a voluntary adoption of a child protection policy to government oppression like is done by China to Falun Gong?

A police check is voluntary, and is completely confidential, and is hardly oppressive. You have a choice to not take one.

But what is more important is actual conduct around the kids. No one is ever allowed to be alone in a room with a child. This protects both the child and the volunteer. Two volunteers take a child to the eashroom. The person who drops off the child must pick them up unless prior arrangements are made. This is especially important when 200 of them are dropped off at the same time. Is that oppressive or proactive?

You remind me of the HRC, looking for offence when none exists. Besides, this not molestation by strangers, but about abuse by people in positions of trust, known to the victim and usually not reported for fear of reprisal. You haven't done your research.

I've had about 5 police checks in order to adopt a child, in order to help at Church, and in order to help at schools.

The only thing that pisses me off, is when I have to pay for them. In some cases, I've had too. I don't object to the checks, since our society is so sexually screwed up that there are lots of people who want to "do kids". I want my children protected from these evil people and if it means losing a few offended Church leaders, so be it.

The Public School system is the worst place for this problem, with about 1000 times greater the level of teacher/student sexual abuse that in the Church. Turn on a Google alert for the news with "Teach abuse" and you'll see stories every day or more. Coaching situations are notorious too.

So much for the sexual liberation movement of the 60's!

Phantom

you will never educate some of these sheeple

I would not submit to a "check" unless everything communicated inwriting and verbally be disclosed, and that those participating in the exchange agree in writting to a polygraph if they rejected me for any reason. I learned to take this stand because of happening in the past. Those in here who think that you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide are true fools who don't understand how these things can be delt with. Someone in "position" can , and have used background checks for payback.

The greatest difficulty with CBCs is the fact that they catch almost no one. As a pastor I recommend that the person volunteering be KNOWN in the Church. Someone who walks through the door is not welcome to look after children until that person becomes known. A person who is likely to offend is not welcome to work with the children. That keeps out most men and all boys. There are always at least two people with the children at all times and as much as possible never the same two work together next time.

If indeed the prevention of child abuse is at the root of the issue figure out who is most likely and keep them away from the kids. If insurance is the priority then by all means insist that everyone get a criminal record check. What ever you do don't think that a CBC will prevent child abuse.

Shawn Abigail:
Probably the same rational that keeps your & other Churches locked. Has it ever occurred to you that approaching individuals as guilty till innocent is why churches are emptying. The fact you’re a sinner as bad as all the rest. Christians can barely go to Church anymore. The ones they do, are more like shopping malls. Give me Jesus over Churchianity any day. Shawn we are part of the world but not of it. Our true home resides elsewhere. We are only vagrants on this Earth.
I see you take the side of all the religious Pharisee’s & socialists of every era. Most people are a threat to Dogmatic Utopia by Humanity. You have bought into the fear machine of the world friend.
Try trusting God, not a Lawyer. Maybe its time Christians went back to home churches, not empty vestibules where only the approved are welcome. Jesus being called a drunk would probably have excluded him as well from your type of scrutiny. It’s a different age. To many Christians follow the world with its fears without even faith anymore. This why the Churches are locked. You have no faith!
What good is having insurance, in an ever emptying tomb? Precautions are one thing. Outright anti-Human values another.
This is a sick world. Where here to help save its inhabitants by the Gospel of Christ not become part of the State abandonment of Judeo-Christian successful track record of successful societies. Nor our Morals or5 values to a World going Barbarian by the day.
The Church visible has no backbone anymore but is full o9f fearful sissies. When I was an atheist in school, we would call Christians “The Mice”. For hiding out never to be heard or seen. Shame.

"...Seriously though: I realize this is heresy, but I think EjectEject is highly overrated....
I don't get Bill's mass appeal among the Right blogosphere. Anybody?"
The quality of the comment threads in Bills site is at times incomparable to the rest of the net. His essays strike deep using truth, logic and reason and what he writes rings true to his readers and they respond with wisdom and more unvarnished truth. If you stopped reading Bill after Tribes, you miss out on a lot. His comment threads routinely top out at several hundred comments but are definitely worth the time to read. There you will find the expression of conservative values, most especially the rightful elevation of the Rights of the Individual above all other 'rights'
For me, Mr. Whittle has written what I have seen and believed for a long time but could never express coherently.
The National Review thinks highly of his talents as well.

I see the "people are stupid" side has some followers. How do you fellers feel about gun control? Kinda the same thing, ain't it? Somebody could get hurt, we better make SURE of these guys who want to hunt those poor little ducks.

My question to you is, am I going to attend a religious institution that has policies which make it clear they don't trust me? Policies which imply that keeping their insurance coverage is more important that the message they preach from the pulpit every Sunday?

No, I'm not. I won't even do that for money, not a chance I'm going to do it on my time off.

I go where I'm wanted, where I'm trusted, where my efforts are appreciated. Where I don't go is anyplace I have to prove my bonafieds in triplicate before I'm allowed to play.

Am I the only person in all the world who feels this way? Maybe. Phantom's just a bitter, cranky old SOB who doesn't get along with anybody.

But, I drove up to Meaford and back on Tuesday this week. I saw lots of abandoned churches out there in fly-over land. United Church, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, all different kinds, all boarded up. People are staying home. Maybe they are cranky like me. Maybe most people are, they just don't say much about it.

But hey! Do what you want, its your outfit. Just don't ask me for a donation, eh? I get testy when people who think I'm an idiot hit me up for money.

Bottom line gents, you need me and lots more like me. We do not need you.

Cubs ... Scouts ..... Soccer coaching..... Baseball .... Track and Field .....The UNited Church ( my particular tipping point ).....

I put up with this bullshit from every one of the organisations for the sake of making sure the kids had the attention and benefit of my experience.

Each and every one demanded the same ... that I produce for them a police report so that they could safely claim that they had followed their "policies".

The dipshit moonbats at the UCoC were NOT going to get any cooperation on that front.

They deserve NOTHING in the way of support and in my view have burnt all their bridges.

CBC is BS.
If they weren't, the world would have been criminal free. There is always a first time offense.
They want to check on every housewife who wants to leave home for a change of environment for a couple of hours a day to help at school, but anyone, I repeat - anyone can enter the schools unchecked and unchallenged.

Phantom: I am in the same boat a bitter, clinging to his guns, old fart. But the problem is, the mosques are full.