Religious Right in Canada

[guyser]

Catholics are against homosexuality and abortion PERIOD. There is only one Catholic.

Of course they are , some all the while giving head to his boyfriend or paying for Dr Henry to get rid of the little mistake....shhhhh....cant let anyone know.

Catholics and most religious for that matter are only in it for convenience. When it suits them fine.

[guyser]

You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.

How the hell am I get up on the roof if I cant steal his ladder everyspring, and how the hell is he going to clean his eaves if he doesnt steal my power washer?

Don't do drugs, use alcohol responsibly or not at all.

Contradiction . Not that you could ever see that through those stained glass and cross glasses of yours.

You guys are so nit picky and petty I'm taking a break from this place.

Why do religious people get so shrill when they are called on things. Oh yeah I remeber now.

Hope you are a man of your word....I have my doubts.

[M.Dancer]

Catholics and most religious for that matter are only in it for convenience. When it suits them fine.

Leave aside that "Catholics" aren't a monolithic entity that marches in lock step idealogically or theologically. While the vatican issues the party line, many Ctholics have no problem diverging form that line.

For instance...

Many catholics would like to see the rules of celebacy for priests ended....some would like to see woman ordained...some would like a return to the pre-vatican II era...some have nor problem with homosexuality....many support a woman's choice concerning abortion....most sexually active catholics in North America and Europe practice a form of birth control not sanctioned by Rome....

...and so on.

[guyser]

Leave aside that "Catholics" aren't a monolithic entity that marches in lock step idealogically or theologically. While the vatican issues the party line, many Ctholics have no problem diverging form that line.

Thanks for the clean up.

[TCCK]

When did Jesus preach on the Gays? When did Jesus mention abortion? I remember Jesus saying the rich can not get into heaven Mark 10:17-25, I remember a little bit about the poor in spirit going to heaven, I know Jesus said the the merciful will be the ones shown mercy, and I know he said

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" But I don't remember him saying "make sure two men who love each other are never treated equal"

Come on, even I know the answers to these and I am the least religious person you will meet.

Romans 1 is the answer about the gays not doing what is right.

And in the 10 Commandments there is "Thou shall not kill" , Christians, Jews, Muslims and many non-religious people believe and hold firmly to the fact life begins at conception since the cells begin taking on their own form assisted by the mother's body but still independant in nature thus to abort is KILLING a human life.

I love how so many "Save the whale, seals, trees, enviroment" people are also the first to choose Pro-choice. Is a whale, tree, seal or even the enviroment more important than a child??? How hypocritical of them.

I think any of the Christians in the form here will tell you to take all of your quotes in context and also quote the bible in context too not twisting small parts of the bible without taking the whole of the paragraph or chapter in context.

[charter.rights]

Come on, even I know the answers to these and I am the least religious person you will meet.

Romans 1 is the answer about the gays not doing what is right.

And in the 10 Commandments there is "Thou shall not kill" , Christians, Jews, Muslims and many non-religious people believe and hold firmly to the fact life begins at conception since the cells begin taking on their own form assisted by the mother's body but still independant in nature thus to abort is KILLING a human life.

I love how so many "Save the whale, seals, trees, enviroment" people are also the first to choose Pro-choice. Is a whale, tree, seal or even the enviroment more important than a child??? How hypocritical of them.

I think any of the Christians in the form here will tell you to take all of your quotes in context and also quote the bible in context too not twisting small parts of the bible without taking the whole of the paragraph or chapter in context.

First you might want to go back and read the Bible again.

Secondly the 10 Commandments are not part of the Christian doctrine proposed by Jesus. Instead he replaced all 10 commandments in the Old Testament with only 2 in the New Testament.

By definition in our society a fetus is not a human being. It is a woman's appendage.

Lastly Jesus never took a stand on abortion, neither condemning it or approving it. Jesus promoted that free choice was the only way to get to Heaven. And it is just as likely that He would allow free choice - pro-choice - if He was cornered to come up with a position.

You lose.

[punked]

Come on, even I know the answers to these and I am the least religious person you will meet.

Romans 1 is the answer about the gays not doing what is right.

And in the 10 Commandments there is "Thou shall not kill" , Christians, Jews, Muslims and many non-religious people believe and hold firmly to the fact life begins at conception since the cells begin taking on their own form assisted by the mother's body but still independant in nature thus to abort is KILLING a human life.

I love how so many "Save the whale, seals, trees, enviroment" people are also the first to choose Pro-choice. Is a whale, tree, seal or even the enviroment more important than a child??? How hypocritical of them.

I think any of the Christians in the form here will tell you to take all of your quotes in context and also quote the bible in context too not twisting small parts of the bible without taking the whole of the paragraph or chapter in context.

Yes Paul does say some stuff about homosexual behaviour in Romans I. He however is not Jesus.

Paul in this passage speaks specifically of those who sleep with women and men. Homosexual do not lay with members of both sexes. In fact if you read it this way it would be a sin for Homosexuals to lie to themselves and be Heterosexual. In this way we honor the way God made us, thus honoring God.

Further more if we are to look past Romans I 25-27 we see that Paul is talking about Pagan non Christians things which are happening in this society and condemning those. This means temple sex. He is also telling those Roman Christians to pass judgement on others for doing the very things they do themselves. The gay sex is thrown in as an example of something which they condemn but do. This is a passage which can be interpreted in many ways but those who choose to pass judgement becuase of it are DOING WHAT PAUL WARNS AGAINST IN ROMANS I.

Funny about taking the whole thing. That is what Christians do with Romans 25-27 they don't look at the whole passage and then they assume it condemns the Gay lifestyle. That is not what it does. Jesus loves all his children and has made some of them so they find love in someone of there own sex. This is not a test of faith it is a test of love. If you so jaded to think God would create someone so they have to live life wanting someone of the same sex but instead being with someone of the the opposite so God wont hate them then you don't understand Jesus or his teachings.

[punked]

First you might want to go back and read the Bible again.

Secondly the 10 Commandments are not part of the Christian doctrine proposed by Jesus. Instead he replaced all 10 commandments in the Old Testament with only 2 in the New Testament.

By definition in our society a fetus is not a human being. It is a woman's appendage.

Lastly Jesus never took a stand on abortion, neither condemning it or approving it. Jesus promoted that free choice was the only way to get to Heaven. And it is just as likely that He would allow free choice - pro-choice - if He was cornered to come up with a position.

You lose.

Not true he did have the 8 Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mountain which you could almost interpret as his commandments. Although yur modern Christians wouldn't becuase he preaches against the Rich, those who hold Power, and or the peacemakers.

[charter.rights]

Matthew 22:36-40

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Nope. Only two which all the law hangs on......

Romans 1 isn't the testament of Jesus and it does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns all lust as a perversion of faith.

[punked]

Matthew 22:36-40

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Nope. Only two which all the law hangs on......

Romans 1 isn't the testament of Jesus and it does not condemn homosexuality. It condemns all lust as a perversion of faith.

I think we can both agree on those things. I like the way you think.

I also like the way the religious right thinks they some how own the bible and people like us have no right in reading it for what it truly says.

Edited December 23, 2008 by punked

[willy]

Last number of posts are arguments of theology and not fact. How you view new and old testament, who Jesus was and who God is, as a result can differ dramatically. One consistent theme - Jesus does change many things. Good time of year to think about that.

As for the start of this thread - not very well thought through.

The Conservatives have had a clear message and they have reached out to faith based communities. I would argue that the other three parties in the house have not done a good job of this as of late. They have been offering secularism not pluralism. That is why the traditional numbers are changing for the Liberals. Commentators have recently called them the party of urban elites and young women.

As for who would Jesus vote for. That would be a great discussion. I don't think he would fall in our typical left right discussions.

• Definitely for peace but also for justice.
  
• Definitely for helping the marginalized but also for self transformation.
  

I think he would be what they call a compassionate conservative. His issues would be those of the left but the implementation would be the responsibility of individuals and not government.

What do you think?

[ToadBrother]

Last number of posts are arguments of theology and not fact. How you view new and old testament, who Jesus was and who God is, as a result can differ dramatically. One consistent theme - Jesus does change many things. Good time of year to think about that.

As for the start of this thread - not very well thought through.

The Conservatives have had a clear message and they have reached out to faith based communities. I would argue that the other three parties in the house have not done a good job of this as of late. They have been offering secularism not pluralism. That is why the traditional numbers are changing for the Liberals. Commentators have recently called them the party of urban elites and young women.

I don't buy it. The Conservatives have had larger electoral success because A. the Liberal party was completely discredited by scandal, and B. by Harper basically giving marching orders to his more socially conservative candidates to keep their mouths shut. Let's face it, the last two campaigns have been extremely disciplined, and that's because Harper has permitted none of the escapes and blunders that Reform and the Alliance suffered from.

As for who would Jesus vote for. That would be a great discussion. I don't think he would fall in our typical left right discussions.

• Definitely for peace but also for justice.
  
• Definitely for helping the marginalized but also for self transformation.
  

I think he would be what they call a compassionate conservative. His issues would be those of the left but the implementation would be the responsibility of individuals and not government.

What do you think?

It's called Libertarianism In Sheep's Clothing. Compassionate Conservativism isn't compassionate or conservative, merely social reactionaryism. It's a bunch of people who want their particular beliefs at the top of the stack, and freedom of religion to be more along the lines of toleration of other religions.

Jesus's political beliefs are beyond any kind of scrutiny. Whether he thought the State had a role in helping people or not is unknown, because essentially he was an apocalyptic prophet who didn't think the State was going to last.

Edited December 23, 2008 by ToadBrother

[Goat Boy©]

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/ceiling_cat_god.jpg

Edited December 23, 2008 by Goat Boy©

[WIP]

This is Canada. US politics are a poor parallel at best.

As for Harper, you just won't let it go, will you? I've pointed out several times that your premise that he's some kind of bible thumper with a hidden agenda is totally contrary to his history and the facts. So you twist that into some kind of "gradualism" conspiracy.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that I've been following Harper for decades now and have heard him speak words that totally contradict your argument. I was a founding member of Reform in Ontario and find your implications about it being a bible thumper party to be totally contrary to anyone I ever met, spoke to or heard about.

So if you want to persuade me to your argument you'll have to do a LOT better! And for the record, I myself am NOT a conservative but a Libertarian! I am NOT a bible thumper but a devout agnostic who's first real book was a science book about astronomy and physics!

If you're right, I think I would have noticed even a little something during all those years!

Well I wonder how many libertarians and moderates in the Republican Party noticed that their party was changing under their feet! That article quoted in the thread-opener notes that evangelicals make up a smaller percentage (1/10th vs. 1/4) of the population in Canada as opposed to the U.S., so they will take a much more subtle approach than the U.S. -- so no talk of placing ten commandments monuments in front of the courthouse, at least for now. But the article also mentions that Harper is winning a majority of Catholic voters -- the largest religion in Canada, and putting more emphasis on activist social conservatism of late. Depending on how many Catholics take the messages from the Pope and the bishops seriously, they might have the numbers to get in at the grassroots level and take control of the Party's agenda.

As for libertarians, I considered myself to be a libertarian also when I was an active P.C. member when Mike Harris was premier of Ontario. I have had second thoughts in the last few years from observing the American example, where libertarians and fiscal conservatives have played the role of unsuspecting dupes for the Religious Right. The leftwing critics of Christian Nationalism, such as Michelle Goldberg (Kingdom Coming), make a good case that the libertarian goal of minimal government helps enable the theocracy movement by increasing the control that the churches have over people's lives -- since dismantling government services leaves them as the default institutions in charge of providing social services.

[Michael Hardner]

I hate to sound like the scolding grandmother but:

willy

That is why the traditional numbers are changing for the Liberals.

Willy - NO. The numbers are changing for ALL parties. The average Canadian was 27% or so more likely to vote for Harper and he didn't get *more* movement from religious folks in fact he got *less* movement from evangelicals.

The idea that Harper is creating some kind of religious right is completely false. A hippy pot smoker could be as likely to switch to conservatives as a Baptist if the numbers are correct in the OP.

WIP

But the article also mentions that Harper is winning a majority of Catholic voters -- the largest religion in Canada, and putting more emphasis on activist social conservatism of late.

The second part of this is that Harper gets a majority of religious votes. That is true, but there is a fallacy in the argument that says he is getting those votes BECAUSE they're religious.

One could do a study that says Harper gets more model plane enthusiasts too. Does that mean that his policies are more favourable to model plane enthusiasts ? No, not necessarily.

Again, these are COFACTORS. Religiosity is related to a lot of other things that are related to voting factors - things such as income, age and geography.

[punked]

I hate to sound like the scolding grandmother but:

Willy - NO. The numbers are changing for ALL parties. The average Canadian was 27% or so more likely to vote for Harper and he didn't get *more* movement from religious folks in fact he got *less* movement from evangelicals.

The idea that Harper is creating some kind of religious right is completely false. A hippy pot smoker could be as likely to switch to conservatives as a Baptist if the numbers are correct in the OP.

The second part of this is that Harper gets a majority of religious votes. That is true, but there is a fallacy in the argument that says he is getting those votes BECAUSE they're religious.

One could do a study that says Harper gets more model plane enthusiasts too. Does that mean that his policies are more favourable to model plane enthusiasts ? No, not necessarily.

Again, these are COFACTORS. Religiosity is related to a lot of other things that are related to voting factors - things such as income, age and geography.

OK I am going to point this out. It is easier for Harper to get 27% movement from those who don't vote for him then those who do. If 90% of Blacks vote for Obama and only 45% of whites do then Obama has a lot more room for improvement among the white the vote then the Black vote. There is just a bigger pool, just becuase Harper got less movement does not mean he does not a large proportion of the religious base. It could mean he just has more room to improve among those who do not fallow a religion. Stats can be helpful I don't see them being helpful here if I get 100% of the vote that means I can not get any more of the vote from anyone does that mean people are not supporting me? No obviously not.

PS Harper will never come close to 100% of the vote.

[Wild Bill]

Well I wonder how many libertarians and moderates in the Republican Party noticed that their party was changing under their feet! That article quoted in the thread-opener notes that evangelicals make up a smaller percentage (1/10th vs. 1/4) of the population in Canada as opposed to the U.S., so they will take a much more subtle approach than the U.S. -- so no talk of placing ten commandments monuments in front of the courthouse, at least for now. But the article also mentions that Harper is winning a majority of Catholic voters -- the largest religion in Canada, and putting more emphasis on activist social conservatism of late. Depending on how many Catholics take the messages from the Pope and the bishops seriously, they might have the numbers to get in at the grassroots level and take control of the Party's agenda.

As for libertarians, I considered myself to be a libertarian also when I was an active P.C. member when Mike Harris was premier of Ontario. I have had second thoughts in the last few years from observing the American example, where libertarians and fiscal conservatives have played the role of unsuspecting dupes for the Religious Right. The leftwing critics of Christian Nationalism, such as Michelle Goldberg (Kingdom Coming), make a good case that the libertarian goal of minimal government helps enable the theocracy movement by increasing the control that the churches have over people's lives -- since dismantling government services leaves them as the default institutions in charge of providing social services.

Again, I submit that American and Canadian cultures are vastly different and parallels between the two are of a considerable stretch!

I've never been bothered by being compared to American Libertarians. I use a dictionary for my definitions and not a team name that some political ignoramus appropriated for his jersey. The Christian Right might hijack a movement for a little while. No big deal. If necessary, we would deal with them when the time comes, too!

[Michael Hardner]

Hey punted,

OK I am going to point this out. It is easier for Harper to get 27% movement from those who don't vote for him then those who do. If 90% of Blacks vote for Obama and only 45% of whites do then Obama has a lot more room for improvement among the white the vote then the Black vote. There is just a bigger pool, just becuase Harper got less movement does not mean he does not a large proportion of the religious base. It could mean he just has more room to improve among those who do not fallow a religion. Stats can be helpful I don't see them being helpful here if I get 100% of the vote that means I can not get any more of the vote from anyone does that mean people are not supporting me? No obviously not.

Good point, but the idea from the OP is that we have some kind of movement starting.

This is not the case.

[Mr.Canada]

Hey punted,

Good point, but the idea from the OP is that we have some kind of movement starting.

This is not the case.

True Christians are flocking to the Tories in ever increasing numbers as I've laid out. They see the power of grassroots politics in the US and see the same possible power in Canadians. True Christians seem to waking up from the pot smoking stupor induced by Trudeaumania.

The tide is shifting my friends. Christians are the major religious group in this country and it's about time we move into power and instruct our leaders with what the silent majority wants. We must let them know that we'll be silent no more!

[Drea]

ACK!

You can't be serious?

Religion does not belong in politics! It belongs in your heart and your home (and your church if you must) but it NEVER belongs in the public sphere.

If Christians are in government (and pushing their Christian agenda) then ALL religions should have the opportunity to push their agendas in goverment. It's all or nothing baby.

No one religion is "better" than another. They are equally antiquated and NONE of them as they stand today give one shit about us as human beings.

I vote that the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal billing and you can bow to its noodly appendages and worship its meatsauce. THAT is how seriously ridiculous religion is!

Edited December 23, 2008 by Drea

[Mr.Canada]

ACK!

You can't be serious?

Religion does not belong in politics! It belongs in your heart and your home (and your church if you must) but it NEVER belongs in the public sphere.

If Christians are in government (and pushing their Christian agenda) then ALL religions should have the opportunity to push their agendas in goverment. It's all or nothing baby.

No one religion is "better" than another. They are equally antiquated and NONE of them as they stand today give one shit about us as human beings.

I vote that the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal billing and you can bow to its noodly appendages and worship its meatsauce. THAT is how seriously ridiculous religion is!

It doesn't belong but it's present weather anyone likes it or not. Will we have a religious based parliament? Of coarse not!

Will we have policy being shaped by religion? Of coarse! Like or not.

Christian Org's do much more for humanity then every other charity put together.

How much charity work and fundraising for the homeless, AIDs in Africa and the poor have the followers of TFSM done?

Drea, you cannot say for a moment that Christian groups don't do good work for humanity. IF you do then you're wrong plain and simple.

So again, how much charity work and fund raising for the homeless and the poor etc have the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster done?

[Drea]

You DO know that the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke don't you? No one actually worships it.

It was made up to show how ridiculous believing in an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent man in the sky who watches your every move and knows your every thought but does nothing.

The notion of "god" is made up, fake. An idea put forth by primitives to explain what they could not.

If you can believe in ONE god why not believe in them all? Why is Vishnu any different than Yaweh?

[Mr.Canada]

You DO know that the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke don't you? No one actually worships it.

I'm well aware of that it was a joke. I saw the original when the man published it years ago.

You said

They are equally antiquated and NONE of them as they stand today give one shit about us as human beings.

I was proving that Christian groups give much more than anyone else and your fear of saying I'm right is all the proof I need. Thanks for that.

I will stop there and continue on when you agree that Christian groups do care about humans and do most of the Charity work involved in caring/ feeding of the homeless for example.

[segnosaur]

A religious right is forming here in Canada and they are gravitating towards the CPC and PM Harper. This shouldn't be surprising at all but apparently many here don't choose to believe this. The religious right is much like the one in the States. I for one that a group which has a higher moral standard than Hollywood ios taking shape in this country which I love Canada.

You see, that's the one thing that worries me.

I myself am an athiest. Yet the last election I voted conservatives, not because I support all their policies, but they are currently the party that comes closest to implementing my ideal of a small-sized 'libertarian' style government. Yes, I did recognize that some members of the conservatives had religious leanings, but the party policy as a whole did not suffer.

If the 'religious right' ever did take control of the conservative party, I myself would likely never vote for them again. And even though 'christianity' is the most popular religion in Canada, most Canadians are not regular church-goers and would not likely support a party that was trying to impose policies based on those of the 'religious right'.

The U.S. republican party was hijacked by the religious right. While it may have been beneficial in the short term (shoring up support among certain demographics), it was likely not beneficial in the long term, as their policies may end up alienating more people than it attracts.

I don't understand what the big deal is. Christians have a higher sense of morality and a sense of what's wrong and what's right.

Uhhh... not necessarily. While many christians [/i]claim[/i] to have a 'higher sense of morality', the fact is prisons are filled with people who are christian.

Now, I'm sure you may come back with the argument that those people aren't true christians because they were doing something bad, but the definition of what a christian is does not have anything to do with how they behave, it has to do with how they view god/jebus.

whowhere, you are free to take works of fiction as fact. Be my guest. It makes me laugh that how much of a threat Christianity really is to everyone. Christianity is under constant attack. If people don't have faith, that's fine leave it then but why try to prove it wrong?

Well, for pretty much the same reason that we try to warn people away from giving money to con artists. We (us athiests) recognize the flaws in 'religious' thinking and want people to avoid mistakes.

And I do find it quite ironic about how you are commenting on how christianity is 'under attack', when in the very same thread you tried to imply that it had a 'higher sense of morality' (supposedly compared to other religions or athiesm). Its attitudes like that that probably fuel much of the atheist attitude that religion is something that we would be better off without.

Will these pundits have enough courage to slam Islam like this and tell them that Islam is false? I doubt it, they're way to scared to state Islam is false.

Many athiests have made significant efforts to criticize Islam. For example, Christopher Hitchens seems to criticize all relgions including Islam.

Makes me laugh how much Jesus Christ is the enemy, just as the Bible said it would be.

Except Christ isn't the enemy. In fact, he likely didn't even exist.

...I'll wager that many of the people who attack me here are very young and most likely don't have much life experience. I would guess 16-23 or so. Still fresh from the brainwashing of the socialist education system. It fades over time and you'll start thinking for yourselves. I feel sorry for you guys more than anything.

Just the opposite... I was a christian when I was younger. It wasn't until I got into my 30s that I started to think really critically about the whole 'god' thing, and that's what turned me athiest.

I do find it ironic that you'd comment on the 'brainwashing' of the socialist education system when basically that's how most people become religious... 'brainwashing' by their parents.

The Bible also teaches that homosexuality is a sin as is adultry and abortion. Handy how you left those out.

The bible also teaches that eating shellfish is a sin. Yet I don't see too many religious people picketing down at the local Red Lobster. I guess its only a sin if it doesn't taste good slathered in butter.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

[segnosaur]

Huh...? Sorry, your sentence structure completely threw me off..

Anyhow, check out the JEWISH historian Josephus.. He documented the times of Jesus Christ

At the risk of derailing this thread...

Josephus wasn't born until around AD37, as such he would not have been around to document the actual historic Jesus; all he could report on was what others told him (or what was written by others, which may or may not have been accurate).

Then there is also the issue of whether his writings on Christ are authentic (there aren't any surviving original manuscripts, and its possible that material was added following Josephus' death).