Jump to content

Are the Liberals Heading Back to Church


Recommended Posts

So liberals want the liberal vote but won't let a man with a religious beleif be a minister of science.....wow great way to bring evangelicals around to your side. You will mock their beleifs and ask for their vote great strategy.

I can just imagine what you would say to them. I imagine the liberal speaking to the church folk, "your too stupid to understance science, but don't worry we do, so vote liberal"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So liberals want the liberal vote but won't let a man with a religious beleif be a minister of science.

I think the question was does he believe in evolution. He said it was a religious question. Most Canadians don't think so.

If it is a religious question, it should not be taught in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the question was does he believe in evolution. He said it was a religious question. Most Canadians don't think so.

If it is a religious question, it should not be taught in schools.

So you speak for most Canadians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you speak for most Canadians?

I am going by the polls that say evolution is how we came into being as humans.

So you think evolution should not be taught in schools? You believe it is a religion? Do you believe creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools? You believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, please. Dobbin. For the past three years on this board there has been attack upon attack on the so-called 'evangelical-right-wing-anti-gay-anti-abortion-anti-SSM' PM Harper and EVERY Conservative in Canada. No matter how many MODERATE Conservatives are actual supporters/members of the CPC and do in fact OUTNUMBER by far the so-called religious so-cons there are and have been condescending and nasty comments about all of those right-wing religious nuts, especially the PM, Stephen Harper.

Which doesn't seem to explain how Gary Goodyear got to be in charge of the science portfolio. The "Harper isn't a religious nut" and "the Conservatives aren't being run by hard right religious conservatives" is wearing a little thin.

You don't put a Creationist in charge of a science funding portfolio unless you are either a complete moron or actually think it's an awfully keen idea.

I will not vote Conservative again until Harper is a memory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which doesn't seem to explain how Gary Goodyear got to be in charge of the science portfolio. The "Harper isn't a religious nut" and "the Conservatives aren't being run by hard right religious conservatives" is wearing a little thin.

You don't put a Creationist in charge of a science funding portfolio unless you are either a complete moron or actually think it's an awfully keen idea.

I will not vote Conservative again until Harper is a memory.

Tinfoil anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tinfoil anyone?

Hey, listen, Conservatives have been repeatedly warned that letting the religious nuts in the party have influence would lead to their downfall, and it don't get much nuttier than letting a Creationist into a cabinet post responsible for science funding.

Maybe I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but at least I'm not drinking the koolaid. And my one single little vote is greatly dependent upon the Conservatives not being a mouthpiece for a pack of delusional maniacs who actually deny a major branch of science because their myopic view of the Bible demands it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been a lot of talk in the past few months about Coalition Governments. In Canadian politics, the wise party - either the Conservatives or the Liberals (the only viable governing parties) - construct a party that is a coalition within itself. That means bringing together differing Center Left, Center and Center Right constituencies and MP's that represent them. The nuances of how you define the Center is critical but really, this is the essence on Canadian Big Tent politics - internal coalitions. Liberals had been extremely successful until their relatively recent self-destruction. Conservatives are learning how to play the game but still have rough edges. Ignatieff is inexperienced but Liberals DO need to reconnect with disenfranchised voters, if only to aid in their fundraising.....so the fact that Ignatieff is out "pandering for votes" (as leftist critics would say) is the right thing to do. The danger in deoing so is that you can water down your core policies - your central message...so that it looks like you don't really stand for much in the way of principles. Liberals currently have a bit of a free pass because they do not as yet have any official policies for various constituencies to really evaluate. At this time, it's more of a "Dion is dead" feel-good exercise. Conservatives have policies and are a convenient target for economic bashing - people pretty well know where they stand and how/if they fit in. The stimulus plan - regardless of how it came about - demonstrated Conservative pragmatism and an ability to grudgingly creep towards Center Left if absolutely necessary. We'll just have to see how things unfold.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going by the polls that say evolution is how we came into being as humans.

So you think evolution should not be taught in schools? You believe it is a religion? Do you believe creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools? You believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?

Have you posted those polls which say evolution is how we came into being?

Jonathon Kay's discussion re "polls" vis a vis evolution - creationism - in today's NP:

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/s...html?id=1399884

Canadians differ on whether a supernatural entity had a role in the creation of human life. In a 2007 Canadian Press-Decima Research poll, 26% of respondents said they believe in creationism, 29% picked evolution and 34% said they believe in some combination of the two.

This is what started this contretemps:

In the article -- entitled "Minister won't confirm belief in evolution: Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion" -- Globe science writer Anne McIlroy breathlessly reported that "Canada's Science Minister [Gary Goodyear], the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution";

And, this:

But that sort of intellectual modesty and agnosticism is boring: It too closely approximates the way millions of ordinary Canadians think about the mysteries of the cosmos. (And as we found out after the article was published, Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution; his insistence that his personal beliefs were irrelevant was made in good faith.) So McIlroy and her editors went out and got some sexed-up reaction quotes from outraged secularists who could be depended on to slam any inkling of spirituality as a portend of theocracy.

The problem with the usual tempests in teapots is that by creating or seen to be creating 'news' there will always be another journalist or blogger whose curiosity is piqued enough by such teapot tempests to ruthlessly rebut with truth or facts the original reporter's truth or facts.

Jonathon Kay rebuts McIlroy's statement that whatsisname Goodyear refused to answer whether he believed or did not believe in evolution, hence, of course he is a 'creationist', whatever that is.

So, Dobbin. If 34% stated in a poll that they think (believe) it is a combination of both evol. and create. then how do you arrive at the 'majority' believe in evoluton? And, if this MP Goodyear actually does, as Jonathon Kay states, (who by the way is not a -- christian, catholic or evang.) have a belief in evolution, what purpose would McIlroy have in claiming this Goodyear was a -- cough -- bible puncher therefore ineligible to be a Minister of Science, or whatever?

Were you taught evolution, creationism or, a combination of both in your science classes btw? Of course you are not obligated to answer that question, are you jdobbin?

`

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like Marc Garneau, Liberal science critic, understands Ignatieff's initiative of drawing the faithful under the large Liberal tent.

On Tuesday, Liberal science critic Marc Garneau said that believing in evolution is not a job requirement for the science minister.

“It is a personal matter. It is a matter of faith.… I don't think it prevents someone from being a good minister,” said the former astronaut...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home

For this initiative to succeed, the likes of Goddale and Kinsella better watch they don't alienate prospective Liberals with their ridiculing of Christians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you taught evolution, creationism or, a combination of both in your science classes btw? Of course you are not obligated to answer that question, are you jdobbin?

Here is your answer.... “I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate"

How is that for an answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

smallc, my post is not restricted to the Goodyear science question. Remember Kinsella's barney doll stunt to ridicule Stockwell Day? And Gooddale's quip on Power Play last night ridiculing Goodyear? If you're not aware of these, I'll gladly post links. There have been other such incidents of this nature by the Liberals.

edit: what I'm saying is Ignatieff better put a stop to this bashing if the Liberals are to make Evangelicals and Christians welcome in the party. Get it?

Edited by capricorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

edit: what I'm saying is Ignatieff better put a stop to this bashing if the Liberals are to make Evangelicals and Christians welcome in the party. Get it?

And if Harper is going to make people think that his party is not anti-science, he had better indicate unequivocal support on the principles of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if Harper is going to make people think that his party is not anti-science, he had better indicate unequivocal support on the principles of science.

And if Ignatieff is to make people think that his party is not anti-science, he had better instruct his science critic that he should say a creationist cannot be a science minister. Oops, too late. Garneau already said publicly he sees nothing wrong if a creationist is science minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if Ignatieff is to make people think that his party is not anti-science, he had better instruct his science critic that he should say a creationist cannot be a science minister. Oops, too late. Garneau already said publicly he sees nothing wrong if a creationist is science minister.

I see nothing wrong with it either. In fact, I want to see if he can approve research into areas that might call into question his religious beliefs.

The feeling is the Tories are already doing that by some in the scientific community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he would have hated the liberal more then right?

Liberals do not feel the need to abolish the Human Rights' commission because it prevents them from publicly attacking gays.

However, I've said before that if Jesus was alive and in Canada today he would be voting NDP. They are the only party who are openly hostile to greed (corporations), intolerance and war. The basis of his philosophy of peace and sharing the wealth.

He would have been more accepting of the Liberals but would have been the man outside the gates holding the sign that read "The Conservatives are Anti-Christian and must be banished from my Kingdom".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ignatieff might be able to reach some of Christians who believe in the environment and in fiscal conservatism, two areas where the Conservatives have not shown strength in the last years.

Exactly. We spoke of Harper's 'big tent' when he united the Right; but Ignatieff's 'big tent' is geared at uniting Canadians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So liberals want the liberal vote but won't let a man with a religious beleif be a minister of science.....wow great way to bring evangelicals around to your side. You will mock their beleifs and ask for their vote great strategy.

Wasn't it the Globe and Mail who mocked Goodyear? But if you're referring to Stockwell's Day very public belief that we roamed with dinosaurs because every single word in the Bible is literal fact; the majority of Canadians also laughed at that.

That's not a Christian belief. It's a narrow minded one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...