Liberals courting religious vote

normanchateau · June 18, 2009

The October, 2008 election showed increasing movement of religious voters towards Harper. Makes sense for Ignatieff to want to recapture that vote.

"Three-quarters of Canadian voters who attend evangelical churches (such as Baptist, Mennonite and Pentocostal) opted for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's the same proportion of white American evangelicals who supported the Republicans.

It's interesting that Harper can appeal to these Christians, even while he virtually refuses to talk about his own membership in the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

In general Protestants, who nominally make up 30 per cent of the population, tend to split their vote between the two major parties. But even mainline Protestants have been among those shifting toward the Tories. In 2008, 64 per cent of church-going Protestants (as opposed to those who rarely attend) chose the Conservatives, compared to 51 per cent in 2004.

Andrew Grenville, chief analyst for Angus Reid:

"To me these findings signal a profound shift in the way religion, culture and politics relate in Canada.

"People who attend conservative churches have coalesced around the Conservatives, when they used to vote pretty much like the general public. It is a big change in a short period of time. You have to wonder why. It is clearly not because the Conservatives are running on moral issues or have taken any action on Evangelical hot-button topics. They have actually stayed pretty far away from that agenda and stuck to an economically-focused type of conservatism. So it is hard to know how long this pattern will hold, in the absence of any carrots or commitment from the Conservatives."

In addition, Grenville says another big trend is occurring. It may be more politically significant for Harper, in that he's also finding a way to appeal to Canadian Catholics, who nominally make up 43 per cent of the population. They used to lean to the Liberals.

Grenville stresses Harper's appeal is mostly to the Catholics who are highly active church-goers (which generally means they're more conservative, since they remain loyal to conservative Pope Benedict XVI). Regularly attending Catholics make up only about one third of the census total.

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun...-in-canada.aspx

roof_top_eagle · June 18, 2009

How do you like me now - gosh - and here all along I thought it was those 'nasty neo-cons' who wanted a religious voice...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1650066

Liberals courting religious vote

cont..

First of all the whole term "separation of church and state" means that the state keeps it's grubby hands off the church, however that isn't the way it is commonly known.

Personally I can't vote liberal as an evangelical Christian because (Like their name would suggest) they have way to liberal views.

I'm currently not happy with any political party but if I had to vote today I would probably go Conservative Party.

The NDP only care about unionized workers despite what they want to admit, the liberals and greens are to liberal so by default I'd have to go Conservative. I'm far happier with the Conservatives than any other party.

Smallc · June 18, 2009

First of all the whole term "separation of church and state" means that the state keeps it's grubby hands off the church,

Actually...freddom of religion alsom means freedom from religion. The state has to keep its hands off of the church...but the church also has to keep its hands off of the state.

Jerry J. Fortin · June 18, 2009

Actually...freddom of religion alsom means freedom from religion. The state has to keep its hands off of the church...but the church also has to keep its hands off of the state.

Freedom allows us to do both. The only stop gap in the system is the voter.

normanchateau · June 21, 2009

The state has to keep its hands off of the church...but the church also has to keep its hands off of the state.

The church already has it's hands on the state. The preamble to the constitution makes reference to the supremacy of "God". None of the major political parties have the courage to change it. When Svend Robinson was a NDP MP, his own party leader demoted him for presenting a petition to remove the reference.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...7/ai_n25783811/

Religious mumbo jumbo belongs in a theocracy, not the Canadian constitution.

Smallc · June 21, 2009

The church already has it's hands on the state. The preamble to the constitution makes reference to the supremacy of "God".

No, that is simply a recognition of the values under which this country was founded. God is not church.

lictor616 · June 21, 2009

How do you like me now - gosh - and here all along I thought it was those 'nasty neo-cons' who wanted a religious voice...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1650066

Liberals courting religious vote

cont..

Liberals courting the weak minded sheeple of organized knavery (i mean religion!)

well why not!?

The patter of "liberalism" is essentially Christiniatiy divested of its belief in the supernatural... Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, and the like... but all are essentially religions... belief systems...

The dependence of the "Liberal" cults on a blind and irrational faith was long obscured or concealed by their professed esteem for objective science, which they used as a polemic weapon against orthodox Christianity (a then rival religion). Liberalism is hence, a type of racifimiento of Protestantism... it is a catechism, an orthodoxy... just like any other.

The hypocrisy of the professed devotion to scientific knowledge was made unmistakable when the "Liberals" began their frantic and often hysterical efforts to suppress scientific knowledge about genetics and the obviously innate differences between the different human species and between the individuals of any given species. Liberals chatter about the "equality of man" and "brotherhood of nations" with the same hot headed and drunken self delusion as an evangelical prating about "creationism".

Many liberals it is tre subscribe to some theory of Darwinian evolution, but most foolishly deny the implications of Darwinian evolution: which is: a growing DIFFERENTIATION between species and sub species and RACES.

Hence the now holy writ and "racism" witch hunt which is needed to keep people from thinking "unholy" thoughts.

Liberals also babble about "human rights" but anyone with half a brain and rudimentary knowledge of history knows perfectly well that, in the absence of a god who might be presumed to have decreed such rights (such as Moses with his drivel on the Mound bit) , the only rights are those which the citizens of a stable society, by agreement or by a long usage that has acquired the force of law, bestow on themselves.

"Liberals" babble bout "One World," which is to be a "universal democracy" and is "inevitable," and they thus describe it in the very terms in which the notion was formulated, two thousand years ago, by Philo Judaeus... The current disaster of "Liberal Internationalism" (ie globalization) is oddly analogous to the rubbish in the bible which teaches to strive for a Christian world.

They also aim to protect and subsidies the lowest elements of society and (again despite their false esteem for Darwin) INSANELY reject the Eugenics indispensible for human progress and stability.

They have even reverted to the most pernicious aspect of Christianity, which common sense had held in check in Europe until the Eighteenth Century; and they openly exhibit the morbid Christian fascination with whatever is lowly, proletarian, inferior, irrational, debased, deformed, and degenerate. Like bird brained egalitarians- they exalt the inferior and damn the superior (which is evidenced by liberal and other lefty do-gooding schemes aimed at feeding the wretched refuse of the third world in order to allow them to multiply till there is only standing room alone on planet earth and a terminal state of pollution.

This maudlin preoccupation with biological refuse, is usually sicklied over with such nonsense euphemisms as 'under*privileged* and "the culturally deprived" and "under-developed nations" and similar pish posh that is repeated ad infinitam nauseam in our societies.

Also good liberals are taught from birth OT NEVER take stock of their situation or take thought for themselves, they are taught to be selfless tax paying idiots to surfeit the dregs of the world, the poor in other nations and the welfare dregs in theirs.. (that is: the stupid the shiftless the incompetent and the inferior leeches of the world).

Liberals (at least the White ones...) also exibit the morbid Christian self hatred and "status of sin", and so gleefully work to self destroy themselves... while encouraging others to prosper and displace them!

I mean just look at our current situation! Today whites are made to pretend that there are no meaningful racial differences; that whites have no legitimate group aspirations; that slavery is a sin for which today’s whites must pay eternal retribution; that the only acceptable statements whites can make about race are apologies; and that “diversity” is good for whites since it liberates them from the pathology of racism, etc. etc.

so why not? Liberals and the Religious flock are the essentially the SAME! They are primitive, stultified world wreckers... they are what Aristotle called the BORN SLAVE... those who want and therefore DESERVE a master...

Liberals worship their messiahs: marx and obambo, while the Christians have theirs... but ideologically... on the truly most important issues: they are indistinguishable.

normanchateau · June 22, 2009

Liberals worship their messiahs: marx and obambo, while the Christians have theirs... but ideologically... on the truly most important issues: they are indistinguishable.

How do you explain that more Christians voted for the Conservatives than the Liberals in the last federal election?

lictor616 · June 22, 2009

How do you explain that more Christians voted for the Conservatives than the Liberals in the last federal election?

I'd like to see the official stats reduced on a paper... but my point is that liberals are actually more in sync with the religious, since "liberalism" "socialistic democracy" resembles a cult more then a ideology... whether christian conservatives notice it or not..

Jerry J. Fortin · June 22, 2009

I'd like to see the official stats reduced on a paper... but my point is that liberals are actually more in sync with the religious, since "liberalism" "socialistic democracy" resembles a cult more then a ideology... whether christian conservatives notice it or not..

A vast majority of Christians are also Conservative.

Oleg Bach · June 23, 2009

A vast majority of corporates are infidels - the liberals should add a few of those to their ranks. :lol:

Remiel · June 23, 2009

A vast majority of Christians are also Conservative.

Historically, Protestants have been more likely to vote Conservative and Catholics have been more likely to vote Liberal. This probably became distorted somewhat when a bunch of the Catholics starting voting for the Bloc.

And lictor, you are a fool if you think that eugenics is some kind of magical solution to anything. Something that Otto von Bismarck once said about pre-emptive warfare could be used to describe the problem perfectly: " I would . . . never advise Your Majesty to declare war forthwith, simply because it appeared that our opponent would begin hostilities in the near future. One can never anticipate the ways of divine providence securely enough for that. "

scribblet · June 23, 2009

The October, 2008 election showed increasing movement of religious voters towards Harper. Makes sense for Ignatieff to want to recapture that vote.
"Three-quarters of Canadian voters who attend evangelical churches (such as Baptist, Mennonite and Pentocostal) opted for the Conservative Party of Canada. That's the same proportion of white American evangelicals who supported the Republicans.

It's interesting that Harper can appeal to these Christians, even while he virtually refuses to talk about his own membership in the evangelical Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

]

Why should he talk about it, it has nothing to do with gov't, and who cares what church he attends, but if he did talk about it then you'd find fault with that, do other MPs or PMs talk about the churches they attend, Martin and Chretien where regular churchgoers, to a church that is anti abortion anti SSM etc. etc. it's immaterial, and private. Incessant carping about what church Harper attends is simply a not so subtle method of instilling fear, this Harper=religious thing is old - this dog don't hunt.

WIP · June 23, 2009

it's immaterial, and private. Incessant carping about what church Harper attends is simply a not so subtle method of instilling fear, this Harper=religious thing is old - this dog don't hunt.

It's not private anymore, when a Republican clone, like Harper, is courting conservative religious voters, and when he puts an idiot creationist in charge of the Science and Technology portfolio!

After Stockwell made a fool of himself as leader of the Canadian Alliance, any Conservative leaders -- whether it's Harper, or Gary Goodyear, are going to make all the right noises to appeal to crackpot fundamentalists, while at the same time claiming privacy when questioned about their own religious and/or scientific beliefs.

WIP · June 23, 2009

Liberals courting the weak minded sheeple of organized knavery (i mean religion!)

We are seeing the same pattern that has already been established in the U.S. The political right courts fundamentalists who want to create their own little power bases, so the left responds by gathering together left wing churches with the appeal to the social gospel. I prefer the good old days when conservatives and liberals stuck to government and economic policy, and did not try to add God to their list of supporters.

The patter of "liberalism" is essentially Christiniatiy divested of its belief in the supernatural... Like the Christianity from which it sprang, it split into various sects and heresies, such as Jacobinism, Fourierism, Owenism, Fabian Socialism, Marxism, and the like... but all are essentially religions... belief systems...
The dependence of the "Liberal" cults on a blind and irrational faith was long obscured or concealed by their professed esteem for objective science, which they used as a polemic weapon against orthodox Christianity (a then rival religion). Liberalism is hence, a type of racifimiento of Protestantism... it is a catechism, an orthodoxy... just like any other.........

This screed is a convoluted mess because "liberal" could be anything and everything that threatens your conservative religious dogma. Just like idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, you are building the "liberal conspiracy myth" by piling any and all criticism of conservative dogma and policies into one group that just happens to be conspiring against god-fearing, patriots.

It's worth noting that this is the same tactic used by fascists to claim oppression while they are seeking to oppress others. Just read an english translation of Mein Kampf for example -- everybody is against the German people -- Jews, Communists, atheists, the educated elite, the brown races, the French, British and Americans....everybody is part of the conspiracy. Today's conservative ideologues and opinion-makers are trying to use the same strategy...more than likely for the same ends.

scribblet · June 24, 2009

It's not private anymore, when a Republican clone, like Harper, is courting conservative religious voters, and when he puts an idiot creationist in charge of the Science and Technology portfolio!
....

That's funny - a 'republican clone' guess you know nothing about Harper and the CPC :lol: or the U.S. Republicans,.

Jerry J. Fortin · June 24, 2009

Religious groups are merely another "special interest" group. They are no better and no worse than the rest of these groups. Partisan factions prey on these interest groups. It is time we realize that.

lictor616 · June 24, 2009

We are seeing the same pattern that has already been established in the U.S. The political right courts fundamentalists who want to create their own little power bases, so the left responds by gathering together left wing churches with the appeal to the social gospel. I prefer the good old days when conservatives and liberals stuck to government and economic policy, and did not try to add God to their list of supporters.
This screed is a convoluted mess because "liberal" could be anything and everything that threatens your conservative religious dogma. Just like idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, you are building the "liberal conspiracy myth" by piling any and all criticism of conservative dogma and policies into one group that just happens to be conspiring against god-fearing, patriots.

It's worth noting that this is the same tactic used by fascists to claim oppression while they are seeking to oppress others. Just read an english translation of Mein Kampf for example -- everybody is against the German people -- Jews, Communists, atheists, the educated elite, the brown races, the French, British and Americans....everybody is part of the conspiracy. Today's conservative ideologues and opinion-makers are trying to use the same strategy...more than likely for the same ends.

My conservative religious dogma? I'm an integral atheist, and wouldn't dream to ever vote for the conservatives. I support fully NONE of the current canadian parties. I've been called a political atheist as well...

I have no conservative religious dogma. The liberals and other leftists elements however, they certainly do! They believe in holy "equality" and other figments of the imagination that actually come from that tawdry and silly religion: Christianity, handed to us from dirty and squalid desert denizens. They prefer to emote then think, they are in fact a religion, a cult which resembles Christianity divested of its belief in the supernatural, but retaining many of its social supersititions.

Incidentally, I have nothing but reprimands for Rush and the republican party in general, they are no worse then the democrats but also... no better (they are cancers to our common wealth). They are little men, with no vision, who only chatter about the prospect of the next 10 minutes... they are irrelevant.

The Germans were indeed assaulted by world Jewry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Declares_War_on_Germany)

The Germans were quite right to be fearful of communists... (who were busily murdering 10 million ukrainian kulaks in 32-33 in orgies of bestiality that we like to forget here in the west).

And who could begrudge Germany for thinking themselves a colony of english and american capitalists? They were! Ever heard of the versailles conditions?

so um yeah...

Today's conservatives are not really conserving anything, the Conservatives chose their road in the 1920s and now they have reached the dead end. On their downward path they surrendered, a little at a time, title to every real thing they had hoped to retain. They are now trapped in the cul-de-sac of their choice. They have no future. They had best sit down quietly and read their fairy tales or smoke opium while waiting for Jesus in whom many of them never actually believed anyway. They have become irrelevant to reality. The only thing they can do for us is to stop squawking.

Bonam · June 24, 2009

You had me right up until this line:

The Germans were indeed assaulted by world Jewry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Declares_War_on_Germany)

That's just such a gross distortion and twist of the events (that you yourself linked to in the wiki article)...

lictor616 · June 24, 2009

You had me right up until this line:
That's just such a gross distortion and twist of the events (that you yourself linked to in the wiki article)...

It was jews who financed WW1 against Germany ... The Rothschild manipulated loans and politicians to ultimately lead to the war. Jakob Schiff and Colonel House, The Warburgs and Bernard Baruch and other jewish bankers (Knapp et all) financed and got Woodrow Wilson elected on an understanding that the US was going to meddle in european affairs and seek to attack Germany for the sake of British-Israel-Jewish relations and ultimately to get that mandate in Palestine! ...

these are all facts... that you refuse to acknowledge the clear and real assault on Germany by organized "jewry" is rather unfortunate.

Bonam · June 24, 2009

It was jews who financed WW1 against Germany ... The Rothschild manipulated loans and politicians to ultimately lead to the war. Jakob Schiff and Colonel House, The Warburgs and Bernard Baruch and other jewish bankers (Knapp et all) financed and got Woodrow Wilson elected on an understanding that the US was going to meddle in european affairs and seek to attack Germany for the sake of British-Israel-Jewish relations and ultimately to get that mandate in Palestine! ...
these are all facts... that you refuse to acknowledge the clear and real assault on Germany by organized "jewry" is rather unfortunate.

WW1 was a result of clashing ambitions of the various European powers and had little or nothing to do with Jews. Wilson got elected the same way any American president got elected, with financing from a vast variety of different sources and by the will of the American people. The US maintained an isolationist stance for a long time before entering the war. There was no Israel at the time of the start of WWI, there wasn't even the Balfour declaration as of yet. Many German Jews fought for Germany during WWI. The treaty of Versailles was crafted by the European powers after the war and Germany had little choice but to accept, again, having nothing to do with Jews. Leading up to the 1930s, Jews were well integrated and productive members of German society, and had no quarrel with Germany.

lictor616 · June 24, 2009

WW1 was a result of clashing ambitions of the various European powers and had little or nothing to do with Jews. Wilson got elected the same way any American president got elected, with financing from a vast variety of different sources and by the will of the American people. The US maintained an isolationist stance for a long time before entering the war. There was no Israel at the time of the start of WWI, there wasn't even the Balfour declaration as of yet. Many German Jews fought for Germany during WWI. The treaty of Versailles was crafted by the European powers after the war and Germany had little choice but to accept, again, having nothing to do with Jews. Leading up to the 1930s, Jews were well integrated and productive members of German society, and had no quarrel with Germany.

Wilson was elected on a promise that he WOULDN'T GO TO WAR... His Jews created the Creel commission which manufactured propaganda about the "evil germans" eating babies and harpooning old ladies to whip up americans into a bloodcrazed frenzy and to arm their soldiers with a christian ardor to kill germans.

and please retain sufficient decency to remember the Balfour Declaration.... it was in 1917 ... duh... a policy promise to the real ruler of Britain: the very Jewish Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild.

Bernard Baruch was the main advisor to Wilson (and was present at its signature).

Baruch also palled around Churchill and directed many WW2 policies... During President Roosevelt's "New Deal" program, Baruch was a member of the "Brain Trust" and helped form the National Recovery Administration (NRA).

Baruch was a personal confidante to six presidents? Here you are saying that has no importance?

Jews owned the media in Germany, they owned die welt and 84% of the printed media there.

read this completely non contreversial book on the holocaust..

http://books.google.ca/books?id=LB_HLHJ_J6...lt&resnum=2

Jews had a monopoly on the black market, Jews also were the "pimps of Vienna".

Marxism (a terrible and homicidal ideology of destruction) was Jewish... Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, and every major "communist" was Jewish... 54% of the NKVD in Soviet Russia was Jewish.

but then again, you probably think that Germans were just temporarily insane or something, and that Jews are not at all responsible for how much they are liked by others... that Jews were disliked for irrational reasons... not because of their own behavior... Any sort of rational argument then, might as well go out the window..

Oleg Bach · June 24, 2009

Tiresome ---- everybody is a Jew...either one tenth of one percent...or full blown...You have to remember that 3000 years of migration to the north spread the genes far and wide --- I always believed that the wars mentioned by lictor616...were simply old feuds that last to this day - between long lost contending members of the same damned family.

Personally sitting beside a bitching old German lady on the subway worse than sitting beside Woody Allens grand mother - who I am sure would be just as irritating... :rolleyes: