Jump to content

Evangelicals denounce PM over 'scary' remark


Recommended Posts

Evangelicals denounce PM over 'scary' remark

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has demanded an apology from Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberal Party for portraying Conservative candidates in the upcoming election as "scary" evangelicals.

In a letter to the prime minister, Bruce Clemenger, the president of the Evangelical Fellowship, said it is being widely reported Liberal pollsters are asking Ontarians if they were "more or less likely to vote for the Conservative/Alliance if they knew it had been taken over by Evangelical Christians."

Clemenger asked the federal Liberals to fire the party's pollster.

Steven McKinnon, a spokesman for the federal Liberals, said the polling did ask about Conservative candidates who hold socially conservative views. "This is not about religious views," he said. "We respect all religious views as a party. However, there are people running for Harper that hold socially conservative views. We think it is entirely appropriate to ask Canadians how they feel about these views."

Here I agree with PM Martin.

And the issue is one of respect and tolerance for other people's beliefs and points of view. :rolleyes:

An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't.

Anatole France

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually social conservatism is not relegated to christians. Here are some socially conservative stands

- Pro-life

- Against Gay Marriage, but will accept civil unions

- Supportive of the traditional family

- Tough on criminals such as pedophiles and rapists

- Strong belief that the country was founded on principles of Judeo-Christian values, this can be backed up by the fathers of confederation who said that Canada must be a nation pleasing to god

- Raising the age of consent to 18

- Eliminating child pornography

- Compassion does through personal affairs, and not by the government

These views can be held by anyone, including atheists, muslims, jews, and christians. I think that the big problem is that nobody tries to define what social conservatism is.

It also seems that the Liberal party is trying to make christianity seem "evil" to voters, this is a strategy that is often employed by the left.

But Canada was built on the traditional family, respect for life, hard work, and compassion. These values guided Canada when we began our country, and helped us win against the evils of nazism and communism. In the early twentieth century people were'nt afraid to say that this was a christian nation, Martin Luther King wrote that our laws must reflect the moral code of the Bible. Now it seems that the thing that were once considered good are now considered evil, and the old things considered evil, are now considered good.

Alexander Solzhenitzen said "To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots"

"A people without religion will in the end find that it has nothing to fight for"

T.S. Eliot, 1939

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

- George Orwell's Animal Farm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willy.....as long as you think you have a right to made decisions over what someone else should do with their body, for example, yes I do not want you involved in any decision-making capacity in any government related process in Canada.

An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't.

Anatole France

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willy.....as long as you think you have a right to made decisions over what someone else should do with their body, for example, yes I do not want you involved in any decision-making capacity in any government related process in Canada.

Well, we have laws in place for a reason. So under that logic pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, and incest should be allowed. Because who has the right to judge what another person does on their own time.

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

- George Orwell's Animal Farm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A legal act and a moral act are not the same thing. Because a law permits an act, this does not mean the State encourages the act or condones it.

The purpose of the law is primarily to protect property rights, including ownership of oneself. Children deserve special treatment.

The State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. This is less a statement of opinion than a practical matter. The modern State can not legislate, in this sense, morality.

Adultery, for example, is a private matter. There should not be laws against it despite politicians' opinions.

In a country such as a Canada, politicians should tread with great care into any religious setting. There are few things as intensely private as a person praying; this privacy should remain private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....as long as you think you have a right to made decisions over what someone else should do with their body, for example, yes I do not want you involved in any decision-making capacity in any government related process in Canada.

Democracy is built around conflicting views.

Your view Maplesyrup is not the only one. It is great ignorance to believe one knows everything and they can make great judgments on what is right and wrong. MS you are not God and either am I.

As a participating member of this democracy I will fight for what I perceive to be the best for our communities and individuals. This includes the right to protect individuals who can not protect themselves. We need to have the hard debates about what that means. I might guess you are defining me based on abortion rights by your pervious statements. This is one issue of many and the courts should not be the only ones to own the responsibility for that decision.

I have stated that Christianity does not believe in legislating morality, the religion is based on choice and we need to preserve the rights of people to choose which personal ethic they wish to follow. This will always have limitations as it affects the greater community and where that balance lies is an organic process of debate and legislation.

Maplesyrup, I get the scene that you don’t like my beliefs or opinions and that for this I should be censored from public debate. Tough and there are many people like me and one day you might realize we have many valid points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Willy.....as long as you think you have a right to made decisions over what someone else should do with their body, for example, yes I do not want you involved in any decision-making capacity in any government related process in Canada.

So MS, it would seem that if some old pervert wants to fondle himself on the sidewalk beside the school where your kids go to schoold that should be allowed because he is doing it to his own body. What about the guy who walks unto your lawn every one and takes a leak on your rose bushes or your front step, should that be allowed? People could take your statement to allow all freaks and creeps to do whatever they deem fit as long as long as it involves their bodies. That is one very scary and revolting thought, just imagine what the streets would look like every Friday night once the bars shut down..........shudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into a lot of the nonsense you guys are spouting (August1991 excepted) but of course you have a right to express your point of view, taking community standards into consideration.

But let's discuss an incident I recently heard about on the radio about a bar owner who I believe evicted a couple of women from his bar because they were kissing each other. What kind of tolerance is this? If one is running a public business, stick to your business, and don't try to moralize what people do. It's not like they were having sex or something. This is just plain intolerance, and I hope the woman who has made the complaint against the bar owner wins big time.

There is a very fundamental reason why property rights are not in the charter of right in Canada - and it has to do with tolerance or lack thereof. Get it. ;)

An education isn't how much you have committed to memory, or even how much you know. It's being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don't.

Anatole France

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it true that the Alliance Party had many bigots as members?

And Stckwell Day thought that the world was only a few thousand years old, because that's what it said in the bible.

These kind of people are "scary." Especially if they get into a ruling position where they have the power to regulate your life.

People don't need religions to be moral.

If our innate morality falters, there is the law, courts, and punishment. Easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mack, show some evidence.

What innate morality? What is good and bad and how do you decide?

It is sad to see the lack of tolerance and understanding of people of faith.

87% of people in Canada still believe in God according to a recent IPSO survey. Are there any of them on this forum?

Religions are based on superstition, and have no place in the lives of thinking people.

And there are so many religions, all with different "gods." Since they all disagree, only one, or none, is correct. Instead of bringing humanity together, religions tear us apart.

Mack

Here is a list of those none thinking Christians that you refer to Mack. Think yourself for a second and realize how they have affected your life.

Augustine

Tomas Aquinas

Martin Luther

John Calvin

Dostoevsky

Kierkegaard

C.S. Lewis

Peter Drucker

People tear us apart not religion. Religion is peoples understanding of Gods revelation. When exploring God one finds great peace and hope. The metaphysic of Christianity is whole and any atheistic explanation has always fallen short.

If I followed your premise on life I would have no reason to get up in the morning. As a Christian, believing in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, I have the ultimate hope of everlasting life. This is all based on God grace and not on what I deserve. That is a message that is love. Nothing can be wrong with that.

You might think I am completely daft but look at the list of names above and realize these are some of the most brilliant minds ever known and they believe this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to get into a lot of the nonsense you guys are spouting (August1991 excepted) but of course you have a right to express your point of view, taking community standards into consideration.

How is what I am thinking nonsense? If waht you propose, that people can do with their bodies as they see fit, then you will see people claiming to be able to do all kinds of weird things in our society. As to the incident in Red Deer, that should be up to the business owner what happens in his place of business. I am sure you would have a totally different view if it was a couple who went in there and sang church hymns and had a prayer session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a bar owner... evicted a couple of women from his bar because they were kissing each other... It's not like they were having sex or something.

What difference would it have made if they were having sex? After all, it still only involves their bodies and nobody else's. Sure, it might have offended some people, but so did the kissing, apparently, and you don't think that people have any right to be offended by what others do with their own bodies - so why are you so intolerant, maplesyrup, you great bigot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is running a public business, stick to your business, and don't try to moralize what people do. It's not like they were having sex or something. This is just plain intolerance, and I hope the woman who has made the complaint against the bar owner wins big time.
I disagree MapleSyrup. I think the bar owner should have every right to ask the two women to leave. And the two women have every right to go across the street and do business with a different bar owner (which apparently is what happened). The first bar owner is the loser in this. He just lost two customers.

Look MapleSyrup, you get to choose where you do your grocery shopping, who you work for, what car you buy. Why shouldn't the person on the other side of the bargain have the same choice? You get to choose whom you invite into your home.

When we talk of freedom, what do we mean exactly?

The best defence against arbitrary discrimination, perhaps the only defence in practice and in the long haul, is a bar across the street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the bar owner only told them to stop doing it. He has every right to do so. He did'nt say, your gay ,we don't want your hear. All he said was some people don't approve of that behavior and you should have to stop it. I think theirs a huge problem when the Human Rights Boards are shoving morality down our throats like Maplesyrup seems to want.

Tolerance is learned through experience, not government intervention

"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"

- George Orwell's Animal Farm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maplesyrup, you have clearly stated that I should not be involved in politics because I am a Christian. Is this an example of your tolerance.
Willy.....as long as you think you have a right to made decisions over what someone else should do with their body, for example, yes I do not want you involved in any decision-making capacity in any government related process in Canada.

Now, consider this:

He said implying that evangelical Christians make bad politicians is akin to saying someone like Monia Mazigh, a Muslim NDP candidate, shouldn't run because she wears a hijab.

G&M on Religion & Politics

Do you think an MP who deliberately chooses to wear a symbolic head scarf (my careful choice of words) can represent all constituents?

[in sensitive/CBC Canada, I have no wish to appear a bigot. I'm not. I believe in freedom. Both the opportunity to wear a head scarf and not wear one.]

But, should the NDP accept such a candidate? What kind of society does the NDP want in the future? In what way does the NDP want to open minds? Is accepting a head scarf (symbol of a minority) evidence of an open mind? But accepting a crucifix (symbol of a majority) evidence of domination?

I met T.C. Douglas. Jack Layton is no T.C. Douglas. In what moral morass has the NDP fallen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AF:

Actually the bar owner only told them to stop doing it. He has every right to do so. He did'nt say, your gay ,we don't want your hear. All he said was some people don't approve of that behavior and you should have to stop it. I think theirs a huge problem when the Human Rights Boards are shoving morality down our throats like Maplesyrup seems to want.

Actually, AF, he told the patrons that they "can't do that in here". It's illegal to refuse service based on sexual orientation. It will be determined whether the owner broke the law or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Do you think an MP who deliberately chooses to wear a symbolic head scarf (my careful choice of words) can represent all constituents?

Actually, speaking as an enthusiastic Christian, I believe she can. She will make decisions which will rise out of her beliefs, as all do, and that may mean I disagree with some of them. But nonetheless, she can take seriously her constituents concerns, and seek to resolve them in a good way. That's representing me. She might come closer in some things that people who share my fundamental religious convictions. For one thing, such a woman is far more likely to be socially conservative, which I think is important, than many Christians.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...