Chistian Nationalists in the House of Commons

[August1991]

Ezra Levant would say that though wouldn't he lol. Keep in mind that the book is about people that share the same political views as Mr. Levant so their opinions suffer from a conflict of interest. I would suggest reading the book yourself rather then letting an extremely biased opinion color your thoughts on the matter.

Bortron, Levant (a Jew) was merely pointing out the numerous factual errors in McDonald's book. You will find references on the Internet fact-checking who is right (and the mere existence of these sites puts into question McDonald's book).

But Bortron, I'll add another fact to consider: about 50% of Canadians are Catholic by upbringing whereas only about 20% of Americans are such. Many of Canada's federal PMs (indeed all since Trudeau, excepting Harper and Campbell) have been Roman Catholic. In the US, Kennedy was the sole Catholic president.

It is hard not to see McDonald's attack on "religious fundamentalism" as a modernized version of the old-line Catholic view of Protestants as being somehow fanatical, heretical "sects", outside the canon of accepted behaviour.

And... I just noticed the subject line is 'Chistian Nationalists'

Bortron can edit the title and correct the typo - unless, as you imply MH, this was some deliberate reference. Edited July 4, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

I guess I'm more anti-religion then you are. It seems to me like much of the religion of the world does attempt to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others and I believe all religions have the potential to do this when under the influence of the right kind of people. I am not an Atheist though.

Yes, you are more anti-religion than me. My position is that religion dies out on its own when people are exposed to the truth and are allowed to understand the natural workings of the world. By advocating strongly against religion, one only puts religious people on the defensive, further entrenching them in their beliefs. Leave them alone and over time many of them will weaken in their beliefs, seeing that no supernatural entity plays any impact upon their daily lives.

Ever get approached by religious activists on the street trying to convert you? Did it make you more receptive to their arguments or less? Personally, whenever I am pestered by religious zealots such as this, I only acquire more disdain for their religion and would be even less receptive to listening to it in the future. The same can be said for religious people. If you constantly bombard them with your opinion of how believing in religion is idiotic, destructive, etc, they will only become even less likely to listen to anti-religious arguments in the future. Let them live their lives and in this age of information many will come to the right conclusions on their own. And those that do not, so what?

Organized religion does often want to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. That's why, in most Western states, the role and power of religion is strictly defined and limited. As long as these limitations are held firm in the face of growing Islamic fundamentalist opposition and lobbying against them (in some countries), we have nothing to fear from religion.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Bonam

[Bortron]

Bortron, Levant (a Jew) was merely pointing out the numerous factual errors in McDonald's book. You will find references on the Internet fact-checking who is right (and the mere existence of these sites puts into question McDonald's book).

But Bortron, I'll add another fact to consider: about 50% of Canadians are Catholic by upbringing whereas only about 20% of Americans are such. Many of Canada's federal PMs (indeed all since Trudeau, excepting Harper and Campbell) have been Roman Catholic. In the US, Kennedy was the sole Catholic president.

It is hard not to see McDonald's attack on "religious fundamentalism" as a modernized version of the old-line Catholic view of Protestants as being somehow fanatical, heretical "sects", outside the canon of accepted behaviour.

Bortron can edit the title and correct the typo - unless, as you imply MH, this was some deliberate reference.

Christian Nationalism is the Term McDonald uses in the book, which I haven't yet finished reading and I have not looked into her references in either, nor do I suggest that she is correct. But there are people in the house of commons that do fit this term as I understand it, no matter if MacDonald is right or wrong. I don't think this book is an attack purely on Protestants either, she seems critical of Catholics as well but I'm not that far into the book. I dare say Catholics that get involved in politics could possibly be branded Christian Nationals if they let religion guide their decisions, but your right most people think of Protestants when they hear that term.

[Argus]

So basically, the message is "Hate them! Fear them! They're different!" by an author who will no doubt tell you how she delights in multiculturalism and in respecting the cultures and beliefs of others.

These are the kinds of books which get published in a country where the ONLY criteria for publication is can you get a grant.

[WIP]

Bortron, Levant (a Jew) was merely pointing out the numerous factual errors in McDonald's book. You will find references on the Internet fact-checking who is right (and the mere existence of these sites puts into question McDonald's book).

Some day I'd like to know why the National Post is still in business! Somebody with deep pockets doesn't mind parting with their money, as long as they feel it is a worthwhile source of propaganda.

Levant says there are dozens of errors, yet he cites only 7 in his review, most of which are disputable, such as Christian activist Faytene Kryskow alleged visit to Stockwell Day, or minor factual errors at best -- for example, it's supposed to be a big deal that Frank Klees was not an ordained Baptist Minister, even though he did study at a Baptist seminary...does that count as an error? Only to a nitpicker like Ezra Levant, who does not seem to want to take on much of the body of Marci MacDonald's book; all he wants is the headline: Ezra Levant: Marci McDonald's comedy of errors. And that's what it's all about -- the headline!

The audience that Levant and the NP is trying to reach does not read much beyond headlines and never does fact-checking....similar to NP's screaming headline of a couple of years ago --: 31,000 scientists say there's no global warming, which would have been taken apart by anyone who read through the list of scientists and found less than a hundred were actual climatologists. But the 31,000 scientists headline was all that was intended for notice by an audience that finds climate change inconvenient.

Same thing here! Marci MacDonald seems to be one of the few who is shining a light on the Conservative Party's decision to adopt the U.S. Republican strategy of making a political alliance with fundamentalists. And rather than provide a plausible answer as to why Stephen Harper would appoint a creationist chiropractor (Gary Goodyear) as science and technology minister for example, Ezra Levant just wants a headline piece claiming it's full of errors.

But Bortron, I'll add another fact to consider: about 50% of Canadians are Catholic by upbringing whereas only about 20% of Americans are such. Many of Canada's federal PMs (indeed all since Trudeau, excepting Harper and Campbell) have been Roman Catholic. In the US, Kennedy was the sole Catholic president.

It is hard not to see McDonald's attack on "religious fundamentalism" as a modernized version of the old-line Catholic view of Protestants as being somehow fanatical, heretical "sects", outside the canon of accepted behaviour.

Bortron can edit the title and correct the typo - unless, as you imply MH, this was some deliberate reference.

On most issues U.S. Catholic leaders are part of the religious right ever since Jerry Falwell brought them into the "Moral Majority" which later turned into the Christian Coalition. It has been duly noted by leftwing U.S. Catholics that their bishops threaten liberal politicians like Patrick Kennedy with excommunication for supporting abortion access, while not saying a word about rightwing Republicans who cut public school funding and social programs for the poor, clearly placing the social justice issues on the backburner!

[Bortron]

Some day I'd like to know why the National Post is still in business! Somebody with deep pockets doesn't mind parting with their money, as long as they feel it is a worthwhile source of propaganda.

Levant says there are dozens of errors, yet he cites only 7 in his review, most of which are disputable, such as Christian activist Faytene Kryskow alleged visit to Stockwell Day, or minor factual errors at best -- for example, it's supposed to be a big deal that Frank Klees was not an ordained Baptist Minister, even though he did study at a Baptist seminary...does that count as an error? Only to a nitpicker like Ezra Levant, who does not seem to want to take on much of the body of Marci MacDonald's book; all he wants is the headline: Ezra Levant: Marci McDonald's comedy of errors. And that's what it's all about -- the headline!

The audience that Levant and the NP is trying to reach does not read much beyond headlines and never does fact-checking....similar to NP's screaming headline of a couple of years ago --: 31,000 scientists say there's no global warming, which would have been taken apart by anyone who read through the list of scientists and found less than a hundred were actual climatologists. But the 31,000 scientists headline was all that was intended for notice by an audience that finds climate change inconvenient.

Same thing here! Marci MacDonald seems to be one of the few who is shining a light on the Conservative Party's decision to adopt the U.S. Republican strategy of making a political alliance with fundamentalists. And rather than provide a plausible answer as to why Stephen Harper would appoint a creationist chiropractor (Gary Goodyear) as science and technology minister for example, Ezra Levant just wants a headline piece claiming it's full of errors.

On most issues U.S. Catholic leaders are part of the religious right ever since Jerry Falwell brought them into the "Moral Majority" which later turned into the Christian Coalition. It has been duly noted by leftwing U.S. Catholics that their bishops threaten liberal politicians like Patrick Kennedy with excommunication for supporting abortion access, while not saying a word about rightwing Republicans who cut public school funding and social programs for the poor, clearly placing the social justice issues on the backburner!

Yeah I figured his review was probably like that, I didn't read it yet. His opinion is too biased to take seriously because like I've said earlier in this thread the book attacks his political views or more accurately the political views of his allies. But I was really aiming more for a discussion of the fact that these people are MP's I just used the book as example of contemporary literature on the topic.

[Argus]

Lets just hope secularism continues to progress;[

Secularism is progressing? <boggle!> But... but... I thought this thread was about the rise of Christian fundamentalism and its control over every aspect of our lives!

How can that be if secularism is progressing?

I find any organization of spiritual belief distasteful as I'm sure you do as well.

So you're self-identifying as extremely biased on this subject, and yet two posts from now you dismiss Ezra Levant's commentary because you say he's biased.

So I guess.. we should dismiss you, as well... right?

[Argus]

I guess I'm more anti-religion then you are. It seems to me like much of the religion of the world does attempt to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others and I believe all religions have the potential to do this when under the influence of the right kind of people. I am not an Atheist though.

Query. How much do you donate to the poor? How much time do you donate in the form of volunteer work helping the poor, the sick, the powerless?

Are you aware that a very disproportionate number of people who volunteer and donate are religious?

[Argus]

But I was really aiming more for a discussion of the fact that these people are MP's I just used the book as example of contemporary literature on the topic.

The only thing the author seems to have identified is that there are some people who are MPs who are practicing Christians, and that she doesn't like Christians.

You know, I seem to recall that Macleans had to fight a hate literature charge merely because of a story which was primarily based on demographic data. Based on what I've seen so far this book would seem to be far more of an attack on Christians than the Macleans article was of Muslims. I wonder when the hate literature charge will be filed with the Human Rights boards.

[Remiel]

My position is that religion dies out on its own when people are exposed to the truth and are allowed to understand the natural workings of the world.

This is extremely nitpicky, but I would not call it " the Truth " so much as rational analysis of available facts that should lead one to believe that that other stuff (the religious stuff) is extremely improbable. It is a somewhat minor (but important) distinction that being a philosopher and a deist compels me to make.

[Keepitsimple]

I am currently reading a book called "The Armageddon Factor" (2010) by Marci McDonald. The book deals with the rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada. I'm curious to see what people have to say about this issue so please post your thoughts.

When it came out, the CBC was predictably all over it and interviewed the author. What a wingnut. Really.....she had that spaced-out look - kind of a hippie from the 60's who never grew up. I'll start to be concerned when Canada gets a whole bunch of Billy Graham shows on regular TV. Until then, I'll look at the so called Evangelists as being more of a southern US phenomena.

[Bortron]

Query. How much do you donate to the poor? How much time do you donate in the form of volunteer work helping the poor, the sick, the powerless?

Are you aware that a very disproportionate number of people who volunteer and donate are religious?

The people who throw battery acid on school girls in Afghanistan are pretty religious too.

[Bortron]

Secularism is progressing? <boggle!> But... but... I thought this thread was about the rise of Christian fundamentalism and its control over every aspect of our lives!

How can that be if secularism is progressing?

So you're self-identifying as extremely biased on this subject, and yet two posts from now you dismiss Ezra Levant's commentary because you say he's biased.

So I guess.. we should dismiss you, as well... right?

Everyone has bias including myself, but I strive to see beyond my bias so that I can understand my opponents. People like Ezra Levant do not. Besides religion I generally take a moderate stance on most other issues. I have just noticed that religion and certain totalitarian ideologies, such as Bolshevik style communism and extreme right wing nationalism, lay at the root of the vast majority of human rights abuse. It's not really religions fault itself its the people that exploit it for there own ends. I personally never want to be the victim of persecution by religious extremists and I believe vigilance is important. I'm a Pragmatic Moderate so whatever bias comes with that I have. I appose all forms of fanaticism as all free thinking people should strive to do.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Bortron

[Shwa]

Query. How much do you donate to the poor? How much time do you donate in the form of volunteer work helping the poor, the sick, the powerless?

Are you aware that a very disproportionate number of people who volunteer and donate are religious?

The people who throw battery acid on school girls in Afghanistan are pretty religious too.

No! Really??? You have like 36 posts since you joined yesterday and your retort is about battery acid on Afghani school girls? Is that any way to reply to Argus' reasonable question in a thread entitled "Christian Nationalists in the House of Commons." WOW!

I think this calls for a new MLW pool: how long before Bortron pops an artery and for the tie breaker, who is he replying to when it pops?

[Bortron]

No! Really??? You have like 36 posts since you joined yesterday and your retort is about battery acid on Afghani school girls? Is that any way to reply to Argus' reasonable question in a thread entitled "Christian Nationalists in the House of Commons." WOW!

I think this calls for a new MLW pool: how long before Bortron pops an artery and for the tie breaker, who is he replying to when it pops?

lol I'm not too bent out of shape by it, I was just pointing out you can connect religion with atrocity as well as you can with generosity. I could have given a dozen examples but vitriolage is a well known tactic of religious extremists in Afghanistan that people may have seen in a news lately. I meant no disrespect to Mr. Argus and I think I made a valid point, it's too bad it went over your head.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Bortron

[Shwa]

lol I'm not too bent out of shape by it, I was just pointing out you can connect religion with atrocity as well as you can with generosity making both points moot.

And yet what you actually pointed out was how easily you can connect your head with the sand. Did Argus scare you that much?

[Bortron]

And yet what you actually pointed out was how easily you can connect your head with the sand. Did Argus scare you that much?

huh?

[WIP]

The only thing the author seems to have identified is that there are some people who are MPs who are practicing Christians, and that she doesn't like Christians.

Oh really! She doesn't like Christians! You mean ALL Christians? Marci MacDonald has identified specific groups of Christians that are driving the agenda of the Conservative Party, and Stephen Harper is going to great lengths to keep these people happy.

What the right hopes, is that Canadians will ignore the U.S. example of how religious right groups have taken over the Republican Party and say nothing while the same fundamentalist fanatics take control of social policy, and even foreign policy (Israel for example).

[ToadBrother]

The only thing the author seems to have identified is that there are some people who are MPs who are practicing Christians, and that she doesn't like Christians.

You know, I seem to recall that Macleans had to fight a hate literature charge merely because of a story which was primarily based on demographic data. Based on what I've seen so far this book would seem to be far more of an attack on Christians than the Macleans article was of Muslims. I wonder when the hate literature charge will be filed with the Human Rights boards.

Why don't you give it a try?

At any rate, not having read the book, and only heard accounts of it, I was lead to understand that this was dealing with a certain group of Canadian version of Christian Identity types, and not every Lutheran, Catholic, Episcopalian, etc. out there. It doesn't sound like a terribly interesting read, but more like a very big stretch. I don't think most Canadians would tolerate the Tories taking the same road as the Republicans did, and I have no idea why the Tories would want to, seeing as so many of the GOP's currently problems stem from that unseemly alliance with some of the more troglodytic Evangelical groups.

Still, it doesn't help the Tories when Harper puts a Creationist in charge of science funding.

[Argus]

The people who throw battery acid on school girls in Afghanistan are pretty religious too.

Different religion, hmm? Point remains that in Canada, the religious folks are the ones out there volunteering their time and effort, not to mention donating food, money and other things for the poor.

How many homeless shelters are run by atheists?

[Bonam]

[quote name='Argus' date='05 July 2010 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1278351431' post='557160'N

Point remains that in Canada, the religious folks are the ones out there volunteering their time and effort, not to mention donating food, money and other things for the poor.

How many homeless shelters are run by atheists?

Implicit in your statement and question is the assumption that there is something inherently good about these activities...

Not everyone accepts altruism, especially altruism motivated by mystical religious notions, to be a good thing.

[Argus]

Oh really! She doesn't like Christians! You mean ALL Christians?

No, just the ones who actually believe in it and, you know, go to church and stuff (eek!)

Marci MacDonald has identified specific groups of Christians that are driving the agenda of the Conservative Party, and Stephen Harper is going to great lengths to keep these people happy.

Oh yawn. The agenda of the Conservative Party? So far as I've been able to determine they don't HAVE an agenda, other than doing whatever they possibly can to make people happy to get votes. This is, btw, the exact same agenda the Liberal Party has had for the last forty years now.

Other than the crime issue - which is bedrock conservatism and nothing to do with religion, I can't think of a single major policy proposal this government has put into place which was inspired by a conservative ideology at all, much less religion.

[dre]

Query. How much do you donate to the poor? How much time do you donate in the form of volunteer work helping the poor, the sick, the powerless?

Are you aware that a very disproportionate number of people who volunteer and donate are religious?

Secular and religious people both believe in helping the poor, but they do it in different ways.

Secular people believe in the government as an agent to fight poverty, religious people believe in the church and private charities. To REALLY compare the two you would have compare the ammount of money that reaches the poor through government social programs, with that of the church and private charities.

[Argus]

Implicit in your statement and question is the assumption that there is something inherently good about these activities...

Not everyone accepts altruism, especially altruism motivated by mystical religious notions, to be a good thing.

Not everyone accepts that Elvis is dead either, but I'd say the great majority of the sane ones do.

You care to make a case for why altruism is a bad thing, and why people shouldn't bother volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters?

[Argus]

Secular and religious people both believe in helping the poor, but they do it in different ways.

Secular people believe in the government as an agent to fight poverty, religious people believe in the church and private charities. To REALLY compare the two you would have compare the ammount of money that reaches the poor through government social programs, with that of the church and private charities.

That's silly. You want to compare what the government spends on social programs - money it forces out of a grudging, often unwilling populace under threat of imprisonment, with what religious people donate freely?

Even then you forget that the religious people also contribute to the public good through their taxes. But then, unlike others, they then go that extra mile, donating to charities, helping out seniors, homeless people, etc.

In fact, any actual comparison would be what a religious person gives, on average, in the way of money and time, vs what a non-religious person gives, on average, in the way of money and time. You want to bet who'd win that one?