Chistian Nationalists in the House of Commons

[normanchateau]

Exactly how many Canadians of any political stripe oppose universal education, universal health care or pogey? I'm guessing damned few.

Evangelical Christian Stockwell Day does not necessarily oppose universal education but he does appear to oppose provincial government involvement in setting educational standards:

"At the time Day fervently defended the material - and the right of his school to teach whatever it wanted - saying he was willing to "go to jail, if need be."

"God's law is clear," said an angry Day to the Alberta Report in 1984. "Standards of education are not set by government, but by God, the Bible, the home and the school."

Source:

http://www.straightgoods.com/item313.shtml

[ToadBrother]

Evangelical Christian Stockwell Day does not necessarily oppose universal education but he does appear to oppose provincial government involvement in setting educational standards:

"At the time Day fervently defended the material - and the right of his school to teach whatever it wanted - saying he was willing to "go to jail, if need be."

"God's law is clear," said an angry Day to the Alberta Report in 1984. "Standards of education are not set by government, but by God, the Bible, the home and the school."

Source:

http://www.straightgoods.com/item313.shtml

How exactly Day was ever elected leader of the Alliance, and has since remained in Cabinet has always been a mystery to me. Well, not really, he's a pretty classic example of how a leader will sometimes have to mollify a vocal group within his party by giving even an idiot like Stockboy Day a decent portfolio, though in Day's place, one where his religious notions can do relatively little harm.

[normanchateau]

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.

US phenomenon? In case you haven't noticed, the Prime Minister of Canada is a Christian Evangelical. Do you think it's mere coincidence who Harper promoted last year to be his Director of Policy?

Source:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2009/03/25/evangelicals-promoted-to-top-jobs-by-pm-stephen-harper.aspx

[normanchateau]

It is probably also no coincidence that Evangelical Harper hired Nigel Hannaford as his speechwriter last year:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Harpers_new_speechwriter_is_a_gay_rights_opponent-7727.aspx

Hannaford wrote in 2005, "Fine, said lots of people. Leave gays alone? Fair enough. But, let 'em be Boy Scout leaders? Have each other's benefits? Adopt kids? Marry each other? Ridiculous. Anybody seeking political office who suggested it would have been laughed off the hustings. Yet, the Liberals are ready to legalize gay marriage. How did we get to this point?"

[August1991]

The comparison still fails because its too simplistic, and because he refuses to place value on the main mechanism of helping the poor in a secular society (social programs, universal healthcare, universal education, etc etc).

He also doesnt take account for the fact that the Government itself plays a role in charitable donations, and that many of them are used for tax bracket tweaking, estate adjustment, and other accounting maneuvers.

...

Like I said... I dont give much in the way of direct contributions to charities that help the poor. But I vote for policies that help the poor in a broader sense, and dont complain about paying my share for them.

Secularists want to build a society that reduces poverty... why is that less altruistic or charitable than a guy that writes a tax deductible check for X dollars to a religious cause?

While you respond to Hardner, I think your point is addressed to Argus - and I think you miss his point.

I don't disagree that governments must tax us all, in some cases, to pay for specific goods or services for a few. But if your post above about your family's use of health services is accurate, then surely you know that having access to those services in 2010 requires someone well-versed in bureaucratic rules. Otherwise, you're just another number.

My fear is that this will be increasingly teh case and by 2025, let's say, a 78 year old boomer (someone born in 1947) with, say, a broken hip but no kids (and no nephew/niece willing to answer a phone call) will fall all alone into the "Canadian Health Care Bureaucracy" of 2025.

Money won't matter, unless you've got oodles. What will matter for our hypothetical 78 year old boomer with a broken hip all alone in English urban Canada in 2025 will be, probably, a Christian woman from the Philippines, or Jamaica, who does the job for money - and because she is religious and wants to help people from the good of her heart.

And you, dre - who now seems to be older, and Marci McDonald want to denigrate the beliefs of such people when you and McDonald may well depend on them in the future.

-----

This thread shows a tremendous naivety about religion, and its role in society. (And I say that knowing fully that my sobriquet has a portrait of Voltaire.)

Edited July 5, 2010 by August1991

[normanchateau]

And also no coincidence that last year Harper appointed Darrel Reid as his new deputy chief of staff.

Who is Darrel Reid?

Reid is the Evangelical who compared members of the House of Commons to Nazis if they voted in favour of making it a hate crime to advocate the murder of lesbians and homosexuals.

Reid's comments were made in 2003 in opposition to Bill C-250, which added sexual orientation to the list of reasons groups were protected against hate crimes and hate speech. Reid argued that the bill could lead to Christians being convicted of hate crimes for defending the traditional definition of marriage.

"This isn't the first time in human history where tyranny has been imposed on people," Reid stated. "You know, it happened in Germany in the '30s, and frankly I see some real parallels there -- because, you know, Adolf Hitler and his bunch really didn't care ultimately what you thought personally, but they really cared about what you said because that became dangerous. And, therefore, when people spoke up about things like freedom or spoke up about their religious values, that was when the power of the state started coming down."

Reid's comments were taken seriously by at least one Evangelical Christian, Stephen Harper, who as leader of the Canadian Alliance had his entire caucus vote against C-250. C-250 passed because most Liberals, the BQ, the NDP, and even Progressive Conservatives including Peter MacKay and Joe Clark voted for it.

[Argus]

It is in fact an issue of great historical contention.

Says who? Because CTV says that the US and UK are going to fund abortions? Is the US going to fund abortions? I seriously doubt it when their government recently promised not to fund any in the US itself!

Abortion is ILLEGAL in almost every African nation. How do you propose we fund abortions in Africa? Declare war on most of the continent until they agree to allow them?

But don't get maaaad at me...

Why should I get mad at you just because you parrot whatever you read in the media and are too intellectually lazy to put any thought to it?

You are simply one of those people spin doctors and advertising agencies delight in: easily molded, easily fooled, easily herded inn whatever direction they want you to go.

[Argus]

Oh, so Christians who don't support the right wing agenda don't go to church and are not real Christians I suppose!

If you don't pray and you don't go to church then no, you're not a real Christian.

Fact is the religious right is a modern concoction. Until WWII, religious fundamentalists were never on the side of the people with the money.

Fact is you don't even know what the "religious right" is. There certainly is a religious right in the US but you've basically transposed their ideals and beliefs into Canada without any real supporting evidence. As far as you're concerned any religious group in Canada is part of this "religious right" simply because they are probably opposed to abortions and less than enthusiastic about gay marriage. But that doesn't make them conservatives in most of the ways you're referring to - ie, helping the poor and supporting or opposing measures that benefit the weak and downtrodden. I don't remember the last time the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops ever had anything to say to the government that didn't involve their demand the government spend more money on the poor, on homelessness, on health care, etc. But you'd probably put them as part of your mythical "religious right" in Canada nonetheless.

Crime was not a divisive issue between Liberals and Conservatives until very recently,

You mean because neither party did anything about it?

and Harper's agenda of building more prisons and the "tough on crime BS" is just parroting the Republican platform on this issue.

The conservatives have been talking tough on crime for at least thirty years that I can remember, probably forever. It's a pretty fundamental characteristic of conservative governments going back centuries.

At a time when crime is in decline

,

It might or might not be but violent crime doesn't appear to be. And anyway, what you don't seem to get is that the desire for fundamental justice has nothing to do with alleviating crime. It has to do with ensuring that people who hurt others are justly punished. The amount of crime is beside the point in those terms.

[normanchateau]

How exactly Day was ever elected leader of the Alliance, and has since remained in Cabinet has always been a mystery to me. Well, not really, he's a pretty classic example of how a leader will sometimes have to mollify a vocal group within his party by giving even an idiot like Stockboy Day a decent portfolio, though in Day's place, one where his religious notions can do relatively little harm.

Stockwell Day has said there is scientific proof that the world is about 6,000 years old and that early humans co-existed with dinosaurs.

I'm not so sure that Evangelical Day and Evangelical Harper differ in their views. Harper has the intelligence not to talk about his Evangelical beliefs:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/thesearch/archive/2008/09/10/why-stephen-harper-keeps-his-evangelicalism-very-private.aspx

[Argus]

How exactly Day was ever elected leader of the Alliance, and has since remained in Cabinet has always been a mystery to me. Well, not really, he's a pretty classic example of how a leader will sometimes have to mollify a vocal group within his party by giving even an idiot like Stockboy Day a decent portfolio, though in Day's place, one where his religious notions can do relatively little harm.

Actually, from all I've read, Day has been quite a successful and capable minister in all his increasingly more senior portfolios.

[normanchateau]

It might or might not be but violent crime doesn't appear to be.

Like Stephen Harper, you are misinformed as usual. Not only have crime rates gone down in Canada, the largest declines have been in violent crimes, such as homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual offences, abduction and robbery:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/vital-signs-violent-crime-community-report380.html

[ToadBrother]

Actually, from all I've read, Day has been quite a successful and capable minister in all his increasingly more senior portfolios.

I won't argue with that. But I'd sure the hell keep him away from anything to do with science funding. It was bad enough having Goodyear making a fool of himself, but Day is pretty much a fully admitted Creationist.

[Sir Bandelot]

Like Stephen Harper, you are misinformed as usual. Not only have crime rates gone down in Canada, the largest declines have been in violent crimes, such as homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual offences, abduction and robbery:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/vital-signs-violent-crime-community-report380.html

Tsk tsk.

Argus doesn't like facts, or links. Especialy from multiple sources like the one I quoted for him today. They get in the way of his ad-hominem attacks.

Oh wait a sec, no they dont

[normanchateau]

Tsk tsk.

Argus doesn't like facts, or links. Especially from multiple sources like the one I quoted for him today. They get in the way of his ad-hominem attacks.

Well fancy that. I thought that it was only those who were intellectually lazy who ignored facts and links.

[Michael Hardner]

For what its worth I dont really have a claim to make here. I dont know if religious people are "nicer guys" or not. I admit I dont have the facts and knowledge at my disposal to make a judgement here, but neither does Argus.

I would simply say that religious and secular values both promote acts of altruism they just do it using different mechanisms.

Nor do I know, although I will say that I find people who consider such questions - religious or not - tend to be nicer than those who do not.

[Argus]

Like Stephen Harper, you are misinformed as usual. Not only have crime rates gone down in Canada, the largest declines have been in violent crimes, such as homicide, attempted murder, assault, sexual offences, abduction and robbery:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/vital-signs-violent-crime-community-report380.html

According to a group no one has ever heard of, you mean? The Community Foundations appears to be some sort of lefty community outreach program. I'm not sure where they get off giving news releases about crime. The only reliable crime stats come from the government.

Violent crime severity in Canada has been relatively stable over the past decade.

Statistics Canada

Moreover, even Stats Canada admits its information is incomplete, and underreports actual crime because they go strictly by police reported crime. Every five years, to help make up for this, they do a national criminal victim survey, and those surveys have not shown any drops in crime, particularly violent crime.

And you've completely ignored the point I made, that much of the anger is based on the lack of justice seen in many of the sentences handed out to people who cause harm, as opposed to the amount of crime.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

And you've completely ignored the point I made, that much of the anger is based on the lack of justice seen in many of the sentences handed out to people who cause harm, as opposed to the amount of crime.

There is something of a tricky area here, in that public tolerance for leniency may be changing. As such, the 'problem' could be argued to be with the public.

Or is it ?

Doesn't the public have a right to their own expectations with regards to the justice system ? If those expectations change, i.e. the general attitude changes to a harder line, isn't it their right to expect the system to reflect that change ?

An important part of the justice system is the public perception that justice is being served. And once again, that plays into that changing landscape known as communications.

[Argus]

Tsk tsk.

Argus doesn't like facts, or links. Especialy from multiple sources like the one I quoted for him today. They get in the way of his ad-hominem attacks.

Oh wait a sec, no they dont

What Argus does, what an intelligent person does, is question. So when someone tells me something, I check it out first. As in his link to some group I'd never heard of. What you provided were links to journalists responding to the Liberal spin. You provided nothing of substance, in fact, but other people sharing your reaction to the spin. But that's par for the course for you. Trying to think is clearly too much effort for someone of your limited intellectual capacity.

Steven Harper is a horrible man for not paying for abortions in Africa!!

Uh, but abortion is illegal almost everywhere in Africa.

Look! Look at these journalists saying Stephen Harper is a horrible man for not paying for abortions in Africa!! See! I'm right!

Uh, but abortion is illegal almost everywhere in Africa.

I guess you can't read the cites of people who support me!

Ah, the smug self-righteousness of the Left Wing.

[Wild Bill]

I won't argue with that. But I'd sure the hell keep him away from anything to do with science funding. It was bad enough having Goodyear making a fool of himself, but Day is pretty much a fully admitted Creationist.

Why stop with Day, TB? There's not a politician in power today, federally or provincially, that seems to have even a 6th grade understanding of basic science!

The only one I ever knew was Chuck Cadman. Of course, I'm biased 'cuz like me he repaired guitar amplifiers!

[Sir Bandelot]

What Argus does, what an intelligent person does, is question. So when someone tells me something, I check it out first. As in his link to some group I'd never heard of.

Oh I see. You've never heard of the G8 then, I presume

[Argus]

Oh I see. You've never heard of the G8 then, I presume

You didn't cite the G8. You cited journalists who themselves didn't cite the G8.

Doh!

[normanchateau]

The only reliable crime stats come from the government.

Violent crime severity in Canada has been relatively stable over the past decade.

Statistics Canada

WIP posts that crime is on the decline.

You respond to WIP with: "It might or might not be but violent crime doesn't appear to be."

Now in response to the link I provided, you post Statistics Canada data showing a large decline in crime and a 2% decline in violent crime. Seems that even the Statistics Canada data support WIP's point.

The Statistics Canada data in your link also look at specific types of crimes and perhaps will provide some comfort to social conservatives like Stephen Harper. Possession of cannabis, which continued to account for almost half of all drug offences, posted a rate increase. In other words, crime rates went down despite the increase in the number of arrests for cannabis possession. As a member of a Christian Evangelical sect who strongly condemns marijuana use, Stephen Harper must be pleased that more people are being arrested for the mere possession of marijuana. It seems that Christian Nationalists, like other religious fundamentalists, are obsessive about criminalizing rather than regulating marijuana.

Stephen Harper and his social conservative cohorts should be ashamed of themselves for not decriminalizing marijuana, thereby perpetuating the absurd scenario in which almost half of all police-reported drug crimes involve mere possession of marijuana.

[normanchateau]

There's not a politician in power today, federally or provincially, that seems to have even a 6th grade understanding of basic science!

Perhaps not but there are certainly members of the opposition well-versed in science knowledge, e.g., Dr. Keith Martin. Unfortunately they are not in power.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It seems that Christian Nationalists, like other religious fundamentalists, are obsessive about criminalizing rather than regulating marijuana....

Using such logic, how would you characterize the minority government of Prime Minister King which (in 1923) added cannabis as a scheduled substance without debate in Parliament? Were they "religious fundamentalists", or just royal racists?

[Shwa]

Using such logic, how would you characterize the minority government of Prime Minister King which (in 1923) added cannabis as a scheduled substance without debate in Parliament? Were they "religious fundamentalists", or just royal racists?

Well King was a Presbyterian and in 1923 I think that would constitute what we moderns would call a 'religious fundamentalist.' I have never quite understood why there has been so much of a distaste between Christian religion and cannabis use. However, what do you mean by "royal racists?"