Chistian Nationalists in the House of Commons

[normanchateau]

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?

For answers to your question, and there are multiple plausible answers, you might want to read this book (not just random excerpts):

http://www.cfdp.ca/giffen.htm

[bush_cheney2004]

Well King was a Presbyterian and in 1923 I think that would constitute what we moderns would call a 'religious fundamentalist.'

Sure...if he believed in God....must be a "religious fundamentalist", right?

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?"

Racism was one of the drivers for scheduling controlled substances in the Commonwealth...pressure from the royal mothership for these and other reasons made it so.

Edited July 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[normanchateau]

Sure...if he believed in God....

It turns out that a higher percentage of Canadians would vote for an atheist as Prime Minister than they would for an Evangelical Christian as Prime Minister:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=61a83d87-2b84-4344-9671-ae3272cb9878&k=62108

Unfortunately we are saddled with an Evangelical Christian Prime Minister who surrounds himself with speech writers, policy coordinators, anti-abortionists and other hangers-on who share his Evangelical beliefs, even putting in charge of Canada's science and technology policies a chiropractor who believes, like Evangelical Stockwell Day, that the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

No wonder that this week Stephen Harper trailed only Brian Mulroney as the second worst of the last eight prime ministers:

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/trudeau_best_mulroney_worst_for_canadians1/

[Shwa]

Sure...if he believed in God....must be a "religious fundamentalist", right?

Nope. I am saying the outward appearances of 1923 Presyterianism would appear to us today as a religious fundamentalism. Likely, back in the day, it would not have drawn too much negative attention which would allow someone like LM King to be elected PM. So was it his religious "fundamentalism" that drove him to prohibit cannabis?

Racism was one of the drivers for scheduling controlled substances in the Commonwealth...pressure from the royal mothership for these and other reasons made it so.

History of Drug Prohibition in Canada

Deffo there is the case for racism as a driver, but it appears to be an international driver and not one limited to the Commonwealth or the royal mothership:

In his report, King summarized the progress of the anti-opium movement in China, the United States, Britain, and Japan to make the point that Canada was lagging behind in this international movement.

More likely, cannabis was added to the list because of Canadian involvement in international conferences where it was discussed.

So religion or racism? Hmmmmm..... I would imagine a bit of both since that is a prevalent theme in Canadian history.

[Michael Hardner]

Unfortunately we are saddled with an Evangelical Christian Prime Minister who surrounds himself with speech writers, policy coordinators, anti-abortionists and other hangers-on who share his Evangelical beliefs, even putting in charge of Canada's science and technology policies a chiropractor who believes, like Evangelical Stockwell Day, that the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

How is this observation different from making similar suggestions about Muslims ?

One thing I like about Canada is we have less paranoia - so you don't see the "Harper is a Secret Christian" email spams that you see in the US with "Obama is a Secret Muslim".

In short - who cares ?

[madmax]

Worse than that....I AM AMERICAN! God Bless America! LOL!

AND HE POSTED IT ON JULY the 4th

THE HORROR THE HORROR THE HORROR!!! Wait till JBG heres about this. I'm tellin.

Besides there is only one Merican I can listen too.

I'll flip a coin between the two of you.

Cars, I will listen to you.

Law. JBG has you beat.

Canadian Politics... Both you seem to know alot about our government.

But I got CSIS on you!!!

Edited July 6, 2010 by madmax

[Wild Bill]

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.

My understanding is that Dr. Martin is a medical doctor. I agree that medicine is indeed a branch of science but for purposes of my point I perhaps should have been more specific.

I'm actually referring to what are called "hard sciences", i.e. physics, chemistry and maths. The others seem to be more "rote" knowledge, depending on learning as big as possible a database of facts and then using them as a "lookup table", applying symptoms to a probable disease.

Medicine to me really becomes a science when we get into gene splicing, nanotechnologies and recombinant DNA techniques. Perhaps Dr. Martin indeed is at that level but if so I am unaware of it. I'm talking about the people who could help put men on the moon, not those who could make a guess that you have a cold.

How about it? Any among the opposition you champion that understand how a motor or a generator works, a device which is about a century old? Who can describe a P/N junction, the basis of transistors which are virtually everywhere in our modern environment?

As I love to repeat, I don't see any who I would trust to replace a plug on a lamp yet they have the power to make decisions in areas of science that affect our future and our economy, almost every day.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Wild Bill]

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.

Good Lord! Take off that tinfoil hat! No need for a conspiracy theory!

There's a FAR simpler explanation that better fits the facts! Your argument is that Harper is a fanatic about religious fundamentalism who takes a Satanic glee in busting pot users. This is so extreme as to be laughable!

No, much more likely is that Harper is just another politician who knows that he has a Christian demographic in his support base. He also knows that if he ever adopted their extreme views it would be a political kiss of death! How do we know this? Because he has been flat out saying this for years!

He has to throw them a bone once in a while, however. Most of the time they are disappointed in him for not being extreme enough in his governance. Marijuana is a safe bone to toss to them BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP!

Few canadians hold pot legalization as a major card when they pick where to place their vote. There's you and a couple on this board and of course, Mark Emory. After that the pickin's get kinda thin. Ask Canadians if they would want to see pot legalized and perhaps the majority would say yes. Ask them if they really care that much about it or about how harsh the laws are right now and that same percentage would likely say...NO!

So you posit religious fanaticism and evil glee. I submit that simple opportunism for a political cheap vote grab makes more sense.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Wild Bill

[dre]

Good Lord! Take off that tinfoil hat! No need for a conspiracy theory!

There's a FAR simpler explanation that better fits the facts! Your argument is that Harper is a fanatic about religious fundamentalism who takes a Satanic glee in busting pot users. This is so extreme as to be laughable!

No, much more likely is that Harper is just another politician who knows that he has a Christian demographic in his support base. He also knows that if he ever adopted their extreme views it would be a political kiss of death! How do we know this? Because he has been flat out saying this for years!

He has to throw them a bone once in a while, however. Most of the time they are disappointed in him for not being extreme enough in his governance. Marijuana is a safe bone to toss to them BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP!

Few canadians hold pot legalization as a major card when they pick where to place their vote. There's you and a couple on this board and of course, Mark Emory. After that the pickin's get kinda thin. Ask Canadians if they would want to see pot legalized and perhaps the majority would say yes. Ask them if they really care that much about it or about how harsh the laws are right now and that same percentage would likely say...NO!

So you posit religious fanaticism and evil glee. I submit that simple opportunism for a political cheap vote grab makes more sense.

If people were told the truth about pot criminalization the issue would be way bigger in the minds of voters.

Canadians have literally no idea what this destructive policy costs them every year. They dont understand the degree to which taking a large established market like Marijuana, and mandating that only organized criminals get access to those massive revenues on the supply side while keeping honest regulated tax paying business owners and entrepreneurs out directly damages every single Canadian. Not enough of them are aware that organized criminals use the money they make on the pot supply side to fund other ventures in things like human trafficing, sexual slavery, extortion, racketeering, and harder and more dangerous drugs. Then you have the massive direct costs in enforcement, litigation, and clogging up our courts and criminal justice system prosecuting smokers, and policing and court room hours that could be spent dealing with real crimes. And of course the huge lost tax revenues by allowing a multi billion dollar market to go completely untaxed.

Its one of the most costly, destructive and counter productive things our government does.

[Argus]

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.

Apparently reading isn't your strong point. Or perhaps its comprehension. Or basic honesty? Possibly a combination...

Crime may or may not be falling. Yes, indeed police reported crime - and stats Canada is very clear on that designation "police reported crime" is down. However, there are suggestions from numerous sources that a great deal of crime never gets reported to police. Thus the victimization surveys - which DO NOT show large decreases in crime. So yes, crime may or may not be down, as I stated. And a 2% reduction in violent crime given the sharp rise in violent crime over the past several decades still leaves us with a high level of violent crime - which, as stats Canada states - has remained largely unchanged for 10 years.

And as I have pointed out to both of you, conservatives taking tough stands on crime has NO BEARING whatsoever on your silly conspiracy theories about the religious right, and also people are bothered more by indications that criminals who hurt others aren't being properly punished than by crime statistics.

Also, I stated that aside from crime i couldn't think of any major ideologically driven policy or program the Conservatives have instituted. Neither of you has managed to come up with one, so where is your much trumpeted religious influence?

[William Ashley]

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.

My thoughts - who cares.

As long as they arn't violating the law - let them practice.

[ToadBrother]

My understanding is that Dr. Martin is a medical doctor. I agree that medicine is indeed a branch of science but for purposes of my point I perhaps should have been more specific.

A biologist once explained to me that doctors are not, by training, scientists at all. They are technicians. Doctors can certainly become scientists (and there are many medical researchers who medical doctors), but in general you can no more describe a doctor as a scientist than you can an engineer.

[WIP]

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

That's not the question! Thanks for deliberately misreading or misinterpreting. Your previous statement conflated church attendance and praying with conservative Christian political viewpoints, and my point...which I guess flew right over your head, is that they are not one and the same thing!

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.

And we have already discussed enough evidence that the rightwing, Ayn Randian type of Christianity is wafting over the border from the U.S.. If you want to keep your hands over your eyes and ignore it, that's your choice! But the evidence that our evangelical prime minister and his government are trying to tweak the system to favour this kind of religion has already been proven.

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.

The biggest problem with the Catholic Church is that it is a feudal despotic regime that is run by the Vatican. It's not just in the U.S. where bishops have threatened politicians who do not support a ban on abortion; they have used this threat against Liberals like Chretien and Paul Martin, and in many other predominantly Catholic countries like Spain, Italy and Portugal. And yet in all of these cases, I would be willing to bet that no priest or bishop threatened denying sacraments to a right wing politician who cut welfare, unemployment insurance, or other social benefits. In other words, the Pope and his Bishop's proclamations of their concerns for the poor are nothing more than lip service.....they are focusing their attention on perceived sexual vices, just like the right wing churches. U.S. Catholic leaders are prominent among the religious right -- look at the five conservatives on the Supreme Court for example. How much do Roberts, Scalia and Alito care about the poor and homeless? Not a whole lot based on their rulings so far.

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.

I want to focus on that point because demanding punishment for criminals may be a fundamentally human reaction, but retribution is not supposed to be the proper Christian response. That is supposed to be the 'eye for an eye' method of exacting punishment taken from the Old Testament. I have never met very many Christians who gave the implications of the Golden Rule much serious thought.

But what I really want to know is why do conservatives, like your buddy Harper, insist on applying retributive justice to non-violent offenders? Odds are that most of the inmates in new prisons that Harper wants to build will there on drug offenses...what kind of Christian values is that supposed to represent?

[WIP]

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.

This is why I think that consequences should be the standard for determining laws and penalties. We've known for four decades that the War on Drugs is a sham, and that drug addiction should be handled in the same way that alcohol addiction is treated. Instead, we got prohibition, and the surge in organized crime, expanded police powers, and prisons full of drug addicts....all because nobody had the courage to weigh the consequences of prohibition vs. legalization and treating addiction as a health issue.

[Argus]

That's not the question! Thanks for deliberately misreading or misinterpreting. Your previous statement conflated church attendance and praying with conservative Christian political viewpoints, and my point...which I guess flew right over your head, is that they are not one and the same thing!

Didn't actually say or suggest they were...

And we have already discussed enough evidence that the rightwing, Ayn Randian type of Christianity is wafting over the border from the U.S.. If you want to keep your hands over your eyes and ignore it, that's your choice! But the evidence that our evangelical prime minister and his government are trying to tweak the system to favour this kind of religion has already been proven.

Uhm, not only has it not been "proven" there isn't ANY evidence of it.

The biggest problem with the Catholic Church is that it is a feudal despotic regime that is run by the Vatican. It's not just in the U.S. where bishops have threatened politicians who do not support a ban on abortion; they have used this threat against Liberals like Chretien and Paul Martin, and in many other predominantly Catholic countries like Spain, Italy and Portugal

.

The Catholic Church has a right to decide what moral rules its people live under. If you don't like those rules, you're perfectly free to leave the Church. I personally think the Church SHOULD have excommunicated Martin. It was clear he had abandoned any semblance of obedience to Church teachings in pursuit of power and was no longer any kind of Catholic.

And yet in all of these cases, I would be willing to bet that no priest or bishop threatened denying sacraments to a right wing politician who cut welfare, unemployment insurance, or other social benefits.

Charity is not a commandment. Thus the punishment for not engaging in it would be considerably less than for those supporting what the Church considers to be murder.

But what I really want to know is why do conservatives, like your buddy Harper, insist on applying retributive justice to non-violent offenders? Odds are that most of the inmates in new prisons that Harper wants to build will there on drug offenses...what kind of Christian values is that supposed to represent?

Are you now trying to suggest Harper doesn't really care all that much about Christian values?

[Bortron]

My thoughts - who cares.

As long as they arn't violating the law - let them practice.

It's not about them breaking laws, the issue is they may gain the power to change the law on a wide variety of issues such as abortion and woman's rights. Its a worthy topic of discussion which ever side your on.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Being an Atheist do you not find it worrisome that these people are in important positions of power? After all they are not so tolerant of Atheists as you seem to be of them.

I certainly find it worrisome.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

[WIP]

Uhm, not only has it not been "proven" there isn't ANY evidence of it.

There's plenty of evidence mentioned in the first nine pages of this thread....I don't feel like going through it over and over again.

The Catholic Church has a right to decide what moral rules its people live under. If you don't like those rules, you're perfectly free to leave the Church. I personally think the Church SHOULD have excommunicated Martin. It was clear he had abandoned any semblance of obedience to Church teachings in pursuit of power and was no longer any kind of Catholic.

And when the Catholic Church enters the political arena to advocate its positions, those who disagree also have rights; specifically to criticize errors and condemn their moral rules where they result in harmful consequences -- Catholic interference in programs to reduce birth rates in the Third World, would be exhibit A. They have fought access for women to have safe abortions, birth control and condom distribution....and it's not until they become a total pariah, such as declaring that African women should risk getting AIDS, rather than demand that their HIV-infected husbands wear condoms. If it wasn't for unpleasant worldwide attention on that story a year ago, they wouldn't have even changed that one.

Charity is not a commandment. Thus the punishment for not engaging in it would be considerably less than for those supporting what the Church considers to be murder.

And this is why a lot of people find Catholic morality repugnant. According to the writer of the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus did not follow this 'charity is optional' standpoint of modern rightwing Catholics. The Jesus in this book used charity as the litmus test to determine who was worthy of salvation:

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Are you now trying to suggest Harper doesn't really care all that much about Christian values?

Whatever he does or doesn't care about, Harper is aware that right wing Dominionist Christians have an Old Testament attitude about retribution, and he wants this to be the standard, whether it leads to better or worse results.