Social Conservative Party of Canada

[Riverwind]

It's likely people are more sensitive in BC since the Indians took over the BC government a few years back by swamping riding associations to elect Ujjal Dosanjh as NDP leader when that party was the government. It is unlikely Dosanjh would have been very many people's choice for Premier outside the Indian community, who voted for him, strictly speaking, out of blatant racism.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? I did not want him as premier because he was an NDP supporter, however, he was probably the best qualified candidate among the choices that were available to the NDP party at the time.

[Argus]

Different culture. Generally speaking, people are far more observant there than here. I see no possibility, given the limited numbers of fundamentalists here, in them havng any great influence over national affairs.

That may be, however, the spectacle of legislatures in US trying the ban evolution from the school curriculum (among other things) does make one nervous about a party that seems to be attracting these kinds of people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The spectacle of some small town, hayseeds trying to ban evolution and failing is hardly relevent to our situation here.

[Argus]

It's likely people are more sensitive in BC since the Indians took over the BC government a few years back by swamping riding associations to elect Ujjal Dosanjh as NDP leader when that party was the government. It is unlikely Dosanjh would have been very many people's choice for Premier outside the Indian community, who voted for him, strictly speaking, out of blatant racism.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? I did not want him as premier because he was an NDP supporter, however, he was probably the best qualified candidate among the choices that were available to the NDP party at the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would he have become leader if he was White?

[August1991]

When I saw the G&M headline (and article at the start of this thread), and the read Simpson's column inside on the same topic, I thought "Oh no! Here we go again!"

Maybe on the right, we should take heart that the left has largely conceded the economic debate about government intervention. One rarely if ever hears about nationalizing industry. There is no talk of wage and price controls. Foreign investment is considered good, not bad. No one argues in favour of tariff barriers. These were all common left-wing positions several decades ago, when capitalism was considered in its final stages and free markets were boring.

Now, the left has retreated to a "progressive" bastion where it has created a coalition of gays and other rabble rousers arguing in favour of, get this, the freedom to choose. In Canada, this coalition has taken on an anti-American, nationalistic hue, as BD states:

I think what we are seeing is the thin edge of the wedge. The Religious Right is bringing their mission to overturn democracy and enlightenment ideals to Canada. It may start as a trickle, but then, 20 years ago, the same people who are pulling stunts like "Save Terri", "Justice Sunday", who are blocking stem cell research, birth control, gay marriage and sex ed, etc etc. were laughed at. Today, they have access to the highest levels of power. We would do well to watch and guard against the same fate befalling us here.

"The Religious Right is bringing their mission to overturn democracy and enlightenment ideals to Canada"? WTF? That's worthy of Joe McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. Well, no, it's not. The Soviets represented a threat. Religious arguments were settled in the West centuries ago.

I'm with Argus on this:

The spectacle of some small town, hayseeds trying to ban evolution and failing is hardly relevent to our situation here.

For political gain, the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP portray the Tories as the Religious Right. To drive the idea home, they tie this Religious Right to the US. In Ontario, to make it absolutely clear, the Conservatives are tarred with the hillbilly brush - ignorant Westerners.

In the US, in the past, the equivalent term was "soft on Communism". That is, Democrats were accused of being "soft on Communism" in the same way that Conservatives are now accused of having a "secret fundamentalist agenda".

-----

As to the G&M article itself:

Mr. Emmanuel said Christians have been allowed to believe that "to be a genuine citizen of the nation we need to check our religion at the political door. And I'm saying no, that's fundamentally flawed. You may participate in the public square as a religious individual and be not ashamed."

Is there something wrong with having politicians with specific values?

To insist that politicians not have religious beliefs is equivalent to selecting religious leaders only among the celibate. And is it wrong if those politicians then honestly state publicly their beliefs?

Religion has played a critical role in this country's history. I frankly consider the current debate, in comparison, to be silly.

-----

I was curious why the G&M put the story on the front page. I think the G&M, and all newspapers in fact, are in serious financial trouble. Newspapers are forced to change now in the same way cinema and radio had to change in the late 1940s with the arrival of television. Radio managed best because of cars. Cinema went to Cinemascope, Super-Panavision, Todd-AO before realizing that people were not going to buy cinema tickets three times a week as they did in the 1920s and 1930s.

IOW, the G&M is desperately looking for ways to sell newspapers. Just like Panavision, expect more 240 point headlines attractive to people who might pick up a paper at a newstand to show that they are socially (or is that politically) engaged. Such advertising, like all advertsising, works best in an urban setting.

[geoffrey]

The whole issue here is Canadian's fear having a politican with principles. God forbid anyone that has real moral values becomes PM.

And what about these liberal social extremists, they should be considered just as 'scary' as these social conservatives. Hell it doesn't make much sense for those that want to keep things relatively the same to be more scary than those that want to change every social fabric our country has.

Ridiculous liberal fear mongering. The big bad evil conservatives are coming. Ya right.

[Guest eureka]

The legislatures of 19 American states - and counting are not "small-town hayseeds." They represent a frightening return to the intolerance of the medieval churches. They are the Christian likeness of the 14th. century Muslim belief that there was no further knowledge to be discovered.

Islam ceased to progress then. This would do the same for Christianity.

[Argus]

The legislatures of 19 American states - and counting are not "small-town hayseeds." They represent a frightening return to the intolerance of the medieval churches.

And how many of these state legislatures have banned the teaching of evolution?

(I'm betting I get no answer to this one)

Also, how many Christian politicians at any level in Canada (remember Canada?) have proposed banning evolution. In round numbers, please.

(I'm betting I get no answer to this one either)

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hey TTS don't hate us because you aint us. Hug a Conservative it might feel good and I promise most of us don't bite.

I don't hate Conservatives, I oppose them. I don't like the policies or beliefs they propagate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be more exact, you oppose the polices and beliefs you imagine they would like to propogate in their evil secret hearts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. There is more than enough information publicly known to substantiate my opposition.

I think you tories are suspiciously insistent on imputing some malice to people who just don't want to see you elected.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Foreign investment is considered good, not bad.

*choke -- sputter*

... a coalition of gays and other rabble rousers ...

Bigotry?

"The Religious Right is bringing their mission to overturn democracy and enlightenment ideals to Canada"?

WTF?  That's worthy of Joe McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. 

Huhn? Nice rhetorical hyperbole, but what exactly do you dispute about the statement?

For political gain, the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP portray the Tories as the Religious Right. 

True, and why not? The Tories ARE the party the religous right looks to bring forward their objectives. SSM is the proof.

To drive the idea home, they tie this Religious Right to the US. 

Yes, and?

As to the G&M article itself:

Mr. Emmanuel said Christians have been allowed to believe that "to be a genuine citizen of the nation we need to check our religion at the political door. And I'm saying no, that's fundamentally flawed. You may participate in the public square as a religious individual and be not ashamed."

Is there something wrong with having politicians with specific values?

That old red herring is really getting wiffy. Surely some conservatives are intelligent enough to understand that the problem is not people having beleifs, it is with those who will press those beleifs against our freedoms and rights.

[Argus]

Hey TTS don't hate us because you aint us. Hug a Conservative it might feel good and I promise most of us don't bite.

I don't hate Conservatives, I oppose them. I don't like the policies or beliefs they propagate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be more exact, you oppose the polices and beliefs you imagine they would like to propogate in their evil secret hearts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. There is more than enough information publicly known to substantiate my opposition.

I think you tories are suspiciously insistent on imputing some malice to people who just don't want to see you elected.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think your malice is pretty well-demonstrated.

Unlike your paranoid beliefs on the intentions of the Tory party.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think your malice is pretty well-demonstrated.

Of course you do. You can usually be relied upon to make emotionalistic judgements, based on chauvinistic beliefs, to impute some failure or deficiency to anyone or aything that upsets your applecart/worldview.

I expect nothing less.

[Guest eureka]

None of those legislatures has banned the teaching of evolution. All are trying to have the "alternative" view taught. Kansas has made the most progress in forcing schools to cast doubt on evolution.

No numbers for Canada, sorry. But we know, don,t we, that they can't do it here? We also know that many want there children to be taught only Creationism.

[Argus]

None of those legislatures has banned the teaching of evolution. All are trying to have the "alternative" view taught. Kansas has made the most progress in forcing schools to cast doubt on evolution.

So you are saying that in actuality NONE of them are even trying to "ban the teaching of evolution"?

No numbers for Canada, sorry. But we know, don,t we, that they can't do it here?

Why is that? We have no law of seperation of church and state here. And less protection for freedom of speech, expression and press.

[Guest eureka]

The number is now up to 43 states where there are attempts to force the teaching of the "alternative" theory. There are also now 30 million in the US who claim to be "born again" and 130 members of the House of Representatives.

That should give some pause in thinking that the attempts to gain nominations in Canadian ridings are not something to be alarmed about.

Where do you get the ridiculous notion that there is no law requiring separation of Church and State in Canada? Of course there is and has been since before the American founding fathers thought of it. It came about very forcefully after Cromwell: the Cromwell that the American fundamentalists are trying hard to emulate.

Protection for the four freedoms is far stronger in Canada than in the US. Freedom of religion is the basic freedom from which all others flow and that is unassailable in Canada. Constitutional naming of the others is dressing and the naming in the US Constitution is also a limitation since it conflicts with the idea of states rights and has had to surmount that barrier in many Court actions.