Tory Image In Peril, Some Fear

[I miss Reagan]

2) The problem with abortion in this country is the people opposed to abortion are not willing to consider a compromise such as allowing first trimester abortions on demand, second trimester abortions under certain circumstances and banning third trimester abortions because the believe that life starts at conception. On the other side, people who support abortions are not willing to compromise because they believe the opponents would use it a leverage to gradually eliminate a woman's right to choose.

Good point. On the other hand I would argue that those in favour of same sex marriage are unwilling to compromise, while most of us righties have no problem with civil unions. I think that is pretty fair.

3) If the CPC wins a majority there will likely be enough abortion opponents sitting in the CPC back benches to force through some sort of bill. Unless the CPC leadership tells their back benchers to back off. My understanding is the Harper would do this for at least his first term - after that all bets are off.

A good argument, I disagree, but it's better than the usual ad hominem some choose to use. As strategically bad as we seem to be, I think we're smarter than that. I think our guys know that this isn't the hill to die on, and we would die on it.

Tolerance does not require that we endorse such nonsense nor that we give credence to the decisionmaking abilities of a man who appears to fall outside of the realm of reason. Religious freedom does mean a 'free pass'.

See you're just belittleing his beliefs. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're basically saying "you can beleive whatever you want, as long as it falls within our definition of reason". You guys crusified Stockwell Day because of his beliefs in evolution and dinosaurs. Was it Kinsella who brought out a stuffed dinosaur on a talk show to make fun of Day? Would it fly if our leader was a Hindu and he brought out a stuffed Elephant with a womans head on it to make fun of him? Would you question the decision making skills of the Dali Lama simply because he beliefs fall outside the realm of reason? or is reincarnation within your realm of reason. Just admit it, you guys are bigoted against Christians.

"And at the risk of drawing in our resident philosophers into a "there is no spoon" type of debate, it should be pointed out that our legal system is based on Christianity."

No, it's not.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

[The Terrible Sweal]

2) The problem with abortion in this country is the people opposed to abortion are not willing to consider a compromise such as allowing first trimester abortions on demand, second trimester abortions under certain circumstances and banning third trimester abortions because the believe that life starts at conception. On the other side, people who support abortions are not willing to compromise because they believe the opponents would use it a leverage to gradually eliminate a woman's right to choose.

Good point. On the other hand I would argue that those in favour of same sex marriage are unwilling to compromise, while most of us righties have no problem with civil unions. I think that is pretty fair.

It might begin to approach 'fair' if opponents had any reasonable basis for insisting on the distinction. None has yet been articulated anywhere in the public discourse.

  As strategically bad as we seem to be, I think we're smarter than that.  I think our guys know that this isn't the hill to die on, and we would die on it.

As long as your strategy is to let 51% of voters think you'd like to make them into baby machines but won't for political reasons, I think you'll continue to have a problem.

Tolerance does not require that we endorse such nonsense nor that we give credence to the decisionmaking abilities of a man who appears to fall outside of the realm of reason. Religious freedom does mean a 'free pass'.

See you're just belittleing his beliefs.

I am exercising my freedom of speech to comment on a public issue as I see it. Of his beliefs that passage says that holding them makes him appear to fall outside the realm of reason. This is demonstrably true. Does Stock believe man walked with dinosaurs based on a logical and informed analysis of the available evidence, or does he believe it because his Faith tells him that? The latter, of course, and so, he is not a man of reason.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You're basically saying "you can beleive whatever you want, as long as it falls within our definition of reason".

You can believe whatever you want, but you can't expect me to muzzle myself because it hurts you to hear you're wrong.

  You guys crusified Stockwell Day because of his beliefs in evolution and dinosaurs. 

What sold me what the theory that democracy is a wrongheaded form of government because it elevates man over God. I found that to be an unacceptable notion to elect into government.

Was it Kinsella who brought out a stuffed dinosaur on a talk show to make fun of Day?  Would it fly if our leader was a Hindu and he brought out a stuffed Elephant with a womans head on it to make fun of him?

So, are you saying that dinosaurs are the Christian equivalent of the goddess Sarasvati?

Would you question the decision making skills of the Dali Lama simply because he beliefs fall outside the realm of reason? 

Certainly. Yes. Yep. UnHunh!

  Just admit it, you guys are bigoted against Christians.

Just admit it, you're making an unsupported accusation.

[willy]

TTS from your comments I can only deduce by reason that you are so old that you have personally witnessed evolution. If you are not that old and as a reasonable person you must realize that you have a limited understanding of evolution and then you must hold some of your firmly held beliefs by faith.

As I understand faith it is not a blind belief in the unbelievable but the acknowledgment that we don't know everything and by faith hold onto a belief based on our ability to understand reality.

[The Terrible Sweal]

TTS from your comments I can only deduce by reason that you are so old that you have personally witnessed evolution. If you are not that old and as a reasonable person you must realize that you have a limited understanding of evolution and then you must hold some of your firmly held beliefs by faith.

No, actually, I hold my beliefs understanding that they are based on the best probabilities I can discern from a limited viewpoint.

As I understand faith it is not a blind belief in the unbelievable but the acknowledgment that we don't know everything and by faith hold onto a belief based on our ability to understand reality.

Clearly Faith goes further. In organized religions at least, it involves a positive belief in dogmatic 'truths'.

[Black Dog]

TTS from your comments I can only deduce by reason that you are so old that you have personally witnessed evolution. If you are not that old and as a reasonable person you must realize that you have a limited understanding of evolution and then you must hold some of your firmly held beliefs by faith. 

There's blind faith and there's reasonable assumptions supported by evidence and rigorous inquiry and questioning. Religious belief is an example of the former, evolution the latter.

Just admit it, you guys are bigoted against Christians.

Only those so-calle dChrsitians who want to shove their lifestyle down our throats by upholding the ban on gay marriage, placing limitations on a woman's right to choose, etc. etc.

[I miss Reagan]

It might begin to approach 'fair' if opponents had any reasonable basis for insisting on the distinction. None has yet been articulated anywhere in the public discourse.

"reasonable basis" . Once again, according to what you define as reasonable. Right in line with my quote below.

I am exercising my freedom of speech to comment on a public issue as I see it.

What a cop out. Ya, Day's personal beliefs in evolution are a public issue. Give me a fricken break. You're putting him down because of his religion. Religious bigotry and discrimination in it's purest. I love how you guys pull out the 'freedowm of speech card' when ever you're caught in your own intolerance.

"Was it Kinsella who brought out a stuffed dinosaur on a talk show to make fun of Day?  Would it fly if our leader was a Hindu and he brought out a stuffed Elephant with a womans head on it to make fun of him?"

So, are you saying that dinosaurs are the Christian equivalent of the goddess Sarasvati?

Don't try to squirm out of it, you know exactly what I'm saying. Come on let's hear some of that freedom of speech with respect to their beliefs and your definition of 'reason'.

Just admit it, you're making an unsupported accusation.

Oh it's completely supported, it's right in front of your face.

[takeanumber]

QUOTE

Just admit it, you guys are bigoted against Christians.

Only those so-calle dChrsitians who want to shove their lifestyle down our throats by upholding the ban on gay marriage, placing limitations on a woman's right to choose, etc. etc.

Keep politics out of religion.

Keep religion out of politics.

When you mix religion and politics together, you get war and strife.

This is something that fundamentalist sects don't seem to get.

Moderate, secular Canadians have a duty to keep Canada secular...it's the reason why this is such a peaceful country.

If you're so pationate about your religion, Utah is nearby, as is Saudi Arabia. Nobody is keeping you.

[Argus]

Yeah, someone wake me up and get me a protest sign when those female oppressing suicide bombing christian fundamentalists (?) are nearing 50% of parliament.  Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it might be a bit late by then.

[Argus]

What you are saying is you have no problem with people who are religious as long as they can utterly cast off all the moral dictates and tenets of their religion, and basically disobey all the preachings and everything they believe.

I did not say that. I said that they should not use their religion to justify laws that take reasonable freedoms from someone else. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one.

And if they believe it's murder they should - ignore it? What kind of a moral person would ignore something when he believes it is fundamentally wrong? I mean, I'm pro choice myself - vaguely - but I can understand how someone who actually believes that this is the murder of babies would at the very least want to campaign against it. I'm not supporting those people who bomb abortion clinics or attack or harrass doctors or nurses, etc. But to suggest a politician who thinks abortion is evil should simply abandon their moral beliefs because others have different moral beliefs is somewhat ludicrous.

But if you seriously want MPs and leaders who have any kind of moral framework - regardless of whether it came from a religious background - you're going to have to accept that some aspects of that morality will differ from your own.

Someone who is a devoted evangelical christian can be a excellent MP provided that person is willing to accept that others have a different moral framework and that framework is perfectly valid. It is the unwillingness to compromise which is the problem.

But... you're no more willing to compromise. You believe your moral framework is the right one, and that this theoretical Christian should give way to you on public policy issues. You don't get involved in politics to just ignore things which you believe are wrong - unless, of course, you're a Liberal. In which case you have no beliefs to speak of anyway, except self enrichment.

Myself, I'll take a religious Christian ... and who feels a moral requirement to help the poor

That has to be the biggest irony of the right-wing conservative christians: they seem to have forgotten this very worthy tenet of Christianity in their crusade to rid the world of gays and evolution

Funny, I've seen quite a lot of flattering comments directed at Christian groups by left wing people when those Christian groups are criticising the level of poverty, or government policies they see as harming the poor or minorities or whatnot. It seems if the Conference of Bishops condemns the government for not putting mor emoney into anti-poverty programs they're terrifice, but if they criticise the government for same-sex marriage they're now wronglfully interfering in government matters. Hmmm.

[Argus]

If someone believes that and won't accept others' views, why on earth should they vote for him?

Here's a crazy idea, because murder is wrong and you agree with them.

Nh? The premise is that one does not agree.

What I am trying to get at is the absurdity of the resentment among theocrats at the simple fact voters don't want their ideas to come into effect. Ergo, candidates who advocate and endorse those ideas are not selected for office.

Then who are those Conservatives and Liberals and BQ members in the House of Commons who consistently criticise abortion and want a law restricting it?

There are an awful lot of Canadians - millions of them - who don't believe in abortion, or at least, who don't like the present abortion on demand setup. Democracy is about the inclusion of representatives from all walks of life, from all elements of society, from varying groups. Are you suggesting that religious folk should not be represented because you disapprove of their views? BTW, the talk is all of Christians, but I know of no visible minority MPs who support abortion on demand and gay marriage except those required to by the govenrment, ie ministers. The NDP, for example, went out of their way to recruit Arar's wife as a candidate last election. Problem was, she was a Muslim woman, so of course, she said there was no way she was going to support same-sex marriage. The NDP didn't like that much, but bit their tongues and did nothing. As it happened, she did not win a seat. I seriously doubt there are any Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, or observant Jews who would willingly support same-sex marriage.

[takeanumber]

There are an awful lot of Canadians - millions of them - who don't believe in abortion, or at least, who don't like the present abortion on demand setup.

Fabulous. They can choose not to have abortions then.

I seriously doubt there are any Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, or observant Jews who would willingly support same-sex marriage.

Hey hey, that's great. Gay Muslims, hindus, sikhs and jews don't have to get married then.

Moreover, I know a few observant hindus who are pro-same sex marriage.

Being religious doesn't always correlate with being a shortsighted homophobe.

but I know of no visible minority MPs who support abortion on demand and gay marriage except those required to by the govenrment

I know of two minority liberal MP's who support SSM.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Democracy is about the inclusion of representatives from all walks of life, from all elements of society, from varying groups.

No, it's about voters choosing the reresenatives that suit them best, as they see it.

Are you suggesting that religious folk should not be represented because you disapprove of their views?

Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office.

[Argus]

Are you suggesting that religious folk should not be represented because you disapprove of their views?

Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office.

What about if they have Black skin? Does that make them a poor choice for public office? No? How about if they are foreign born and have different cultural values than you do? What about if they're very left wing and despise all the traditions this country was built on? Then they're cool, right?

[August1991]

Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office.

Would you consider an atheist to be someone with "extreme religious beliefs"?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Are you suggesting that religious folk should not be represented because you disapprove of their views?

Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office.

What about if they have Black skin?

An imperfect analogy, I think.

Firstly, if I believed black skin made someone a poor choice for government office, in theory I am entitled to try convincing fellow voters of that.

In fact, I don't think that, because blackness has no bearing on ability to discharge an office. Nor does it indicate a likelyhood of imposing irrational beliefs. Both of which are unlike extremist religious beliefs.

How about if they are foreign born and have different cultural values than you do?

This one is a better challenge, but still not too troublesome.

I think cultural values are a legitimate concern for a voter to have. For example, a representative's effectiveness depends in part on her grasp of our institutions.

But look, you questions seem to presuppose that my vote is constrained by an obligation to be politically correct. I don't think that's the right assessment.

What about if they're very left wing and despise all the traditions this country was built on? Then they're cool, right?

Not to me. I dismiss marxist-leninist party candidates on ground quite similar to exremist religious candidates.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Yes. I am trying to convince my fellow citizens that extreme religious beliefs make someone a poor choice for holding government office.

Would you consider an atheist to be someone with "extreme religious beliefs"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me, the contents or name of the belief system are not entirely conclusive. Of equal importance is the way the believer responds to the beliefs. I suppose it is possible that an atheist could be fanatic about it to a politically udesireabe extent.

[Canuck E Stan]

And how are you going to judge who is "extreme" in THEIR religious views? You becoming the judge and jury ? And being the judge of "extreme" that qualifies you to decide that if they don't fit into your perfect world of politics? Sounds like your views are expected to be the only ones that matter, and all others are wrong because you said so. Not very tolerant of others don't you think?

[The Terrible Sweal]

And how are you going to judge who is "extreme" in THEIR religious views? You becoming the judge and jury ?  ... that qualifies you to decide that if they don't fit into your perfect world of politics?

I am a voter and a citizen. That's enough.

Sounds like your views are expected to be the only ones that matter, and all others are wrong because you said so. Not very tolerant of others don't you think?

What do you mean by "tolerant"?