Tory Image In Peril, Some Fear

[bigdude]

Article

"It doesn't really matter what the agenda is, it should concern a political party when there is an organized campaign to take over a nomination, whatever the cause or the group," said Val Meredith, a former British Columbia MP who is now a consultant and lobbyist.

"Canadians don't want their parties dominated by special interests." Kenney, a devout Catholic who makes no secret of his views, said he is unconvinced political opponents will successfully portray his party as a cabal of scary fundamentalists.

Is this sour grapes or a valid concern?

[kimmy]

Certainly a valid concern.

-k

[Argus]

Until political parties wise up and disallow voting on the part of johnny-come-late, temporary members this sort of thing is going to continue happening to all parties all across the country. We see it before every election, as massive numbers of (usually)ethnics rush to join local riding associations, swamping the long-time, dedicated members, and casting one-time votes for "their" guy, then never being seen again. In some cases their memberships were even paid for.

The rules should disallow any voting on the part of last minute members, or members who don't come out to meetings, donate time or money, or show any interest in the party. If it was a requirement that in order to vote you had to have been a member for at least two or three years, and had to have come out to at least two or three meetings during that time there'd be no more of this.

But Christian groups represent a tiny minority of those trying to take over riding associations for candidate nominations. Usually it's ethnics.

[cybercoma]

God forbid Christians be represented alongside the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhits, Muslims, Jews, and other religions who are in parliament.

[I Miss Trudeau]

God forbid Christians be represented alongside the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhits, Muslims, Jews,  and other religions who are in parliament.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Christians are already overwhelmingly represented in our parliament. I think what you meant to say is "Why should fringe 'christians' be left on the fringe?"

[Riverwind]

God forbid Christians be represented alongside the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhits, Muslims, Jews,  and other religions who are in parliament.

People who express concern about Christians are talking about the subset of Christians who are usually called fundementalists or evangelicals. These kinds of Christians are equivalent to a muslim fundementalist that wants to impose Sharia law on everyone in the country whether they believed in Islam or not.

[I miss Reagan]

Man, what would we do without the left watching out for us. For people who hate us so much, they sure do care about how we run our party and about us having proper leadership.

But I agree with Argus, it is a problem when you get groups organizing, what amounts to a coup, to take over nominations. I saw this happen in my riding last year. A group brought out their whole church, 14 year olds and others you knew had no idea about any of it because they had people right by their side telling them who to vote for.

But how do you stop it? by hand picking candidates?

[I miss Reagan]

God forbid Christians be represented alongside the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhits, Muslims, Jews,  and other religions who are in parliament.

People who express concern about Christians are talking about the subset of Christians who are usually called fundementalists or evangelicals. These kinds of Christians are equivalent to a muslim fundementalist that wants to impose Sharia law on everyone in the country whether they believed in Islam or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is insane. I'm not a fan of so called "evangelicals" myself but this comment is way out of line. Somehow the radical lefties fail to see the hypocrisy when disparaging Christian groups they disagree with (and seem to loathe), while at the same time claiming to be the guardians of tolerance and acceptance.

[Riverwind]

This is insane.  I'm not a fan of so called "evangelicals" myself but this comment is way out of line.  Somehow the radical lefties fail to see the hypocrisy when disparaging Christian groups they disagree with (and seem to loathe), while at the same time claiming to be the guardians of tolerance and acceptance.

There is a saying that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". No one questions the right of anyone to pratice the religion of their choosing. No one should question the right of someone who has a deep belief in a faith to seek public office. The only time someone's religion becomes an issue is when they use their religion to justify restricting the freedoms of others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many 'evangelicals' have been doing in the US and are trying to do in Canada.

[Argus]

God forbid Christians be represented alongside the Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhits, Muslims, Jews,  and other religions who are in parliament.

People who express concern about Christians are talking about the subset of Christians who are usually called fundementalists or evangelicals. These kinds of Christians are equivalent to a muslim fundementalist that wants to impose Sharia law on everyone in the country whether they believed in Islam or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, that's nonsense. I haven't been in a church in twenty years except for weddings and funerals, but that's nonsense. When they talk about Christians they're talking about people who actually go to Church every week, and actually read their bibles and try to lead their lives in a Chrisian way, and that sort of thing (Ewwww!). They have no problem with someone like a Paul Martin, who professes to being a good Catholic but clearly ignores all the moral dictates of his Church - not the least of which includes the commandment against lying. But Paul Martin is hardly representative of the churchgoing Christian community. And neither are the fundamentalists, who are a tiny element, at best. As for the evengelicals, while their numbers are somewhat higher, comparing them (or the fundies) to the blood crazed lunatics of the Muslim world is spurious nonsense. If there was anything like the same mentality we'd already be seeing mosques blown up and Muslim leaders murdered. But we've seen not a hint of violence from the Christian community.

[Argus]

This is insane.  I'm not a fan of so called "evangelicals" myself but this comment is way out of line.  Somehow the radical lefties fail to see the hypocrisy when disparaging Christian groups they disagree with (and seem to loathe), while at the same time claiming to be the guardians of tolerance and acceptance.

There is a saying that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". No one questions the right of anyone to pratice the religion of their choosing. No one should question the right of someone who has a deep belief in a faith to seek public office. The only time someone's religion becomes an issue is when they use their religion to justify restricting the freedoms of others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many 'evangelicals' have been doing in the US and are trying to do in Canada.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religion provides a moral framework for believers. If you think for one solitary moment that those Hindus and Sikhs and Muslims etc, who are generally from immigrant communities which are MUCH, MUCH more observant in their dedicationis than any home grown Christians, don't hate homosexuals and despise immorality you really don't have a clue about what those communities are like.

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. Right. That's gonna happen! I'm sure when you're talking about someone with the morals of an eel, like most Liberals, this doesn't present a problem. 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.

Myself, I'll take a religious Christian who thinks homosexuality is sinful, but who also can 't bring himself to lie, cheat or steal, and who feels a moral requirement to help the poor - over a slick, doubletalking, self-serving weasel like Chretien or Martin any day.

[cybercoma]

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.

[Riverwind]

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. If you believe that a gay relationship is sinful then don't get involved in one. But you have no right to go around calling doctors murders or describing homosexuals as pedophiles.

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.

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. At the same time that Bush was moralizing about the sanctity of Terri Schavo's life he was cutting the medicare programs that many poor people depend on in order to pay for his tax agenda.

[cybercoma]

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. If you believe that a gay relationship is sinful then don't get involved in one. But you have no right to go around calling doctors murders or describing homosexuals as pedophiles.

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 is perfectly valid. It is the unwillingness to compromise which is the problem.

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. At the same time that Bush was moralizing about the sanctity of Terri Schavo's life he was cutting the medicare programs that many poor people depend on in order to pay for his tax agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If someone believes abortion is murder, why on earth would they allow it?

"I know you deeply and morally believe abortion is murder, Sir; however, you have to give people the freedom to do that."

Same goes for homosexuality. If someone believes it is disgusting perversion that is corrupting the values of children, then why should they sit back and accept it?

Furthermore, why does the government have to be the one spending so much on healthcare (since you mentioned cuts in relation Terri Schiavo), particularly in the United States. There are third party insurance programs that most employers are on board with. In fact they give people the choice of which programs to enter at some places. (We're talking about the States here) Not to mention -- and this happens here as well -- charities, churches, etc. often times pick up the tab for the truly poor when they need the help.

None of that is good enoguh though, you have to take people's money by force instead of putting it in their pockets and letting them take responsbility for their health or donating their money to help those who need it. People with serious drug and food addictions and make the conscious choice of doing other health threatening things should take responsibility for their health instead of depending on someone else's hard earned money going towards paying for the consequences of their vices.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If someone believes abortion is murder, why on earth would they allow it?

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

Same goes for homosexuality.  If someone believes it is disgusting perversion that is corrupting the values of children, then why should they sit back and accept it?

Cause it's none of their busines? Anyway, they can believe whatever they want, just don't cry when voters don't want that kind of shit.

[cybercoma]

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.

Cause it's none of their busines?  Anyway, they can believe whatever they want, just don't cry when voters don't want that kind of shit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Homosexuality is their business when it's thrust upon society as something that has to be accepted lest you be some kind of insensitive asshole. People don't agree with it and have every right not to agree with it or not feel comfortable with it. If homosexuals can't deal with the criticism then they need to keep their personal lives in the bedroom where it belongs.

[Riverwind]

If someone believes abortion is murder, why on earth would they allow it?

"I know you deeply and morally believe abortion is murder, Sir; however, you have to give people the freedom to do that."

"You must do that , Sir because that is the price you must pay for living in a free society that accepts people with many different view points"

Same goes for homosexuality.  If someone believes it is disgusting perversion that is corrupting the values of children, then why should they sit back and accept it?.

And other people think that teaching your kids to believe in God is 'child abuse' (there was a thread on this forum about this topic). If someone expects others to respect their religious views then they must respect the views of others.

Not to mention -- and this happens here as well -- charities, churches, etc. often times pick up the tab for the truly poor when they need the help.

A cop out. Most people would only donate a fraction of the tax savings to charity. The hospitals for the poor in the US are miserable places that would not be out of place in a 3rd world country.

None of that is good enoguh though, you have to take people's money by force instead of putting it in their pockets and letting them take responsbility for their health or donating their money to help those who need it.

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." - Oliver Wendell Holmes.

People with serious drug and food addictions and make the conscious choice of doing other health threatening things should take responsibility for their health instead of depending on someone else's hard earned money going towards paying for the consequences of their vices.

Because people make mistakes and, if given the chance, will rebuild their lives and contribute much more back to the society that helped them.

Why should my tax dollars go to support a vegetable on life support who has no chance of recovery but is kept alive because of someone else's misguided (IMHO) views on the sanctity of life? I am prepared to accept that our health system should respect the views of the family on this point but I expect that people with that point of view to respect my point of view on similar difficult moral issues.

[I miss Reagan]

There is a saying that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". No one questions the right of anyone to pratice the religion of their choosing. No one should question the right of someone who has a deep belief in a faith to seek public office. The only time someone's religion becomes an issue is when they use their religion to justify restricting the freedoms of others. Unfortunately, that is exactly what many 'evangelicals' have been doing in the US and are trying to do in Canada.

Like Stockwell Day? You guys were real accepting of his religious beliefs about evolution . Real tolerant. 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. It's almost like beaming sunlight on vampires when you point this out to the secular humanists, but the facts are that the building of our countries involved, heavily, the belief in Christianity. Evangelicals are not 'restricting freedoms', they are fighting to preserve government monuments, statues, and traditions that have existed for centuries. Yet somehow the secular humanists are offended by the word God. (Oddly, it's these same people who fight for the right of terrorists in Guantanamo to pray and read the Quran.)

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.

Obviously you have been spewing this kind of garbage so long that you think this is actually a goal of all Christians.

"Same goes for homosexuality.  If someone believes it is disgusting perversion that is corrupting the values of children, then why should they sit back and accept it?"

Cause it's none of their busines? Anyway, they can believe whatever they want, just don't cry when voters don't want that kind of shit.

Ok then Sweal, don't cry when voters in the US and Alberta vote against it. And it is their business if they believe that the breakup and assault on the family is causing decaying of society.

"You must do that , Sir because that is the price you must pay for living in a free society that accepts people with many different view points"

Then walk the talk. Show a little tolerance of other's beliefs. Some people see little difference between a baby 5 minutes from leaving the womb and a baby 5 minutes after. Besides, how many times do you need to hear: ABORTION IS NOT ON THE TABLE!!! The CPC is not going to touch it.

A cop out. Most people would only donate a fraction of the tax savings to charity. The hospitals for the poor in the US are miserable places that would not be out of place in a 3rd world country.

You really have no idea how much religious organizations contribute to the social safety net do you? These religions you hate so much, save this country millions in food donations, clothing, homeless and abuse victim housing, private welfare, and volunteer time.

And 3rd world country? See you're sounding ridiculous. If you keep up those kinds of statements you'll end up like Takeanumber or PaulPaul, where no one pays any attention to your insanity.

Why should my tax dollars go to support a vegetable on life support who has no chance of recovery but is kept alive because of someone else's misguided (IMHO) views on the sanctity of life? I am prepared to accept that our health system should respect the views of the family on this point but I expect that people with that point of view to respect my point of view on similar difficult moral issues.

Really who's that? If you are Canadian your taxes go towards buying off Liberal voters and wasteful government programs. It's sick when you think of it in terms of money that could go to say, feeding the poor in Africa.

[Riverwind]

Then walk the talk.  Show a little tolerance of other's beliefs.  Some people see little difference between a baby 5 minutes from leaving the womb and a baby 5 minutes after.  Besides, how many times do you need to hear: ABORTION IS NOT ON THE TABLE!!!  The CPC is not going to touch it.

1) In almost all my posts I have tried the differentiate between the majority of Christians and the minority which espouse views which I strongly disagree with. That important distinction got lost in some of my replies (my apologies to all Christians that I inadvertently insulted).

To make my views clear on the issue: I think there is nothing wrong with an MP who happens to be Christian - even a evangelical Christian - the only issue for me are the gov't policies that such a person is likely to promote. I believe that in moral grey areas were there is no consensus in society about whether something is moral or not then the gov't should err on the side of freedom.

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.

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.

[Riverwind]

1) In almost all my posts I have tried the differentiate between the majority of Christians and the minority which espouse views which I strongly disagree with. That important distinction got lost in some of my replies (my apologies to all Christians that I inadvertently insulted).

Actually make that an apology to everyone in the forum. I re-read my posts - I really went off the deep end.....

[willy]

I believe that in moral grey areas were there is no consensus in society about whether something is moral or not then the gov't should err on the side of freedom.

Freedom is an interesting term. Does freedom mean, do what ever you want? This would inherently inhibit other individual’s freedoms as what you want is not necessarily what someone else wants. Whenever someone gains a freedom they have limited other freedoms. For instance we have the freedom to drive a car under restrictions; if the rules of the road are not followed we loose are freedom because it is no longer safe (we may loose it by force or consequence).

So in the so called grey areas we have a problem because the absence of limitations can limit freedom as much as the rules that bound our decisions. So in making the rules around issues like Marriage a great concern comes from one side on the implications of not holding on to the ideal notion of family, even if it is a romantic notion that is never achieved. And the other side of the issue has great concern over the impact of the judgment implied by the ideal.

The freedom implied by the first is for the promotion of a secure, loving, committed male and female influence in child rearing and the promotion of a community based on these family values. So what is the freedom hoped to gain in this, it is having the best possible social environment to base the learning and development of future generations. In essence to improve the root cause of many social problems by promoting a unique family unit that is ideal for more than just the sexual orientation of the parents.

The other side of the coin has obvious valid concerns and will also limit freedom. How do we treat those that are different? As a government that represents a modern civil society we would also want to promote equality, understanding and respect for others and their beliefs. All people should be encouraged to enjoy the benefits of having committed long term binding relationships.

When you apply this to changing societal institutions one must look with caution and make incremental change. As you make a change it will have an impact on someone’s freedom. Marriage has changed over the years, (for some good reasons) but the ever increasing divorce rate and the disposable relationships of our culture are having an impact.

I don’t presume to know what is best, but I do recognize the dynamics of our cultural institutions have vast impacts on the relations that govern our lives and should be changed with very cautious consideration.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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.

Homosexuality is their business when it's thrust upon society as something that has to be accepted lest you be some kind of insensitive asshole.

Well, it looks like you're sensitive enough to feel bad about being thought of as an asshole. But are you sensitive enough to understand someone else who doesn't like being thought of as sinful or perverted? [Do me a favor -- think for 60 fulll seconds about how those two sentences are inter-related.]

[The Terrible Sweal]

And other people think that teaching your kids to believe in God is 'child abuse' (there was a thread on this forum about this topic).

There was a thread on that topic, but I don't recall that being anyone's position.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Like Stockwell Day?  You guys were real accepting of his religious beliefs about evolution .  Real tolerant. 

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'.

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.

... but the facts are that the building of our countries involved, heavily, the belief in Christianity.

That at least is true, for better or worse.

Evangelicals are not 'restricting freedoms', they are fighting to preserve government monuments, statues, and

traditions that have existed for centuries.

No, they are fighting to increase the influence of their religious beliefs in government, irrespective of the principles of our institutions.

Yet somehow the secular humanists are offended by the word God. 

Personally, I'm offended by sweeping, peurile, over the top rhetoric.

Anyway, they can believe whatever they want, just don't cry when voters don't want that kind of shit.

Ok then Sweal, don't cry when voters in the US and Alberta vote against it. And it is their business if they believe that the breakup and assault on the family is causing decaying of society.

Believe whatever ... it's a free country -- just be sure we'll keep it that way.

Then walk the talk.  Show a little tolerance of other's beliefs. 

I don't get this. Please tell me, secifically what tolerance do you feel is being withheld that ought to be extended?

Besides, how many times do you need to hear: ABORTION IS NOT ON THE TABLE!!!  The CPC is not going to touch it.

There are reasons that voters who feel strongly about this issue line up, statistically speaking, with the party(s) that we find them in. On top of that, their presense in such parties is naturally a contributor to making such parties what they are, policy-wise.

[takeanumber]

And 3rd world country? See you're sounding ridiculous. If you keep up those kinds of statements you'll end up like Takeanumber or PaulPaul, where no one pays any attention to your insanity.

I don't even have to be in a thread for you to personally insult me.

That's classy Reagan. Really classy.