Half of CPC MPs are "Religious Conservatives"

[scribblet]

Nowhere here does Norman clarify a distinction between the 2 kinds of his religious types in using the term bible thumpers. Never mind the swipe he took at the Bible and ignored me when I challenged him on it.

Actually he does: he specifically mentions the "religious zealots and Bible thumpers surrounding Harper and his party."

Not Christians in general.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Too generalized I think, plus we don't know that "religious zealots and Bible thumpers are surrounding Harper and his party. That's a broad brush painting conservatives as a stereotype, and we know they are meant only to denigrate, without any real discussion.

What exactly do those terms mean, and to whom do they actually refer - I think this is pretty close to stepping over the line here.

What constitutes a bible thumber, is there such a thing as a Koran thumper, or a Guru Granth Sahib-thumper. And would it be acceptable to use those terms when referring to Muslims or Sikhs ?

[BHS]

I thought mirror was bigdude. I don't think normanchateau is mirror - I don't recall mirror ever posting anything like an apology or clarification. I say we let new members establish themselves before jumping to the conclusion that they're new incarnations of banned posters.

That being said, I fail to see the point of this thread. If we aren't talking about fundamentalist Christians taking control of a mainstream political party, then what are we talking about? Why does it matter if half of the Conservatives are devoutly religious while the other half are not, if consistancy of religious views isn't an issue?

The primary assumption fueling this thread is absurd. Many Liberals come would probably identify themselves as Roman Catholic if asked - is there a Catholic conspiracy to take over the Liberal party? Is there a crackhead conspiracy to take over the Marijuana Party? Inquiring minds want to know these things. I guess.

[normanchateau]

But the use of phrases like bible thumpers, religious zealots, gay bashers and lesbian haters is concerning, and Norman has used these in describing Christians.  I object to these hateful descriptions and think Norman should grow some of this tolerance if he's so concerned about it in the CPC.

Care to respond Norman, or are you going to ignore this as you have other comments?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religious zealots can be Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, etc. You erroneously assume that I equate religious zealots with Christians. I don't.

Gay bashers and lesbian haters can be of any religion. I'm sure all religious groups have some gay bashers and lesbian haters. I'm also sure that there are plenty of nonreligious people who are gay bashers and lesbian haters.

You seem to be creating and attacking a straw man argument that equates religious conservatives with Christians. This is your creation, not mine. All religions have their share of religious conservatives.

[normanchateau]

Trying to reverse himself after the fact shows he knows he stepped over a line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not try to reverse myself. My position has been consistent throughout. You misinterpreted my earlier comments as being anti-Christian. I merely clarified the fact that you had misinterpreted my comments. In retrospect, I should not have wasted my time since you still seem to be under the completely erroneous impression that criticism of religious conservatives is somehow inherently anti-Christian but not anti-Sikh or anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic.

[sharkman]

Religious zealots can be Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, etc.  You erroneously assume that I equate religious zealots with Christians.  I don't.

Gay bashers and lesbian haters can be of any religion.  I'm sure all religious groups have some gay bashers and lesbian haters.  I'm also sure that there are plenty of nonreligious people who are gay bashers and lesbian haters.

You seem to be creating and attacking a straw man argument that equates religious conservatives with Christians.  This is your creation, not mine.  All religions have their share of religious conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

More side stepping Norman? Please tell me how 'bible thumper' can be connected to anything but Christianity.

Further, to suggest it's okay to use your intolerant labels on some Christians but not others is like saying it's okay to call some homosexuals names, if they are radical enough activists. It's typical thinking of those of your political bent, and quite ugly. But go ahead and defend it, your previous response was quite revealing.

[normanchateau]

What constitutes a bible thumber, is there such a thing as a Koran thumper, or a  Guru Granth Sahib-thumper.  And would it be acceptable to use those terms when referring to Muslims or Sikhs ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To me, a bible thumper can be any religious conservative. Fundamentalist Muslims or Sikhs would fall into this category even though their holy text is not referrred to by them as the Bible. I wouldn't think of calling all Muslims Koran thumpers but I'd have no problem characterizing conservative Muslims as such.

One problem that I have with Bible thumpers and religious zealots of any religion is that they want to create laws of the land which would have an impact on those of us who don't share their views. If my daughter wants to marry another woman, she should be able to do so even if it does offend the religious conservatives. If my father's Alzheimer's disease would benefit from stem cell research, he should not be denied that treatment because religious conservatives oppose stem cell research. The Campaign Life Coalition points out on their web site that the votes of 53 CPC MPs

on reproductive technology were consistent with their own position. However, most Liberal, NDP and BQ MPs voted in a manner inconsistent with the Campaign Life Coalition. I don't want religious conservatives influencing the CPC position on reproductive technology especially if CPC ever forms a government.

[mcqueen625]

This summer the Vancouver Sun published an article in which it was estimated that half of all CPC MPs are "religious conservatives".  This compares with approximately 20% of all Canadians who fit the "religious conservative" label, according to Ipsos-Reid.  Lifesite, an anti-abortion website published this story then quoted former President of Focus on the Family and anti-abortionist Darrel Reid, the Richmond, British Columbia, CPC candidate in the 2006 federal election. Reid hopes to defeat the Liberal MP in Richmond but his capture of the CPC nomination resulted in the resignation of social moderates in the Richmond CPC constituency association. Ironically, Lifesite quotes Reid, an anti-abortionist who also opposes stem cell research even if it will save lives, as condemning the media for describing religious conservatives as "prolife fanatics and religious fundamentalists." With CPC moving even further to the right in socially liberal British Columbia with candidates like Reid, BC CPC MPs will fall like dominoes.

Here's the Lifesite link:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072804.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say the being a religious conservative is certainly better than what we have in Parliament now repressenting both the Liberals and the NDP, since they seem to want to leave their religion at the door and act secular inside the chambers. Anyone who is truly a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other religion and beleives in their faith, that faith rules everything they do, both in their private lives and in their work, because with any religion their tenants teaches love, peace, and to treat everyone the way you would want to be treated. Paul Martin on one hand tells everyone willing to listen that he is supposedly a practicing Catholic, but out of the other side of his mouth he tells us that he leaves his religion outside the doors when he goes to work. That is not a practicing Catholic or a practicing participant of any religious organization. For people who are religious and I don't care what religion, that religion follows you all day long every day and influences every decision you make, ro at least it should. You can't simply check it at the door, when it is inconvenient like Paul Martin obviously wants to do.

[normanchateau]

More side stepping Norman?  Please tell me how 'bible thumper' can be connected to anything but Christianity. 

I answered this at 7:57.

[normanchateau]

Anyone who is truly a Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other religion and beleives in their faith, that faith rules everything they do, both in their private lives and in their work, because with any religion their tenants teaches love, peace, and to treat everyone the way you would want to be treated.

Let me see if I understand your logic. Faith rules everything in one's private life and one's work if one is sincerely religious. Stephen Harper's work is being leader of the Opposition and potentially Prime Minister. Stephen Harper has said that he personally opposes abortion. Should he therefore, as Prime Minister, work to outlaw abortion since that would be consistent with his faith?

[justcrowing]

What constitutes a bible thumber, is there such a thing as a Koran thumper, or a  Guru Granth Sahib-thumper.  And would it be acceptable to use those terms when referring to Muslims or Sikhs ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One problem that I have with Bible thumpers and religious zealots of any religion is that they want to create laws of the land which would have an impact on those of us who don't share their views. .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But I notice you find it okay and for the Liberals to create laws of the land which have an impact on those who do not share those views. Double standard.

[sharkman]

Trying to reverse himself after the fact shows he knows he stepped over a line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not try to reverse myself. My position has been consistent throughout. You misinterpreted my earlier comments as being anti-Christian. I merely clarified the fact that you had misinterpreted my comments. In retrospect, I should not have wasted my time since you still seem to be under the completely erroneous impression that criticism of religious conservatives is somehow inherently anti-Christian but not anti-Sikh or anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you can't seem to realize is that you are a hypocrite. You came on this board slamming the CPC for a supposed anti gay bias, but you then call members of the party by all sorts of silly names. Criticism of any group is not the same as using slurs like bible thumper. If you fail to see that then perhaps I'm wasting MY time.

Also, I'd like to see you call a Hindu or Sikh a 'Bible thumper.' You're really reaching now. You can try to invent new definitions but bible thumper has always been a slight on the Christian religion.

[justcrowing]

Trying to reverse himself after the fact shows he knows he stepped over a line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not try to reverse myself. My position has been consistent throughout. You misinterpreted my earlier comments as being anti-Christian. I merely clarified the fact that you had misinterpreted my comments. In retrospect, I should not have wasted my time since you still seem to be under the completely erroneous impression that criticism of religious conservatives is somehow inherently anti-Christian but not anti-Sikh or anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What you can't seem to realize is that you are a hypocrit. You came on this board slamming the CPC for a supposed anti gay bias, but you then call members of the party by all sorts of silly names. Criticism of any group is not the same as using slurs like bible thumper. If you fail to see that then perhaps I'm wasting MY time.

Also, I'd like to see you call a Hindu or Sikh a 'Bible thumper.' You're really reaching now. You can try to invent new definitions but bible thumper has always been a slight on the Christian religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You hit the nail right on the mark. I had this guy pegged from the first post that I read.

[normanchateau]

But I notice you find it okay and  for the Liberals to create laws of the land which have an impact on those who do not share those views. 

The law of the land trumps religious laws. And the law of the land is democratically determined by a parliamentary majority. The Liberals do not have a majority but require other parties to pass legislation. The Liberals could not have passed C-38 without the NDP and BQ. With CPC mired at 30% in the polls, 70% of Canadians favour parties to the left of CPC. Those parties, unlike CPC, are not filled with religious conservatives attempting to impose their beliefs on the nation. If religious conservatives don;t believe in lesbian marriage then they can chose not to engage in such marriages but they shouldn't try, once again, to block the wishes of a majority of Canadians who have no problem with lesbians marrying.

[sharkman]

Don't look now, but laws of the land such as stealing and murder and lying under oath all got their starts in life as religious laws. Funny, huh?

[southerncomfort]

  You hit the nail right on the mark.  I had this guy pegged from the first post that I read.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This guys on my ignore list, have him pegged also. Boy, talk abut malicious innuendo and smear tactics. Not hard to figure out his strategy, attack, insult label, smear and call names. Put people on the defensive and deflect from real issues. Man, ignore him, he's not worth it, he's stirring the pot and sitting back laffin.

[normanchateau]

What you can't seem to realize is that you are a hypocrite.  You came on this board slamming the CPC for a supposed anti gay bias, but you then call members of the party by all sorts of silly names. 

Are you saying that CPC has no more religious conservatives than any other Canadian political party?

Are you saying that CPC does not have an anti-gay bias?

Are you saying that Harper's vote and his party's vote against including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation was not motivated by religious conservatism? If it wasn't motivated by his religious views and it wasn't motivated by an anti-gay bias, what was it motivated by?

A toss of the dice? Pure chance?

[Leafless]

normanchateau

You wrote-" The law of the land trumps religious laws. And the law of the land is democratically detirmined by a parliamentry majority. "

The Liberals for a long time have been advocating the separation of church and state but sure don't like to follow their own preferences or beliefs when it comes to SSM and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that effects all Canadians but was never implemented by way of national referendum.

Federal representation of constituients concerns is supposed to be represented in parliament by their MP's which we all know is none existent and is why we badly need electoral reforms.

Stephen Harper is representing Canadians who don't believe SSM is a Right and opposing the Liberals who bulldozed this legislation through above traditional Christian beliefs and without a referendum involving all Canadians.

Polls cannot be trusted and simply cannot be used concerning the type of question involving questionable constitutional rights and rights concerning traditional Christian and moral rights along with the democratic right all Canadians to be part of the procedure invoving important constitutional issue's.

[Argus]

Are the Sikhs in the NDP and Liberal parties "religious fundamentalists" as well?  Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's completely unacceptable to attack the religious values and beliefs of any non-Christian candidates.

Someone who believes the world was created in six days can be freely mocked. Someone who believes women should be wrapped in blankets everywhere they go and not permitted to vote or own property is fine and dandy.

If you're a Christian and don't accept gay marriage you're a homophobic religious fanatic.

If you're a Hindu or Muslim or Sikh and don't accept gay marriage, well, we'll just keep quiet about that.

[Argus]

Actually I'd go so far as to say that people who use this bogeyman of 'ooo he's scary he's a Christian' or whatever, are showing a broad streak of intolerance, something liberals usually profess not to have.

What a bunch of crap. "Wahhh, you'r eintolerant of my intolerance!!" Just so you know, the prevailing view among small-l liberals is that people are entitled to their personal beliefs, but those beliefs should not be reflected in public policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you honestly believe that religious Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims don't vote according to their religious beliefs? I wonder if anyone has done a breakdown on how Sikhs, Hindus and Muslim MPs voted. Any guesses how many supported gay marriage?

[Argus]

Nowhere here does Norman clarify a distinction between the 2 kinds of his religious types in using the term bible thumpers. Never mind the swipe he took at the Bible and ignored me when I challenged him on it.

Actually he does: he specifically mentions the "religious zealots and Bible thumpers surrounding Harper and his party."

Not Christians in general.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have asked him to clarify what he means by "religious zealots" several times, and he has refused to do so. I'm presuming he thinks anyone who is Christian and actually follows its practices can be safely categorized as a "religious zealot"

This exempts Paul Martin, of course, who swears up and down that he is devoted to Roman Catholicism but practices none of its tenets, and, in fact, mocks and sneers at those who do.

[normanchateau]

Do you honestly believe that religious Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims don't vote according to their religious beliefs? I wonder if anyone has done a breakdown on how Sikhs, Hindus and Muslim MPs voted. Any guesses how many supported gay marriage?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question Argus. I didn't know the answer so I did a search online to see which ones voted for or against C-38.

Here are the ones who voted for it:

Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP

Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal MP

Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP

Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal MP

Here are the ones who voted against it:

Gurmant Grewal, CPC MP

Nina Grewal, CPC MP

Rahim Jaffer, CPC MP

Wajid Khan, Liberal MP

Gurbax Malhi, Liberal MP

Deepak Obhrai, CPC MP

Assuming I didn't forget any MPs, it looks like 6 out of 10 voted against same sex marriage, suggesting that these religious groups are more opposed to C-38 than the average MP. One obvious conclusion from this is that religious conservatives be they Sikh or Christian are more likely to oppose C-38, not exactly a big surprise.

Another conclusion from the above results is that people tended to vote along party lines. This was especially true of the NDP and CPC. Only three CPC MPs, Gerald Keddy, James Moore and Jim Prentice voted for C-38. By contrast, a larger number of Liberal and BQ MPs did not vote with their party.

[normanchateau]

I have asked him to clarify what he means by "religious zealots" several times, and he has refused to do so. I'm presuming he thinks anyone who is Christian and actually follows its practices can be safely categorized as a "religious zealot"

Sigh, I'll answer once again since you refuse to acknowledge the previous responses. Go to www.valleysceptic.com and look at the article on the Conservative Party Hijacked by Religious Zealots. Those are the people I'm referring to.

[BQSupporter]

Its pure bigotry and nonsense normanchateau brings to this website.

Soon he will be advocating hate crimes against "religious zealots".

If he said those things in a real public forum one would have cause to report it to the Human Rights commission.

[normanchateau]

Stephen Harper is representing Canadians who don't believe SSM is a Right and opposing the Liberals who bulldozed this legislation through above traditional Christian beliefs and without a referendum involving all Canadians.

Polls cannot be trusted and simply cannot be used concerning the type of  question involving questionable constitutional rights and rights concerning traditional Christian and moral rights along with the democratic right all Canadians to be part of the procedure invoving important constitutional issue's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leafless, why are you making this out to be a Christian issue? Religious conservatives of most religions oppose lesbians marrying. In fact conservative religious Sikhs are even more opposed to this than Christians. To me, Harper represents social and religious conservatives rather than Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.

A referendum on minority rights makes no sense to me. If a majority decides to take away the rights of a minority, does that make it right? Lesbians now have the right to marry. If a majority of heterosexuals feel otherwise, that's hardly a reason to strip away that right.

[sharkman]

The bottom line is use of the word marriage. If so many are concerned about that, what's wrong with a compromise word like union. Gays still get all the rights, just by a different word.