Prayers before a vote

[August1991]

Moral & Religious Issues? Exactly.

Amid the secular mayhem of voting in the Liberal leadership convention on Saturday, five young Stephane Dion supporters retreated to a quiet corner to pray.

...the young Muslims give thanks for the chance for a say in the future of their country.

Whether this is the reporter's creation or something they got from the worshippers is beside the point: here we have a group of people who appreciate the chance to play a part in our country's future and who show that appreciation through a personal, private expression of their religious belief. It's all very...Liberal.

BD, I never would have thought that you, of all posters, would defend the power of prayer to guide one in the right direction. Has Stockwell Day gotten hold of your MLW password? Have you been dipping into the arak?

Arak? My point is a little stronger. Fundamentalist Christians don't hijack big planes and fly them into big buildings near abortion clinics.

The hijackers of those planes in September 2001 are of an order of magnitude well beyond any fundamentalist Christian. They object to the mere presence of a Christian in Saudi Arabia. We are facing a form of superstition that makes Stockwell Day look like a cartoon dinosaur.

It's a bit like global warming: a major threat, but not an imminent threat - I hope. I still believe that the individual freedom of western life has a remarkable power to seduce and assimilate. If seduction doesn't work, India largely withstood an Islamic invasion and little Bulgaria remained Christian despite 500 years of Muslim occupation. Our culture will survive. But we in the rich, seductive West are far, far from such threats anyway - no?

Well, this small fait divers reported by CP struck me. Apparently, it has struck others who have read about it.

Here's an unreported event: When I was at the Liberal convention, some delegates waved large Canadian flags and this attracted the attention of the TV cameras showing scenes displayed on the large screens. A man then pushed a young woman wearing a burka and holding a Kennedy sign onto a table nearby. (Most delegates were white bread English/French Canadians, excepting the Sikhs. Identifiably Arab delegates were few.) The young woman was embarrassed and eventually stepped down from the table. The TV screen never showed her. Why this Muslim use of ostentation?

Years ago, while working in the Middle East, I had a chat with a Belgian (not Mark Steyn) working for an oil company in the region. He stated baldly that Muslims were a threat to western civilization. At the time, I laughed and said that Muslims represent about 3% (?) of the people in western countries. True, I said, some are Muslim Brotherhood but they're no threat to us.

This conversation has bothered me since. Now I understand that the threat to western civilization is the same ignorance Galileo faced in the 17th century. Once again, we must defend the scientific method and ultimately the ideals of the Enlightenment.

Islam is a rigidly backward dogmatic worldview. And as a Turk once said to me, Islam has never had a reformation.

To illustrate, two anecdotes: First) I saw a CD of "The Sound of Music" soundtrack in a Riyadh music shop with a large black magic marker swipe through Julie Andrews leg. Such exposing of the female form is forbidden. Second) Sick, wealthy Saudis regularly come to western hospitals with burns on their back. Saudis have ill family members first treated by traditional doctors and then treated by western doctors. Saudis, like wise peasants, don't put all their eggs in one basket.

Indians and Chinese seem to be coming to terms with Western Civilization but OTOH, Islam has a big problem with the West. Oil has made some Arabs rich (they can buy Western-designed cars, cellphones, laptops but they don't make them and they don't even understand them). Without oil, Arabs would revert to African poverty. Perhaps this explains the problem: Arabs have nothing but oil, something that Westerners and Asians value.

What does all this mean for Canada? The last contested federal Liberal convention occurred in 1968 so, by extrapolation, the next contested convention will occur in 2046 or so. In 2046, how many Liberal delegates will go to pray five times each day? How many will decide, after prayer, that a certain candidate must be defeated?

BD, forget Ted Morton. How much will the Koran dictate the choices of your children and grandchildren?

[myata]

Sow sow right (that it can't hold it: fear, ignorance, prejudice).

[Black Dog]

BD, I never would have thought that you, of all posters, would defend the power of prayer to guide one in the right direction. Has Stockwell Day gotten hold of your MLW password? Have you been dipping into the arak?

Heh. All I'm saying is, if praying five times a day, saying a rosary or doing a voodoo dance is what an individual feels they need to do to help them make sense of the world, they can go nuts with it. I'll be in the corner, snnigering.

Arak? My point is a little stronger. Fundamentalist Christians don't hijack big planes and fly them into big buildings near abortion clinics.

The hijackers of those planes in September 2001 are of an order of magnitude well beyond any fundamentalist Christian. They object to the mere presence of a Christian in Saudi Arabia. We are facing a form of superstition that makes Stockwell Day look like a cartoon dinosaur.

That has what to do with the five chaps at the Liberal convention?

It's a bit like global warming: a major threat, but not an imminent threat - I hope. I still believe that the individual freedom of western life has a remarkable power to seduce and assimilate. If seduction doesn't work, India largely withstood an Islamic invasion and little Bulgaria remained Christian despite 500 years of Muslim occupation. Our culture will survive. But we in the rich, seductive West are far, far from such threats anyway - no?

I would argue that, on the scale of threats to our civilization, radical Islam ranks somewhere above an invasion by the mole people and somewhere below an asteroid strike. Global warming, IMV, is way up there.

Years ago, while working in the Middle East, I had a chat with a Belgian (not Mark Steyn) working for an oil company in the region. He stated baldly that Muslims were a threat to western civilization. At the time, I laughed and said that Muslims represent about 3% (?) of the people in western countries. True, I said, some are Muslim Brotherhood but they're no threat to us.

This conversation has bothered me since. Now I understand that the threat to western civilization is the same ignorance Galileo faced in the 17th century. Once again, we must defend the scientific method and ultimately the ideals of the Enlightenment.

You were right the first time. The difference between today and Galileo's time is back then, Galileo's worldview threatened the established order. Today, Galileo's world view is the established order.

The other point I would make is that its unclear how you think radical Islam threatens our civilization and what means it has to fulfill its threats.

Islam is a rigidly backward dogmatic worldview

Islam is not a monolith. Certainly nothing close to the Catholic Church in the 17th Century.

What does all this mean for Canada? The last contested federal Liberal convention occurred in 1968 so, by extrapolation, the next contested convention will occur in 2046 or so. In 2046, how many Liberal delegates will go to pray five times each day? How many will decide, after prayer, that a certain candidate must be defeated?

Ah finally: a point. It's clear you make no distinction between adherents of Islam. A illiterate Muslim peasent from Saudi Arabia (IYV) is esentialy the same as a doctor from Scarbourough who is a devout Muslim. It's also clear that this is what informs you fears of increased Mulsim influence. As a self-proclaimed radical secularist, even I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, I think praying is a ridiculous superstitious exercise. But, unlike you, I have confidence in our secular system and values.

BD, forget Ted Morton. How much will the Koran dictate the choices of your children and grandchildren?

Very little.

[bradco]

My thoughts:

-the praying was done in a separate room, and as much as I oppose religion, I respect a persons right to religious expression in private. I see no problem with this.

-I agree with the assessment that the media is biased. The CBC would be all over the Conservatives if anyone was praying at their convention. That has less to do with what religions are involved and more to do with the colour on the banners at the convention, in my opinion. The CBC probably shouldnt be getting public funds....thats a whole other debate though.

-Im not buying any arguement that we have anything to worry about long term. I dont see mass muslim prayers at any liberal convention down the road. I dont see the quran or sharia law determining Canadian public policy.

-radical muslims blow up buildings with airplanes and radical christians do not?? I guess this is true, fair statement. Luckily for the radical christians they have control of the most technically advanced military on the planet....they dont need to resort to suicide attacks. Either way, I see all radical religion as a threat and not any one specifically. I dont buy this radical Christians respect "western values" and radical muslims dont, in my opinion neither respect or value current western society.

[August1991]

Bob Rae was the target of anti-Semitic attacks during the Liberal leadership contest, motivated at least in part by the fact that his wife is Jewish.

Sources close to Rae say that his wife, Arlene Perly Rae, was approached during last weekend's convention by a delegate who didn't realize she was the candidate's wife. The delegate told her not to vote for Rae "because his wife is Jewish."

Perly Rae stonily informed the delegate that she was the wife in question. The delegate beat a hasty retreat.

The incident might have been shrugged off if it had been an isolated event. But Rae team insiders contend it was part of a larger pattern of anti-Semitic smears on Rae, who finished third.

A flyer was circulated electronically among convention delegates denouncing Rae for having once delivered a speech to the Jewish National Fund, a group the flyer said was complicit in "war crimes and ethnic cleansing."

"Rae's wife is a vice-president of the CJC (Canadian Jewish Congress), a lobby group which supports Israeli apartheid," said the flyer in bold letters superimposed over a close-up of Rae's face.

"Bob Rae supports Israeli apartheid. Don't elect a leader who supports apartheid."

The Canadian Jewish Congress has condemned the flyer and blamed Khaled Mouammar, president of the Canadian Arab Federation for circulating it. The federation has, in turn, accused the CJC of making "a pitiful attempt to discredit" it and has denied producing or distributing the flyer.

Toronto Star

I didn't publish this, The Toronto Star did. And the article doesn't even support my thread subtitle. They voted against Rae, not Ignatieff.

In the past, in Canada, Catholics voted Liberal and Protestants voted Conservative. English voted Conservative and French voted Liberal.

Wilfrid Laurier, an English-speaking Catholic on his own, got Protestants to vote Liberal. Stephen Harper, a French-speaking Protestant on his own, got Catholics to vote Conservative. Chretien changed the Constitution for religious education in Quebec and Newfoundland. There's something good in all of this.

The last thing Canadians want now is party delegates deciding how to vote after such a prayer described in this news article. Several hundred years ago, our ancestors did that kind of thing. Now, we don't. In Canada, we've learned different.

[Charles Anthony]

Several hundred years ago, our ancestors did that kind of thing. Now, we don't. In Canada, we've learned different.

What exactly are you suggesting in this thread?? because I can not figure it out.

Are you suggesting an intervention?

Are you just humiliating the people who prayed?

[myata]

Me neither. Should all prayers (and religious practices? even and however discreet? be prohibited from political conventions? all public events?

Please say clearly what you mean to say rather than building up the smoke.

[Rue]

As long as it is done in a private place, which it was, its nobody's business but theirs. Simple as that.

Now as for the person who went up to Mrs. Bob Rae and told her not to vote for Bob because he was married to a Jew, etc., again I say, its Canada, we love you and tolerate everyone-please come, share with us and share your love and tolerance for us as we do you.

My point is this-some people seem to think they can manipulate the freedoms they have in this country and insist on it being applied to them but not on others.

I think that is what is sometimes picked up by all of us-we se people demanding and expecting respect, but not practicing it themselves.

In the case of Muslims, I think many of us have a problem distinguishing between Muslims who go somewhere quiet to pray, and other Muslims who may be engaging in the politics of racism and intolerance. For some of us, its hard to tell who is who.

I believe there are bigots and racists in all groups and it is not exclusive to Muslims but here is my point-if you think fundamentalists of any kind will not bring hatred and exclusivity to politics, you are dreaming.

For me I see people bringing their religion to the political arena as a problematic phenomena. Religion and politics do not mix well - it always ends up in war and intolerance when the two are mixed.

I myself loath the mixing of any religion with politics.

In this case though we must differentiate between people praying in private and people trying to use their religion in a political way to justify hatred and discrimination when selecting a leader or pursuing political policies. Two different things I admit, but I see plenty of opportunity for confusion.

Now think of it. If a politician suddenly in the middle of the convention decided to go and pray with Christians - I guarantee you he would be

labelled a nut case or extremist.

[Black Dog]

I myself loath the mixing of any religion with politics.

Trouble is, at the individual level, how do you avoid it? To use an outdated example, if person A is a good Catholic and casts their vote for an anti same sex marriage candidate based on said voter's personal beliefs, well sir, you've got religion and politics mixing. The same goes, to a degree, to the Muslim delegates whose actions got August all worked up. But how is making a personal political choice based on your own religious beliefs any different from making a choice based on any other personal experience or value? And, more pertinently, how can you expect to root that sort of behaviour out? The answer is: you can't. But what you can do is draw a line between religion as the basis for personal political choices and religion as the basis of public policy. So far, we've been pretty good at that and I don't see the example August raised in the o.p. as a threat to that.

Further: the second incident (Rae's wife) has f.a. to fdo with religion and everything to do with the politicization of identity.