Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons

gc1765 · February 13, 2007

I thought we still had seperation of church, I haven't seen any moves showing we are heading in that direction.
Or is it preferable that all Christian's be barred from running for political office.

I'd say the vote to re-open the SSM issue was heading in that direction.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

I'd say the vote to re-open the SSM issue was heading in that direction.

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government.

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

I don't think it would surprise anyone to find that conservatives don't cherish the separation of church and state the way liberals do.

And it wouldn't surprise others that they are not prepared to use it as a straw man.

You've lost me among the pronouns. Who is not prepared to use what?

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

The polls tell us that the objectionable Conservative agenda is not so well hidden anymore.

Personally I don't find the CPC agenda all that objectionable, in fact I'm down right euphoric over the funding cuts to some SIGs, and look forward to eventual senate reform and tax cuts. I sure don't look forward to nanny state liberal policies.

Maybe you would care to look at the actual CPC policies and tell me which ones you particularly object to:

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20050319-...DECLARATION.pdf

Like most voters, I'm not very interested in the pro forma policies of the Conservative party when we can now observe the conservative government in action. And in that respect, I find myself agreeing with most of what Catchme had to say (see post 61, above).

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

I'd say the vote to re-open the SSM issue was heading in that direction.

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government.

Why make such an absurd, prejudicial campaign promise in the first place?

Wilber · February 13, 2007

Why make such an absurd, prejudicial campaign promise in the first place?

Because that is what he intended to do. Novel concept what?

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

Why make such an absurd, prejudicial campaign promise in the first place?

Because that is what he intended to do. Novel concept what?

Now you're making both sides of the argument.

He intended to take away rights from people because they are gay.

gc1765 · February 13, 2007

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government.

Doesn't matter if it was an election promise or not, the point is that making such a promise and then holding a vote was a step away from separation of church and state, as I said before.

geoffrey · February 13, 2007

He intended to take away rights from people because they are gay.

What tangible rights would they lose?

Not some word, not some hoocus-poocus bullshit. What would they lose the next morning?

Nothing.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government.

Doesn't matter if it was an election promise or not, the point is that making such a promise and then holding a vote was a step away from separation of church and state, as I said before.

You don't get to tell people what they will be allowed to vote on. If a politician says he is going to do something during an election campaign and he gets elected, he has a mandate to do what he said he was going to do. You can't seem to accept that. There are people of many religions and those who are not religious at all who are on both sides of this issue.

gc1765 · February 13, 2007

You don't get to tell people what they will be allowed to vote on. If a politician says he is going to do something during an election campaign and he gets elected, he has a mandate to do what he said he was going to do. You can't seem to accept that. There are people of many religions and those who are not religious at all who are on both sides of this issue.

You are introducing so many strawmen in here, I don't know where to start....

Look at the original post that I quoted. I am arguing that voting to re-open SSM is a step away from separation of church and state. I am not arguing that they shouldn't vote on it (though I'd be happy to debate that separately), or that politicians shouldn't do what they say.

Now, you do have a valid point about religous/non-religous people being on both sides of the debate...but you can't deny that most of the people who are opposed to SSM are opposed to it on religious grounds. In fact, I doubt there are many issues where you will get a perfectly clear-cut divide between religious and non-religious viewpoints.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

Now, you do have a valid point about religous/non-religous people being on both sides of the debate...but you can't deny that most of the people who are opposed to SSM are opposed to it on religious grounds. In fact, I doubt there are many issues where you will get a perfectly clear-cut divide between religious and non-religious viewpoints.

So what.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

Deleted

Catchme · February 13, 2007

Canada has no state religion, politicians have no business bringing their flavour of religion into it.

I want people running for office to be honest about what they believe in. Don't you? If people decide not to vote for them because of it, that is their business.

I don't care what MP's believe religious wise, it is their personal right to freedom of religion and conscience. Because this country has freedom of religion and conscience their religious beliefs should NEVER enter the HoC, once running for office, or elected. Nor should it impact upon their actions when dealing with matters of state.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

I don't care what MP's believe religious wise, it is their personal right to freedom of religion and conscience. Because this country has freedom of religion and conscience their religious beliefs should NEVER enter the HoC, once running for office, or elected. Nor should it impact upon their actions when dealing with matters of state.

Bull. You don't think you should know what people stand for when they run for office? You don't think their faith or lack of it will have any bearing on how they govern? We are what we are and act accordingly.

margrace · February 13, 2007

I don't care what MP's believe religious wise, it is their personal right to freedom of religion and conscience. Because this country has freedom of religion and conscience their religious beliefs should NEVER enter the HoC, once running for office, or elected. Nor should it impact upon their actions when dealing with matters of state.

Bull. You don't think you should know what people stand for when they run for office? You don't think their faith or lack of it will have any bearing on how they govern? We are what we are and act accordingly.

Having been a church goer all my life I would not trust anyone just because they go to church on sunday? Just as many crooks there as is is outside the church.

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

He intended to take away rights from people because they are gay.

What tangible rights would they lose?

Please don't waste our time with peurile nonsense. The right to marry eachother, of course.

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

This was part of the election campaign. When the people voted they had been told this would happen. The promise was kept, it was voted on, defeated and won't be revisited, at least not by the government.

Doesn't matter if it was an election promise or not, the point is that making such a promise and then holding a vote was a step away from separation of church and state, as I said before.

You don't get to tell people what they will be allowed to vote on. If a politician says he is going to do something during an election campaign and he gets elected, he has a mandate to do what he said he was going to do. You can't seem to accept that. There are people of many religions and those who are not religious at all who are on both sides of this issue.

You've lost track of this discussion, Wilber. Harper's campaign promise to indulge the desire of some to remove rights from homosexuals demonstrated that he was interested in, or at least willing, to accede to the theocrat agenda.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

You've lost track of this discussion, Wilber. Harper's campaign promise to indulge the desire of some to remove rights from homosexuals demonstrated that he was interested in, or at least willing, to accede to the theocrat agenda.

Maybe I am just unwilling to roll over and accede to your agenda without saying my piece.

I'm not a religious person but I don't tell those who are what they can stand for or what they can't do. I believe that all couples should have the same rights under the law. I don't much care if the 38 years since my wedding are called a union or a marriage but I do have a problem when governments arbitrarily change the meaning of words purely for perceived political correctness. The fact is, for all societies including Communist societies which are officially atheist, the traditional definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and a women, so it shouldn't be surprising that there is a lot of opposition to that change. It shouldn't take a genius to figure that out.

Some would like to say that opposition is restricted entirely to fundamentalist Christians. Much of it is but the tactic of trying to pigeon hole a certain group as the sole obstruction and then discredit that group in order to advance an agenda is as old as the hills. A most extreme example of that tactic is the Nazi's vilification of the Jews. As far as I know the only religious institutions in the world carrying out same sex marriages are some Christian churches and maybe some Synagogues.

Objections to the term "marriage" being used for same sex relationships are not confined to religious fundamentalists and range from the very emotional, all the way to, Geez! I don't really like this but don't we have more important things to do with our time? No one knows how many fit in the latter category and because of that, if this were put to a referendum no one knows how it would turn out, that is why neither side wants to go that way.

But let's take it one step farther. As well as not allowing anyone to let their religious beliefs have anything to do with how they vote in Parliament, we should also stipulate that anyone who allows their religious views to influence them when they fill out a ballot should disqualify themselves from voting.

guyser · February 13, 2007

Or is it preferable that all Christian's be barred from running for political office.

It would be a good start

White Doors · February 13, 2007

How inclusive of you!

guyser · February 13, 2007

What tangible rights would they lose?
Not some word, not some hoocus-poocus bullshit. What would they lose the next morning?

Nothing.

They would lose nothing "more" the next morning. They would still be denied rights that others have.

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

You've lost track of this discussion, Wilber. Harper's campaign promise to indulge the desire of some to remove rights from homosexuals demonstrated that he was interested in, or at least willing, to accede to the theocrat agenda.

Maybe I am just unwilling to roll over and accede to your agenda without saying my piece.

I'm not a religious person but I don't tell those who are what they can stand for or what they can't do. I believe that all couples should have the same rights under the law. I don't much care if the 38 years since my wedding are called a union or a marriage but I do have a problem when governments arbitrarily change the meaning of words purely for perceived political correctness. The fact is, for all societies including Communist societies which are officially atheist, the traditional definition of marriage has always been the union of a man and a women, so it shouldn't be surprising that there is a lot of opposition to that change. It shouldn't take a genius to figure that out.

Some would like to say that opposition is restricted entirely to fundamentalist Christians. Much of it is but the tactic of trying to pigeon hole a certain group as the sole obstruction and then discredit that group in order to advance an agenda is as old as the hills. A most extreme example of that tactic is the Nazi's vilification of the Jews. As far as I know the only religious institutions in the world carrying out same sex marriages are some Christian churches and maybe some Synagogues.

Objections to the term "marriage" being used for same sex relationships are not confined to religious fundamentalists and range from the very emotional, all the way to, Geez! I don't really like this but don't we have more important things to do with our time? No one knows how many fit in the latter category and because of that, if this were put to a referendum no one knows how it would turn out, that is why neither side wants to go that way.

But let's take it one step farther. As well as not allowing anyone to let their religious beliefs have anything to do with how they vote in Parliament, we should also stipulate that anyone who allows their religious views to influence them when they fill out a ballot should disqualify themselves from voting.

Okay, you're obviously not paying attention to the actual discussion, so WHAT/EVER.

Wilber · February 13, 2007

Okay, you're obviously not paying attention to the actual discussion, so WHAT/EVER.

Actually I am. If you campaign on a platform and are elected on it, you have an obligation to at least try and carry it out. It's a simple concept.

Figleaf · February 13, 2007

Okay, you're obviously not paying attention to the actual discussion, so WHAT/EVER.

Actually I am. If you campaign on a platform and are elected on it, you have an obligation to at least try and carry it out. It's a simple concept.

If you campaign on a platform, presumably it reflects what you believe in.