Charles Adler is as fed up as I am with the smear campaign against Christians in the Canadian media.
Do you think the Globe and Mail would use headlines such as “Indo-Canadian activists capturing Liberal races,” or “Muslim Activists forcing Liberals to shift position on Israel?”
The truth is the Globe gets a free throw in this country, as do other media, when it comes to castigating Christians.
If The United Church of Canada gets involved in advancing gay rights, the Globe and Mail is not likely to be concerned. The Globe would never suggest United Church members stay away from Liberal or NDP nomination meetings.
But, when evangelical Christians and socially conservative Catholics get involved in politics in order to advance their issues, look out.
If these uppity evangelicals would just respect the system we have in place, they’d convert to Sikhism��or Islam where their views have been declared legitimate by the Official Media Handbook On Canadian Religious Diversity, and then take their opinions on public policy to the political marketplace.
update – Violet Nightshade serves up a lesson in tolerance, from the persective of the “gay community”.
Uh-oh, it’s those damn Christians causing trouble again — but the left is ready!
Being anti-Christian is the last socially acceptable bigotry. But be warned, these socially acceptable bigots use language not usually considered acceptable in polite society.
Fear of Faith at Work in Canada. Liberal Media will just not let it go.
I agree with Len
Tolerance
A homosexual’s rant about Christians and Politics – Humorous!
The Globe & mails poll today – ” Do you think politicians should let their religious beliefs guide them in their legislative decision making? ”
Why doesn’t the Globe & Mail run this poll instead-
” Do you think Christian bashing is fun?”
I am a Christian and I found the Globe and Mail so offensive I wrote them a scathing letter to the editor. No word on whether they will print it. I was civil, but very pointed. Wouldn’t want to be accused of being “angry”, now would I? (sarcasm)
I’m sorry my views don’t fit into the nice, neat box the Liberals and media would like them to. But then, I’ve never been one to tow the line. Always been a rebel at heart.
Oddly, the same people who’ve preached tolerance in our society ad nauseum have a hard time practicing it when it comes to those who think differently than them. Kinda hard to be tolerant when you run into people who won’t think like you do, I guess!
No I think socialism, atheism, My phd in social engineering, secular humanism, etc, etc.
Maybe we should consult a psyhcic to guide us in our legislative decision making.
Dont bring up the fact that western democracies were founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Spooky said: “I am a Christian and I found the Globe and Mail so offensive I wrote them a scathing letter to the editor.”
Oooooo…scary stuff you scary theocratic old Christian you….you are sooooo scary 😉
If you were as radical as other religious cults that liberals embrace, you would have burned the G&M down and slaughtered the staff in a righteous Jihad.
Obviously the “scary” scale used by the G&M editorial secular bigots makes no distinction between writing letters of disagreement and tossing bombs where judging religious dogma is concerned.
Either that or it takes very little to scare the timorous scribblers at the G&M.
Hey, G&M…. BOO!…awww ya jumped, gotcha…get some nerve tonic or get out more and meet some real people…really they ain’t that scary.
“Oddly, the same people who’ve preached tolerance in our society ad nauseum have a hard time practicing it when it comes to those who think differently than them. Kinda hard to be tolerant when you run into people who won’t think like you do, I guess!”
Oh, I get it! If I want to be tolerant, I must allow you to practice your own particular brand of intolerance. I mean we can’t just go and ban intolerance, that would be hypocritical.
Now it only there was some sort of scriptural way to determine whether or not someone is a true believer (and therefore fit to govern) or not.
Wait, what about this:
Mark 16:17-19
17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
So all we need politicians to do is drink arsenic, juggle snakes, and babble incoherently (most can do this already) and then cure the sick by touching them. Find me anyone on the hill who can do all these things and I will vote for them.
It is in the bible, it must be true.
Curently about 77% in the Gob and Pail poll belive that religious beliefs should not be used by politicians to guide them. Drop the word religous from the poll question and I suspect the numbers would be very different.
Regardless of which religion a person subscribes to or which god they bow down to the important thing is “Belief”. We all need something to believe in. Maybe what needs to happen in Blog land is to initiate “other” polls that we can all quote. If ” you don’t speak for me” is a perception held by many in cyber space then maybe we need to have polls that do speak for us. I don’t have that ability but I bet some of you do. Imagine having many pointed questions to give your oppinion on. Questions the MSM never ask,questions that can’t be spun in directions not intended.
I feel that Christians/Sikhs/Muslims certainly DO have the right to get involved in politics and push the issues that are important to them. I just hope they’ll also respect my right to get freaked out over their favourite issues and take my vote elsewhere.
Fair is fair, right?
The issue is not intolerance toward Christian but intolerance toward Christians who want to enact their socon policies that are against the Charter. Canadians both secular and non-secular will continue to be freaked out by this intolerance.
Freedom of religion reigns in canada.
In canada you can worship or not worship the God of your choice be it Satan, a rock, moon, sun, tree,or a pile of s–t if you choose.
God is dead, God is alive, Who is He? Whats his name?
Where is he? Wow my brain feels like its about to explode.
Truth vs error.
Are their absolute truths in the universe.
Just for today I will be God, I will spin the earth today, and cause the sun to shine and I will design a human mind and body thats superior to the one I have. O.K. Ive decided to become a mere mortal again.
Sean wrote:
“I feel that Christians/Sikhs/Muslims certainly DO have the right to get involved in politics and push the issues that are important to them. I just hope they’ll also respect my right to get freaked out over their favourite issues and take my vote elsewhere.”
Trust Sean to get “freaked” whenever the discussion pertains to religion. It’s a shame your obviously jaded view of religion prevents you from considering the secular arguments that are completely compatible with the religious, i.e. there are numerous compelling reasons that have nothing to do with “Christianity” for opposing gay “marriage” (read anything by Stanley Kurtz) or an unlimited abortion license. That is one of the things that strengthens my faith – constantly discovering how congruent is Christianity with secular arguments based on science, philosophy or just plain common sense (e.g. perhaps abortion shouldn’t be quite so unlimited if it results in birth rates that will bring about the extinction of society) on so many of these issues.
It almost seems to be the case that your position on these issues is based on nothing other than wanting to be diametrically opposed to whatever is the Christian position without any thought as to what might be the secular arguments in favour of the same position. Not that “progressives” are closed-minded, or anything.
Perhaps the Christian “fear” stems from them being everywhere versus the “other” religions at this point and time being a very small minority when looking at a National basis? Out of site, out of media as it were? It has already been reported in the media (I forget which paper but only ONE article) that stated that the Muslims run for ALL Parties in a particular riding with their goal to gain control of ANY controling Party in Ottawa.
Founding governments where built on the Religous Basis of Gods Law of “do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you”. During the old times the Romans were quite surprised when they invaded northern Germany to take over the labeled barbarians that they already “have” gods law. Having present day religous beliefs dictate how one governs, if elected, is just forcing ones’ Bible morals on the non-bible moral while each group is moral.
Practice religion freely in your own home, your own backyard, to your own kids, in your own religous place of worship.
Not in my backyard, not in my living room, not to my dependants (unless their 18 and want to be), not at my front door (unless you want me gathering people to knock and talk on YOUR front door from the hours of 7 am to 11 pm seven days a week for how long????
A war of “I am more moral than you are moral so I will force you unto my morals if you don’t come along willingly??????
If Religion stayed out of State, how many wars would have never started?
do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you
do not assert any control over me and I will not assert any control over you
I know I am rambling again, cheers 🙂 majere
Quote: “Practice religion freely in your own home, your own backyard, to your own kids, in your own religous place of worship.”
Love to. But the wording of the SSM bill forces religious officials to perform SSMs whenever asked *inside* places of worship.
Whups! Hit ‘post’ by accident. My apologies…
Anyway, the wording of the SSM bill would severely limit religious freedoms in this country. And that should be of serious concern to both secular and Christian.
If you think that abortion is wrong then don’t have one,
if you don’t agree with same sex marriage then marry someone of the opposite gender,
if you think that alcohol is of ‘of the devil’ then don’t drink,
if your god tell you to wear a funny hat go ahead and wear a funny hat.
It seems simple to me, why doesn’t this work for you?
Now if you believe that your god thinks I shouldn’t drink booze, or marry someone of the same sex, or have an abortion or that I should wear a funny hat and you think that this should be the law because god seems incapable of enforcing these rules, I would call that theocratic nonsense.
Is it necessary for the law of the land to reflect your particular religion’s take on things?
Are there any religions that you would not like to see dictating policy to the government? Why or why not?
A reminder to debaters’: You ALL have religious belief systems. The trick is in finding balance, not in declaring where others can practice them, nor in declaring which ones can have a voice in public policy.
If secularists wish to define public policy, they must allow equal opportunity for non-secularists to do so as well.
There is no such thing as “secularism” that stands apart from formal religion. It’s just a different flavour – and there is plenty to frighten us coming from that belief system these days.
Naked Ape:
To answer one of your queries, no it is not necessary for the law of the land to reflect my particular religion’s take on things.
My question to you is, and this was the inference of the Globe article, is should my religion’s take on things automatically disqualify me from debating such issues in the public square?
Spooky:
Anyway, the wording of the SSM bill would severely limit religious freedoms in this country. And that should be of serious concern to both secular and Christian.
Please explain how the SSM bill would limit your religious freedom.
“Trust Sean to get “freaked” whenever the discussion pertains to religion. It’s a shame your obviously jaded view of religion prevents you from considering the secular arguments that are completely compatible with the religious, i.e. there are numerous compelling reasons that have nothing to do with “Christianity” for opposing gay “marriage” (read anything by Stanley Kurtz) or an unlimited abortion license.”
I have never advocated an unlimited abortion license, and if you bothered to read my blog you’d know that people who use abortion regularly as birth control piss me off.
Yes, I’ve read Stanly Kurtz, and he takes specious reasoning to new levels.
If you’re wondering where my jaded view of religion comes from, it’s all those years I spent living in the belly of the beast.
“Perhaps the Christian “fear” stems from them being everywhere versus the “other” religions at this point and time being a very small minority when looking at a National basis?”
I’m still much more afraid of Islam than I ever will be of Christianity. The latter can’t hold a candle to the former when it comes to terrorism and blatant disregard for human rights. Women in the middle east should be so lucky as to suffer the same treatment that homosexuals ‘suffer’ under Dubya in the U.S. (where the admirable Christian principle of hating the sin while loving the sinner seems to hold true).
Ken,
of course your religion’s take on things does not disqualify you from debating such things in the public forum. When the only defence of a particular position is the selected writings of a small group of bronze age goat hearders, just say so. That way the folks who believe in different magic books (or none) can evaluate the quality of the support for these positions.
I realise that you think that Leviticus is the last word on homosexuality, but tell me: Do you ever wear poly-cotton blend shirts, cross breed cattle or plant fields with two kinds of seed?
Leviticus 19:19 * New American Standard Bible (NASB)
‘You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.
Why do some verses in Leviticus remain important to uphold, while this verse is ignored? Is there some sort of true believer secret decoder ring that makes this all make sense?
roger roeder
“If Religion stayed out of State, how many wars would have never started?”
Did religion have anything to do with the first or second world wars? How about the Korean, Vietnam or Civil wars?
Guess what? Nazi and communist idealogues were SECULAR ones, and yet they were responsible for the largest mass muderings in history.
The religious, of all faiths are perfectly entitled to bring their beliefs into the public square. Now, are they allowed to use the state to enforce those beliefs?
To a degree. However, it would be difficult, even with a majority in the House of Commons, to pass a constitutionally valid law which, to pick an example, required all Canadian judges to be practicing Christians. Again, it could be done by way of the notwithstanding clause, but it would be difficult.
The reason we have a Charter of Rights is to draw a line between legitimate governmental activity and activities which discriminate against individuals.
You don’t need to be a “secularist” to believe that the state has no business regulating the private conduct of individuals or that the state should not prohibit Jews from holding public office or deny Canadians of Chinese ancestery the Child Tax Benefit.
As a libertarian I want to see the state’s influence on individuals’lives reduced. And I want the state to treat those individuals equally without regard to legally irrelevant questions like skin colour, gender, age or religion.
Which means that while I welcome the religious to the public square, I will fight hard against their use of the power of the state to impose their particular beliefs if those beliefs create legally irrelevant distictions as between individuals and the rights of those individuals.
Naked:
See Jay’s response, thoughtful, articulate and actually engages in the debate.
You however, jumped right to your own conclusion about me without regard for the question. You have no idea what I think and this will be my last response to you as I do not want Kate to impose the same harsh penalties on us commenters as Mr Coyne did.
BTW Jay, I concur wholeheartedly with your views, as I said my issue with the Globe was that the inference was that because they were Christians they had the ability to impose their views on the party platform any more than any other religion, secularist, aetheist etc. (See Ezra Lvants column in the Calgary Sun where inserts Jews for Christians and see how quickly the article becomes anti-Semitic).
“Why do some verses in Leviticus remain important to uphold, while this verse is ignored? Is there some sort of true believer secret decoder ring that makes this all make sense?”
Technically (in many faiths), because the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament was done away with through Christ. Christ’s sacrifice changed the rules, so to speak. I believe, somewhere in the New Testament there is a single reference to homosexuality, although it is rather wishy-washy and can be taken many ways depending on who you speak to.
If you look hard enough, you can find something to admire in ALL religions. (One of the things I really admire about Islam, is that they condone amputation of the hands of thieves. Hard-core jesusfreakery would allow them to be burnt at the stake, first.
>Are there any religions that you would not like to see dictating policy to the government? Why or why not?
I would like to see socialists not dictating policy to the government. What I do with my income and wealth is entirely my own business and none of theirs. Whether I am generous or stingy is none of their concern. Let them be charitable of their own possessions if compassion for others is their desire.
The problem in Canada seems to be too few people recognizing, much too late, that the goverment can’t take care of everything and still leave room for a free people.
This William F. Buckley column:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp
…may demonstrate a couple of points.
I lived in Ontario for 22 years. I am aware of no Canadian figure comparable to Buckley, and he’s old.
Maybe it is too late for Canada to wake up.
The Libranos have undoubtedly committed offenses that any moral person, in a democracy, would say deserves at least temporary punishment. It looks 50-50 they’ll be re-elected.
Maybe it is too late for Canada to wake up.
I didn’t understand it when I lived there, and I am dumbfounded now.
Sympathy and good luck. Let me know if I can do anything.
PS. Meant to include this in my previous comment
Don’t miss this Charles Krauthammer piece in Time Magazine.
In Defense of Certainty.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1066928,00.html
Hey Naked! Do you really go around without any clothes on? In public? Wow, you must really take your worldview seriously!
What’s that? You mean you don’t go around naked? Ya mean you actually follow one of those precepts practiced by those ancient goatherder guys?
Too bad we let those religious freaks impose their ethical and socially acceptable values on us!
Woo hoo! Mr. Ape this is fun.
And dare I say, so simple?
If you don’t think dangling chop sticks from your nostrils is hilarious, then don’t do it.
If you think it is wrong to take a whiz in somebody’s gas tank, then don’t do it.
If you don’t agree that A Golden Retriever would make a very agreeable partner then find a member of your own species.
If your God tells you that your only responsibility is to yourself, then you must be living on that tiny little planet called Me.
The obvious (and final) solution to the same-sex marriage issue: get the government the *bleep* out of the marriage business. Marriage (as we know it) is fundamentally a religious/ethical thing, whether your religion be Catholic, Muslim, Secularism, Humanism, or Mormon. The role of the state shouldn’t be to impose/enforce the beliefs of one segment of the population, no matter how large, on the rest of it. And I think we’ve been treating the (old school) Mormons unfairly by outlawing polygamy between N consenting adults. Marriage should be between you, your partner(s), your church and/or your lawyer (*bleep* the corrupt government/society).
“Marriage should be between you, your partner(s), your church and/or your lawyer…”
As soon as you involve lawyers, you involve law.
As soon as you involve law, you involve legislative authority.
As soon as you involve legislative authority, you involve government.
Last weekend in Arcola, I sat on the bleachers in the hockey rink, observing the court of the annual meeting of Saskatchewan Conference of the United Church. (The number of people in Arcola roughly doubled while the meeting was in session.) In a report from General Council, it was mentioned that United Church representatives have frequent audiences on Parliament Hill – about once a month, as I recall. I’ve been wondering whether this is a good thing. I suppose one could argue that many Canadians, when asked their denomination, name the United Church; on that basis, the United Church’s official position might be considered representative of the opinion of many Canadians. Might. But the United Church tends to attract those who don’t want their church to dictate their politics. I suspect many who would name “United Church” as their denomination would not even realize that the church might be speaking to government on their behalf. But perhaps the politicians turn to church representatives to find out what the people want, simply because the people are not bothering to let the politicians know directly. Just like they are not bothering to pay attention to church governance. I sat in on several hours of the meeting, and never saw more than half a dozen visitors in the bleachers. Much of the time I was alone.
Also at the meeting, (somewhat OT) I was amused to see an announcement that Affirm United (a group working for “the inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons in the life and work of the church”) was holding a social gathering Saturday night at the High House. I didn’t hear that there were any fights, in spite of Kate’s concern for the safety of anyone who might walk into that establishment with the wrong accessories…
https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/001502.html
small dead animals: Man Bag
“As soon as you involve lawyers, … you involve government” – in that sense government is involved in everything (you take a crap -> municipal waste management -> government, etc…), the question is one of direct or indirect involvement, whether government is resolving a matter directly or is merely protecting the individuals’ freedoms to decide themselves.
(btw, I meant civil contract, i.e. formal prenups, etc.. but you knew that).
Hello Kate,
I check your blog every chance I get. I have a smart-alec saying, ‘when I get to be king, I’ll fix it’. Well, if my turn ever comes up to be king, I’ll abdicate in favor of you!
You mentioned Charles Adler, I’m lucky enough I can pick him up twice a day out of Winnipeg. WoW, what a straight thinker. He’s expanding across canada on the Corus network. I sure hope he can make a difference. Problem is though, the real power in the country is in quebec, and the reason why english is outlawed in that province, is to keep the populace thinking the party line.
I know this will be scoffed at by some, but the old parable in the Bible about the tower of Babal? When God wanted to split up the people, he made the different groups unable to communicate. The tower was never finished.
Keep up the good work.
The globe and mail may very well constitute a hate group under canadian law.