Dear Garth Turner,
I am a seventh generation Canadian whose ancestors pioneered this province long before Confederation.
Now, seven, eight and ten generations later, thousands of us who are their descendants belong to the group you claim “do not represent society”. Exactly what is the origin of this society that we are not longer part of?
We find it deeply offensive that you would make such a statement and wonder how you can possibly represent your constituents in an unbiased way with such a narrow vision.
That’s a hunk of an email I received tonight – one of several – with the subject line, “Renegade Conservative MP Garth Turner Calls Ethnic and Religious People Flowers of Evil and Taliban.†Isn’t that just what a grandmotherly soul from Stouffville would call her email? Yes, and I fully expect to get a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, more with exactly the same title.
This, of course, is courtesy of the efforts of one Charles McVety, an evangelical Christian leader who seems to be having a lot of fun poking a stick in my cave. McVety and I sparred on TV a couple of weeks back, and it appears he can’t get enough of me. Perhaps my views are useful for filling donation envelopes, if not pews.
Now McVety and his gang part company with me over the intersection of faith and politics. While I fully and openly agree people should seek political office for faith-based reasons, if that’s what drives them, I don’t think any group with a single focus (religious or cultural, for example) should try to knock off experienced MPs elected by a plurality of voters and replace them with candidates who are mouthpieces for the group’s views. Except, of course, if that group represents a majority of people in the electoral district. Or a significant minority. Or even a sizeable voting block.
But this small point – that a major political party’s candidate should somewhat reflect the voters in the riding – is lost on the McVety crew, who believe their faith gives them the right to impose their views on everyone else. So, by engineering the candidacy of faith-based politicians, they seek to place in power legislators who will support laws they want – restrictions on abortion, for example – and to repeal laws they do not want – such as the right of same-sex couples to marry.
But my disagreement with McVety & Co. is not on the issues themselves right now, rather the process. As I have said before, this is tantamount to political theft and it does not serve the people, the process or parties. Any special-interest group is wrong to bus in instant members and suck off a political nomination when the candidate is a one-trick pony. Any political party not taking steps to ensure the nomination process is reflective of the community at large is putting the system at risk.
Of course, anybody – a person of faith or not – is welcome to run for any office. I have certainly signed up people to support me in personal nominations who were not previously party members. Glad to have ‘em. But I have never taken the soccer club approach.
McVety, on the other hand, has stated openly that he would encourage people of faith (also known in this instance as Christians, of which I am one), to swamp a meeting en masse solely to get a faith-based candidate and, ultimately, a faith-based government. Bad idea. Dangerous idea.
We separate church and state for a reason. We encourage women and people from various heritage backgrounds to run so Parliament will not be a swamp of middle-aged white guys like me. Major parties like the Tories, Grits and NDP work hard at attracting candidates who will be reflective of the society they will lead and well represent the people sending them to the House of Commons.
So when a Charles McVety comes along and tells his flock to hijack a nomination, it may be a holy act, but it’s not democractic. And no amount of email will change that.
Not that it maters, but Charles knows full well I did not call any Christians ‘Taliban’. I carefully explained this was a reference to a faith-based government that the western world condemned as being the poster for intolerance. He also knows I made no disparaging allusion to ‘ethnics,’ saying only any group’s attempt to do what he’s contemplating is equally undemocratic.
These things he knows. And yet he tells his flock otherwise. So much for values.
59 comments ↓
Yaknow if he’s so sure that he’s “Right” and that Canadians are just dying for his self riteous leadership maybe he should just simply start his own political party take his chances. I mean why bother hijacking a moderate, inclusive party and GUARANTEE another round of Liberal insanity? But you can’t reason with fanatics… and the really sad thing is it paints ALL people who have faith of any type with the same brush.
Of course… by writing articles like this, Garth, you’re giving this freakshow credibility. I think he’s had more than enough attention – maybe if we just ignore them they’ll get tired and go away?
“So when a Charles McVety comes along and tells his flock to hijack a nomination, it may be a holy act, but it’s not democractic.”
Geez Garth, I am not a McVety fan…far from it. But isn’t that what democracy is all about. He who gets the most supporters out wins.
These things he knows. And yet he tells his flock otherwise. So much for values.
Refer McVety to commandment number 9.
“Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
This is a quote from christianity.ca:
“Canada Family Action Coalition frequently ties in with Canada Christian College (CCC). Its president, Roy Beyer, twice left the organization to back Stockwell Day’s Canadian Alliance leadership bids, in co-operation with CCC. And the college, led by Charles McVety, supported Jim Flaherty for the Ontario Tory leadership last year. CCC liked his Catholic-based social conservative values.â€
A brief google search reveals connections with other Conservative MPs.
This one is from today’s Chronicle Herald in Halifax:
“OTTAWA — Gerald Keddy says he is prepared to fight to keep the Tory nomination in his South Shore-St. Margarets riding if opponents of same-sex marriage make good on their threat to try to take it away from him.
After Mr. Keddy voted for the Liberal government’s same-sex marriage bill last year, religious activists vowed to try to wrest the Tory nomination from him, but the national party protected sitting MPs from having to face bruising nomination challenges just before an election.
The party’s national council will decide next month whether to bow to pressure to allow contested nominations.â€
So what do we have here? Is this an attack on the CPC by external forces of the religious right or a split in the party? Obviously there are high profile members in the party who have close ties with McVety and his ilk. Is there a battle raging behind closed doors over whether to open up the nomination process so the fundies can load the roster for the next election? How many of our “honourable†Conservative Mps are quietly supporting this subversion in the name of their God?
These people don’t just believe we walked with dinosaurs they are dinosaurs. They think they can roll the cultural clock back by subverting the political process in the name of Jehovah. And some of them are already in government … and they’re trying to sneak their buddies in!!
Pogo had it right, “we have seen the enemy and he is us!”
Let’s look at the negative comments here from people who are against Christians. (not including Garths’)
Fundies, Self-riteous (sp), freakshow, the enemy.
These words show pretty much the attitude that Garth fosters when he criticizes those people who are religious and can organize better than he can. He doesn’t like democracy and therefore is upset because he will lose as he doesn’t have the core support that they would have. You can call it hijacking, but democracy is what it really is.
Now, let’s go to what Garth has said here.
Not that it maters, but Charles knows full well I did not call any Christians ‘Taliban’. I carefully explained this was a reference to a faith-based government that the western world condemned as being the poster for intolerance. He also knows I made no disparaging allusion to ‘ethnics,’ saying only any group’s attempt to do what he’s contemplating is equally undemocratic.
These things he knows. And yet he tells his flock otherwise. So much for values.
Let’s suppose he isn’t insinuating that the Christians to which he referred are Taliban. He is at least saying that if they get into power they will be intolerant like the Taliban. I’d be interested to see if Garth thinks the Vatican is a model for intolerance as well as they are a faith-based government too.
Actually my wods of criticism were against Defend Marriage Canada, not Christians. Let’s make sure we stay factual. — Garth
Garth, do you know how many of your peers in the CPC caucus have ties to the CCC? When the “free vote” on the definition of marriage comes up, how divided will the CPC be?
By the way, I don’t expect an answer…that could land you in even more doo-doo from your peers and boss.
Believe it or not, some Christians actually have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage, so for Mr. McVety to assume that he represents the majority is not necessarily accurate.
Fundamentalist religious groups are disturbing, but every religion has them – Christianity is no exception to this. The question is, will the moderate masses allow ANY religious fundamentalists run the country (and potentially our lives)? I sincerely hope not.
Talk about getting bogged down by a small group. I bet this makes you wish for the Progressive Conservative Party to come back strong.
This is why myself and quite a number of real Progressive Conservatives are staying away from the Conservative party.
Only when a moderate takes control of the party and the right wing ideologues are forced from the leadership chair will a majority government and protection from the one issue candidates be possible.
Take care and keep up the good fight.
I know that people like myself staying out of the party perpetuate the problem, but if I was to rejoin and help work for the conservative party would only give them legitimacy and stall the rebirth of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
Have a good weekend.
Garth
I truly commend your efforts in standing up to McVetty. This guy really is a right wing-nut. Ever since the conservatives became the Reform-Alliance-CPC Party I have voted Liberal. There is no possible way that I would ever support a party that had a busload of MP’s that are fundamenatlists. This is the reason Belinda Stronach, Scott Brisson and others have left the party. Now I see that you have become a victim as well.
Don’t ask Stockwell Day for help!!!!! Unless of course if you convert to his brand of love.
Sean:
Actually no one is dumping on Christians. True Christians render unto Caesar. These poseurs want to become Caesar. You could learn the difference. It’s in the book.
Matt said, “Believe it or not, some Christians actually have no problem whatsoever with gay marriage, so for Mr. McVety to assume that he represents the majority is not necessarily accurate.
Fundamentalist religious groups are disturbing, but every religion has them – Christianity is no exception to this. The question is, will the moderate masses allow ANY religious fundamentalists run the country (and potentially our lives)? I sincerely hope not.”
Think about what you are saying here. The majority of Christians are for normal marriage, if you think otherwise, you’re living in a fantasy world. As well, if you’re a Christian, you would actually support Christian views not just some of it either, no piecemeal here, so I doubt they’re actually Christian.
If you’re upset that Christians who follow the word of God to run this country, you have some bigotry problems you need to solve.
Kevin, you sound like a fundamentalist. A secular fundamentalist. I certainly wouldn’t want to live in your society, it sounds like you would segregate all the Christians into one area so you wouldn’t have anything to do with them. Left-wing nuts have no place in the Conservative party and I hope that Garth is on his way out. Its good to see you support corruption by voting Liberal. You certainly are no Conservative.
Ray–you are dreaming.The Progressive Conservative Party is dead.It’s rebirth would give the Liberals another majority.
Lucky for the CPC you and your buddies stay away!!!
Garth said, “Actually my wods of criticism were against Defend Marriage Canada, not Christians. Let’s make sure we stay factual. — Garth”
You can caveat your remarks all you want after the fact. Still doesn’t change what you have said. It doesn’t change that most Christians are against homosexual marriage and therefore your remarks are meant to tarnish them.
I see you chose not to respond to my question about the Vatican as they are a relgious government.
Let me say this right now because I am sure that most of you are thinking this, I am in no way part of Defend Marriage Canada. I am a Christian and am acting alone on this.
I’m with the Romans. Christains and for that matter any worshiper of a supernatural being should be fed to lions or any large carnivores at hand.
Sure, a benevolent man in a beard lives in the sky with He, his own son, and Himself, the holy ghost and He impregnated a virgin with himself.
That’s believable but an ambivalent one eyed old man with a beard who rides an eight legged horse and left his eye in a lake to gain the wisdom of the ages is simply a myth.
McVety, and he is a nut, at least has some conviction. The rest of Christendom adheres to a version of the bible as told by Goldman’s grandfather (i.e. Only the good parts – See Goldman’s novel The Princess Bride for this reference if you’re still lost).
I’m not saying things like the ten commandments are good things but do you have to wrap good advice in the divine to get people to listen to good social policy?
“This is the reason Belinda Stronach, Scott Brisson and others have left the party”
You sound like a “left wing nut” to me…..
I agree with some of the comments here. I will not support CPC ever so long as the social conservatives are in power in that organization. I think you are doing good things for you party Garth.
Garth,
In a healthy democracy an individual like McVetty has a “right to be wrong”.
Now that you have given him a platform to speak from, let him preach. A Christian leader loves most to hear himself talk. Vanity will inevitably modify his message to appeal to an audience of the majority. Sooner or later he will realize your communication medium is nore a friend than enemy. Be patient and watch his amazing transformation. You can win without saying a word.
Sean
Even you deserve it!
Christians and fundamentalists are not the same. You my friend are a Fundamentalist and definitely driving the bus with all those FundaMENTAList MP’s on board.
Fundamentalism and Democracy do not mix, that is why there is a seperation of church and state. You may not like that but thank God we have it in Canada.
When it comes to politics I am secular because I believe in Democracy. That is why society allows Religious freedom as well as freedom from religion.
Enjoy your freedom Sean!!!
For a change, let’s discuss something here. How about more Liberal/Quebec corruption?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060608.wsena0608/BNStory/National/home
Garth, how do you explain the opening line of the Charter, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law…”
Should we invoke the Notwithstanding Clause, and change it?
Yes lets go back to the good old days when the church rulled. I believe it’s called the Dark Ages. Lets start burning us some witches, maybe roast us some heretics while at it.
I think the 1st order of business should be to vote a law that proclames the earth to be flat and the sun to rotate around it.
Social conservatives will likely be the downfall of the Conservative party. Many people, myself included, like a lot of what the Conservative party stands for but cannot stomach the religious baggage that may be attached. We live in fear of the hidden social agenda, the potential of which clouds every promise and achievement like a giant implied caveat.
“We’ll bring you tougher minimum sentences BUT we’re going to treat homosexuals as second class citizensâ€
“We’ll give you financial accountability BUT woman can no longer choose to have an abortionâ€
I wish the religious could simply live their lives according to their own morals, instead of trying to combine church and state and inflict those views on the entire country. I wish I could vote for a financially conservative party that didn’t make me feel like I was selling my soul to do so. I guess I wish we had the PC party instead of just the C. sigh…
As an individual McVety has every right in the world to his opinion, however he has absolutely no mandate to claim to know what “Christians” believe. There seems a disturbing trend in the media to seek out token “advocates” and imbue them with far more authority to represent all sorts of other folks. The Toronto media routinely roll out so-called “parent activists” to tell us what hundreds of thousands of parents are thinking, without ever making it clear that they don’t, in fact, have a mandate from anyone.
Joanne
Since when does “GOD” refer to your God. The supremacy of God has little to do with your interpretation of that supremecy. Thats the thing about fundaMENTALists. As soon as you mention GOD …right away they think it’s all about them! Right Joanne!
Joanne C:
YES!
Sean:
Ah the Vatican. That would be the “government†that in 1981 finally got around to forgiving Galileo for suggesting that the earth orbits the sun. Give them a few more hundred years and maybe they will forgive Pasteur for having the temerity to suggest that disease is caused by germs and not demonic possession.
William:
A myth!! Say it ain’t so. You mean I’m not going to Valhalla? I don’t get to drink from the skull of my worst enemy? You’ve ruined my whole weekend.
I believe I’ve mentioned this before.
What McVety is proposing he has already done in Ajax-Pickering. His people got their man on the ballot as the Conservative candidate.
One little problem.
The voters rejected him.
ALW
Thanks for clearing that up!
Why are people dumping on Christians?
Most Christians (like probably 99%)don’t suppress anyone’s rights in Canada.
And there are a lot more “fundamentalists” than the McVety’s. Take a look at some other religions we have in Canada. You know those that suppress their women – women who can’t go to their place of worships or have to be segregated or to “cover up” or not join the workforce.
Any religion or culture that suppresses others (be it women or gays or “fill in the blank”) should be shunned and not embraced here in Canada. But, political correctness in Canada seems to overlook these people while dumping on Christians.
Increasing minimum sentences is the ultimate con. Stats Can and every other recorded stat absolutely prove that minmums are not a deterant.
Crime rates have dropped most significantly due to legalizing abortion 20 years ago, putting more cops on the street. A good economy contributes but not signficantly.
Catherine:
Trust me. If fundamentalists of a religion other than Christianity tried to hijack the Conservative party I’d dump on them too. I’m an equal opportunity dumper.
“Any political party not taking steps to ensure the nomination process is reflective of the community at large is putting the system at risk.”
Sikhs, Italians, or friends of McVety?
Cut with the cheap grandstanding Taliban jokes (just ‘cuz they don’t quote them correctly doesn’t mean you weren’t boorish).
Do something postive like bringing back the Cadman private members bill.
Sean,
I’ll answer your question. Yes, the vatican is a model of intolerance. The catholic church discriminates against women, homosexuals and the open minded.
We hear so much about their charitable work. What we don’t hear about is that said charitable work generally comes with a side dish of conversion.
Their whole abstinance idea in regards to the AIDS crisis in Africa has worked out just about as well as the withdrawal method works to stave off unwanted pregnancy!
Oh, ALW, maybe you can help me out with this one. Have they forgiven Columbus yet for his ridiculous claim that the Earth is round?
Andrew:
Forgiven? Are you kidding? Columbus discovered a couple of whole new continents full of heathens ripe for conversion … not to mention piles of gold. They converted the heathens (most of them died in the process but they went to heaven) and scooped the gold.
I thought they made him a saint.
John, “Sikhs, Italians, or friends of McVety?” Good point. All politicians attempt to appeal to various ethnic and religious groups. Take Joe Volpe for example. He relies heavily on the Italian vote; and immigrant vote in general. It is no different.
Kevin – “Since when does “GOD†refer to your God?” You’re the one that interpreted that inkblog, my friend.
Joanne – about Volpe: Don’t forget the little boys and girls, he relies on them too if they’ve got $5,400.00
Andrew, your comments just show how intolerant you are. But I am waiting for Garth to answer this one. Is the Vatican a country like the Taliban had in Afganistan? He knows I’ve asked this question already, and continues to ignore it. Let’s have it here.
Atheists try to tell us all who are fundamentalists and who are Christians. This is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Anyone who believes in the word of God is a fundamentalist to them. It is just being used to paint us in a corner as the bigots normally try.
ALW said, “Sean:
Actually no one is dumping on Christians. True Christians render unto Caesar. These poseurs want to become Caesar. You could learn the difference. It’s in the book. ”
Boy, this is funny, have you actually read the Bible??? If you have you would have never used that quote as it doesn’t even mean what you are changing it to. It means, pay the taxes to the government as you’re supposed to and put your faith in God not in man.
If McVety is trying to be Caesar, what is Garth and any other candidate/MP trying to be??? Same thing by your logic.
Again, I challenge anyone, and Garth is included here. Where in our Charter is separation of church and state mentioned? You do know that God is mentioned in our charter don’t you? Go ahead, I dare anyone, anyone at all, especially you Garth, since you state we have a separation of church and state.
Yes, God is mentioned in the charter. But the church is not, nor the mosque nor the temple nor the synagogue. God, as we all know, is not exlcusive to we Christians. — Garth
Sean,
I just wanted to let you know how great the painting of you in the corner looks over here at this “bigot”‘s place. It looks wonderful!
Take care Sean.
Yes Sean, I’ve read it. I’ve also read a number of commentaries both by Christians and non-Christians.
I referenced that quote to illustrate a point. I do realize that the quote in question refers specifically to Roman taxation. It does however illustrate that Christ was not interested in temporal power and influence. Caesar is Caesar and God is God … sounds kind of like separation of Church and State doesn’t it? That was made abundantly clear when he was tempted by Satan and refused to assume rulership of the entire world. He could have enforced his morality on the entire world but he chose not to do so. He knew something that seems to have escaped you. You can’t legislate morality. You can only set an example for others to follow.
As for the charter/god thing. God is a generic term. There are literally thousands of gods. Most of them wore out and got replaced but there are a few left. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on the word god. Yours is named Jehovah. Sounds kinda Jewish, doesn’t it?
Sean
Make sure that you are not too quick to label someone that does not agree with your brand of Christianity as an Atheist. Most Chritians, myself included are tolerant and open minded. It’s the FundaMENTALists that always give us a bad name. No one is trying to paint you into a corner … It’s just that most fundamentalists can’t shut-up! So you end up with paint on your shoes!! Just ask all those Reform-Alliance MP’s !!!
I am not a Christian (although I believe in “a” God, one of my own “creation” from bits and pieces from several different religions) but I do see a real “attack” on Christian values by the left that seems to have beefed up a lot lately (I guess because they are trying to detract the new Conservative government?). Why are the left (and maybe including you Garth) so afraid of incorporating more Christian values into society; things such as charity, honesty, empathy, compassion, tolerance, kindness etc (all the things that they themselves claim to be)? Is it because they may no longer have access to late term abortions or same sex marriage? From my understanding, the Conservative Party of Canada has about as many anti-abortionists MP’s as the Liberal Party. Since we have NO LAWS whatsoever on abortion right now, I wouldn’t mind seeing laws against late term abortion (and I think the majority of Canadians would have no problem with that). I think if we took a national referendum today on SSM, I wouldn’t be surprised to see that the majority would prefer a “civil union” situation as in many European countries rather than the redefinition of the word “Marriage”. What is it about having “Christians” in parliament do the left find “scary” – what “hidden agenda” do they think they have? It’s not like Christians are always trying to shove their religion down other people’s throat, not any that I have ever met! Do they talk about the values described above, yes they do! And why shouldn’t they? These values are good for society, we (non-Christians) just call them ethics!
Ethics, yes! Intolerance of others who hold differing social values and views, absolutely not. Tolerance of those who breed division and preach hate, never. And I do believe this is the first time in my life I have been called “left”! — Garth
Thanks for the reply Garth (and yes calling you a “leftie” was probably stretching it a bit much!). I find both sides as being intolerant these days but find it runs much deeper from the left. While the right are often perceived (and maybe rightly so??) as being intolerant of others due to their views of preserving the “traditional family” (against SSM, abortion, etc), I find that most are not extreme and they use good debate, facts, and logical arguments to put forth their views. While those on the left (at least in the blogosphere and I read both “Progressive” and Conservative blogs) seem to write solely from emotion and use name calling, accusations of racism and bigotry, and just plain hostility rather than presenting good counter arguments. Their words are so intolerant that I sometimes actually laugh out loud when reading at the irony of it all! As Dr. Phil says – “Do you want to be right or happy? Why can’t we all be happy instead of fighting over who is right? Yeah, I know, perfect utopia not coming any time soon…
Hi Charley:
If I may zero in on one thing you said: “I wouldn’t mind seeing laws against late term abortion.”
If laws would put a stop to late term abortions I’d be with you one hundred percent. People don’t stop having abortions because of legislation. Driving it underground really doesn’t solve the problem. It just creates more problems.
Somehow this society has convinced itself that an unborn child is not life. I don’t comprehend it. It completely baffles me.
Sometimes there just isn’t an easy solution.
AWL, I used to be completely of the left mindset regarding abortion (100% women’s choice, regardless..) but then, at 36 years old, I had a child and that changed my outlook on everything! I wonder if most of those “PRO abortion regardless” are childless? I still agree with the women’s right to choose but to a lesser degree. When I hear about women who are having 3..4..5..6 abortions because they are too lazy or stupid to use birth control it really bothers me. On the other side, what about all the “unwanted” children who are born and then badly abused or neglected…as always there are definately two sides to the abortion issue but I believe it should be debated and some laws looked into (but not until we have a majority government because I would hate to see this government defeated over this issue alone and their would certainly be lots of fear-mongering going on!).
Charley,
Let’s remember that just because someone is “pro choice” does not mean that they’re “pro abortion”.
When you mention women that have multiple abortions because they’re too stupid to use birth control, it makes one wonder if they’re fit for parenthood.
Charley, I’m not a father myself but I agree with you on one point. It’s awfully hard to maintain a “pro choice” stance with a newborn in yout arms, whether the child is yours or not!
Charley:
If a law could be devised that would actually accomplish something positive I’d sure support it but there’s no point in passing “feel good” legislation that does nothing to stop the killing.
This issue is a monster. It shouldn’t be revisited unless there is a real solution and frankly I don’t see one.
Of course, I hope our legislaters are a whole lot smarter than I am so there’s still hope.
Yes, I agree the issue of abortion is a monster and maybe it should just stay “buried” for a long, long time (but I somehow doubt it will!). To get back on topic, while I don’t think it’s “politically correct” that a bus-load of fundamental Christians hijack a riding’s candidate nomination process, in my opinion it can’t really be argued that it’s not democratic. If they can sign up more members (and get them on that bus) from within the riding than the incumbent candidate can then maybe the candidate is not doing his job very well? I also have faith in the people of the riding in that they won’t fall for an “extreme” candidate. It may mean that you’ll have to run as an independant Garth (a la Chuck Cadman), to keep your job!! I am President our our Riding Association and I wouldn’t necessarily want to see a bus load of these folks so I sympathize with you!!
Garth, you are becoming a one-horse pony with all this talk about McVety and his group. You know, there is medication to help you move on. The disease is called “Compulsive Obsessive Disorder.” I trust you will get help.
In reply to Sean P. Hogan
Think about what you are saying here. The majority of Christians are for normal marriage, if you think otherwise, you’re living in a fantasy world. As well, if you’re a Christian, you would actually support Christian views not just some of it either, no piecemeal here, so I doubt they’re actually Christian.
If you’re upset that Christians who follow the word of God to run this country, you have some bigotry problems you need to solve.
First off, You’re absolutely correct; I’m not a Christian. My spirtiual beliefs are somewhat ecclectic, but the closest matching term would be Pagan. That being said, my spirtiual beliefs have very little to do with my politics.
Second, I have no issue with moderate Christians, or moderates from ANY religion. Those who are moderates tend not to have the goal of forcing their beliefs on others. That tends to be the domain of the Fundamentalists.
Third, I think if you asked a random selection of people who self-identify as “Christians” about a particular detail of faith, you’d get a lot of different perspectives. That’s why there are many different churches, right? Incidentally, I think that’s cool – people are different, and will view spirituality differently.
Thomas:
It’s “one trick pony” and it applies to anyone who thinks they can govern this country when their entire political platform is their opposition to gay marriage.
I get rather tired of the opposition to same sex marriage being either about rights or intolerance. Protecting traditional marriage is good for children and families. Same sex unions, divorce, cohabitation, and uncommitted sex is bad for children, families and society. Furthermore, you can’t claim it as a rights issue based on people’s sexual predelections alone, or the rights should extend to inter-familial, inter-generational, inter-species, and polygamous marriage. If we are going to extend or undermine rights, it should have more substance than claiming it as something you feel is right.
On abortion, pro-choice means pro-abortion. The distinction is drawn along the lines that women aren’t literally forced to choose abortion, but abortion is deemed and sold as perfectly as valid as giving birth. Not only that, but “pro-choicers” maintain that informed consent, waiting periods, viewing ultrasounds, sharing health risks, and fully funding abortions all are necessary to fulfill the “penumbra” of choice.
What if we decided to kill the homeless because they have little to look forward to, are unwanted, are a financial drain and have physical or mental impairments. We instead decide to house them and give them help and supports. Why don’t we say, abortion is illegal, but we will help with services, assisting with the adoption process, housing you since your boyfriend or parents kicked you out. This is what civil, compassionate people do.
Let’s not pretend Christians are idealogues with arguments lacking substance. The exact opposite is true as is the nonsense about daycare being better for children.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this as well, Garth.
Tom
Tom:
I am in complete agreement with everything you’ve said.
What I’m opposed to is radical fundamentalists who think they can govern a 21st century democracy from a book that consists mostly of bronze age cultural prohibitions and medieval superstition.
If the rest of your political positions are as well reasoned as the ones in your post I might even vote for you.
Second, I have no issue with moderate Christians, or moderates from ANY religion. Those who are moderates tend not to have the goal of forcing their beliefs on others. That tends to be the domain of the Fundamentalists.
Third, I think if you asked a random selection of people who self-identify as “Christians†about a particular detail of faith, you’d get a lot of different perspectives. That’s why there are many different churches, right? Incidentally, I think that’s cool – people are different, and will view spirituality differently.
Matt, your use of the word moderate is incorrect as all you are saying that if the Christians are publically siding with you, they are moderate. That’s a real joke.
Right and wrong is not a belief. Get over your close-mindedness. As well, notice that I knew you weren’t a Christian without even knowing you? Its that easy. As well, aren’t you forcing your beliefs on others when you tell others that their beliefs aren’t welcome??? Hmmm, sounds pretty hypocritical to me. Quite a conumdrum you have put yourself.
Sean
Make sure that you are not too quick to label someone that does not agree with your brand of Christianity as an Atheist. Most Chritians, myself included are tolerant and open minded. It’s the FundaMENTALists that always give us a bad name. No one is trying to paint you into a corner … It’s just that most fundamentalists can’t shut-up! So you end up with paint on your shoes!! Just ask all those Reform-Alliance MP’s !!!
Kevin, if you can prove what you are saying here about tolerance, I’d sure like to see where in the Bible a “christian” like yourself gets this word . Remember now, Christian is from Christ/God. I’d like to see just one reference of this and I’ll be convinced of this tolerance of which you speak.