I like Belinda fine but I don't have any use or respect for the Filthy liberal party she has chosen to buddy up to. These are they who have done everything they can to remove our Traditional family and moral values. the same values that our veterans and forefathers faught bled and gave the supreme sacrifice so we could live in true liberty. I hope that the liberals either return our values and apologize for their stupidity, or get lost once and for all.
Your posts always sort of take the same line - about people dying for "Traditional Family and Moral Values". Then you speak about those values giving us true liberty.
I would like to know how you define traditional family and moral values first off. Secondly, I would like to know how they contribute to "true liberty"?
From your past posts, I can gather you're a Christian and I respect that. I, and many others however, are either atheists or agnostics or liberal (small L) Christians. This doesn't mean that we disagree with the idea of being good people, but I wonder if your idea of "Traditional family and moral values" can include true liberty for people who don't share your or the Christian viewpoint.
Last question - what exactly has the Liberal party done to destroy family values? (Aside from the default rallying cry of same-sex marriage) which incidentally has not crumbled Canadian society yet...
I await your response and look forward to hearing what you have to say.
I'd love to weigh in on this one J but you asked Michael so he can respond, besides I've pretty much said it all before. The only thing I'll add is Michael is right, the Liberals (Federal so as not to confuse them with the provincial ones who still seem to have their wits about them) continue to bend morals and truck down a path full of arrogance. Talk to some federal Liberals and they believe it's their right to govern Canadians. The voters are simply taken for granted. I'm surprised that so many here have such contempt for Lord yet turn a blind eye to the Feds who have done far worse. My only reasoning as to why that is is that most of the posters here are merely here for political reasons.
Yeah, I hate to throw water on your parade but the provincial CONSERVATIVES did exactly the same thing with gay marriage, which certainly wasn't 'pro-active'. The federal liberals in 1994 were adamantly OPPOSED to gay marriage. The COURTS said it is unconstitutional, NOT the liberals. The NB court ruled the same, and the conservatives did the same, so by your reasoning the conservatives are equally guilty of those crazy things you talk about.
Go ask a veteran some day if the reason he fought in world war two was so that gays couldn't be married.
As an aside, it's interesting that posters above badmouth the liberal party, but NOT a woman (single rich female) who was a member of the conservative party but FOR gay marriage, then stabbed them in the back-not to mention Peter MacKay, an alleged boyfriend, to go to the hated liberals just before a crucial vote to get a cabinet post. Are your morals in la la land or what?
Want to blame liberals for the destruction of family look in the REAL place: GMO's in all our food making people sick (at least potentially), economic policy that puts small farmers out of work and gives money to american corporations, keeping Mulroneys' investment laws which continues to see american companies buying up canadian ones, then shutting them down or moving to Mexico, sitting on their asses while NAFTA favours the US while they ignore NAFTA rulings against them, deregulating fisheries onto the international market so that maritime industries cannot function, etc., and I do mean etc.,
J here - thanks for your comments - and please feel free to weigh in. I can appreciate that many feel the federal Liberals are out of touch with the electorate and have engaged in some reprehensible stuff (Gomery Report to use a current, but not solitary incident). But you also said "bending morals". Maybe you mean things like the sponsorship scandal, I don't know.
My initial question for Mr Mckay and now for you is what do you mean by "bending morals"? Do you just mean the corruption or something closer to Mr Mckay's destruction of family values and such. I can make the assumption that maybe you're both talking about decriminalizaion of marijuana or same sex marriage - but that assumption may be wrong. I'd appreciate some clarity from either or both of you.
For the record, I'm not an activist of any kind (for the most part) so don't use this to paint me as pro-gay, pro-weed, pro-choice, or pro-anything. I have my beliefs but I'm not using them here to shoot down anyone, just to try to get the perspective of the people making these statements.
Most that hold to tfv hold similar things in common. Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman, 'morals' hold at least nominally close to what, in the past, were considered moral. Virtually every main religion has a 'tradition', whether buddhist, hindu, muslim, christian. However, there are differences between them.
TFV can transverse religious ideologies though, meaning that while baptists may claim that TFV means no booze, catholics certainly don't buy into that. Most TFV will at the very least ban 'drinking to excess'.
The 'family' in family values goes further than simply defining marriage as a man and woman. In many protestant religions it also goes to defining ROLES of family members. Catholicism is now less structured in that regard, by prohibiting women from the priesthood and other leadership roles, the intent is latent. Children are expected to respect and obey their parents no matter what. If parents 'get out of line' there is a procedure that children are supposed to follow, unfortunately, some faiths don't emphasize that point.
One can hold to traditional family values and not be christian, but usually that means that different traditions must be chosen. For example, while I don't maintain that a woman MUST stay home with children, I do support economic policy that pays enough so that a family needs only one income so that a woman WILL WANT to stay home with children. I differ in that I think it is fine for a man to do this as well. This has become a sore spot with many TFV faiths as economics has made it impossible to adhere to that tradition unless one completely alters their way of life and joins the mennonites or something.
Some TFV adherents go so far as to regulate sex specifically. Hasidic jews have a sexual ritual which is designed to eliminate or diminish lust since sex is designed simply for procreation. Many religions and cultures maintain that promiscuity is unacceptable in adhering to TFV.
There is, what many consider to be, a 'secular' society, which is opposed to 'religious society. While it's not specifically TFV, many simply do not accept other traditions besides christian ones, often typically the one the person belongs to. Homosexuality, for example, predates organized religions, except hinduism, while TFV in a native american context often had bisexuals as shamans because they seemed to be 'of both worlds'. So obviously 'traditional native values' values this activity highly. Of course TFV typically go the opposite route, meaning christian tradition which has tended to be fairly restrictive. Ancient greeks and romans would find our ideas of sexuality to be extremely primitive and would laugh at our 'puritanism'.
So simply by not reinforcing these traditions, a politial party can be faulted. I've noticed the posters here seem to dwell on gay marriage and the legality of abortion. What is sometimes missed is that people have a perfect right to 'oppose' legislation. This is why 'conservatism' tends to also seek to minimize governments role in such issues and are more 'individualistic'.
Part of it is in the interpretation of 'sin' as an individual vice, rather than something affected from the environment. So you'll also get the 'tough on crime' line quite often from the same people. Meaning, that if I live in society, I shouldn't be 'responsible' for anothers sin (or vice) and if MY government sanctions it, then I am guilty by association. The only way around that is either to change societies, or oppose my government's position.
OK, I didn't mean to blather on so much, but it's an interesting topic, and apologies to Charles, but really who gives a *&^% about Andy Scott's glasses??
Yeah J, you have some pretty good examples. Same-sex marriage would be one. It's a social experiment with no one knowing the outcome because despite the argument that it's a basic human right, only 4 or 5 countries have it so there's obviously great disagreement. Many homosexuals didn't even want it because they like being recognized as different. Let's be honest, if the homosexual community really wanted to be viewed the same, gay men would march in gay pride parades in business suits not g-strings. The social experiment the Liberals and activist judges appointed by the Liberals have sent us on smacks of arrogance and flies in the face of 1000's of years of history. The pros and cons can probable be argued until the end of time but the mad dash by the Liberals to embrace this and essentiallly blow off any opposition as intolerant or stupid was arrogant.
Decriminalization of marijuane is another. The marijuana issue is huge and arguably out of control so what does the government do? Attempt to normalize it. Decriminalization I'm sure is just the first step towards legalization. Great message for the kids when Chretin quipped that he would try it. Nice role model.
The abortion issue in NB is another one. NB refuses to pay for the dismembering of babies in the womb at the Morgentaler Clinic. The feds want the province to pay for it. Why don't the feds make the provinces pay for cancer treatments at private clinics too? Same thing in my view and a great example of two-tier health care by the Liberals. The same thing ironically that they accuse the Conservatives of. When did killing babies become acceptable to us as society. Someone here said one time that one person's rights end when another's begins. What about a baby's right to life?
Gomery inquiry is another example but I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that the Liberals were bad on that (how they still lead in support baffles me but the voters are always right.) The line between right and wrong continues to blur in favour of people's desire to do whatever they want. The Liberals certainly haven't done all of this on their own but they're leading the charge.
Spinks, Thanks for clarifying - that's what I thought was being talked about when Mr Mckay mentioned morals and traditional family values. I wanted to get clarification on that.
For the record, with the exception of Gomery, we diasgree fundamentally on each and every point you brought forward. :) But at least we're clear on what's being discussed.
I applaud and respect the fight that people put into what they believe is right and just. We're just on different sides of that fight.
Also thanks to 11:18 for their commentary on Family Values and such. Again, I think we disagree on the outcomes but can agree on the sources.
Tomorrow being Remembrance Day, it seems only fitting that we be able to debate and disagree publicly and be allowed to do so.
As you can see, traditional family values simply depends on who you talk to. Marijuana is a 'value' to the above person, although it is a natural plant that God created, while most medicines are man made and prescribed under spurious circumstances (as the ritalin threads show).
So keep in mind that the above is simply one guys opinion and has NOTHING to do with 'traditional family values', as marijuana use has no real relevance on the 'family'. Kids take far more ecstacy than marijuana and of course sick patients benefit from it more than anybody else.
The homosexual argument about business suits is so crazy it doesn't even deserve to be argued about, however, gay marriage is the recent cornerstone of TFV, as it completely alters what is thought of as a 'traditional family'. Personally, I'm surprised these people were nowhere to be seen when economic legislation is being argued as it has FAR more impact on the traditional family than these social plans.
Many religious groups such as mennonites simply ignore legislation as they have their own communal norms. And many of those who are secular are also of the opinion that if you aren't gay, then it's not an issue to be interested in. However, I would have thought that economics would bring TFV people out of the woodwork. For example a higher minimum wage, more worker security, and higher wages can go a long way toward keeping your family 'traditional'. My parents were quite traditional but with five kids and a father working in the forestry industry, with its regular layoffs, we simply couldn't HAVE a mother who sat at home with the kids.
However, take a look at southern ontario where all automotive jobs were protected by government and provided incomes usually about double what it is in NB. In effect, federal policy meant that you at least had the OPTION of having a traditional family in Ontario, but it was exceedingly more difficult in the maritimes.
Gay marriage, of course, doesn't affect MY traditional marriage, to me it has nothing to do with it, however, that economic policy has EVERYTHING to do with it. If it's an economic struggle to maintain my religious beliefs then that has a very real bearing on my traditional family values. Oddly enough, poverty and economic issues are almost never even mentioned by those claiming to be adherents to traditional family values, while their numbers are constantly falling due to economics, they cling to lecturing other people on how they should live their lives. In other words, it's ok to be poor, just not do drugs, have sex outside marriage, be gay -or at least gay married, or have abortions.
Ironically, for CHRISTIAN holders of 'traditional family values', it is extremely interesting that Jesus never said ANYTHING about pot, booze, gays, or abortions (except to obey the commandments). However, he had lots to say about how to treat the poor. It's almost like christians have simply begun ignoring christ and only listen to the pope-even if they aren't catholic.
Hear hear J. Well said and really that was my point about the Feds. The same-sex marriage issue was but one example. You don't say on one hand that you're listening to people and then blow them off in the next breath when the cameras are rolling. In fairness, the media by and large acted the same way. CBC would have debates between both sides and the side for same-sex marriage would be a professor who won eight Nobel prizes while the person from the side against would be the Rev. Homer Phobia from Hicksville, Sask. Yeah I'm exaggerating slightly but not by much. There were good arguments on both sides but usually we only heard one side with any credibility.
Anyway, once again I digress. Yes J, everyone who can should get down to a local Cenotaph tomorrow. It's because of these men and women that we're even allowed to have our own opinions. Tell them thanks. I know I will.
Attn: 2:14 - I enjoyed reading your comments alot. Have a look at the book : "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank. Good overview (from a US standpoint) of how the Republicans used family values to cinch up states that traditionally are devastated by the Republican fiscal policy. Interesting read. The basic premise is that "we won't subsidize farms or foster an economy to allow you a fighting shot, but we're pro-war, pro-church and we also hate gays. God is with us." And that seems to cinch it up in states the likes of Kansas and whatnot. Anyway, grab a read if you get the chance.
Spinks- thanks much for your examples and clarifications. I appreciate you taking the time to do it, regardless of whether or not we agree on all of the points....or any of them! :)
I want to pick that book up too. If you're into a new perspective, J try reading The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce which I've talked about before. Bruce used to be the leader of the National Organization of Women in LA and she's a pro-choice lesbian. That's right, Spinks is recommending a book by a pro-choice feminist lesbian. She brings an interesting perspective to some of the points we've been discussing.
Hmmm. It might be a trip to Amazon or Ebay. I went looking for it a year ago at the Library and they didn't have it at the time. Maybe the do by now. I find her take on things interesting because she's from the Left and still considers herself a Liberal. I obviously don't agree with her on everything but her common sense approach to issues is refreshing. If I see it show up at the library I'll let you know.
I see Thomas Frank's book isn't at the Public Library either. Guess they don't like philosophically different books. LOL. I'll try Amazon too.
Yeah, who needs MORE books! I tend to be a little distrustful of books that try to sum up politics in 300 pages though. That's a huge issue in the states, however, you have to keep in mind that like Canada, just over half of people even bother voting. Which means half of the popular knows its just a farce. Of the other half many people still vote out of 'duty' or boredom, or because a buddy is on the committee or something. That leaves a very small representation of the population that is actually into these issues.
Of that minority you have a certain percentage who simply want to 'get the bum out of office', or are democrat cuz their dad was or things like that. Take the last election down there, like Canada's it was the lowest turnout ever, however, at least Canada has a third party viable candidate who is at least on the map (NDP). However, people aren't stupid and know the NDP don't have a chance so don't bother. South of the border the turnout was 60% and the ballot counting is like something out of the old west. Greg Palast has a good documentary out on BBC that is pretty solid evidence that Bush illegally won the first term.
At the federal level both parties are almost identical. Kerry voted for the war and to continue the war, just wanted to be nicer to their allies, so anti war americans simply had no voice. The only place it was different was the social policy, and if you actually look at how the republican party handled the run up to the election you can understand how many people are saying that the US is in another civil war.
At the state level though its quite different. For example Nebraska, like half of the US states has citizens initiatives, which lets voters directly vote on legislation. If you look at it, the last vote they had was to ban gay marriage, hardly surprising since their demographic is more 'white' than even New Brunswick's. But another key initiative was to vote on a bill which maintains that a corporation cannot 'own' a family farm'. So a family farm must be owned by its resident owner.
Of course initiatives depend on the circumstances, so states have different votes. NAFTA was a trading agreement between countries, but it was also a way to nationalize economies, so now if a state tries to have a referendum, it can't break NAFTA regulations.
So in politics things aren't as clear cut as they seem. Most american commentators restrict what they talk about for export, since the US barely tolerates democracy at home, they certainly don't want to advertise their forms to other countries. So commmentators tend to 'dumb down' extremely complicated issues. The same is true in Canada.
If you want to check out state and local Citizens Initiatives check out this website:http://www.iandrinstitute.org
Switzerland has even more, but not many are in english. Since people are throwing out books I'd be interested to know if any of Patrick Boyer's books are at any library in the province other than the university one (if there). Patrick BOyer was a conservative MP from BC who now lives in Ontario and is generally credited with convincing Mulroney to hold the 1992 referendum.
One final point is an article that I read about american religious groups who were heavily active during Canada's run up to the same sex marriage legislation. THey sent up protestors, paid for materials and delivery, etc. There also have been a number of affiliated christian groups who have run candidates out west and Nova Scotia. This is one of the reasons I distrust the conservative party-if it was made up of people like Patrick Boyer, I'd be campaigning and probably running, but a small minority of conservative christians hold incredible power in the conservative party.
I have to ask anonymous because it's becoming more prevalant. What's with the intense hatred of conservative christians? I see it in letters to the editor fairly frequently. If the things said about Christians were said about any other group, there would be riots in the streets but Christians have become fair targets. I'm just waiting for the lions to be let loose again.
I'm not sure if I'm the anonymous, but I certainly have no intense hatred of anybody. I don't want conservative christians to be running the country, just like I don't want conservative muslims, hindus, mormons, mennonites, catholics or any other religious group. In fact, I don't want ANY small group running the country, but that can't be helped. The liberals are already strict conservatives in fiscal policy, and I disagree with that policy as well, and certainly don't want a religious organization to be making social policy-especially when we generally know what it will look like.
I don't know what letters of christian hatred is being referred to, please link or reprint them. Often people say such things to create the impression that somehow they are under attack. New Brunswick has one of the highest church attendance proportionally in Canada and New Brunswickers are almost universally christian (the religious ones I mean). In the Fredericton area alone there are well over two hundred churches.
I read the papers fairly regularly, but certainly not 'religiously' and if anything I've seen the opposite to be true. Often I'm almost embarassed at the out and out evangelizing of many of the letters.
In fact I hear FAR worse things almost constantly about every other religion. I actually enjoy when evangelicals come to my house as religion is something I'm interested in, and the lack of sensitivity to other religions is astounding. I've seen native american beliefs made fun of, derogatory remarks about muslim women, and some terrible things said about most african religious beliefs. It's unfortunate, but hardly surprising, and its easy to leave well enough alone-however it would be far different if these people were running our country.
The remarks I made above should tip you off that I don't harbour any hostility to traditional family values, in fact I wholeheartedly support them-to an extent. I'd love to see single income families where a parent can stay home with a child, where families earn enough so that they aren't working all the time, so that kids aren't being raised by the state or by video games. I think most women would CHOOSE to stay with their children and personal experience has brought that out, although I think it should be a choice.
What a lot of traditional family values people forget is just how much media has effected their perceptions of the past. People think the past was 'leave it to beaver'. In the past there were two ways to keep kids from sex-constant work and constant supervision. Yet they were smart enough to know that you can't fight biology so people were often married as young as 13, in some places 11.
So, finally, I have a problem when ANY one religion starts dictating what traditions should be followed and why. Within a community that's fine, and people of similar religious beliefs are free to do like mennonites and some pentecosts, and simply set up their own communities and deal with their problems themselves. It's quite another story when that group attempts to legislate it's beliefs and solve social problems in its own specific way without regard to the fact that most people do not share their point of view.
Evangelicals come to your house? Are you sure you're not thinking about the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, neither is evangelical. I don't think I've ever had an evangelical come to my door.
Here's a story about our Federal Givernment funding anti-Christian bigotry. Little media coverage for..well..I don't know why but have my theories...you decide why.
A Conservative MP has discovered through documents obtained under Access to Information that Status of Women Canada has been funding anti-Christian bigotry and pro-abortion activism. However, in a startling exchange of correspondence, the Minister responsible for the funding neither offered to pull the funding nor to apologize to Christian Canadians for funding groups which defame them. Writing to Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla last month, Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott pointed out that the documents obtained through access to information requests revealed the government granted $27,400 last year to the BC Pro-Choice Action network (pro-CAN).
In his letter to the Minister, MP Vellacott notes:
Pro-CAN spokesperson Joyce Arthur uses derogatory labels to describe individuals who are pro-life, saying their opposition to abortion, "comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women" and a need to "maximize (the Catholic Church's) membership levels to maintain their worldly influence and wealth." Pro-CAN accuses pro-life Christians of being "religious fanatics" who do "little or nothing for children once they are born." She says pro-life Christians are "anti-woman and anti-child," have views which are "uninformed, sexist, cruel," and lack the ability to empathize which "breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war." Ms. Arthur says that the pro-lifer's attitude towards women is like "the slaveholder's attitude to blacks, and the Nazi's attitude to Jews."
Vellacott suggested that the Minister withdraw funding from the group and apologize to Christian Canadians for funding such bigotry. "The government should be taking no part in spreading this sort of bigotry. Please ensure that any current funding to Pro-CAN ceases immediately and that no future taxpayer money be given to this group. And please have your department issue a public apology to all Christians and pro-life Canadians because of your department's financial support of this hate mongering organization," said Vellacott.
In a curt reply dated October 18, Minister Frulla says, "I appreciate being made aware of your concerns." The Minister acknowledges that pro-CAN and the other pro-abortion activist groups mentioned in the letter by Vellacott, "did indeed receive funding under the women's Program of Status of Women Canada."
Frulla suggested she was well aware of the activities of pro-CAN, but found no objection to funding the anti-Christian group with public monies. "Each application is assessed according to a stringent set of objectives and criteria . . . Please be assured that the initiatives cited in your letter, which did indeed receive funding, met all of the above-mentioned objectives and eligibility criteria."
Frulla concluded her response, "Please accept my best wishes for the challenges ahead."
I've talked to baptists at my door, as well as pentecosts, and yes, JW and mormons. Evangelical simply means 'spreading the gospel' which many people do. Some churches actively require it, such as JW and mormons, however, many churches are active in this way as well. Evangelical typically refers to protestants, although many catholic churches also evangelize door to door.
As for the above article, interesting as it is, my point was about MEDIA coverage in NEW BRUNSWICK. This province is a LONG way from BC with a completely different demographic and political environment. We can get into a debate about BC sometime, but that isn't the issue I was talking about. It was maintained that NB media was filled with 'anti christian sentiment', which apart from sporadic letters to the editor (very sporadic), I'm yet to see.
To not completely ignore the issue though it has to be remembered that abortion is government policy, and groups which defend government policy against people who oppose government policy are typically funded, albeit in very specific ways. So 27 grand is not a whole lot of money, and the group also sponsors outreach programs and womens shelters, which is probably what most of the money went to.
I'm not that interested in the issue but if you look at the 'pro life' groups, if they have programs which, for example, help support unwed mothers or food banks, or programs for children, they would qualify for government funding as well. Typically such groups are ONLY involved in the abortion aspect, meaning they don't get funding, and they provide the fodder for quotes such as they "aren't interested in children once they are born". Looking at the amount of children in foster care and the few religious programs designed for adoption pretty much confirms it. That isn't to paint ALL groups with such a brush, and I would welcome links to abortion active churches who are heavily into child care programs as well.
They're probably are some churches involved in that although I'm not aware of any at least not in NB. Some in the U.S. do it. With that being said, you're absolutely right on this point. It's great to say "don't kill your baby" but to turn around and say after the baby is born "sorry, you're on your own." isn't right. I'm in complete agreement that churches which oppose abortion and not only churches because it's not all religious, but other groups which oppose abortion should offer help for new Moms and Dads, financial, emotional, etc. Government should also make adoption a lot easier. That wouldn't hurt. With that being said, I still don't see any circumstance in which killing a bayb by dismembering it in the womb or killing it with a saline compound to essentially mummify him/her is the right thing to do. That's not a religious thing, that's a moral issue in which we don't kill people, but the Supreme Court says differently.
I'll keep an eye out on the local papers. Letters pop up usually a couple of times a month. Next time I see one, I'll hang onto it until an appropriate blog turns up.
PS : I don't know where you live but I've never had a Baptist or Catholic at my door. I'm not denying you do. I just have never witnessed or heard of it. I don't have a problem with it anyway. You have a choice, tell them politely you do not wish to talk with them or listen to them.
It seems we aren't so different in our point of view, and I completely concur that it isn't a religious issue but a moral one as well. My remarks weren't a complaint about evangelicals, like I said, I am interested in talking about religion anytime and took it at university. One of the catholic churches in MOncton occasionally sends students out, while the First Pentecost and Oromocto baptist churches have sent representatives out in the past. They aren't heavy handed or anything, and the people who were stewards going door to door may not even have been sanctioned by the church but just doing what they thought was right. I certainly have no problem with that and invite them in for coffee, it's nice to see people who 'work' for their religion (like I said, I just don't want them running my government).
My point was also not about occasional letters to the editor, although if you can find out and out 'hatred' of christians in there I"d be interested to see it. For abortion I am in agreement that it isn't 'right', which is why I strongly favour massive sex education to ensure that it is never necessary. If it is simply made illegal then people will simply do it in unsafe conditions.
You're right, abortion would continue even if it is outlawed but normalizing it and making it legal to kill babies as it is now isn't the answer either. I hear what you're saying but I can't ever see the situation where babies are being killed at a private clinic is ever "necessary".
Look at the tests doctors offer parents now to see whether or not their babies have conditions such as Downs Syndrome. If the test comes back positive (and it's isn't 100% yet by the way), you can choose to have your baby aborted. Two problems with this. Problem 1 - You may end up killing a perfectly healthy baby because the test isn't 100% and problem 2 -what does that say to all of the people who have Down's syndrome, that their lives aren't worth living? Serious, serious moral issues when we as humans decide to start playing God.
As far as religious conservatives in positions of authority in political parties, why is that different from any other group of people being in positions of power whether it be Hindu, atheists, gays, etc.? Like you said you don't have anything against conservative Christians per se but everybody has some type of belief system even if it's that they believe in nothing. However, religious conservatives come under attack more than anyone else for some reason. I'm not sure why but the attacks particularly in the US and bad and even in Canada they're becoming downright nasty. The message is that "it's fine to be a religious conservative, just make sure you keep your mouth shut and make don't become involved in politics." I suspect it's that most people like doing their own thing and don't want to be told that everybody sins and some things are wrong. There are without a doubt "holier than thou" Christians but they're the exception not the rule. Most I've met are no different from anyone else although they have a sense of purpose in their lives and little fear of death. Given the increasing hostility towards them, that's probably a good thing. The Book of Revelation says they're going to need it.
How we got on abortion and such from Belinda Stronach, who knows, but the winds on the blog often blow different ways don't they?
We still haven't found the hostility in New Brunswick, it simply doesn't exist anywhere, not on television, radio or in print. I've never even seen any blogs on it.
In the states the Federal government is essentially a christian conservative government, republicans hold all houses and judiciary. The networks certainly don't exhibit anti-christian hostility. Fox is literally an evangelical station, CBS is owned by the mormons, and most newspapers have the same owners now in Rupert Murdoch, himself a conservative christian.
So this seems to be paranoia, or as Orwell would say, doublespeak. What is really at issue, is what I said, that people object to a group having political power. 'Hatred' and 'intense hatred' is simply ludicrous to abscribe to opposing political views. There is no doubt that media, say, in Ontario may attack christian conservatives during an election-it just depends which party the media is for. As we saw with Stockwell Day, if it isn't christian conservatism, then it's citizen's initiatives and media blunders.
However, if the country were so anti conservative christian then we would have seen far more coverage of the fact that american religous groups were funding protests here, to me that is a VERY important issue. As well as the fact that many conservative nominees are out and out zealots for their faith. The reason MP's are not supposed to bring their faith in is simply because they represent ALL the people of their riding, many, if not most, who don't ascribe to their particular faith.
In fact, most of the ontario media was extremely careful during the gay marriage issue not to 'talk down' to the christian groups involved.
35 comments:
I like Belinda fine but I don't have any use or respect for the Filthy liberal party she has chosen to buddy up to. These are they who have done everything they can to remove our Traditional family and moral values. the same values that our veterans and forefathers faught bled and gave the supreme sacrifice so we could live in true liberty. I hope that the liberals either return our values and apologize for their stupidity, or get lost once and for all.
Charles : You show pictures of Veterans Crying, may I ask with all due respect ? Where is your Poppy ?
To Michael McKay,
Your posts always sort of take the same line - about people dying for "Traditional Family and Moral Values". Then you speak about those values giving us true liberty.
I would like to know how you define traditional family and moral values first off. Secondly, I would like to know how they contribute to "true liberty"?
From your past posts, I can gather you're a Christian and I respect that. I, and many others however, are either atheists or agnostics or liberal (small L) Christians. This doesn't mean that we disagree with the idea of being good people, but I wonder if your idea of "Traditional family and moral values" can include true liberty for people who don't share your or the Christian viewpoint.
Last question - what exactly has the Liberal party done to destroy family values? (Aside from the default rallying cry of same-sex marriage) which incidentally has not crumbled Canadian society yet...
I await your response and look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Thanks,
J
Wee Wow! She is good looking. Sorry Peter you loss.
I'd love to weigh in on this one J but you asked Michael so he can respond, besides I've pretty much said it all before. The only thing I'll add is Michael is right, the Liberals (Federal so as not to confuse them with the provincial ones who still seem to have their wits about them) continue to bend morals and truck down a path full of arrogance. Talk to some federal Liberals and they believe it's their right to govern Canadians. The voters are simply taken for granted. I'm surprised that so many here have such contempt for Lord yet turn a blind eye to the Feds who have done far worse. My only reasoning as to why that is is that most of the posters here are merely here for political reasons.
Yeah : She's a Babe just Like Hooton
I lost my poppy again???? I had one weeks ago but I guess I lost it again. I got to get another one.....
9:11 AM get over with your obsessions. They are both taken.
Yeah, I hate to throw water on your parade but the provincial CONSERVATIVES did exactly the same thing with gay marriage, which certainly wasn't 'pro-active'. The federal liberals in 1994 were adamantly OPPOSED to gay marriage. The COURTS said it is unconstitutional, NOT the liberals. The NB court ruled the same, and the conservatives did the same, so by your reasoning the conservatives are equally guilty of those crazy things you talk about.
Go ask a veteran some day if the reason he fought in world war two was so that gays couldn't be married.
As an aside, it's interesting that posters above badmouth the liberal party, but NOT a woman (single rich female) who was a member of the conservative party but FOR gay marriage, then stabbed them in the back-not to mention Peter MacKay, an alleged boyfriend, to go to the hated liberals just before a crucial vote to get a cabinet post. Are your morals in la la land or what?
Want to blame liberals for the destruction of family look in the REAL place: GMO's in all our food making people sick (at least potentially), economic policy that puts small farmers out of work and gives money to american corporations, keeping Mulroneys' investment laws which continues to see american companies buying up canadian ones, then shutting them down or moving to Mexico, sitting on their asses while NAFTA favours the US while they ignore NAFTA rulings against them, deregulating fisheries onto the international market so that maritime industries cannot function, etc., and I do mean etc.,
What about his glasses???? Do you like them or not????
Hi Spinks,
J here - thanks for your comments - and please feel free to weigh in. I can appreciate that many feel the federal Liberals are out of touch with the electorate and have engaged in some reprehensible stuff (Gomery Report to use a current, but not solitary incident). But you also said "bending morals". Maybe you mean things like the sponsorship scandal, I don't know.
My initial question for Mr Mckay and now for you is what do you mean by "bending morals"? Do you just mean the corruption or something closer to Mr Mckay's destruction of family values and such. I can make the assumption that maybe you're both talking about decriminalizaion of marijuana or same sex marriage - but that assumption may be wrong. I'd appreciate some clarity from either or both of you.
For the record, I'm not an activist of any kind (for the most part) so don't use this to paint me as pro-gay, pro-weed, pro-choice, or pro-anything. I have my beliefs but I'm not using them here to shoot down anyone, just to try to get the perspective of the people making these statements.
Seek first to understand.
Thanks!
J
Most that hold to tfv hold similar things in common. Marriage is ONLY between a man and woman, 'morals' hold at least nominally close to what, in the past, were considered moral. Virtually every main religion has a 'tradition', whether buddhist, hindu, muslim, christian. However, there are differences between them.
TFV can transverse religious ideologies though, meaning that while baptists may claim that TFV means no booze, catholics certainly don't buy into that. Most TFV will at the very least ban 'drinking to excess'.
The 'family' in family values goes further than simply defining marriage as a man and woman. In many protestant religions it also goes to defining ROLES of family members. Catholicism is now less structured in that regard, by prohibiting women from the priesthood and other leadership roles, the intent is latent. Children are expected to respect and obey their parents no matter what. If parents 'get out of line' there is a procedure that children are supposed to follow, unfortunately, some faiths don't emphasize that point.
One can hold to traditional family values and not be christian, but usually that means that different traditions must be chosen. For example, while I don't maintain that a woman MUST stay home with children, I do support economic policy that pays enough so that a family needs only one income so that a woman WILL WANT to stay home with children. I differ in that I think it is fine for a man to do this as well. This has become a sore spot with many TFV faiths as economics has made it impossible to adhere to that tradition unless one completely alters their way of life and joins the mennonites or something.
Some TFV adherents go so far as to regulate sex specifically. Hasidic jews have a sexual ritual which is designed to eliminate or diminish lust since sex is designed simply for procreation. Many religions and cultures maintain that promiscuity is unacceptable in adhering to TFV.
There is, what many consider to be, a 'secular' society, which is opposed to 'religious society. While it's not specifically TFV, many simply do not accept other traditions besides christian ones, often typically the one the person belongs to. Homosexuality, for example, predates organized religions, except hinduism, while TFV in a native american context often had bisexuals as shamans because they seemed to be 'of both worlds'. So obviously 'traditional native values' values this activity highly. Of course TFV typically go the opposite route, meaning christian tradition which has tended to be fairly restrictive. Ancient greeks and romans would find our ideas of sexuality to be extremely primitive and would laugh at our 'puritanism'.
So simply by not reinforcing these traditions, a politial party can be faulted. I've noticed the posters here seem to dwell on gay marriage and the legality of abortion. What is sometimes missed is that people have a perfect right to 'oppose' legislation. This is why 'conservatism' tends to also seek to minimize governments role in such issues and are more 'individualistic'.
Part of it is in the interpretation of 'sin' as an individual vice, rather than something affected from the environment. So you'll also get the 'tough on crime' line quite often from the same people. Meaning, that if I live in society, I shouldn't be 'responsible' for anothers sin (or vice) and if MY government sanctions it, then I am guilty by association. The only way around that is either to change societies, or oppose my government's position.
OK, I didn't mean to blather on so much, but it's an interesting topic, and apologies to Charles, but really who gives a *&^% about Andy Scott's glasses??
Yeah J, you have some pretty good examples. Same-sex marriage would be one. It's a social experiment with no one knowing the outcome because despite the argument that it's a basic human right, only 4 or 5 countries have it so there's obviously great disagreement. Many homosexuals didn't even want it because they like being recognized as different. Let's be honest, if the homosexual community really wanted to be viewed the same, gay men would march in gay pride parades in business suits not g-strings. The social experiment the Liberals and activist judges appointed by the Liberals have sent us on smacks of arrogance and flies in the face of 1000's of years of history. The pros and cons can probable be argued until the end of time but the mad dash by the Liberals to embrace this and essentiallly blow off any opposition as intolerant or stupid was arrogant.
Decriminalization of marijuane is another. The marijuana issue is huge and arguably out of control so what does the government do? Attempt to normalize it. Decriminalization I'm sure is just the first step towards legalization. Great message for the kids when Chretin quipped that he would try it. Nice role model.
The abortion issue in NB is another one. NB refuses to pay for the dismembering of babies in the womb at the Morgentaler Clinic. The feds want the province to pay for it. Why don't the feds make the provinces pay for cancer treatments at private clinics too? Same thing in my view and a great example of two-tier health care by the Liberals. The same thing ironically that they accuse the Conservatives of. When did killing babies become acceptable to us as society. Someone here said one time that one person's rights end when another's begins. What about a baby's right to life?
Gomery inquiry is another example but I think everyone is pretty much in agreement that the Liberals were bad on that (how they still lead in support baffles me but the voters are always right.) The line between right and wrong continues to blur in favour of people's desire to do whatever they want. The Liberals certainly haven't done all of this on their own but they're leading the charge.
Spinks,
Thanks for clarifying - that's what I thought was being talked about when Mr Mckay mentioned morals and traditional family values. I wanted to get clarification on that.
For the record, with the exception of Gomery, we diasgree fundamentally on each and every point you brought forward. :) But at least we're clear on what's being discussed.
I applaud and respect the fight that people put into what they believe is right and just. We're just on different sides of that fight.
Also thanks to 11:18 for their commentary on Family Values and such. Again, I think we disagree on the outcomes but can agree on the sources.
Tomorrow being Remembrance Day, it seems only fitting that we be able to debate and disagree publicly and be allowed to do so.
Cheers,
J
As you can see, traditional family values simply depends on who you talk to. Marijuana is a 'value' to the above person, although it is a natural plant that God created, while most medicines are man made and prescribed under spurious circumstances (as the ritalin threads show).
So keep in mind that the above is simply one guys opinion and has NOTHING to do with 'traditional family values', as marijuana use has no real relevance on the 'family'. Kids take far more ecstacy than marijuana and of course sick patients benefit from it more than anybody else.
The homosexual argument about business suits is so crazy it doesn't even deserve to be argued about, however, gay marriage is the recent cornerstone of TFV, as it completely alters what is thought of as a 'traditional family'. Personally, I'm surprised these people were nowhere to be seen when economic legislation is being argued as it has FAR more impact on the traditional family than these social plans.
Many religious groups such as mennonites simply ignore legislation as they have their own communal norms. And many of those who are secular are also of the opinion that if you aren't gay, then it's not an issue to be interested in. However, I would have thought that economics would bring TFV people out of the woodwork. For example a higher minimum wage, more worker security, and higher wages can go a long way toward keeping your family 'traditional'. My parents were quite traditional but with five kids and a father working in the forestry industry, with its regular layoffs, we simply couldn't HAVE a mother who sat at home with the kids.
However, take a look at southern ontario where all automotive jobs were protected by government and provided incomes usually about double what it is in NB. In effect, federal policy meant that you at least had the OPTION of having a traditional family in Ontario, but it was exceedingly more difficult in the maritimes.
Gay marriage, of course, doesn't affect MY traditional marriage, to me it has nothing to do with it, however, that economic policy has EVERYTHING to do with it. If it's an economic struggle to maintain my religious beliefs then that has a very real bearing on my traditional family values. Oddly enough, poverty and economic issues are almost never even mentioned by those claiming to be adherents to traditional family values, while their numbers are constantly falling due to economics, they cling to lecturing other people on how they should live their lives. In other words, it's ok to be poor, just not do drugs, have sex outside marriage, be gay -or at least gay married, or have abortions.
Ironically, for CHRISTIAN holders of 'traditional family values', it is extremely interesting that Jesus never said ANYTHING about pot, booze, gays, or abortions (except to obey the commandments). However, he had lots to say about how to treat the poor. It's almost like christians have simply begun ignoring christ and only listen to the pope-even if they aren't catholic.
Hear hear J. Well said and really that was my point about the Feds. The same-sex marriage issue was but one example. You don't say on one hand that you're listening to people and then blow them off in the next breath when the cameras are rolling. In fairness, the media by and large acted the same way. CBC would have debates between both sides and the side for same-sex marriage would be a professor who won eight Nobel prizes while the person from the side against would be the Rev. Homer Phobia from Hicksville, Sask. Yeah I'm exaggerating slightly but not by much. There were good arguments on both sides but usually we only heard one side with any credibility.
Anyway, once again I digress. Yes J, everyone who can should get down to a local Cenotaph tomorrow. It's because of these men and women that we're even allowed to have our own opinions. Tell them thanks. I know I will.
Did you get to ask her any questions???
Nice hat!!!
Why would anybody think she's good looking?
I had a good chat about Ritalin....will blog next week!!!!
Attn: 2:14 -
I enjoyed reading your comments alot. Have a look at the book : "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America" by Thomas Frank. Good overview (from a US standpoint) of how the Republicans used family values to cinch up states that traditionally are devastated by the Republican fiscal policy. Interesting read. The basic premise is that "we won't subsidize farms or foster an economy to allow you a fighting shot, but we're pro-war, pro-church and we also hate gays. God is with us." And that seems to cinch it up in states the likes of Kansas and whatnot. Anyway, grab a read if you get the chance.
Spinks- thanks much for your examples and clarifications. I appreciate you taking the time to do it, regardless of whether or not we agree on all of the points....or any of them! :)
Have a good long weekend.
J
I want to pick that book up too. If you're into a new perspective, J try reading The Death of Right and Wrong by Tammy Bruce which I've talked about before. Bruce used to be the leader of the National Organization of Women in LA and she's a pro-choice lesbian. That's right, Spinks is recommending a book by a pro-choice feminist lesbian. She brings an interesting perspective to some of the points we've been discussing.
Thanks Spinks - will give it a try. Do you know if it's in the NB Public Library system or is this a visit to amazon.ca? As if I need more books! lol
J
Hmmm. It might be a trip to Amazon or Ebay. I went looking for it a year ago at the Library and they didn't have it at the time. Maybe the do by now. I find her take on things interesting because she's from the Left and still considers herself a Liberal. I obviously don't agree with her on everything but her common sense approach to issues is refreshing. If I see it show up at the library I'll let you know.
I see Thomas Frank's book isn't at the Public Library either. Guess they don't like philosophically different books. LOL. I'll try Amazon too.
Yeah, who needs MORE books! I tend to be a little distrustful of books that try to sum up politics in 300 pages though. That's a huge issue in the states, however, you have to keep in mind that like Canada, just over half of people even bother voting. Which means half of the popular knows its just a farce. Of the other half many people still vote out of 'duty' or boredom, or because a buddy is on the committee or something. That leaves a very small representation of the population that is actually into these issues.
Of that minority you have a certain percentage who simply want to 'get the bum out of office', or are democrat cuz their dad was or things like that. Take the last election down there, like Canada's it was the lowest turnout ever, however, at least Canada has a third party viable candidate who is at least on the map (NDP). However, people aren't stupid and know the NDP don't have a chance so don't bother. South of the border the turnout was 60% and the ballot counting is like something out of the old west. Greg Palast has a good documentary out on BBC that is pretty solid evidence that Bush illegally won the first term.
At the federal level both parties are almost identical. Kerry voted for the war and to continue the war, just wanted to be nicer to their allies, so anti war americans simply had no voice. The only place it was different was the social policy, and if you actually look at how the republican party handled the run up to the election you can understand how many people are saying that the US is in another civil war.
At the state level though its quite different. For example Nebraska, like half of the US states has citizens initiatives, which lets voters directly vote on legislation. If you look at it, the last vote they had was to ban gay marriage, hardly surprising since their demographic is more 'white' than even New Brunswick's. But another key initiative was to vote on a bill which maintains that a corporation cannot 'own' a family farm'. So a family farm must be owned by its resident owner.
Of course initiatives depend on the circumstances, so states have different votes. NAFTA was a trading agreement between countries, but it was also a way to nationalize economies, so now if a state tries to have a referendum, it can't break NAFTA regulations.
So in politics things aren't as clear cut as they seem. Most american commentators restrict what they talk about for export, since the US barely tolerates democracy at home, they certainly don't want to advertise their forms to other countries. So commmentators tend to 'dumb down' extremely complicated issues. The same is true in Canada.
If you want to check out state and local Citizens Initiatives check out this website:http://www.iandrinstitute.org
Switzerland has even more, but not many are in english. Since people are throwing out books I'd be interested to know if any of Patrick Boyer's books are at any library in the province other than the university one (if there). Patrick BOyer was a conservative MP from BC who now lives in Ontario and is generally credited with convincing Mulroney to hold the 1992 referendum.
One final point is an article that I read about american religious groups who were heavily active during Canada's run up to the same sex marriage legislation. THey sent up protestors, paid for materials and delivery, etc. There also have been a number of affiliated christian groups who have run candidates out west and Nova Scotia. This is one of the reasons I distrust the conservative party-if it was made up of people like Patrick Boyer, I'd be campaigning and probably running, but a small minority of conservative christians hold incredible power in the conservative party.
I have to ask anonymous because it's becoming more prevalant. What's with the intense hatred of conservative christians? I see it in letters to the editor fairly frequently. If the things said about Christians were said about any other group, there would be riots in the streets but Christians have become fair targets. I'm just waiting for the lions to be let loose again.
I'm not sure if I'm the anonymous, but I certainly have no intense hatred of anybody. I don't want conservative christians to be running the country, just like I don't want conservative muslims, hindus, mormons, mennonites, catholics or any other religious group. In fact, I don't want ANY small group running the country, but that can't be helped. The liberals are already strict conservatives in fiscal policy, and I disagree with that policy as well, and certainly don't want a religious organization to be making social policy-especially when we generally know what it will look like.
I don't know what letters of christian hatred is being referred to, please link or reprint them. Often people say such things to create the impression that somehow they are under attack. New Brunswick has one of the highest church attendance proportionally in Canada and New Brunswickers are almost universally christian (the religious ones I mean). In the Fredericton area alone there are well over two hundred churches.
I read the papers fairly regularly, but certainly not 'religiously' and if anything I've seen the opposite to be true. Often I'm almost embarassed at the out and out evangelizing of many of the letters.
In fact I hear FAR worse things almost constantly about every other religion. I actually enjoy when evangelicals come to my house as religion is something I'm interested in, and the lack of sensitivity to other religions is astounding. I've seen native american beliefs made fun of, derogatory remarks about muslim women, and some terrible things said about most african religious beliefs. It's unfortunate, but hardly surprising, and its easy to leave well enough alone-however it would be far different if these people were running our country.
The remarks I made above should tip you off that I don't harbour any hostility to traditional family values, in fact I wholeheartedly support them-to an extent. I'd love to see single income families where a parent can stay home with a child, where families earn enough so that they aren't working all the time, so that kids aren't being raised by the state or by video games. I think most women would CHOOSE to stay with their children and personal experience has brought that out, although I think it should be a choice.
What a lot of traditional family values people forget is just how much media has effected their perceptions of the past. People think the past was 'leave it to beaver'. In the past there were two ways to keep kids from sex-constant work and constant supervision. Yet they were smart enough to know that you can't fight biology so people were often married as young as 13, in some places 11.
So, finally, I have a problem when ANY one religion starts dictating what traditions should be followed and why. Within a community that's fine, and people of similar religious beliefs are free to do like mennonites and some pentecosts, and simply set up their own communities and deal with their problems themselves. It's quite another story when that group attempts to legislate it's beliefs and solve social problems in its own specific way without regard to the fact that most people do not share their point of view.
Evangelicals come to your house? Are you sure you're not thinking about the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses? If so, neither is evangelical. I don't think I've ever had an evangelical come to my door.
Here's a story about our Federal Givernment funding anti-Christian bigotry. Little media coverage for..well..I don't know why but have my theories...you decide why.
A Conservative MP has discovered through documents obtained under Access to Information that Status of Women Canada has been funding anti-Christian bigotry and pro-abortion activism. However, in a startling exchange of correspondence, the Minister responsible for the funding neither offered to pull the funding nor to apologize to Christian Canadians for funding groups which defame them.
Writing to Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla last month, Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott pointed out that the documents obtained through access to information requests revealed the government granted $27,400 last year to the BC Pro-Choice Action network (pro-CAN).
In his letter to the Minister, MP Vellacott notes:
Pro-CAN spokesperson Joyce Arthur uses derogatory labels to describe individuals who are pro-life, saying their opposition to abortion, "comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women" and a need to "maximize (the Catholic Church's) membership levels to maintain their worldly influence and wealth." Pro-CAN accuses pro-life Christians of being "religious fanatics" who do "little or nothing for children once they are born." She says pro-life Christians are "anti-woman and anti-child," have views which are "uninformed, sexist, cruel," and lack the ability to empathize which "breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war." Ms. Arthur says that the pro-lifer's attitude towards women is like "the slaveholder's attitude to blacks, and the Nazi's attitude to Jews."
Vellacott suggested that the Minister withdraw funding from the group and apologize to Christian Canadians for funding such bigotry. "The government should be taking no part in spreading this sort of bigotry. Please ensure that any current funding to Pro-CAN ceases immediately and that no future taxpayer money be given to this group. And please have your department issue a public apology to all Christians and pro-life Canadians because of your department's financial support of this hate mongering organization," said Vellacott.
In a curt reply dated October 18, Minister Frulla says, "I appreciate being made aware of your concerns." The Minister acknowledges that pro-CAN and the other pro-abortion activist groups mentioned in the letter by Vellacott, "did indeed receive funding under the women's Program of Status of Women Canada."
Frulla suggested she was well aware of the activities of pro-CAN, but found no objection to funding the anti-Christian group with public monies. "Each application is assessed according to a stringent set of objectives and criteria . . . Please be assured that the initiatives cited in your letter, which did indeed receive funding, met all of the above-mentioned objectives and eligibility criteria."
Frulla concluded her response, "Please accept my best wishes for the challenges ahead."
I've talked to baptists at my door, as well as pentecosts, and yes, JW and mormons. Evangelical simply means 'spreading the gospel' which many people do. Some churches actively require it, such as JW and mormons, however, many churches are active in this way as well. Evangelical typically refers to protestants, although many catholic churches also evangelize door to door.
As for the above article, interesting as it is, my point was about MEDIA coverage in NEW BRUNSWICK. This province is a LONG way from BC with a completely different demographic and political environment. We can get into a debate about BC sometime, but that isn't the issue I was talking about. It was maintained that NB media was filled with 'anti christian sentiment', which apart from sporadic letters to the editor (very sporadic), I'm yet to see.
To not completely ignore the issue though it has to be remembered that abortion is government policy, and groups which defend government policy against people who oppose government policy are typically funded, albeit in very specific ways. So 27 grand is not a whole lot of money, and the group also sponsors outreach programs and womens shelters, which is probably what most of the money went to.
I'm not that interested in the issue but if you look at the 'pro life' groups, if they have programs which, for example, help support unwed mothers or food banks, or programs for children, they would qualify for government funding as well. Typically such groups are ONLY involved in the abortion aspect, meaning they don't get funding, and they provide the fodder for quotes such as they "aren't interested in children once they are born". Looking at the amount of children in foster care and the few religious programs designed for adoption pretty much confirms it. That isn't to paint ALL groups with such a brush, and I would welcome links to abortion active churches who are heavily into child care programs as well.
They're probably are some churches involved in that although I'm not aware of any at least not in NB. Some in the U.S. do it. With that being said, you're absolutely right on this point. It's great to say "don't kill your baby" but to turn around and say after the baby is born "sorry, you're on your own." isn't right. I'm in complete agreement that churches which oppose abortion and not only churches because it's not all religious, but other groups which oppose abortion should offer help for new Moms and Dads, financial, emotional, etc. Government should also make adoption a lot easier. That wouldn't hurt. With that being said, I still don't see any circumstance in which killing a bayb by dismembering it in the womb or killing it with a saline compound to essentially mummify him/her is the right thing to do. That's not a religious thing, that's a moral issue in which we don't kill people, but the Supreme Court says differently.
I'll keep an eye out on the local papers. Letters pop up usually a couple of times a month. Next time I see one, I'll hang onto it until an appropriate blog turns up.
PS : I don't know where you live but I've never had a Baptist or Catholic at my door. I'm not denying you do. I just have never witnessed or heard of it. I don't have a problem with it anyway. You have a choice, tell them politely you do not wish to talk with them or listen to them.
It seems we aren't so different in our point of view, and I completely concur that it isn't a religious issue but a moral one as well. My remarks weren't a complaint about evangelicals, like I said, I am interested in talking about religion anytime and took it at university. One of the catholic churches in MOncton occasionally sends students out, while the First Pentecost and Oromocto baptist churches have sent representatives out in the past. They aren't heavy handed or anything, and the people who were stewards going door to door may not even have been sanctioned by the church but just doing what they thought was right. I certainly have no problem with that and invite them in for coffee, it's nice to see people who 'work' for their religion (like I said, I just don't want them running my government).
My point was also not about occasional letters to the editor, although if you can find out and out 'hatred' of christians in there I"d be interested to see it. For abortion I am in agreement that it isn't 'right', which is why I strongly favour massive sex education to ensure that it is never necessary. If it is simply made illegal then people will simply do it in unsafe conditions.
You're right, abortion would continue even if it is outlawed but normalizing it and making it legal to kill babies as it is now isn't the answer either. I hear what you're saying but I can't ever see the situation where babies are being killed at a private clinic is ever "necessary".
Look at the tests doctors offer parents now to see whether or not their babies have conditions such as Downs Syndrome. If the test comes back positive (and it's isn't 100% yet by the way), you can choose to have your baby aborted. Two problems with this. Problem 1 - You may end up killing a perfectly healthy baby because the test isn't 100% and problem 2 -what does that say to all of the people who have Down's syndrome, that their lives aren't worth living? Serious, serious moral issues when we as humans decide to start playing God.
As far as religious conservatives in positions of authority in political parties, why is that different from any other group of people being in positions of power whether it be Hindu, atheists, gays, etc.? Like you said you don't have anything against conservative Christians per se but everybody has some type of belief system even if it's that they believe in nothing. However, religious conservatives come under attack more than anyone else for some reason. I'm not sure why but the attacks particularly in the US and bad and even in Canada they're becoming downright nasty. The message is that "it's fine to be a religious conservative, just make sure you keep your mouth shut and make don't become involved in politics." I suspect it's that most people like doing their own thing and don't want to be told that everybody sins and some things are wrong. There are without a doubt "holier than thou" Christians but they're the exception not the rule. Most I've met are no different from anyone else although they have a sense of purpose in their lives and little fear of death. Given the increasing hostility towards them, that's probably a good thing. The Book of Revelation says they're going to need it.
How we got on abortion and such from Belinda Stronach, who knows, but the winds on the blog often blow different ways don't they?
We still haven't found the hostility in New Brunswick, it simply doesn't exist anywhere, not on television, radio or in print. I've never even seen any blogs on it.
In the states the Federal government is essentially a christian conservative government, republicans hold all houses and judiciary. The networks certainly don't exhibit anti-christian hostility. Fox is literally an evangelical station, CBS is owned by the mormons, and most newspapers have the same owners now in Rupert Murdoch, himself a conservative christian.
So this seems to be paranoia, or as Orwell would say, doublespeak. What is really at issue, is what I said, that people object to a group having political power. 'Hatred' and 'intense hatred' is simply ludicrous to abscribe to opposing political views. There is no doubt that media, say, in Ontario may attack christian conservatives during an election-it just depends which party the media is for. As we saw with Stockwell Day, if it isn't christian conservatism, then it's citizen's initiatives and media blunders.
However, if the country were so anti conservative christian then we would have seen far more coverage of the fact that american religous groups were funding protests here, to me that is a VERY important issue. As well as the fact that many conservative nominees are out and out zealots for their faith. The reason MP's are not supposed to bring their faith in is simply because they represent ALL the people of their riding, many, if not most, who don't ascribe to their particular faith.
In fact, most of the ontario media was extremely careful during the gay marriage issue not to 'talk down' to the christian groups involved.
Post a Comment