Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alan A. wrote:
Habsrwfan wrote:
Alan A. wrote:
I find myself in a very conflicting position on this story. On one hand, I hate the CBC to no end because they screw me with my own money, with a smug attitude. But on the other hand, if it's what it takes to help keep religion out of politics (because it's plain toxic), I say go for it.


Do you have anything to contribute to this board aside from hate-filled anti-Christian/anti-religion bigotry, Alan A?

That seems to be the only thing you ever post on lately.

What I find toxic is the attitude of secularists that thinks that only their worldviews, or their belief systems, should be the ones given any consideration whatsoever in government.

Why should that be, when a substantial number of Canadians (possibly a majority even) are religious people?


Do you blow a fuse like this when it comes to "hate-filled anti" Muslim religion bigotry, Habsrwfan?


I never "blew a fuse" at all. Where did I use an exclamation mark? Or all caps?

If this is what you call "blowing a fuse", then you're far more thin-skinned than most religious people are, fundamentalists included.


Quote:
The skin of the religious fundamentalists, whatever the religion, is very thin isn't it (muslim cartoons, christian anti abortion stance, the very emotional reaction looks the same to me; only the means differs because of the cultural difference but you sound like a christian jihadist to me).


What makes you imply that I'm a fundamentalist? If you go through all of my posts here on this board, where do you see evidence of fundamentalism? One can be outspoken about his or her faith without viewing the scriptures thereof through a strict interpretive lens. Also, the most passionately pro-life person I knew wasn't a religious person; you don't have to be a Christian at all in order to be anti-abortion.

As for "very emotional", your very first post on this thread was "very emotional". "Toxic" is a pretty strong term, and when applied to a different belief system or worldview of your own it definitely smacks of bigotry.

I just find your hatred and intolerance towards religious people to be very disconcerting to say the least. I honestly wonder what Christian killed your pet dog, and urinated on your lawn, to warrant such hatred on your part. You come off to me as having this huge chip on your shoulder against religious people: why can't you just let it go? I have no great desire to raise the issue of religion on a political board, but if I see what strikes me as baseless and unwarranted bigotry against my faith and the people of that faith, I will speak against that.
Habsrwfan





Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 688
Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8Reputation: 49.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alex in Edmonton wrote:
chilipepper wrote:
I agree that religion should be kept out of politics but we have to be careful that we don't deny all people no matter what they believe, a democratic voice - and that is what I have a big problem with. These Marci McDonald types seem to think that no one other than left wing ideologues should have any say at all, there has to be a middle ground.


I agree and I think your post sums it up well. I too, believe that secularism is important. Our democracy depends on it. However, as Ezra Levant put it on CBC's Power and Politics, discrimination towards Christians is one of the last acceptable bigotries in this country. I am tired of having moderate Christians demonized in Parliament while radical elements of other religions run wild, simply because it is not politically correct to call a spade a spade. The Liberals understand that Christians have a target on their back, and they understand that many of them vote Conservative. This whole "culture war" that Graves recommends has been ongoing since Chretien and the Liberals first went up against the Reform Party, and Ignatieff shows no sign of putting it to an end. Really, the Frank Graves strategy was just proof of what conservatives in Canada have long suspected.

As for Marci McDonald: she is a joke who, were it not for the CBC, would likely have her (factually incorrect) views outright dismissed. Stockwell Day's political career was almost ruined because he had the audacity to be a practicing Christian; Kinsella and the Liberals pounced on it. And here she is saying that Christians have too much influence in the Conservative Party? Please. Bigots like McDonald have made being a practicing Christian a political liability, and there is something truly disturbing about that. Thanks to "progressives" like her, many Canadians are unable to enjoy the most basic of human rights. That is not the Canada that I want to live in, and it is pure villainy that the CBC willingly provides her a vehicle for her backwards views.


I largely agree with both of these posts.

However, I think you define "secularism" differently than how Graves probably would.

Obviously, in a pluralistic country like Canada, you can't have a government that only considers the viewpoints of people from one particular belief system or demographic. So, the government should not show undue preferential treatment for people of any one particular belief system or demographic. What this ought to mean, in practice, is that one's religious affiliation (or lack thereof) has no bearing, good or bad, on one's ability to speak with a MP, run for political office, or express his or her viewpoints on the issues of the day. If this is what is meant of "secularism", then I support "secularism".


The impression I get from people like Graves, though, is that by "secularism" they mean a government that won't even listen to the viewpoints of religious members of the electorate, and give consideration to their concerns.

Oftentimes good politics is about finding happy mediums that can be palatable to the entire citizenry, and you don't find those happy mediums by totally ignoring large subsections of the population just because they don't share your worldview.


A good example of this is sex education in public schools. It should be possible to achieve a reasonably happy medium on this where maybe no person is entirely satisfied, but where no person is left entirely dissatisfied either.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


CBC waging ‘faith war,’ Conservatives say

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB