Jim Blake of Concerned Christians Canada likened the review to a witch hunt, targeting social conservatives and evangelical Christians.
"This is not an issue of Craig Chandler being an intolerant person," Blake said Wednesday. "It's a party that's saying we don't want people of faith in our party that are going to speak their values in any way, shape or form, even if it's not in the political forum."
No, sorry Jim. That's a gross distortion of reality. There's quite a difference between legitimate religious positions and discourse and much of what Chandler's past is. Chandler has made himself a public figure, and he has been - to put it politely - over the top in much of what he has said publicly. Especially about GLBT people, but also about anyone who dares to be something other than his particular breed of "conservative".
The meme about religious persecution is largely a fabrication rooted not in reality but in the fevered imaginings those who insist upon using their religious beliefs as a club to beat the rest of the world with. It is not a matter of "religious freedom", but rather a question of when does the expression of that freedom begin to impinge upon the legitimate rights of others.
Frankly, if Chandler's religious beliefs are an issue it is because he has chosen to make them part of the issue of his own free will. Aside from occasional side references to faith, much of what has gotten Chandler into hot water has not been expressed in the language of faith, but in the much cruder language of the street tough. It may be rooted in some notion of faith, but it is questionable whether one could argue that it is a legitimate expression of such when it degenerates into threats and abusive language.
In contrast, I would actually argue that while I consider the Christian Heritage Party platform to be a hate-filled screed, it at least attempts to root itself explicitly in the language of the party's expressed concept of "Christian Faith". Much of what is in their policy is tied back to specific passages in scripture. At least in that case, one can turn around and argue that their interpretation of scripture is flawed.
Politically speaking, the PC's have to make a choice as to whether the reputation that Chandler has accrued in the public arena is a liability that the party can "afford" to overcome or not in the next election. With the Stelmach government's polling numbers quite low, Stelmach may well be considering candidates with the kind of reputation that Chandler has acquired to be far too great a political risk. We'll find out as the party makes its decision in the coming days and weeks.
5 comments:
f it were a question of RELIGIOUS intolerance then we wouldn't see Conservatives of every faith in the party.
There are a lot of Christian/Catholic/Protestant believers in that party. And a lot of other religions represented as well - from eastern beliefs right through to Mormonism.
What Mr. Blake is perhaps missing is the idea that there is a separation between CHURCH and STATE, and that Politics is not the same as Religion. (Just a small detail there).
As soon as Religion and Politics become too closely intertwined, my rights as an individual are threatened. I am told what to believe, how to act and what is considered to be appropriate. I'm sure that Chandler would have an issue if Greg Melchin brought his Mormon beliefs to the forefront and (mis)used his position to broadcast his views on the use of caffine and alcohol, or suggested that we ought to embrace Mormon tenets as part of HIS political agenda.
The shoe is on the other foot guys! Get your religion OUT of my politics!
An article this morning on CBC bothered me - it was discussing Bishop Henry's stance on Catholic Schools in Calgary not being allowed to have anything to do do with Amnesty International because Anmensty International has come out in support of women's rights to abortion in the case of rape or incest. This support is so that women who are in these situations are not forced to forgo medical assistance and to save lives in certain situations.
Quite honestly I have a problem with a school system that is so hypocritical as to kick out some organizations because of their views on abortion, but to embrace others wholeheartedly. Once again here we see a difference between the CHURCH and EDUCATION.
Here we see Religion and Politics and Religion and Education becoming intertwined - and I think it is a dangerous path to trod. Kindly allow me to have my own religious beliefs within the framework of a society that is open and accepting rather than legislating closed-minded bigotry. Whatever happened to the image of the "Melting Pot" that was presented to school children in the 70s with the filmstrips and separate cassette tape commentary accompanying it. As I recall Canada was touted as a country that was accepting of many beliefs and comprised of many faiths and backgrounds. Not just that of the KKK.
OOOOPPPSS!!!
I meant the CCC.
Such a small difference there - don't you think?
While I have no problem with the notion of politicians using their faith to guide them in decision making, I do agree that there is a fine line between that and imposing faith upon others by legislative fiat.
Oh yes, the United States has always characterized itself as a melting pot, and Canada has taken more of a mosaic view of itself.
I don't put any credibility in anything that Jim Blake says or does. He's just a sock puppet. Look behind him and you'll find Chandler's hand up his backside.
Jim Blake also believes in a seperation of Church and State.
Keep the State out of the church!
I've heard that little slogan before.
Of course, what nobody who uses that slogan admits to is that there is very, very little about the whole Boissoin affair and the secondary complaints that arose during it that had anything to do with any matters of faith.
(and no, I do not accept the claim that Boissoin's letter was in any respect "pastoral" in nature)
Post a Comment