This is unquestionably bad mojo for the HarperCon$ who keep trying to convince us that they are not a bunch of dominionist wingnuts.
Unfortunately, when your MPs put out bookmarks that say things like:
That we may lead according to the Scriptural Foundation upon which our country was founded
...it tells us quite a bit that most Canadians should be worried about - especially with MPs like Ken Epp and Maurice Vellacott coming up with "private member's bills" that are unquestionably playing to the religious extreme base in the party. (I will point out that a surprisingly high percentage of the government benches voted for Epp's bill C-484 - in spite of its obvious flaws.
6 comments:
So what's the big deal? This isn't my type of politics either, but get real. There's people of almost every major faith in the Conservatives and the Liberals. We have something in this country called religious freedom - perhaps it's time you acknowledged and respected that.
Depends on what kind of government you are looking for.
I can't say I'm exactly a big fan of the kind politics that dominionists are attracted to.
I respect their religion, I don't respect their desire to oblige me and others who do not share it to live by their beliefs through the force of law.
Dominionists are a subset of "evangelical christian" (and in Canada a rather small subset). So I'm not sure we have evidence to put him in the smaller group.
As to Canada being formed as a Christian Nation, I don't have any evidence to dispute that. Whether it was or was not, the simple fact is that we've made deliberate efforts since founding to make it a secular country and we're firmly there now. The 21st century is not the 19th century.
I'm not disagreeing with your points that the CPC has a strong evangelical streak running through it that could result in social restrictions that we don't want. Just saying accusing them of being dominionists might be jumping the gun.
Quixote:
I didn't say the HarperCon$ were dominionist per se, merely that they have a greater degree of dominionist influence than I think is healthy.
The phrase I highlighted earlier is a classic style of 'code phrase' that is intended to be "harmless" looking to most people, but to those "in on the story" it is filled with meaning.
Combined with the known influence of people like McVety makes it clear to me that there is a significant, and worrisome amount of dominionist influence in the CPC.
Harper and The Theocons
You still haven't said what was wrong with anyone who asks someone to pray for them. Why? Because their is nothing wrong. Regardless of the faith. It's called religious freedom that is guaranteed by the charter.
With all of this talk about religious people somehow seeking to impose their will upon others, it's pretty clear to me that you're the one trying to impose your views (views to which I would stand up for your right to believe) upon them.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with prayer, or with someone asking someone to pray for them.
My concern arises from the phrase of what is being asked for, which is a fairly classic bit of Dominionist language.
It's deliberately intended to allude to things without being specific.
Consider the phrase "...the Scriptural Foundation upon which our country was founded.
Think about that for a moment, and then go review the original BNA act, or the more recent Constitution. Apart from a few obligatory references to God, there are NO scriptural references included, and arguably Canada itself certainly has never been founded upon scripture in any recognizable sense. So, just what does 'Scriptural Foundation' mean with respect to Canada?
My claim is that such phrases are 'dog whistles' to the Dominionist movement, and to a lesser degree to other fundamentalists who sympathize with them. Intended to be heard by those "in the know" and ignored by the rest as meaningless.
What's wrong with that? In my books, there are good reasons for keeping government and religion well and truly apart from each other - and they are documented throughout history.
Post a Comment