If DrDawg is correct, then Harper's goons are violating democracy in some pretty vile ways.
[Update]
There's more ... and this is looking distinctly like a Conservative attempt to suppress student voters - who are less likely to vote Conservative.
[/Update]
[Update #2]
... and the Con$ lose their first gambit to subvert voter rights to Guelph students.
[/Update]
Showing posts with label Voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voting. Show all posts
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thoughts On A Comment
Back here, where the discussion around candidates for the PC nomination in Calgary Egmont got going, a commenter left the following comment that I want to spend a few minutes discussing.
First off, I don't actually care if someone goes to church every Sunday or not (or whatever faith observance you wish). The fact of someone's faith, or its absence is quite immaterial to me. The vast majority of church-going people are pretty rational and sane about things, and similarly the majority of people who choose not to attend church are pretty rational as well - neither has a lock on "rightness" or virtue.
However, we do not live in a theocracy, nor do we live in a country that gives primacy to any specific religious tradition. In such circumstances, we must reasonably view matters of faith as matters of personal liberty, and bound their exercise of those freedoms appropriately - especially if they are standing for public office.
Since our commenter is being amazingly broad in such statements, one can only guess what they might be referring to. Any particular system of beliefs or perspective on the world can be twisted into some pretty hideous conclusions - a brief review of various periods in the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates that quite clearly. (Most people would be quite horrified by the reasoning present in the Malleus Maleficarum, for example)
Broad-based accusations of this sort are really quite meaningless, providing no grounds upon which to address them.
My grandfather used to have a saying "It is your responsibility to pay attention to our government and vote because if you do not, those whom you would least want in power will get there".
I'm sad to say it, but in recent years the rise of so-called "values voting" has dragged a particularly unpleasant form of "Christian" faith into the public arena, and given it a prominence that it does not deserve. Under such circumstances when someone proclaims themselves to be "a person of faith", is it unreasonable for the voters to question just what that catch phrase means? (One must, in fairness, be similarly vigilant about how others put things forward as well - politics is a game often filled with evasion and partial statements)
There are a number of similar "catch phrases" out there that are seemingly "empty", and often carry some surprising implications. "Pro-Life", "Family Values" and "Values Voter" are among the best known such catch phrases - fairly empty, innocuous sounding combinations of words whose full meaning varies from faction to faction among the voters - and some factions take some pretty unpleasant interpretations of those phrases.
One example that comes to mind is that the so-called "Pro-Life" movement in some corners is beginning to represent not just "anti-abortion" activists, but is going so far as to advocate against contraception of any sort.
Some so-called "Family Values" advocates in the United States are beginning to demand that funding aimed at AIDS research be directed elsewhere - primarily on the unfounded assertion that AIDS is primarily a disease of "the gay lifestyle".
It is the extremism, which often shrouds itself in the cloak of religiosity, that must be watched for and stood against, as it ultimately works to all our disadvantage.
I shake my head at anyone who styles themselves "liberal" or "progressive" who gasps in dismay when someone mentions they attend church. Do you understand the meaning of those two words?
Not everyone who goes to church on Sundays (or temple on Saturdays, etc.) is a nutter. In fact, I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas. It is only types like Chandler who cloak themselves in religious piety (yet never seem to practice what they preach) who ruin it for the rest of us.
I commend someone who has the gumption to run for public office, and not hide who they are and what they believe in. Good luck to you.
First off, I don't actually care if someone goes to church every Sunday or not (or whatever faith observance you wish). The fact of someone's faith, or its absence is quite immaterial to me. The vast majority of church-going people are pretty rational and sane about things, and similarly the majority of people who choose not to attend church are pretty rational as well - neither has a lock on "rightness" or virtue.
However, we do not live in a theocracy, nor do we live in a country that gives primacy to any specific religious tradition. In such circumstances, we must reasonably view matters of faith as matters of personal liberty, and bound their exercise of those freedoms appropriately - especially if they are standing for public office.
I would go so far as to say there are quite an unhealthy number of people claiming no affiliation or a "humanistic" theology that hold some pretty disturbed ideas.
Since our commenter is being amazingly broad in such statements, one can only guess what they might be referring to. Any particular system of beliefs or perspective on the world can be twisted into some pretty hideous conclusions - a brief review of various periods in the history of the Catholic Church demonstrates that quite clearly. (Most people would be quite horrified by the reasoning present in the Malleus Maleficarum, for example)
Broad-based accusations of this sort are really quite meaningless, providing no grounds upon which to address them.
It is only types like Chandler who cloak themselves in religious piety (yet never seem to practice what they preach) who ruin it for the rest of us.
My grandfather used to have a saying "It is your responsibility to pay attention to our government and vote because if you do not, those whom you would least want in power will get there".
I'm sad to say it, but in recent years the rise of so-called "values voting" has dragged a particularly unpleasant form of "Christian" faith into the public arena, and given it a prominence that it does not deserve. Under such circumstances when someone proclaims themselves to be "a person of faith", is it unreasonable for the voters to question just what that catch phrase means? (One must, in fairness, be similarly vigilant about how others put things forward as well - politics is a game often filled with evasion and partial statements)
There are a number of similar "catch phrases" out there that are seemingly "empty", and often carry some surprising implications. "Pro-Life", "Family Values" and "Values Voter" are among the best known such catch phrases - fairly empty, innocuous sounding combinations of words whose full meaning varies from faction to faction among the voters - and some factions take some pretty unpleasant interpretations of those phrases.
One example that comes to mind is that the so-called "Pro-Life" movement in some corners is beginning to represent not just "anti-abortion" activists, but is going so far as to advocate against contraception of any sort.
Some so-called "Family Values" advocates in the United States are beginning to demand that funding aimed at AIDS research be directed elsewhere - primarily on the unfounded assertion that AIDS is primarily a disease of "the gay lifestyle".
It is the extremism, which often shrouds itself in the cloak of religiosity, that must be watched for and stood against, as it ultimately works to all our disadvantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)