Posts
This is getting really tiring. Here is yet another media report warning of the ‘ultra-conservative religious right’ close connection to the Conservative Party of Canada. The evidence this time? Some Conservative MPs showed up to a dinner being hosted by Opus Dei:
MPs from all parties had been invited, it seems, but most of the 20 or so who showed up were Conservatives, with none from the NDP or the Bloc QuÈbÈcois.
I’m not sure I know exactly what ‘20 or so’ means, but for the sake of argument let us say that there was exactly 20 MPs at this dinner. There are 144 Conservative MPs, this means that Opus Dei is so important to the Conservative Party that only 14% of the caucus bothered to show up to score, what was presumably, a free meal.
But wait, not all of those 20 MPs were Conservatives. The article says that Conservatives were there but not the NDP or the BQ. It doesn’t mention any Liberals but if only ‘most’ of the 20 were Conservative then that only leaves the possibility that the remaining MPs were Liberals. So why isn’t this article about the ‘theo-conservative’ influence on the Liberal Party?
Saying that a multi-party dinner hosted by a religious group is evidence of the Conservative Party’s religious agenda is incredibly desperate. Especially when you consider that government movement on social issues has been lacking. For goodness sake, Mr. Harper himself has come out and said that he would not vote to criminalize abortions. What more do people want to hear as proof that Stephen Harper is not now nor has he ever been a social conservative?
Why don’t we ask a social conservative about what they think of Mr. Harper?
Paul Tuns at the Interim points out that social conservatives have never supported Mr. Harper in his leadership races and in 2006 The Interim gave him a ‘C’ for his social policy. Mr. Tuns considered that mark to be over generous. Mr. Harper has never enjoyed the support of social conservatism as a movement. So how exactly would anyone argue that Mr. Harper is a social conservative?
I’m not Stephen Harper’s number 1 fan. Also as someone who is politically liberal on social issues, I too would fear a religious takeover of the Conservative Party. But that takeover is just not happening. There is no credible evidence of strong religious influence on government policy. The best anyone has come up with is that a couple of Mr. Harper’s advisers go to church. At the same time there is a large amount of evidence that social conservatives have failed to influence Mr. Haper’s decisions.
All of this fear mongering seems to be about trying to shut social conservatives out of the debate for policy. And that is just despicable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This fear mongering is also about softening the public into supporting a Coaltion - whether they do it through an election or just a request to the GG before she retires.
Mark. My. Words.
I can't wait for the Liberal tv ads where they CGI Iggy into scenes from the Da Vinci Code. Yes, that Albino member of the CPC is scary.
I fully agree with Alberta Girl: Iggy is on the way out, and Rae is slavering for a chance to repeat his provincial coup.
The "cozying up to the ultra religious right" is a meme so thoroughly embedded in the liberal mind-set that it's laughable. It's one shot in what will certainly become a chorus of drive by smears and innuendo this summer.
Which may be the best way to attack it - reason will not deter the MSM from pushing this kind of pap, because they deeply believe this to be true - but banging the drums louder to the point where it looks like an Angels and Demons sequel - that might bring this meme back to its rightful place: out of the hands of Peter Donolo and back in the trash bin.
Are you afraid of a religious takeover of the party or are you just afraid of religious people being involved in the party and having influence?
Anon..i'm scared of neither. but for the sake of argument...religious, non-religious and every conceivable type of person have all the influence they decide to have. It's called democracy. get a grip people..you're being lied to.
Anon,
I had hoped to make it clear in my post that I have no problem with religious people getting involved. I even went as far as saying trying to use a species of intimidation to prevent them from doing so is dispicable. There is no reason that I can imagine for anyone to be excluded from political participation.
The far left is going to incredible lengths to avoid having to defend any of the flaws in McDonald's book.
They simply cannot admit that so much of the work in the book is shoddy.
Nor does it seem to matter who the source of the criticism is. If the source of the criticism is an expert who has studied the topic for decades, they quickly turn anti-intellectual.
They want this soooo bad. But they've come up soooo short.
Post a Comment