Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Re: RE: Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

TenPenny said:
So Martin can be a member of a conservative, right wing religion that denies equality to women and is against birth control and abortion, and that's okay, because he doesn't believe it anyway. But Harper can't be a member of a religion, because that's too scary.

I understand.

Probably because Zealots who believe the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book are a bit scarier than moderates who think for themselves.

Most of the country that believes in religion has their own interpretation of values. I am sure a lot of catholics use condoms despite the all power churches view on contraceptives.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
So a member of a right wing, backward religion who claims he doesn't really follow it's most basic teachings is better than another who follows a right wing backward religion and claims he doesn't follow all of it's teachings.....I can see how that works.
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
Re: RE: Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

Freethinker said:
TenPenny said:
So Martin can be a member of a conservative, right wing religion that denies equality to women and is against birth control and abortion, and that's okay, because he doesn't believe it anyway. But Harper can't be a member of a religion, because that's too scary.

I understand.

Probably because Zealots who believe the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book are a bit scarier than moderates who think for themselves.

Most of the country that believes in religion has their own interpretation of values. I am sure a lot of catholics use condoms despite the all power churches view on contraceptives.

So the people who live in Canada's Muslim communities who believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran are scary as are the orthodox Jews in Montreal. Should people who hold religious views be banned from politics because they are not freethinkers? It seems like a very myopic approach to politics.

Nonreligious types are working off their own cognitive template which is just as limiting. Mainly it is Darwinian where they see themselves and their thought process as the ultimate example of fitness. It is an invisible god which has pulled them up out of the ranks of the stupidity that afflicts those who hold religious views.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Re: RE: Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

sanch said:
So the people who live in Canada's Muslim communities who believe in a literal interpretation of the Koran are scary as are the orthodox Jews in Montreal. Should people who hold religious views be banned from politics because they are not freethinkers? It seems like a very myopic approach to politics.

That is a greatly exaggerated take on my reply. The question of why Harper is scary vs why Martin isn't to some voters, when they are both religious, is one of Harpers zealotry and narrowness of viewpoint involved.

I never said a religious right wing Idealogue like Harper should be banned from politics, just that I won't vote for him.

I have witnessed the religious right in action in the USA for years now I will speak and vote against what I see as a similar encroachment into Canada.

Does that clarify it?
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
“Probably because Zealots who believe the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book are a bit scarier than moderates who think for themselves.”

This was the sentence I was responding to and it applies to quite a few different religious groups. You seem fixated on the religious right in the US and you don’t want that replicated in the US. Still you don’t offer much potential for any contribution from a person with religious point of view if they disagree with you. Banning was an unfortunate choice of words on my part. But fundamentalism of all sorts is growing globally and so as a force it will have to be dealt with.


This is a very complicated topic and one that the US is struggling with in Iraq. They are trying to cultivate democracy yet there is a strong possibility that democracy will produce a fundamentalist government similar to the one in Iran. There are people in the Bush administration who probably think just like you do about Islamic fundamentalism. Obviously it is hypocritical as they don’t apply the same thinking to the role of religion in the US. For democracy to succeed there is going to have to be a learning curve on how to accommodate different perceptions of the world and work with them politically.

Using different criteria such as an approach to corruption then Harper has the broad view and Martin the narrow one. The zealotry you describe will probably not have much influence on how he governs as neither the NDP nor Bloc will support it. So viewing the entire conservative platform through the prism of zealotry is probably very limiting and gives a skewed view of what they are actually offering.

You think corruption is overblown and I think zealotry is overblown. Organizing the religious right and getting that vote was a determining factor in the last election but it is unclear if the religious right is running the country as has been suggested. Now there is a lot of opposition to Bush from the religious right because they think except for the recent supreme court appointment he has betrayed them.

If Harper has a proclivity to zealotry it will not matter as he will be constrained by reality. I hope that is at least consolation.
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
sanch said:
“Probably because Zealots who believe the literal interpretation of a 2000 year old book are a bit scarier than moderates who think for themselves.”

But fundamentalism of all sorts is growing globally and so as a force it will have to be dealt with.

I dealt with it using my vote. I voted Liberal. I also don't like the conservative Fiscal policy. That is actually a greater concern. I expect no social damage, but I also expect no social progress. I believe the GST is the fairest most efficient taxation we have, once rollled back it can never return because of its unpopularity. This is actually my number one issue with the conservative party. The GST cut instead of an income tax cut, or better yet no cut at all.

Using different criteria such as an approach to corruption then Harper has the broad view and Martin the narrow one.

Harper was narrow in his approach, that is all his ads mentioned, he brought the government down mere months before it was going to volutarily step down just so he could use this single issue as election fodder while it was on the top of the mind. Does the US have presumption of innocence, how about, some respect of innocence where someone has been completely exhonerated. A few member of the Quebec wing of the party were involved and the have been dealt with, the situation has been resolved. Paul Martin and the vast majority of the Liberal party have been completely exhonerated.

Is this guilt by association. I seem to remember several US rebublicans in the last year were guilty of taking bribes, in some case over a million dollars. Does that mean the rebublicans are corrupt and unfit for power?
 

sanch

Electoral Member
Apr 8, 2005
647
0
16
For all that you do not like about the US there is accountability and transparency in politics that does not exist in Canada. And there is corruption. But corrupt leaders get caught and put in jail.

I prefer by far liberal ideals and policies and I hate that they were sullied by inept and corrupt politicians. It is important to have an objective system of accountability in place so that politicians cannot claim partisanship when caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

On the economic end Canada is an extremely wealthy country and can well afford its social programs if they were managed properly. It is very disconcerting to see so many panhandlers in the streets of Montreal. Many of the problems of nepotism and patronage stem back to the Mulroney era if not farther but they have been unattended and have magnified over the years and there has been no will to fix them.

Why did the Liberals simply not offer up their own accountability bill and add a provision for honesty in politics to trump the conservatives? That would have been a sign that they were willing to engage in reform. It would have been enough to convince me.

My feeling is that the policies are worth saving but the politicians are not. Some in the NDP are predicting the demise of the liberal party and they will be the beneficiaries. That is not an outcome that I would be unhappy with as long as there would be accountability controls to put a check on their behavior and power.
 

McDonald

Nominee Member
Jan 23, 2006
80
1
8
Chicoutimi, Québec
www.myspace.com
From where I am sitting (in Texas, at the moment) as a concerned dual-citizen, the only real agenda I can see from the CP is a want to align itself with the conservative movement here in the US, and turn Canada into the Capitalist free-for-all that America has become.

For all the bad you can say about the Liberals, their accomplishments over the past few years have reached record status. Unemployment is lower than it has ever been, we're running a budget surplus... I am an NDP supporter myself, but I'm telling you that to vote CP simply to "punish" the Paul Martin's Liberals for a scandal which originated back in the Chrétien era is a dangerous game for Canada. No matter the empty promises Harper might spout off today, there is no hiding the Conservative ideology and goals. If you value our social welfare, then I beg you, do not vote CP today, or ever.

The Republican party was the minority party in the US for decades, but they strategised and concentrated in those days, expanding their base, and making gains little by little, until they achieved what you see today. People, fascism doesn't start with a firework show... it starts off small, and builds intself little by little. Now we see the CP talking about military increases and missile defence. Soon it will be something else, and then something else, and so on. Now it's a minority government, then it will be a majoirty government, and that's when the real CP agenda will start to come forth. This is not about fear, it's about caution for not letting history repeat itself. These people know what they are doing; we do not know. They stand to make billions, and we stand to lose all the progress we have made.

I'm already living in an emerging fascist state. I don't want to go back to another one.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

cyberclark said:
The fix is in:
I wonder if Harper has the strenght of his conviction and will do away with the gun laws. I think not!

As much as I would like to see the Firearms Act completely trashed, I think that would be a hard sell in this Parliament.

Harper could probably kill the long-gun registry, though, on a free vote. A lot of Liberals don't like it either.

Or simply eliminate the funding for it...........
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Ending its funding doesn't mean the Government doesn't have to pay for it; wouldn't they just end up pulling a deficit by predending that the program doesn't exist?
 

Freethinker

Electoral Member
Jan 18, 2006
315
0
16
Re: RE: Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

FiveParadox said:
Ending its funding doesn't mean the Government doesn't have to pay for it; wouldn't they just end up pulling a deficit by predending that the program doesn't exist?

The gun registry is now over the major cost hump and only needs maintenace going forward. Cutting it would be and idealogical stance, not a fiscally prudent one.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I think this is one of the issues that needs to be tackled right away.
 

McDonald

Nominee Member
Jan 23, 2006
80
1
8
Chicoutimi, Québec
www.myspace.com
There has to be a balance. The inner cities and urban centres have a great need for firearm restriction, whie the rural areas and sparsely populated areas have a need for gun ownership both for hunting and protection from bears and such. I'm sure something can be worked out.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Paul Martin and his progressive values on abortion.

Freethinker said:
FiveParadox said:
Ending its funding doesn't mean the Government doesn't have to pay for it; wouldn't they just end up pulling a deficit by predending that the program doesn't exist?

The gun registry is now over the major cost hump and only needs maintenace going forward. Cutting it would be and idealogical stance, not a fiscally prudent one.

Yep.

Upkeep to the tune of $100 million a year.

The Libs promised to spend only $20 million a year on it but..........