Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

[the caracal kid]

the other thing to consider is the wealthier you are the more mobility and options you have.

the poorest people are stuck buying things where they are and paying the local taxes, where others can shop through lower taxed regions.

however, consumption is the one thing we need to be encouraging people to reduce. overconsumption is a core of an unsustainable society. true, it is a core of the western faulty economic models. It needs to change though. We need smart, sustainable usage, not a consumption driven economy. The time is ready for the PCE.

 

[Triple_R]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

well, triple, we will have to agree to disagree.

i think our political system should be secular. That is NOT to deny anybody the freedom to believe in whatever they want (so long as it is not harmful to others). It is a divisive issue to reference deities because deities stir up emotions, postive and negative for people. We need to leave the divisive past behind us. Think of the Muslim who migrated here to excape christian persecution, for an example. Religion breeds problems, and they are problems we don't need stirred up, no matter what one's personal beleifs are. Now I am for proactive understanding of religions so people can get along, but not for religions being referenced in our leadership. And again, look at the context under which Harper is playing this card and you will see it for the divisive nature it is.

Religion breeds many more positives than negatives. Psychology studies have continuously shown that religious people are, on average, happier and longer-living than their secular counterparts. I've also read many clinical studies that clearly indicate that prayer can be very helpful to a person in healing (and yes, they did control for the placebo effect).

Religion only breeds negatives when it is fervently anti-ecumenical - in a pluralistic country like Canada, were our multi-faith society is embraced by the vast majority of Canadians, religious breeds many many more positives than negatives.

I take great exception to your anti-Christian/anti-religion attitude, sir. I get the sense that in your Canada, religious people would feel decidedly unwelcomed. Unofficially banning "God bless Canada" is much more harmful, and devisivie, than anybody saying "God bless Canada". Indeed, "God bless Canada" is not divisive at all. It only divides tolerant people from intolerant people. How are those who are intolerant of the religious beliefs of others any better than those who are intolerant of the sexual orientation of others, sir?

No, I don't agree to disagree. I see attitudes like yours' far too often, and I will strongly oppose them whenever I can. Canada's health care system was the brainchild of a religious man - the great Tommy Douglas. His Christian faith was the underpinning for his belief that all Canadians, regardless of level of income, have a right to free and/or affordable health care.

Religions should be referenced by our leaders, because religion is a key part of our society... whether you like it, or not. Certainly, an appeal to the Creator of the universe should not be looked down upon.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

Only the regressives are unhappy with the courts
becuase the courts bring change,
----------------------Caracal_kid-------------------------

That's judicial activism.

The very definition of it.

And many have accepted the unelected to bring
change that was formerly reserved to our elected
legislatures.

Any conservative worth his salt has the right
to bring clarity to who is annointed to create law
and thus create public policy.

Liberals everywhere have sought the courts to
create law by expanding or changing the original intent
of a law instead of pushing for consensus in
an elected legislature.

Admittely this area of who creates law becomes
grey.

But it is no sin to bring clarity by questioning who
should have this power of creating law.

Call it what you will. I think it is a necessary function of the courts when dealing with minority rights. It is an additonal check in the system to protect minorities.

The exact same thing happened in the USA with inter-racial marriage. The courts entrenched rights that widespread bigotry would never have allowed. Even thirty years after the change in law, a referrendum would still have made it illegal for inter-racial marriage.

Should minority rights only be granted when the bigotry and hatred fade? Any idea when that would have been? Possibly never if the courts had not intervened?

 

[the caracal kid]

Triple,

there are many other factors at play in the studies that show relgious people live longer and happier. Yes, studies have shown prayer and also meditiation to be benefitial in healing, but that has to do with treating the entire person instead of just the "ailment".

"Anti-religious": nope. i am not anti-religious, i could not care less what religions people want to study. In fact i already stated i am FOR people studying many religions to understand each other increase tolorance. I am just not for religion in politics. It has its place, and it is in the hearts of its adherents. You will find that the religion itself is rather immaterial since the revealed religions share many commonalities beneath the surface. It is not in religion one chooses to help another, or offer medical services, but in the social nature of man, which is the basis of all the mythologies.

Embrace humanity, that is the uniting factor. We are all on this planet together, and we are all one. That is the reality, not the divisions created by the superficial aspects of revealed religions which all borrowed heavily from each other and prior mythologies. To be anti-christian i would also be anti-jew, anti-mithra, anti-diest, anti-zorastorism, anti-krishna..... So understand this: i do not care what you believe so long as it is not harming others. (and yes, religion, the great tool of control has been used to cause great suffering)

 

[jimmoyer]

Actually the subject of Judicial Activism points
to a great irony of elected legislatures.

It appears that an elected legislature is often
inadequate, inefficient and compromised on the
issues of minority rights.

When Caracal_kid speaks of change by judges
he is speaking of judges assuming the power of
creating new law.

I understand that it is often dependent upon
judicial activism to create that new law that benefits
minority rights.

However, the controversy of judicial activism is
that sometimes issues other than minority rights like
taxes or business contracts are changed by Judges
who create new law, like dictating to a local council
to raise its taxes to pay for prison expansion, or
holding that a contract is no longer valid by a novel
interpretation that changes or expands the ORIGINAL
INTENT of the elected legislature.

In a sense the legislature can write new law
to cancel or make clear by written statute the new law made by judges.

I guess the self-emasculation of our elected
legislatures leaves a void for the judical system to fill.

The validity left to debating JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
is to return primacy to our legislature and requiring
consensus rather than judicial fiat.

Perhaps we want less burden to fall on our
elected representatives ?

LOL !!

I feel myself retreating on this matter.

 

[Triple_R]

The caracal kid - At a policy level, I can understand a person not wanting religion in politics. But to take exception to "God bless Canada" - that's either petty and silly (and AWFULLY anal retentive)... or something worse (i.e. bigotry against religious people). Stephen Harper (or anybody, for that matter) saying "God bless Canada" does not turn Canada into a theocracy. It does not change one signal public policy. It does not force one signal atheist, or agnostic, to believe in God. It does not force anybody to do anything, in fact.

Religion has been used inappropriately in the past, yes. Of course it has. But we're talking about present-day Canada - that's what we should be concerned with.

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

fret over how something as innocuous as "God bless Canada" could, somehow, be dividing the country.

Years ago I wouldn't have noticed, but after years of Bush, I see as symptomatic of an attempt to echo the Bush success formula in Canada. The value twisting marriage of religion and politics that is part and parcel of US politics.

It is to the point now that Religous leaders also echo republican values . When they tossed the school board that brought in "Intelligent Design", one of the local religious leaders said he could see this coming, everything was going downhill since they started teaching evolution.... and Environmentalism.

Environmentalism? When did this become something that religious leaders where against. Probably when they became just as coopted by the GOP as the GOP is by religion.

This is the kind of mess I don't want to see in Canada, and I will oppose every manifestation of it I encounter.

 

[BigB]

First of all, I will say that I am disgusted with this Liberal government. However during this campaign Mr. Harper has constantly reminded us of the scandal.His platform has been very quiet. I would love to vote for the Conservative Party but not for this guy. I am in business and love numbers so I decided to check out the Conservative platform. This is what I came up with:

1)"Reduce the GST by one point right away to six percent. And we will reduce the GST by another point to five percent,over five years."
- If you make $50,000/year net (which most people do not) and you spent every single dime, you save $500. How about most people who clear 25k to 35k net? you save$250 to $350/a year. Great you still save something right? But what happens when programs are cut in order to provide this GST relief? YOU END UP PAYING OUT MORE THAN YOU SAVE!!!!! The second percent comes in effect just when re-election rolls around.

2)"Too many crime-related problems begin when our youth are not equipped with the necessary life skills to make the right choices, to say "no" to drugs, gangs and violence. We need to invest in positive oppurtunities for young people to say "yes" to."

*Direct $50 million in funding into community-based,educational,sporting,cultural and vocational oppurtunities for young people at risk.

-Okay this is our future right? We can prevent criminals right here, we can create model citizens? All with 50 million dollars?
Here is something to think about: As of July 2005 the population of kids in Canada from the age of 0-14 is 5,885,276 making up 17.9% of our population. $50 million divided by 5,885,276 = $8.49. Wow what an investment in our future!! What do you think we can get each child? This is pathetic considering what he is willing to spend on military.

3) Defending Canada
* Increase spending on the Canadian Forces by $5.3 billion over the next five years, beyond the currently projected levels of defense spending.
* Recruit 13,00 additional regular forces and 10,00 additional reserve forces personnel.
* Acquire epuipment needed to support a multi role, combat-capable maritime, land and air force. Fundamental capability requirements are national surveillance and control, counter-terrorism, air and sea deployability, and logistics supportability.
- Sure I agree that we should secure our country and it's borders but let's do the math: 23,00 new soldiers + combat-capable+ air and sea deployability = We are going to war!! Roughly13,000 soldiers a month is the current US recruitment rate. Which is not being filled. "Oh yeah there is a country above us with 32.8 million people , Let's see if they can join us" If we get involved in any war, then we will be living in fear just like our neighbours. Canadians in general, regardless of political belief are regarded as kind and peaceful people globally. Let's not change that.
It is sad that this guy is going to win.He is very robotic and lacks personality. He is coached on how to appeal to people! Who will coach him on appealing to other foreign leaders? He even sayed himself that he really hasn't travelled outside of North America much. This is not the Conservative Party . This is still the Alliance. Have you noticed his candidates refuse to speak to the media? Always avoiding questions.Every press conference is organized with set questions and no outsiders allowed. This my friends I fear. Don't forget the scandal, that should never happen again! However will we remember the scandal when we are the 51st state?

 

[earth_as_one]

Harper's God Bless Canada sounds far too close to Bush's God Bless America.

Hopefully its just a harmless remark and Harper isn't dropping hints that he believes he is on a divine mission like George Bush.

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

God Bless Canada raises a flag. Hopefully our next Prime Minister isn't some sort of religious fanatic with visions of holy wars, inquistions and infallibity. I would hate to have Canada's laws and foreign policy decisions start being based on some zealot's scripture interpretations as is becoming a reality in the US:

Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power

US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy

George Monbiot
Tuesday April 20, 2004
The Guardian


To understand what is happening in the Middle East, you must first understand what is happening in Texas. To understand what is happening there, you should read the resolutions passed at the state's Republican party conventions last month. Take a look, for example, at the decisions made in Harris County, which covers much of Houston.

The delegates began by nodding through a few uncontroversial matters: homosexuality is contrary to the truths ordained by God...

...The motion they adopted stated that Israel has an undivided claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, that Arab states should be "pressured" to absorb refugees from Palestine, and that Israel should do whatever it wishes in seeking to eliminate terrorism...

...Jesus will return to Earth when certain preconditions have been met. The first of these was the establishment of a state of Israel. The next involves Israel's occupation of the rest of its "biblical lands" (most of the Middle East), and the rebuilding of the Third Temple on the site now occupied by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosques. The legions of the antichrist will then be deployed against Israel, and their war will lead to a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon. The Jews will either burn or convert to Christianity, and the Messiah will return to Earth...

...The true believers are now seeking to bring all this about. This means staging confrontations at the old temple site (in 2000, three US Christians were deported for trying to blow up the mosques there), sponsoring Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, demanding ever more US support for Israel, and seeking to provoke a final battle with the Muslim world/Axis of Evil/United Nations/ European Union/France or whoever the legions of the antichrist turn out to be...

...The people who believe all this don't believe it just a little; for them it is a matter of life eternal and death. And among them are some of the most powerful men in America. John Ashcroft, the attorney general, is a true believer, so are several prominent senators and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1195568,00.html

So yes God Bless Canada is harmless. But I have a problem with being in a hurry to usher in Armagaeddon or religious beliefs superceding fundamental human rights and freedoms.

 

[missile]

Regarding a marriage between the Right and Religion: We don't have any prominent religious leaders with any influence to peddle here[and none of the TV persuasion,either]

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

Stephen Harper (or anybody, for that matter) saying "God bless Canada" does not turn Canada into a theocracy. It does not change one signal public policy.

The point is that Canada is not a theocracy, ergo, political leaders must keep religious beliefs to themselves.

It does not force anybody to do anything, in fact.

Actually, it forces all of us to hear it everytime Harper says it. It also should make all of us realize that his interpretation of his faith is what will be driving Harper and his gang if they get into office.

And that's what we should be concerned with.

 

[Triple_R]

Citizen - It's nice to see that you don't believe in freedom of speech. It's nice to see that you are an anti-Christian/anti-religious bigot. Grow the hell up. Quit being so defensive over a harmless comment.

You people astound me. Absolutely astound me. Don't you see the blatant intolerance, and bigotry, in your own words? You actually think that religious people shouldn't be able to express their religious beliefs. You people scare me a whole hell of a lot more than Harper does! Does freedom of expression mean nothing to you? Does a Canadian suddenly lose his/her freedom of expression once s/he's elected? If so, why would anybody run for office? Why would anybody sacrifice a central freedom of western society?

My word!

If you can't discern the difference between "God bless Canada", and theocratic laws, then you need to give your head one hell of a shake!

 

[Triple_R]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

Actually, it forces all of us to hear it everytime Harper says it.

No it doesn't! Nobody is forcing you to follow politics! Nobody is forcing you to watch the news! GROW UP!

 

[Freethinker]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

You people astound me. Absolutely astound me. Don't you see the blatant intolerance, and bigotry, in your own words? You actually think that religious people shouldn't be able to express their religious beliefs.

I don't think I said anywhere that harper shouldn't be allowed to espouse his beliefs or end his speeches with all hail the great Flying Spagetti Monster if he so chooses.

But for me it is one of many parallels with the GW Bush political machine and I see it as a sign that he would like to use tactics that close mirror the GOP pattern. I absolutely believe Stephen is moulding his party along the same lines of the GOP he so admires.

And you guess what? I am free to say that. I also have the freedom to vote against him for that perception.

Stopping him entirely may not be in our power, but I will be a lot more comfortable if I can help limit him to a minority with the shortest leash possible.

 

[sanch]

You should probably know that Bill Clinton also tried to attend church each Sunday and made sure he was photographed doing it. He also tended to say God Bless America frequently. John Kerry did it as well on the campaign trail.

If you read the “Hate Propaganda" section of the Criminal Code of Canada you will see that there are different standards for free speech if they have a religious context or not. This would seem to discriminate against people who do not belong to any religious group. Yet it is liberal legislation.

 

[pastafarian]

In the US, it would be impossible for anyone who didn't pander to the religious extremists to be elected, as even the non-extremists would find a non-professing Christian unsettiing.

It was the perception of Bush I as a lukewarm Christian that was partly reponsible for his loss to Reagan in the 1980 Republican primaries. It hurt him early in the 1988 primaries against Pat Robertson, but when Robertson urged his former supporters to transfer support to Bush, it really helped Bush in the Presidential bid.

Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were aware of the importance of appearing to be a devout Christian in the eyes of the US electorate which was why former frat-boy, party-animal ,Little Bush's "coming to the Lord" was such a big deal and why his "favourite philosopher" was reported to be Jesus and why poeple don't break out the strait-jackets when he says God tells him to do things.

Because Canada's culture is less tolerant of religious fanaticism, Stephen Harper's references to God, no matter how passing, are uncharacterisric and cause most people (rightly, in my opinion) to think that he's trying to appease the so-cons that he's still on their side even though he's toned down the rhetoric in order to get elected. The real nutcases in the country are already accusing him of selling out and becoming left-wing.

 

[sanch]

But don’t the hate laws cater to religious fanaticism of all stripes by protecting it? These types of laws would seem to promote religious extremism by giving it special status. Not certain if this makes Canada more or less tolerant than the US but it is somewhat weird and inconsistent.

The organizational structure of the religious right is taking a major hit right now and their goal is self-preservation and they are hardly in a position to be exporting their ideology in any effective way. Karl Rove is still under investigation. Ralph Reed’s ties to gambling have been exposed. Tom Delay has been indicted. Pat Robertson has been discredited. The far right is furious with Bush because of fiscal irresponsibility. They are not some organized force waiting for the results of the election tomorrow to begin the invasion of Canada.

What is happening in Canada is that common activity like US/ Canadian relations or the use of religious references are being pulled out of context and being amplified to show how dangerous the conservatives are.

 

[pastafarian]

Personally, I'm against hate speech laws of any kind. I think they drive hate-mongers underground and make it harder to keep tabs on them. As for the decline in the Religious Right, one can only hope, but I think they'll just wait til the dust clears, put out a few press releases about "a few bad apples", invoke the "life-changing power of Jesus" and come back even slicker and more media-savvy than before.

 

[FiveParadox]

If our hate speech laws were repealed, then yes, they wouldn't have to go underground, but then we could also be inundated with speeches chocked full of hatred and discrimination. I would assert that Canada would suffer as a result.

 

[Citizen]

Re: RE: Anyone dislike Bush, but voting for Harper?

Citizen - It's nice to see that you don't believe in freedom of speech. It's nice to see that you are an anti-Christian/anti-religious bigot. Grow the hell up. Quit being so defensive over a harmless comment.

You people astound me. Absolutely astound me. Don't you see the blatant intolerance, and bigotry, in your own words? You actually think that religious people shouldn't be able to express their religious beliefs. You people scare me a whole hell of a lot more than Harper does! Does freedom of expression mean nothing to you? Does a Canadian suddenly lose his/her freedom of expression once s/he's elected? If so, why would anybody run for office? Why would anybody sacrifice a central freedom of western society?

My word!

If you can't discern the difference between "God bless Canada", and theocratic laws, then you need to give your head one hell of a shake!

Ad hominem attacks do nothing to support your argument. I suggest it is you who should do the "growing up".

Of course citizens should be able to express their political beliefs. That isn't the issue here and if you kept your knee down instead of letting it jerk up over this issue you would perhaps be able to understand the point.

Those vying for the PMO, or those already ensconced in same, have absolutely no need to end their public policy speeches seeking a blessing from any deity. It is offensive and inappropriate, but more importantly, it gives the electorate and taste of what will be driving that individual when he is in office.

George W. Bush thinks God speaks to him. I suggest his wife Laura should be calling the local insane asylum if that's the case.