Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Warren and Liberal bloggers attack Muslim Canadians

Take their argument to it's logical conclusion... anyone who believes in "the Creation myth", as the majority of the Muslim world does, is ineligable to hold a Cabinet portfolio in Canada, at least according to Warren Kinsella along with many other Liberal bloggers.

They haven't said that in so many words, mind you, but in their attempts to once again attack a Conservative Cabinet Minister, who happens to be a Christian, that's exactly what they've done. If a belief in "Creation" is a litmus test for Cabinet-ineligability here in Canada, then you can pretty much rule out a large chunk of Canada's Muslim population.

From Wikipedia:
Creation Myth - Islam
The creation narrative of Islam is split among many verses in the Qur'an. This narrative is similar to the Judeo-Christian accounts of creation. According to the Qur'an, the skies and the earth were joined together as one "unit of creation", after which they were "cloved asunder".[18]

The Qur'an states that the process of creation took 6 days or epochs (depending on the interpretation).
What's even more sad is that they don't even realize that they're also saying that a good percentage of the Jewish population is also automaticly ineligable to hold public office in this great country of ours.

Hello? What is this, 1930's Germany? And the Liberals claim their "friends" of the Jews? I think not, when they so openly riducule the Jewish Holy Book, the Torah.

Why is it that Liberals seem to so vehemently hate Christians? Or anyone of faith for that matter?

Labels: , , , ,

26 Comments:

  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 04:44:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Eskimo said…

    In Kinsella's little world it's bad for a Conservative to believe in Jesus, but cool that his leader is gung-ho for torture. Good grief.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 04:49:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger KC said…

    Science is science, and Canadians (even Liberals) are entitled to reject politicians based on their "scientific beliefs".

    If a politician refused to acknowledge that the world is a sphere I wouldnt vote for them. If they refused to acknowledge that HIV caused AIDS I wouldnt vote for them. If they refused to acknowledge that there is a force called gravity which anchors us to the ground I would reject him.

    This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. "Religious beliefs" is not a get out of jail free card when it comes to a rejection of widely accepted scientific belief. That would give special rights to the religious. Yes it is a litmus test for most people that the science Minister accept science... whether he be Jew, Muslim, Christian, Scientologist, Ba'hai, whatever.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 04:51:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    CC, do you remember, once upon a time, I was telling you about a forum I attended at the U of W a couple of months back?

    At that seminar, it came up that "the first person to cite Nazis loses the argument"

    For what it's worth

    Mike Wisniewski

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 05:04:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Ted said…

    Where did anyone say anywhere that believing in any particular thing whatsoever is a criteria for being in cabinet? Where did anyone say there was any criteria for being in cabinet?

    With respect Mr. CC, you are making things up.

    I do, however, think that a criteria for any particular cabinet portfolio should be that you do not hold personal views that are opposed to the portfolio.

    For example, it would be inappropriate to appoint as Minister in charge of bilingualism, someone who thinks we should be a unilingual country.

    It would be inappropriate to appoint as minister in charge of security an anarchist who believed laws are bad.

    Similarly, it would not be appropriate to appoint someone as a minister in charge of science if they held a view that was opposed to some basic science. You can argue all you want about whether evolution is "proven" in your eyes or not, but it is clear as day that a belief in "creationism/young earth" is antithetical to science.

    THAT is the point.

    So not only is your post misleading because no one is suggesting that cabinet ministers be vetted based on their faith. But it is also misleading because you create a false dichotomy that you are either Christian/Muslim/Jewish OR you believe in evolution because you can't have both.

    The vast majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews, including the Pope for Pete's sake, believe that there is no conflict between evolution and science and their religious views.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 05:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Almost any religious faith indicates a responsibility for your actions.

    The common theme is that one must practice self discipline and limit their own behavior or you will be held accountable in the after life.

    Modern lefties and the new type of "libertarians" hate this philosphy because it presumes that they can be WRONG.

    These people have a philosphy that "if they can JUSTIFY IT" - It's right.

    Lawyers, judges, activists (including most journalists), and social science academics are the new priesthood of this ANYTHING GOES philosophy.

    And C.C.? The media was *NOT* attacking Muslims (or jews or Zoroastrians for that matter).

    They were attacking Christians because there is the perception (rightly so) that Christians won't fight back,- unlike Muslims or Sikhs.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 06:03:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Ted, I am the aanonymous commenter just above you.

    You said "The vast majority of Christians, ....believe that there is no conflict between evolution and ...religious views."

    Thank you for saying so. That is correct.

    However, the news media, who despise Stephen Harper and conservatives ARE attacking this MP on the basis of his Christianity.

    It is truly a fair question. Would he have been asked a similar question if he were a Muslim or a Sikh? The answer of course is NO.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 06:05:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Ted said…

    Where were they "attacking Christians" Anonymous?

    It was a question. Not an attack.

    Even if you want to interpret it as an "attack", how are "Christians" attacked here?

    Most Christians believe in evolution. There are very few people in this world and very few Christians in this world who believe that the earth was created in six calendar days some 6000 to 10,000 years ago. Even the Pope has confirmed there is no conflict between the science of evolution and geology and the Bible.

    The arrogance of thinking that if you don't believe in Christianity the way I believe in Christianity then you are not really a Christian. So the Pope is not Christian???? It drives me bonkers.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 06:19:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger wilson said…

    ''I do, however, think that a criteria for any particular cabinet portfolio should be that you do not hold personal views that are opposed to the portfolio.''

    So, Ted says,
    athiests need only apply for science & tec positions in the government....isn't that just plain and simple discrimination?

    Don't we have some charter or bill of rights that allow Canadians to hold religious beliefs, without fear of persecution?

    Why stop at sc/tec Ted,
    how about health and industry, foriegn affairs and immigration?
    No place in government for ANY person with ANY religious beleifs, right Ted?

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 06:36:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Zorpheous said…

    So CC, how old is the world,... err,let me rephase that, how long ago did the Earth form? Or when was it created , if you are more comfortable with the question phrased like that.

    I wonder what Mr. Goodyear's opinion on the age of the Earth is.

    Oh and for the record, any religeon is my book is retarded.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 08:08:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Skinny Dipper said…

    Consider Mike Wisniewski's comment about mentioning Nazis in an argument. It's a taboo thing to avoid.

    If I could have given the minister advice, I would have told him to say that he trusts the people in his department to use their expertise and skills well. I would have also told the minister to mention that he serves the Crown--Queen Elizabeth II. I far as I know, she seems very religious. That should disqualify her from being the queen.

    I do believe that people on the left and right need to respect people who are religious. It doesn't mean that we need to agree with them. It does mean that people will hold beliefs that are different from their own. Indeed, when I saw the list of countries where immigrants to Canada come from (posted on a Blogging Tories forum), most of the people seem to come from countries that are highly religious. In the long run, no political group can ignore the religious immigrants.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 09:34:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Here's what gets me...Kinsella would have you believe at every opportunity he gets that he is a good catholic.....although he is openly opposed to many catholic teachings.....and here he goes again,wadding into the theory of evolution while pontificating about following Lent......Like all good Libranos,Kinsella picks and chooses what is politically expedient..The guy is the biggest hypocrite in the blodgoshere...

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 09:47:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Ted said…

    Don't be daft, again, Wilson.

    It is not about religion it is about science. Christians believe in evolution. Muslims believe in evolution. Jews believe in evolution. Some small subset of Christians hold that the world was created in 6 days about 6000 to 10000 years ago and yes, I think someone who is so in denial as to believe that should not be in charge of our science funding.

    Similarly, I think Seventh Day Adventists are more than welcome to be a cabinet minister in any portfolio, but I would be concerned about them being in charge of health care if they don't believe in transfusions, just as a Wichen can be in any portfolio if they are competent but the nature of their beliefs indicate that it would not be appropriate for if that Wichen believes in non-intervention and herbal remedies as many but not all do then again he or she would not be appropriate for science or medicine.

    As it turns out, Goodyear does believe in evolution apparently so all this hyperventilating over "attacks" on "Christianity" have all gone to waste.

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 10:13:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Eric said…

    Of all the comments I think Skinny Dipper is the most appropriate. The question strikes to the matter of respect for person's religious opinions or faith but I'd like to quote one person who's views I find relevant to this question.

    "The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

    -Albert Einstein

     
  • At Tue. Mar. 17, 11:47:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    .....And so Ted dodges the "Muslim" question yet again.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 06:58:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Devo said…

    No one has a problem with Goodyear's Christianity. It's his refusal to acknowledge his beliefs that is troublesome. It seems to me that it should be a bother to you as well -- 'don't hide your light under a bushel' and all.

    You have also conveniently failed to make reference the conservative bloggers who have criticized Goodyear. But that's no surprise is it?

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 08:23:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Paul Wells has a good blog post about this.

    The whole thing is a non-issue as Mr. Goodyear has said he believes in evolution. A better politician would have smartly avoided the whole problem.

    I would choose to judge a science minister by his actions and not by what his religious beliefs are. So far I don't like his actions on NSERC funding but this has nothing to do with his possible ambivalence on evolution.

    I would also like to mention that in my 5 years of research in genetics and genomics I have not come across anything that doesn't fit evolutionary theory. The evidence is very convincing.
    H.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 08:55:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Boy, is this a ridiculous stretch to try to bash - unbelievably stupid. Watch that elastic, it's going to break.

    Geez, I wonder, if Kinsella east cereal for breakfast, is there something hidden in that? Hmm...maybe eh?

    Lyn

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 10:37:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Frances said…

    Ted - it's the Jehovah's Witnesses, not the Seventh Day Adventists, who don't allow blood transfusions. And you are avoiding the real question: just how does non-belief in evolution disqualify a person from being minister of science, given that the number of decisions that person has to made for which evolution would be a factor would be practically zero.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 11:47:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Ted said…

    Thanks for the correction, Frances. Stupid mistake on my part.

    And I don't think I am avoiding the question at all. In fact I think it addresses the concern Canadians have here - by many on the left and on the right (Colby Cosh for example has a great article on this in the National Post today), non-believers and Christians - head on. If someone has a particular belief that is antithetical to a particular portfolio, then they may be qualified for many other portfolios but they are not the appropriate person for that portfolio.

    Someone who believes - for whatever reason, religious, or whatever - that blood transfusions are immoral should not be a Minister of Health. Someone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job by Bush or that Israel is causing genocide in Palestine should not our Minister of Defence/Foreign Affairs/Security. Someone who does not believe in free markets may be a good Minister of Education or Minister of Health or Indian Affairs, but should not be Minister of Industry/Trade/Finance.

    Similarly, a person who does not believe in a foundational theory of science might make for a good Minister of Industry or Interprovincial Affairs, but should not be Minister of Science.

    It is NOT about someone's religion. It is about their views on a science question. If someone is in charge of doling out dollars for scientific research, it does matter to most Canadians whether they are qualified to properly assess where those dollars are to go and what criteria they will apply.

    Flaherty admitted in September that funding cuts to the arts was an ideological based decision. Now the Harper government is cutting massive amounts of funding to scientific research. It is completely 100% legitimate for Canadians to ask what kind of criteria will bear on where that money will go. 100% legitimate.

    And since it is 100% legitimate, it is legitimate to know or want to know if non-scientific criteria, ideological or theological criteria are being factored in.

    Someone who believes in a 6 day creation some 6000-10000 years ago has brought theology into their scientific analysis. And it is fully legitimate to ask about this.

    Most Christians, including the Pope, see no conflict between evolution and the Bible, as do Muslims and Jews and Hindus etc... so this is not about science vs. religion.

    And it is most certainly not anti-Christian.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 11:55:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Davey said…

    You are correct,Ted. Most followers of major religions accept evolution and find no conflict with creationism.
    Why then would it even be a question? It's like asking Harper if he loves Canada - irrelevant and simply an attempt to create controversy where there is none.
    No bia there, eh?!

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 12:33:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Ted said…

    Well the "Do you love Canada" question was stupid, I agree. There was some weak context behind the question - Harper's firewall letter and proto-separatist rantings - but it was a stupid stupid unfair question no doubt about it. But this is hardly like that.

    The Conservatives have been gutting scientific research funding. Goodyear in particular has been very antagonistic with the scientific community as has been reported. So why is this the case? When the Conservatives have talked about increasing our competitiveness, talk about ensuring there is no brain drain, are spending billions on infrastructure, billions on labs... why are they cutting funds to actual research? And the funds left over from the cuts are supposed to be focused and assessed not on scientific discovery but on commercial possibilities?

    Add to this, the admission by Flaherty just before the last election that arts funding, for example, was being cut because of ideological grounds.

    That is the context. Why do Conservatives not support scientific research?

    Then, as the article noted, there have been rumours that one reason for this could be Goodyear's evangelicalism.

    So there is context to this question. Is the opposition to scientific research ideological and even theological?

    Clearly this story has taken on a life of its own, but that is a totally legimate question in the context of the ideological0-driven cuts the Conservatives are making and the cuts they are making to scientific research.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 04:04:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You're bearing false witness again, CC. God can tell.

    Repent, sinner.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 05:06:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Eric said…

    Ted:

    If the Conservatives have been 'gutting' the science funding, those of us in the field of science research sure haven't noticed. There is a difference in priorities sure, the Conservatives are taking a more active role in directing funding towards research which can be quickly brought to application. But that is a question of direction rather than 'gutting'.

    For example, Canada cannot afford to spend the same amount of monies on big science experiments (like TRIUMF) as the USA, Japan, or Europe. Some nations (Japan in particular) have used a lot of time and effort to build up this sort of basic science to a point where they can actually compete with the USA (ie Tokia e Kamioka T2K experiments). But this was a government driven priority for many years.

    What the Conservatives this year have directed a large amount of funding towards is basic infrastructure which at many universities is sorely lacking. Some universities (the University of Windsor comes to mind) are desperately short of lab space and have been for years because of construction cost problems.

    I believe that they have asked NSERC to identify cost savings by eliminating areas of overlaps with other funding sources. On the surface there's nothing wrong with doing that if the money was reinvested (its not). But its hardly a 'gutting'.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 05:37:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Ted said…

    Then you have not really been following discussions about science funding or the budget.

    Science infrastructure funding has gone up. Funding for research has been cut. "Gutting" is my characterization and opinion, but significant cutting is a fact. It is partly what led to Goodyear's blowup with Canadian Association of University Teachers and other groups representing researchers.

    So if you haven't felt the cuts yet, you will.

     
  • At Wed. Mar. 18, 07:07:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Eric said…

    Ted:

    From my examination of the details of the budget changes to NSERC in particular (see http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/23/lets-play-cut-the-granting-councils/) there's not much changing. Several pilot projects were discontinued and there was a minor changes to the NSERC PGS award.

    The NSERC PGS award changes will not affect most graduate students or professors and neither will the ending of the pilot projects. The NSERC PGS award was typically available for 2 years for M.Sc students but typically graduate students did not begin receiving NSERC PGS award monies until they were in their second year of their M.Sc program and since the M.Sc program usually ends in the second year most students don't use the option of extending it to the second year (I didn't).

    Moreover, the budget increased grants to CFI, an extremely important funding source for many researchers.

    From what I understand the Humanities were hit harder because the government insisted that more of their money be directed at business students rather than social science/humanities students.

    I still do not understand the blowup between Goodyear and the CAUT representative fully and it seems like we'll never know for sure what actually happened. But my guess is that the representatives went in with an attitude and Goodyear responded in kind.

     
  • At Thu. Mar. 19, 06:40:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Eric said…

    Just to be clear about the NSERC PGS award since outside of the shutting down of pilot projects this seems to have caused the most serious consternation:

    The process for the awarding is such that a M.Sc student may apply twice for it. The first time you apply is during the final year of your undergraduate program, which places you at a serious disadvantage because you are competing with fully fledged M.Sc students who have performed real research and have a much higher academic standing than you. So generally these applications are rarely accepted. The rare few students who are accepted will be affected by the changes but again not significantly since every university has extensive support programs already in place for graduate students. Sure this will force them to do TA work after their first year. But seriously, most graduate students have to do TA work anyways so I don't really feel that they are that hard done by.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home