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.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Of COURSE I'm going to comment on this one

From today's Toronto Sun: "Loss of faith in Grits: Study"

As I have been saying for some time now, the way that the Liberal Party of Canada treats people of faith IS DISGUSTING. Though I once supported one of their candidates in the 1997 election, it's unlikely that I could ever do so again, because that Party HATES, truely hates, people of faith. To them, if you are a person of faith, you are to be ridiculed and marginalized, at any and all costs. To them, our opinion is irrelevant... not only is it irrelevant, to them, it's a great big bullzye for them to shoot at relentlessly.

Take, for example, the SSM debate... which was the beginning of the end of supporting the Liberals for people of faith. While many of us understood that accomodation needed to be made via civil unions of something of that nature, the Liberal Party of Canada decided instead to pit one group of Canadians against another, and said it was an all or nothing proposition. They ignored repeated calls for dialouge and compromise, and rammed their agenda down the throats of faith groups.

And the unintended consequences we tried to warn them about are now becoming a reality. What's that, polygamy is right around the corner you say? Can't be true, the Liberals said that would never happen. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the "unintended consequences"...

Either way, Elizabeth Thompson is bang on in this article... THIS LOSS OF SUPPORT IS 100% THIER OWN FAULT.
Loss of faith in Grits: Study
Party's support dips among evangelical Christians
24th September 2009

The Liberal Party was once the most popular political party with Canada's millions of evangelical Christians but has lost much of that support to the Conservatives and the New Democrats, a new study says.

And it is largely its own fault.

"It's depressing as hell," Liberal MP John McKay said. "It shows a voting trend which is not favourable to my party and I think we have some repair work to do."

McKay, who is also an evangelical Christian, said Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is taking the findings of the study seriously and is trying to repair relations with Canada's estimated 3.5-4 million Evangelical Christians.

The study, by Don Hutchinson and Rick Hiemstra of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, tracked the voting patterns of Canada's evangelical Christians from 1996 to 2008. Among the things they found was that there is a lot of difference between the way evangelical Christians vote in the United States and in Canada.

For one, Canada's evangelicals don't vote in a monolithic block for one single party. Secondly, while the most popular party with evangelicals is currently the Conservatives, the second most popular party is the NDP.


The Liberals used to be a natural home for evangelical Christians, who care about issues such as social justice. In 1996, the Liberals were by far the most popular party with evangelical Christians in every region except the West, where the Reform Party was slightly more popular.

However, those voters began to move away from the Liberals after the party denigrated and marginalized them, the study says.

"Each time Canadians went to the federal polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the Liberals only managed to hold on to roughly half of the evangelical voters they had at the previous election," says the report.

"When evangelical voters left, they generally went to the Conservatives and the NDP, in a 2 to 1 ratio."

The fact so many evangelicals turned to the NDP and the Green Party leads the authors to conclude that it wasn't as much the policy positions adopted by the Liberals but the way the Liberals treated evangelical Christians.

In 2006, moral issues were a priority for about 25% of evangelicals when it came to deciding how to vote. The study found 75% cited other issues such as the economy, health care and cleaning up corruption as being the priority.


Labels: , ,


  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 11:43:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    What's that, polygamy is right around the corner you say?

    And it's about time. The only reason it was ever illegal to begin with was to try to keep Mormons out of Canada. That obviously didn't work, and since there's no good reason for it to be illegal anyway I'm hoping it will soon be fully legalized.

    As far as the rest of the post goes, I generally vote NDP myself, so I can't really comment much more on it.

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 11:45:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Actually I do have one more comment:

    Take, for example, the SSM debate... which was the beginning of the end of supporting the Liberals for people of faith.

    There are a lot of "people of faith" who fully support SSM (yours truly included). Not every person of faith is a conservative, evangelical Christian.

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 12:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…


  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 12:10:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous rightful said…

    as a resident of the west, one can see 1st hand in the faith community here, how the lieberal demonizing of all Christians and even PMSH has done irreparable damage to the liberal cause - in one scene on the news showing Stephen Harper laying a wreath at a memorial, and bowing his head in respect - my wife commented "you know , I think he is actually praying" as opposed to all the lieberal fakers that have gone before - Amen
    I pray for a Tory majority

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 02:31:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Don't Tase Me, Bro! said…

    You should read what I wrote about the study in my blog. I think I sound even more hard on my party than you do.

    Actually, in all seriousness, I'm concerned that in Canada these days, if you see yourself as a progressive or a liberal, people automatically assume you are either an athetist or non-believer because so much of what the Bible teaches us is contradictory to what is accepted today as 'normal' (i.e. gays and abortion are okay, single mothers are the norm...). One of the reasons I didn't come to Christ for some time was that I thought because I was a Liberal, my views goes against the glory of God.

    For the record, I as a Liberal do not hate people who are religious and who don't believe in certain things. Heck, I think I've gone the other way these past few years and side more with them than with Grits. But there is a certain disconnect with values voters that Liberals have that they really need to rectify.

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 05:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Frances said…

    CH - and just how do you propose to deal with the surplus young male population?

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 07:06:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Too bad the article doesn't give us the raw numbers, but I think I've read elsewhere that the Conservatives (understandably) dominate the Evangelical vote in Canada. They've managed to balance conservative family values with social justice issues such as righting historical wrongs in Canada (e.g. Residential schools). When was the last time (before Harper) we've had a Prime Minister who actually said "God Bless Canada"?

    I am one of those many Evangelicals who have pledged "never again." Never again will I vote for the Liberal party. Not with people like Hedy Fry in their party.

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 09:53:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with Christian Heretic. There are many people of faith who are in favour of SSM, and can justify it on religious grounds.

    It would be interesting to see actual statistics on this, to know what the numbers are, but it seems to me that CC only counts some people of faith as "people of faith". It is possible that Stephen Harper has this same view. In 1997 speech he said that:

    "Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology"

    I doubt that these self-professed Christians believe that they have abandoned "Christian theology". People disagree on theological questions. They always have. Various Jewish, Christian and Muslim groups condone polygamy. They do so on the basis of their understanding of scriptures.

    If SSM is justified on the basis of a commitment to individual human equality--the kind of equality that, to paraphrase Rawls, involves the belief that every individual possesses an inviolability that even the welfare of the whole society cannot override--then polygamy (given the nature of marriage) seems to be unjustified for the same reason.

    Rawls was a “Kantian.” Kant, a pietist, thought that polygamy was a relationship in which "the person who surrenders herself gains only a small part of the man who gets her completely, and therefore makes herself into a mere thing." The inequality built such relationships was the reason to prohibit them.

    Would such an argument prevail in court? I doubt it. Often women get the short end of the stick when it comes to these things.

    That said, I am not sure if a case can be made for punishing the practitioners of polygamy. If it is associated with other horrible things (e.g., child abuse) then there is no need for a law against polygamy, since child abuse etc is already illegal. If there are adults who, as far as we can tell, living in these relationships of their own free will… why should the state intervene?

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 10:17:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    To Mr. or Ms. Anonymous who's comment I rejected for, umm, "unparliamentary language"... in fact, I understand the issue better than anyone, it seems.

    The Government of Canada doesn't get to define what marriage is and isn't. Marriage was defined long before Canada was a nation... long before the British and French Empires that came before Canada. And long before Rome who ruled Britian prior to that, etc., etc.

    Who gets to redefine an institution that has stood for centuries, perhaps even thousands of years? I submit to you that
    it's not any current government.

    Have a great day!

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 10:18:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    CH - and just how do you propose to deal with the surplus young male population?

    You're assuming all polygamists would be polygynists. There would be polyandrists too.

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 10:21:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Who gets to redefine an institution that has stood for centuries, perhaps even thousands of years? I submit to you that it's not any current government.

    CC, the current form of marriage that we have in North America is extremely recent and nothing like it was a few centuries ago, or even really a few decades ago.

  • At Thu. Sep. 24, 10:33:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I can't help myself:

  • At Fri. Sep. 25, 09:46:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I also suspect it would be unlikely that many people would want to be polygamist at all. I don't think people are that interested in "sharing."


Post a Comment

<< Home