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
By ELIZABETH THOMPSON, NATIONAL BUREAU
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.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

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.

ELIZABETH.THOMPSON@SUNMEDIA.CA

The disgusting intolerance of the left

There's a little saying I came up with years ago, and I find I get to use it far too frequently... "The people who preach 'tolerance' are often the most intolerant people I've ever met."

Rachel, from the "Disco Baronettes" blog, has once again proven me correct, with her advocating physical and financial violence on anyone and everyone who supported California's Proposition 8 during the US election in November.

Despite her ignorance, Proposition 8 was not about "hatred" of homosexuals. Proposition 8 was, in fact, an effort by many of the people of California to protect something they valued, the institution of marriage.

Sadly, as Rachel has revealed, there are some people who now want to harm anyone who had anything to do with Proposition 8. Yea, that's the left's idea of democracy for you... you have a right to agree with their opinion, and that's about all.

Regardless of where you stand on Proposition 8, I think we can all agree, or at least we SHOULD be able to agree, that people have a right to their own personal beliefs, and a right not to have someone else's beliefs imposed on them. Otherwise, let's just go ahead and throw out this idiotic concept of democracy, shall we?

Of course, people are going to say that I've got it backwards, and that it's actually the supporters of Proposition 8 who are imposing their beliefs on everyone else. To them, I say that it's YOU that have it backwards. You see, marriage already had a definition, one that 90+% of the population was quite comfortable with. I submit to you that if you're going to seek to redefine it, then it is YOU who are imposing your morals and beliefs on the majority, NOT the other way around.

Anyway, that tired old discussion is not the purpose of this post... the purpose is to once again expose the utter hypocricy of the left, which I think has been done quite well by Rachel for me. The supposed adovates of democracy are once again happy for you to have your own beliefs, so long as they line up with theirs.

Otherwise, watch out... they might just try and slap you around.

Michael Glatze comes "out"

For those who don't know who he is, Michael Glatze is a former editor of "Young Gay America". He's been a spokesperson for the young homosexual movement for years, even sharing the stage with Matthew Shepard's mother at the JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He's appeared on PBS, has been quoted in TIME for an article on gay youth, and won the National Role Model Award from the Equality Forum.

Today, he relased an article that finally clears up why he walked away from the magazine... "In my experience, "coming out" from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life."

Discuss.

Funny... the "Little Guy" agrees with me

Well... it's nice to know that I'm amongst company that virtually no one will disagree with...

In an interview approaching the 25th anniversary of the Charter, Chretien said he was taken aback by a series of judicial rulings in 2003 -- his last full year as Liberal prime minister -- that put a stamp of legal approval on gay and lesbian weddings.

"I was caught by surprise. At the time I was 69 years old, you know, and this way of living was not very (much) a part of my culture.''

Chretien said it wasn't that he didn't think gay and lesbian relationships didn't deserve some kind of official recognition -- the cultural shock for him was that the courts rejected the idea of creating a separate category, commonly known as civil unions, for same-sex couples.

"Nobody objected basically to having a contract between the partners, there was no problem with that. It was when they used the word marriage, that got (to) rubbing people on the wrong side, including me... The courts said you have to call it marriage."

Humm... The Right Honourable Jean Chretien and I, he being one of the very guys who helped bring the Charter into being, agree that civil unions was the way we should have gone in regards to SSM.

Any Liberals who care to disagree with your hero, "The Little Guy"?

SSM - Michael Coren

Today's National Post has a great article by Michael Coren on the current debate on religious rights in this nation... and how the SSM debate is not about granting rights, but repressing the rights of people of faith.

Unfortunately, it's behind a subscriber firewall. If anyone finds a copy online, please let me know.

Beyond tolerance: A quintessentially Canadian acceptance of differences has been transformed into the forced approval of homosexuality

By Michael Coren

When the same-sex marriage issue was being debated before parliament and the courts, many of us argued that the entire issue had ceased being about toleration long ago but was now about affirmation. In other words, a quintessentially Canadian acceptance of differences had been transformed into the forced approval of homosexuality, particularly when it came to people of faith. After a year of numerous costly and exhausting human rights complaints, it appears that we were correct.

Likely the first of many

The first of what will likely be many "I TOLD YOU SO" posts... from the CBC... "Official refused to marry gay couple, rights tribunal hears".

When I worked at a local Hospital, I once got a call from the "Gyne-Specialty Clinic". Two guesses as to what that was a code-word for. Anyway, it was just an information call, I didn't actually have to do anything to assist them. That day, I said to my co-worker, "If I EVER get a call from that department again, I'm putting them on hold, and I'm transferring the call to you." Why? Because I REFUSED to actively assist a department that I knew to be performing abortions. Was it in my job description to help them? Yep, it sure was. But if push came to shove, I wasn't going to budge... I would NOT lend any assistance in the murder of human beings. Thankfully, the situation never arose again.

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is presently reviewing a review of a decision (yes, three steps there, a review of a review of a decision) that says that a man of faith has no right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple if it violates his religious beliefs.

Yes, he is an employee of the Crown, employed to perform civil marriages. But here's the problem... when he was hired, he was hired knowing what his job description was. There was no problem back then in regards to his religious beliefs. Now, they've gone and changed the law, and with it, his job description, which now requires him to violate his religious convictions, should the need arise... and they won't make any accommodation for him. (By the way, can an employer legally do that? Just asking)

For the record, he didn't seek to prevent their marriage... he simply indicated that he would be unable to perform the ceremony, and referred them to someone else. That was the right thing to do... allowed him to not violate his conscience, and allowed them to legally marry. That should have been the end of it.

But of course, activism just doesn't know when to quit.

h/t to thePolitic (who also says "I told you so"... like so many of us...)