Government on the brink?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by Molson Man
Trust is the issue here.

Exactly. Can I trust that Day will fight just as hard to pass a bill that is in the interests of the country but not in the interests of his religious beliefs, as he would say.....for a bill that is in direct agreement with his faith?

Personally, I would have to say no.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Apr 11 2005, 04:36 PM
A deeply relgious person can successfully make the separation of church and state, and can make the distinction between personal values and national policy. A deeply religious person strives to live their own personal lives as they see fit. How they live their personal lives is for them to reconcile with their belief system. It is not for them to dictate how others live their lives. Members of government take an oath to represent the people, not force religious values upon the people, and they usually make this oath by swearing to their god. In other words, it would be sacrilege for a deeply religious person to break an oath before god and force his/her values upon the people.

So if Day is in a position to vote an issue (let's say some sort of abortion issue) where the "majority" of Canada wanted some sort of pro-choice decision, would he vote against his religious beliefs knowing it would cause the deaths of what he considers to be people (fetuses) or would he break his oath to represent the "people"?

The problem is obvious. I can't trust a religious fanatic to make decisions for the people or in the best interest of country. They are too conflicted. They have a higher power to report to so I can't see how their oath to represent my interests and the interest of the rest of Canada can come ahead of that.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Tron_fdc+Apr 11 2005, 09:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Tron_fdc @ Apr 11 2005, 09:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Molson Man
Trust is the issue here.

Exactly. Can I trust that Day will fight just as hard to pass a bill that is in the interests of the country but not in the interests of his religious beliefs, as he would say.....for a bill that is in direct agreement with his faith?

Personally, I would have to say no. [/b][/quote]
That is your decision. Although looking at the 2001 Census, it seems that roughly 80% of Canadians have stated they have some sort of religious affiliation. There aren't going to be to many people left to vote for once we weed them out of the electoral process.

As a voter, when a man or woman says "I believe (for whatever reason) in X, but if the people of Canada want Y, I have no choice but to give them Y", I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see they have betrayed my trust. I would much rather do that than give my trust to a government who has betrayed my trust for the past three terms and counting.

I see many valid arguments against the Conservatives, but the fear mongering about a Conservative Religious Jihad starting from the west and sweeping all the sinners into the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a little silly in my opinion.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Apr 11 2005, 04:36 PM
As far as the practise what you preach comments go: you seem to have a misconception that all deeply religious people are preachers, when in fact most deeply religious people are happy to live their lives as they see fit, and let others do the same. I admit there are pesky ones, but I consider them the exception, not the rule.

Well I don't know what Bible you read but the one I read wasn't recommending that Christians just keep their beliefs to themselves and never attempt to spread them. Do most Christians follow all aspects of the bible? No, of course not. But excuse me for assuming that some of them do follow through and act on what the Bible says. And excuse me for assuming these "deeply religious" folks are the ones that are doing it.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 10:00 AM
So if Day is in a position to vote an issue (let's say some sort of abortion issue) where the "majority" of Canada wanted some sort of pro-choice decision, would he vote against his religious beliefs knowing it would cause the deaths of what he considers to be people (fetuses) or would he break his oath to represent the "people"?

The problem is obvious. I can't trust a religious fanatic to make decisions for the people or in the best interest of country. They are too conflicted. They have a higher power to report to so I can't see how their oath to represent my interests and the interest of the rest of Canada can come ahead of that.

I believe the party platform has been for free votes on these type of issues. If he followed his word, he would vote the way he thinks his consituents would want him to, and the members of every other party are free to do the same. If his consituents feel mis-represented, he will answer to them in the next election. If the majority of Canadians want it, it would happen.

...and is Day a fanatic, or is he honest about his beliefs, and how he intends to deal with them in regards to his job? I would suggest there are many more "fanatics" by your standards in government right now that have just decided its not in your best interest to know their deepest religious convictions.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands+Apr 11 2005, 05:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MolsonInBothHands @ Apr 11 2005, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Exactly. Can I trust that Day will fight just as hard to pass a bill that is in the interests of the country but not in the interests of his religious beliefs, as he would say.....for a bill that is in direct agreement with his faith?

Personally, I would have to say no.

That is your decision. Although looking at the 2001 Census, it seems that roughly 80% of Canadians have stated they have some sort of religious affiliation. There aren't going to be to many people left to vote for once we weed them out of the electoral process.

As a voter, when a man or woman says "I believe (for whatever reason) in X, but if the people of Canada want Y, I have no choice but to give them Y", I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I see they have betrayed my trust. I would much rather do that than give my trust to a government who has betrayed my trust for the past three terms and counting.

I see many valid arguments against the Conservatives, but the fear mongering about a Conservative Religious Jihad starting from the west and sweeping all the sinners into the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a little silly in my opinion. [/b][/quote]
Religious affiliations are fine. I have absolutley no problem whatsoever with people that follow god, Alla, William Shatner, whatever.

My problem is the trust issue. I just plain do not trust that he can objectively seperate the church from the state.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands+Apr 11 2005, 05:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MolsonInBothHands @ Apr 11 2005, 05:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 10:00 AM
So if Day is in a position to vote an issue (let's say some sort of abortion issue) where the "majority" of Canada wanted some sort of pro-choice decision, would he vote against his religious beliefs knowing it would cause the deaths of what he considers to be people (fetuses) or would he break his oath to represent the "people"?

The problem is obvious. I can't trust a religious fanatic to make decisions for the people or in the best interest of country. They are too conflicted. They have a higher power to report to so I can't see how their oath to represent my interests and the interest of the rest of Canada can come ahead of that.

I believe the party platform has been for free votes on these type of issues. If he followed his word, he would vote the way he thinks his consituents would want him to, and the members of every other party are free to do the same. If his consituents feel mis-represented, he will answer to them in the next election. If the majority of Canadians want it, it would happen.

...and is Day a fanatic, or is he honest about his beliefs, and how he intends to deal with them in regards to his job? I would suggest there are many more "fanatics" by your standards in government right now that have just decided its not in your best interest to know their deepest religious convictions. [/b][/quote]
Oddly enough, I had a discussion with someone 4 years ago (when Day was the leader of the Reform) about why she voted for the Liberals. She said it was because she didn't want to have to vote on these issues on a continual basis, as that was the function of a government....in essence to "govern" and make informed decisions without referendums. She said the reason her vote diodn't go to the Reform party was because, if left to their own devices, would govern in such a fashion that was more in accordance with the church and not with the average Canadian.

It was an interesting way to look at things.

[MolsonInBothHands]

If you can't trust him, you can't trust him. He is but one member though, and painting the whole party the same way doesn't seem logical in my opinion, but whatever.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Apr 11 2005, 10:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Apr 11 2005, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MolsonInBothHands@Apr 11 2005, 04:36 PM
As far as the practise what you preach comments go:# you seem to have a misconception that all deeply religious people are preachers, when in fact most deeply religious people are happy to live their lives as they see fit, and let others do the same.# I admit there are pesky ones, but I consider them the exception, not the rule.

Well I don't know what Bible you read but the one I read wasn't recommending that Christians just keep their beliefs to themselves and never attempt to spread them. Do most Christians follow all aspects of the bible? No, of course not. But excuse me for assuming that some of them do follow through and act on what the Bible says. And excuse me for assuming these "deeply religious" folks are the ones that are doing it. [/b][/quote]
Every organised religion has a goal of spreading the word. Like I said, I am not a proponent of organised religion, to me it is a business, with several competitors looking to increase its volume. However, I realize there is a difference between spreading the word, and forcing the word. I can see it, Day said he could see it. Can you see it?

In the end Canadians didn't believe him, and didn't give him an opportunity to prove otherwise. I view that as his failing for not delivering his political message effectively enough to everyone. I still find it hard to believe that Canada is willing to support proven corruption over possible hidden agendas.

This is a different political landscape though, and the fear factor is getting a little old.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Apr 11 2005, 05:21 PM
If you can't trust him, you can't trust him. He is but one member though, and painting the whole party the same way doesn't seem logical in my opinion, but whatever.

Well which party do you think would house more Christian religious fundamentalists than the rest? Which party caters it's social policies more towards this demographic?

It is and will continue to be a big reason why a large portion of the population will not vote Conservative. Even if you believe this issue is more one of perception than reality, it still exists.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 10:32 AM
Well which party do you think would house more Christian religious fundamentalists than the rest? Which party caters it's social policies more towards this demographic?

It is and will continue to be a big reason why a large portion of the population will not vote Conservative. Even if you believe this issue is more one of perception than reality, it still exists.

... and how many French Catholic MPs come out of the province of Quebec? How many of them have chosen to answer the "tough" questions ambiguosly in attempts to not deter any voters?

I guess you can't be considered a phony or a fanatic if you don't go on the record, and state your personal beliefs.

[MarchHare]

If you can't trust him, you can't trust him. He is but one member though, and painting the whole party the same way doesn't seem logical in my opinion, but whatever.

That's interesting logic, since many on this board would like to paint the entire Liberal Party as criminals because of the actions of a few (and depending on the outcome of the Gomery Inquiry, those few may not even be part of the current government).

[Winsor_Pilates]

It doesn't matter whether you are religious or not. All that matters is what your policy is and whether the voters agree with it. If that policy is influenced by religion or not isn't the major issue. People must run for election based on what they believe in and the people must vote with who they agree. For Day (or any politician) to say that he can seperate his beliefs (religious or not) from their policy defeats the point of any election. If the people running all say that they will do what the people want, instead of what they believe, then they have no policy and we have no grounds to vote for them.
What's the difference between candidate A and B if they both run with no policy and say they will do whatever the people want?

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Apr 11 2005, 01:02 PM
That's interesting logic, since many on this board would like to paint the entire Liberal Party as criminals because of the actions of a few (and depending on the outcome of the Gomery Inquiry, those few may not even be part of the current government).

... and that is reaching, in fact it's hyper-extension. You are comparing events that did happen: tax money that WAS stolen, money that WAS squandered during a regime where our current prime minister was the finance minister; to events that might happen: a political candidate with ultra-christian-conservative beliefs MAY impose his will upon the Canadian people years after he was replaced as leader of his party.

One happened, the other didn't.
One action is criminal, the other isn't.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Apr 11 2005, 01:10 PM
If the people running all say that they will do what the people want, instead of what they believe, then they have no policy and we have no grounds to vote for them.
What's the difference between candidate A and B if they both run with no policy and say they will do whatever the people want?

B.S.

If that was the case, every Catholic MP should be lobbying to ban condoms nation wide, every Muslim MP should ban pork, and have school children praying to Ala five times a day, and the list goes on.

Individual beliefs do not form party platform. Individual beliefs are set aside when it is your job to represent your constituents beliefs. This has happened before, it will happen again.

EDIT: Here's an example.

While he is a faithful Catholic, Martin claimed to personally oppose same-sex marriage in the past but changed his view over time, allowing his government to promote the passage of a law legalizing full equality for gays and lesbians in access to civil marriage.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands+Apr 11 2005, 08:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MolsonInBothHands @ Apr 11 2005, 08:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winsor_Pilates@Apr 11 2005, 01:10 PM
If the people running all say that they will do what the people want, instead of what they believe, then they have no policy and we have no grounds to vote for them.
What's the difference between candidate A and B if they both run with no policy and say they will do whatever the people want?

B.S.

If that was the case, every Catholic MP should be lobbying to ban condoms nation wide, every Muslim MP should ban pork, and have school children praying to Ala five times a day, and the list goes on.

Individual beliefs do not form party platform. Individual beliefs are set aside when it is your job to represent your constituents beliefs. This has happened before, it will happen again. [/b][/quote]
Not every person with a religon is a fundamentalist though. Isn't that what we are talking about?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Apr 11 2005, 01:39 PM

B.S.
If that was the case, every Catholic MP should be lobbying to ban condoms nation wide, every Muslim MP should ban pork, and have school children praying to Ala five times a day, and the list goes on. Individual beliefs do not form party platform. Individual beliefs are set aside when it is your job to represent your constituents beliefs. This has happened before, it will happen again.

I agree that individual beliefs are set aside to some extent but not entirely. These individual beliefs do come out when it is time for them to vote on a bill and most politicians are members of parties that have similar beliefs to them anyway, so they don't have to put aside their beliefs in most situations.
Your examples of lobbying are a bit extreme and of course they would be political suicide and wouldn't happen.
But do we not see Conservatives lobbying against things like gay marraige and abortion? Do we not see Left-Wingers doing the opposite?
These are personal beliefs that are being used as political ammo on both sides daily.
I'm pretty sure that Harper was rallying against gay marraige a couple of days ago, was he not?
If individual beliefs should be put aside, than the Conservatives better change everything they stand for and start representing the majority of Canadians instead of going against policies that most Canadians support.

[V]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@Apr 11 2005, 02:00 PM
If individual beliefs should be put aside, than the Conservatives better change everything they stand for and start representing the majority of Canadians instead of going against policies that most Canadians support.

Why would we want individual beliefs put aside once someone gains a seat in the government? The reason I vote for someone is because I like their belief and would like to see such beliefs implemented in the House of Commons.

I much prefer the Conservative government that refuses to change its identity in order to gain votes, as opposed to the Liberal party, whose views seems to change as often as there are days in a year.

[MarchHare]

I much prefer the Conservative government that refuses to change its identity in order to gain votes, as opposed to the Liberal party, whose views seems to change as often as there are days in a year.

Are you talking about the same Conservative Party that recently had a convention where they shifted their policies further to the left for the sole purpose of making themselves more attractive to the Canadian voter? Is that the Conservative Party you're referring to when you say, "I much prefer the Conservative government that refuses to change its identity in order to gain votes"?

The thirst for power has driven Conservative Party delegates to abandon much of the vestigates of Reform origins in a determined shift to political centre.

The Conservatives first policy convention saw a motion to allow for recall of MPs crushed by a majority of delegates. Attempts to water down official bilingualism were booed off the floor.

What were once bedrock tenets of a western-based party crumbled under a pragmatism of a new party eager to appeal to enough voters to win seats across the country and form a government.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...9/BNStory/Front

[MolsonInBothHands]

It's a tough call for anyone involved in the gay marriage debate. I guess the Conservatives could flip-flop in an attempt to win over seats currently held by Liberals, but it would be at the risk of losing seats in areas they strongly represent. It sounds like there could be repercussions for some Liberal MPs because they have constituencies opposed to legalised gay marriage as well. Paul Martin has already flip-flopped, and by FDW's definition is now a hypocrite for not following his religious doctrine.

I myself am not opposed to gay marriage, but it also isn't a high enough priority for me to change my voting decision. Accountability is what I want to see. For the record, I don't consider pro-life, and anti-gay marriage ideals as fanatical either. I don't agree with them, but I respect it as an opinion.

I am more concerned with governmental and fiscal policy than social policy. There is always going to be a social hot potatoe where there is never a clear cut and dry solution.