 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
Well, to underscore these 'loonies' they have many excellent points.
Just for clarification, I'm a member of the Conservative party, and I disagree with their sentiments.
Here's one of their excellent points.
Buying Unity at the Expense of Truth
Ron Gray March 22, 2004
Buying unity at the expense of truth
In 1989, a little more than a year after the Supreme Court of Canada had unjustly struck down the last feeble shed of protection for pre-born children, a group of people in Vancouver organized a cross-country caravan from Vancouver to Ottawa, where we planned to lobby for pro-life legislation.
The kick-off for the caravan was a rally on the court-house steps at Vancouver. In preparation for the rally and caravan, I spoke to the pastors of many evangelical churches in Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. In each one, I made the same request: for the pastors to preach a couple of sermons on abortion, then network with other churches to get people to the pro-life rally.
At one of the biggest churches, I spoke to a pastoral staff of nine; but when I made my request for two sermons on abortion, the senior pastor said, "No."
"Why not?" I asked, astonished.
"Because," he said, "there are people in my congregation on both sides of that issue, and I don't want to risk division."
My first thought was, "What on earth are you teaching them?!?" The Bible is very clear about the shedding of innocent blood.
On later reflection, I thought: he's buying unity at the cost of truth.
Today, not one of those nine pastors is still at that church, and it is deeply divided. There is always a price to be paid for compromising the truth.
I remembered that event while I was watching the close of the new Conservative Party's leadership convention this weekend. In his acceptance speech, the new leader did an admirable job of reaching out to all the fragments of his splintered party.
He even reached out to "SoCons" - social conservatives (i.e., pro-life and pro-family Canadians, especially Christians).
Unfortunately, during the leadership campaign - and even in the months before the merger of the Alliance and the Tories - he had already made a pledge that there would be no policy on issues like abortion and same-sex "marriage". And he promised that, if they came up he'd allow a free vote - but his party would not raise these issues in Parliament. His position was no different than third-place finisher Tony Clement.
Belinda Stronach, who took 35 per cent of the votes to win second place, made it clear that she's pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. When a position like hers earns more than a third of the votes, you have to wonder how "conservative" this new hybrid really is.
Like the pastor who didn't want to talk about abortion, they're purchasing unity at the expense of truth.
But critical issues surrounding the sanctity of life and marriage - like the Liberal Party's links to the decade of scandals - will not go away merely because they want to ignore them. In abandoning truth to get unity, the new Conservatives reveal a fundamental flaw they share with the Liberals: that power supersedes principles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, try your best. The post says nothing about religion. Like the pastor who didn't want to talk about abortion, they're purchasing unity at the expense of truth. |
Haven't done this before to anyone that I can remember, Ben.
quote:
At one of the biggest churches, I spoke to a pastoral staff of nine; but when I made my request for two sermons on abortion, the senior pastor said, "No."
"Why not?" I asked, astonished.
"Because," he said, "there are people in my congregation on both sides of that issue, and I don't want to risk division."
My first thought was, "What on earth are you teaching them?!?" The Bible is very clear about the shedding of innocent blood.
On later reflection, I thought: he's buying unity at the cost of truth.
...
Like the pastor who didn't want to talk about abortion, they're purchasing unity at the expense of truth. |
His truth and your truth, Ben.
Canadians by and large don't want your 'truth', or anyone elses to form the basis of public policy. Is that so hard to understand?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, to underscore these 'loonies' they have many excellent points.
Just for clarification, I'm a member of the Conservative party, and I disagree with their sentiments.
Here's one of their excellent points.
|
Actually, that article was incredibly stupid. The primary point of a chuch is to worship your god. This is what unifies a congregation.
Some Christians believe that abortion is wrong, but other Christians do not. The pastors in those churches recognised that the issue was divisive, that the argument would never end and correctly chose to avoid it.
What the writer is essentially saying is that Christians who believe in pro-choice should be denied a place of worship.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Haven't done this before to anyone that I can remember, Ben.
|
Where did I say you were doing this to anyone?
I'd be doing this myself!
What I'm trying to say is that there are different ways of running a party, and that these different ways are the only thing that separates the Christian Heritage party from the Conservatives.
quote:
His truth and your truth, Ben.
Canadians by and large don't want your 'truth', or anyone elses to form the basis of public policy. Is that so hard to understand?
|
I do understand. That's why I'm with the Conservatives, and not with these folks.
But just because some folks have a religious justification, and others have a secular one, does not mean that the religious folks are less right than the secular ones. Two different ways of arriving at the same conclusion.
Public policy ought to be based on what works best for Canadian society. Most of the disagreement is over how people see Canadian society than over what works and what doesn't.
Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 19-05-2004 at 09:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
The primary point of a chuch is to worship your god. This is what unifies a congregation.
|
You are focusing on the analogy, and not the thrust of his argument. In order to cobble together a party requires compromise, in short, sacrificing truth for unity.
The Heritage folks are very right, that in order to accomodate certain people, will require the party to give up everything that makes them distinctive and attractive to voters.
The key question is how far? What things can be accomodated and what sorts of things cannot?
In a congregation you have the same point. Suppose if one person insisted on worshiping in one way, while everyone did so in a different way? It's fine until the differences become disruptive to the service.
You are right that the primary purpose of worship is to provide a chance to thank God, and to ask for forgiveness, but these things can be done outside a house of worship.
One of the other purposes of worship is the fellowship among Christians, in supporting each other and carrying burdens.
This is what unifies a congregation. A congregation that worships as a collection of individuals is hardly a congregation. There need to be personal relationships among the parishioners, and the clergy.
quote:
Some Christians believe that abortion is wrong, but other Christians do not. The pastors in those churches recognised that the issue was divisive, that the argument would never end and correctly chose to avoid it.
|
And many pastors take the opposite approach, in challenging their congregation. So just because something is divisive, does not, in itself, render the issue untouchable. Even Christ admits this when he says that he comes not to bring peace, but a sword. More churches are coming to realise that this accomodation is not working. Rather than soothing division, they have instead brought about what they have tried to avoid.
quote:
What the writer is essentially saying is that Christians who believe in pro-choice should be denied a place of worship.
|
What does it mean to 'believe in prochoice?'
Would you not rightfully ask that the Christians expel someone for preaching violence against unbelievers, and calling for their death? Why is it that these people would be censured while those who support death of a different source are not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The Heritage folks are very right, that in order to accomodate certain people, will require the party to give up everything that makes them distinctive and attractive to voters.
|
I hope that you continue to believe this because this is what has kept the conservatives out of office for years.
Conservatives, and NDP for that matter, tend to think "What are our core principles that we will never compromise".
The Liberals tend to say "What are the issues that can unite us."
The Conservative/NDP approach is a recipie for alienation. The Liberal approach is the way to win elections. The Liberals may not be able to do everything they want, but they end up being able to do more than the Conservatives and NDP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
said 'the post says nothing about religion'...
|
It's an argument from analogy, rather than any commentary about religion, or the role of religion in a party.
I'm looking more at what it means for a party, and the differences between the Heritage party and the Conservatives. Like a congregation there are certain things that cannot be compromised on, without losing the identity of the party. Where the debate rages is over what constitutes the identity of the party.
quote:
a majority of Canadians think it best to exclude religious arguments from determing what is best for Canadian society.
|
Why? Do they believe that religion plays no positive role in Canadian society?
quote:
The problem is that if your reason for proposing a law is because of the 'divine' nature of some subscribed 'truth' in an ancient text, you are most likely proceeding down some very dangerous roads.
|
No, I agree. However, for these two social issues, there are also good secular arguments as well. Otherwise, why do you see non-Christians who do not support gay marriage or abortion? If the support merely comes from sacred texts, then we should also see disagreement between groups with different texts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
|
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's an argument from analogy, rather than any commentary about religion, or the role of religion in a party.
I'm looking more at what it means for a party, and the differences between the Heritage party and the Conservatives. Like a congregation there are certain things that cannot be compromised on, without losing the identity of the party. Where the debate rages is over what constitutes the identity of the party. |
What we can all agree on is 'good government'. Looking after the interests of the nation through a stronger economy with less government intervention. We can agree that less taxation and smaller government would be good ideas in principle. We can agree that the state of government care for the Canadian Forces is a joke, and that the defence of Canada from natural disasters should be doable at the very least. Being able to honour treaty commitments would be a bonus. We can agree that the theory de jour re criminal justice may not be the best thing to experiment with in the penal system. We can agree that better government through reform of Parliament is highly desirable (actually, if Ontario ever really votes for this it will be a decisive victory; the next Free Trade).
What we cannot agree on is that canon law should inform federal law. Sorry. There's just no way that Tories will agree to that.
quote:
Why? Do they believe that religion plays no positive role in Canadian society? |
Didn't say that. I said religion should not form the basis of public policy. Religious organizations do a lot of very good things, and they should continue to do them by all means.
quote:
No, I agree. However, for these two social issues, there are also good secular arguments as well. Otherwise, why do you see non-Christians who do not support gay marriage or abortion? If the support merely comes from sacred texts, then we should also see disagreement between groups with different texts. |
Argue it on secular grounds and there would be no problem. However, keep in mind there are conservatives who are pro-choice and pro-gay rights. Don't expect your views to not be devisive whether stated based on religion or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yeah, they are such hotbeds of creativity with regards to public policy. What's the last original idea they have come up with?
|
What's that got to do with anything? The Libs look around and what do people want? During the early 90s, the Reform Party was gaining votes by campaigning on a balanced budget platform. The Libs saw this and balanced the budget, which left the Reformers with nothing to sell.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The Liberals have swung too far over...
|
People have been saying that for years, and usually the left says the Libs are moving too far right, and the right says the Libs are moving too far left.
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is precisely the point I'm trying to get at. What are the beliefs that unify Conservatives, yet make them distinctive? |
Come off it. In your world view, a conservative is someone who is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriages. These are divisive issues.
What would unify the Conservatives, and gain votes, is to campaign on: smaller government and a balanced budget with lower taxes. That's what the right wing has done in the States (even though they then created bigger government and gigantic debt.
For the NDP, we need to look at how do we achieve our core value of ensuring workers get paid properly. One way to do that is to recognise that the worker who becomes an owner is more likely to become prosperous. So the NDP should work on behalf of people who own SMEs. We should encourage more workers buying part of their companies.
In other words, the NDP needs to get rid of its anti-business image.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What about scrapping the GST?
What about scrapping the gun registry? |
No one will believe politicians who say they're going to get rid of the GST.
Gun registry is old news.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-05-2004 00:49
Somethings weird when NYE and I agree with each other.
|
|