View Single Post
Old 04-02-2007, 08:56 AM   #20
Raiyven
Big Bad Thread Boogeyman
 
Raiyven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Burlington, ON.
Age: 41
Posts: 406
Send a message via ICQ to Raiyven Send a message via MSN to Raiyven
Default

Dammit Gryph why'd you have to go post while I'm writing my non-catchy, long-winded response?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiFi View Post
No, both countries are secular states, that both happen to have a high proportion of christians living in them. The main difference is that Canada doesn't have a mad zealot trying to remake the country in the bible's violent, perverted image.
Sorry that was the point I was making, I didn't phrase it correctly. However, despite a notable difference that Christianity is not intimately tied to national identity (I hear God Help Canada more than God Bless), that religion is still closely associated with the ruling party and figure.

The greatest example is the Conservative attitudes against same-sex union. In this manner, though same-sex union was ruled constitutional across (most if not all of) the country, the Conservatives pushed to reopen the issue.

"During the election campaign, Harper promised to hold a free vote in the House of Commons on whether Parliament should revisit the issue...The motion calls on the government to "introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.''"

Source: CBC News, 7 December 2006

Why reopen the debate if not to challenge it? Call me crazy, but there is no sense in reopening an issue you support. And 'traditional' as a descriptor is horribly loaded. However, even at that time, opposition parties were voting against reopening the issue: "But the majority of Liberals are expected to oppose the motion and both the Bloc and NDP are forcing their members to vote against it..."

Now, you could view this in the idealistic context of progressive thinking, or the slightly more realistic context political maneuvering by the opposing parties. The Liberals and NDP, as the party that passed Bill C-38 and the socially progressive party respectively, have the most intrinsic desires to oppose it. The Bloc... honestly I don't know, but it's really immaterial. However, thankfully:

"The government's motion to repeal gay marriage was ultimately defeated 175-123 last December and after the vote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters: "I don't see reopening this question in the future."

Harper had previously agreed to leave the matter settled regardless of the vote.

Source: The Globe and Mail, 2 April 2007

I had the pro/anti discussion with people at work and we could find no practical reason to be against it. It is not any unfathomable secret that Bible+Gay=Do Not Want. If we do not have a practical reason of state for being against it, tell me what's left? Arguments on the structure of a marriage are derived from Christian belief that it can only be between a man and woman.

Now, I won't succumb to simplistic anti-Christian urges in citing the outside possibility of Harper's cancellation of daycare programs as being a small-'c' step backwards. If I were to look at it solely through an unacademic eye without definitive proof I could argue that it inevitably forces a parent to care for their child directly, and that it carries the implication of keeping the mother at home in that capacity. This is, however, circumstantial and entirely subject to my personal opinion over objective analysis supported by definitive proofs, so I won't stand behind this argument that I have heard a number of times without any real point.

And I wouldn't go throwing the word zealot around just yet. What you have to remember first is that God and Christianity have *long* been a part of the American political ethnos; 'God Bless America' has been a catchphrase for an eon. While yes, church and state as institutions are separate, Christianity and state are not always. We see this here at home. While Bill C-38 was being argued over the first time, a public opinion poll revealed that "Slightly more than half – 52 per cent – of the 1,203 respondents said they disagreed with the Liberal government's plan to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples."

Source: CBC News, 10 April 2005

Yes, I'm well aware there are 34 or so million people living in this country. Yes, I'm also well aware of the fallibility of polls. However, what's still telling is that with respect to available information (though I haven't had the time to pull up academic discourse) there is ample evidence to *strongly suggest, though not definitively prove* (as I will not fully stand behind an argument without appropriate time to research it) that conservatism vis-a-vis Christian values are as much a part of decisions made on domestic policy here as in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiFi View Post
I'm glad he's back and all right, but the reality of war is that people die. Just because someone we care about was over there in the middle of it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to the dangers of his situation.
I never suggested we should. I was more hoping that you would take that as a hint that he and his who are on this board (though not lately. Where are you, Jester and Mrs Jester?) might or might not appreciate the trivialization of 'foreign policy' as it came at him at 1200m/s during his tour of duty. Am I telling you to shut up? No, just that there are better places to yell and scream.

N.B.: If Jester shows up and tells us he doesn't care, disregard this statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiFi View Post
Yes, I am biased. I am biased against war in any form, against killing in any form. War is never a good answer to any question ever, and should never be seen as more than an evil that has become necessary through the failure of diplomacy.
From your initial post this wasn't abundantly clear. I was seeing a very general reinvented wheel of 'boo America'. You referred to war once as, 'the war'. Hey, I share your sentiments just the same. The bias I was referring to was moreso me looking at your first post as profoundly anti-American rant where what you were presenting in some very notable ways is applicable to more than just one country.

Am I arguing with what you have said? No. Am I arguing with how you have presented it? Yes. Offer a solution like Nutz did with his mention of the UAE trying to get middle-eastern states together. While that in practice may not necessarily work, it's still an example of saying 'here is what is wrong, here is how we could improve things' over 'here is what is wrong, and goddammit, it's wrong'.

The moral of the story? Scrutinize your sources. Someone lock this thread, I have a 40-page undergraduate thesis project to be working on ;D
__________________


"For in that we are both especially daring and especially thorough in calculating what we attempt, we can truly be distinguished from other men, for whom ignorance is boldness but calculation brings hesitancy. Rightly would they be judged strongest in spirit who recognize both dangers and pleasures with utmost clarity and are on neither count deterred from risks."

- Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War: 2.40, "The Funeral Oration of Perikles" (431 BCE)


Raiyven is offline   Reply With Quote