Andrew Prescott over at Christian Conservative has once again called to question my integrity. It's not the first time. I suspect it won't be the last.
First, there's the title of his blogpost: "Liberal blogger attacks Valeriote for his faith" Well that's a lie. In fact, it is Mr. Christian Conservative that chose to bring up Mr. Valeriote's name. Here's my post. Anyone see Frank's name in there? Anyone? Bueller?
Then the not-so-Christian states:
You see, Liberal blogger James Curran followed the exact "Fear & Smear" gameplan I expected the Liberals to follow, and launched an attack on evangelical Christians on his blog today, in a misguided attempt to smear Prime Minister Harper.
Launched an attack? Really? I simply reposted an article from the Vancouver Sun. So who is really not being honest with people here? I would think my Evangelical friend doth stretch the truth a wee bit much.
Then the less-than-Christian-like blogger goes on to ask the question:
So now... is a somewhat prominent Liberal blogger suggesting that Evangelicals are not fit for public office in this land?
I don't recall stating anything of that nature in my blog.
For the record, here's Frank Valeriote's answer on abortion:
While Frank states it is not a part of his faith, he goes on to state he supports a woman's right to choose. So no Andrew, Frank will not be injecting his religion into his politics as you claim I suggested. You sir, are deceiving your readers and are, quite frankly, lying. Not very Christian of you.
7 comments:
James, I fully expected you guys would launch an attack on evangelicals... though I didn't think it would come this early in the campaign.
You attempted to call Mr. Harper's views into question based on his faith. I've pointed out that a Liberal candidate shares the same views. I don't think that's stretching the truth whatsoever. Nor do I think it's a question of "integrety"... I don't question yours at all. I just took your ideas to their logical conclusion.
Bottom line is that you reposted an article, along with your own commentary, questioning Mr. Harper's ability to represent Canadians because of his faith. I took the exact same statements, and applied them to your candidate in Guelph. Nothing more, nothing less.
Of course, if you'd like to clearly state that our leaders should not be persecuted for their faith, I would welcome that statement, and prominently place it at the head of my post.
This guy is a loser. There's no point in trying to counter argue with right-wingnut bible thumpers who think the world is 6000 years old, and the origin of females is from a rib.
The religious folks always use the poor us we are so persecuted because they are not simply happy to make their own choices imposed on others. If you are a man and you oppose gay marriage, then don't marry a man and you'll be just fine. If you are a women and oppose abortion and you find yourself pregnant then make the choice is right for you.
But it never ends there, it has to be imposed on everybody else.
Hmmm how many wars have been fought over marriage or terminating a pregnancy compared to religion.
The right wing believes in no government, yet uses the government to impose to intervene when it suddenly suits their agenda.
I personally question Harper's ability to represent all Canadians if he is a fundamentalist.
They certainly are not representing people such as myself who are living with HIV when they cut funding to community-based AIDS organization who do better and more work than any government program. They are not representing addicts when they want to force them into rehab or go jail, clearing demonstrating to truly grasp the issue. They rather have addicts dead, or becoming infected with HIV, and or HCV costing us much more in the long run.
Yes there are many areas in which I do not trust an extreme religious person to represent me.
I highly suspect the our Christian Conservative has no clue what it is like to live the lives of so many who are considered expendable by this government.
He can go to his nice little white picket fence, and bemoan a horrible life of high taxes, but he is sheltered from the real world that faces many Canadians today.
And if that is attacking the extremely religious, well boo hoo. They make it a full time job to attack others.
Our friend Andrew Prescott asks us to live religion out of politics, yet Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper with the only two Canadian Federal parties in history to be named after Churches....The Reform and the Alliance.
You see Andrew, Religion decided they wanted to be government.
Elizabeth May plans to become an ordained Anglican minister.
http://www.canadianchristianity.com/nationalupdates/070503may.html
John Diefenbaker was an evangelical.
Tommy douglas was a Baptist minister.
SO WHAT's your point james?
No, what's yours?
James:
The Pope repeated a statement by some previous religious scholar about Islam being an evil religion and people rightly criticized him for it. Because why would you repeat something unless you believe it?
Wilson's point is simple, having a religious person in politics isn't the end of the world. Many politicians that the left idolizes were deeply religious.
Oh, who cares what the names of the parties are? Is the Liberal party really 'liberal' in the classical sense? The Reform isn't based off the name of some church it was based off the idea that they were there to 'reform' the system. The Alliance was meant to be an 'alliance' of right of center parties.
There are dozens of Liberal MPs who opposed SSM in the past and even in the present. There are plenty that belong to Christian denominations and strongly believe in the things you implied were so wrong. Heck, ever ask a Catholic what happens to non-Catholics when he dies? Maybe we should ask Dion about his Catholic faith and see what lies beneath?
But I don't care about that, because one's faith is a private affair unless one decides to make it an issue.
One did make it an issue. One Stephen Harper to be exact. Hence the revote on same-sex marriage.
Post a Comment