Brad Sallows said:>Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual?
It's a bullsh!t article which relies chiefly on one common rhetorical tool: persuade the reader to impute unfavourable characteristics by association.
Example: the article discusses Mr Pew at length, and then jumps to this: "So Harper's low-key Christian fundamentalism (he doesn't discuss his religion in public) is not some inconsequential belief system but remains part of an ongoing Alberta political legacy where, as one U.S. scholar put it, "the forces of oil and evangelism have had a longer and more entwined relationship" than Ottawa journalists have ever reported."
The writer invites the reader to assign to Mr Harper the actions and beliefs of a third party (some of the claims are merely hearsay). Do you see it? Do you understand that people can share some things in common without sharing everything in common?
Example: the article discusses another third party's characterization of Harper as "the devout evangelical Christian prime minister". That is someone else's opinion, not a fact.
Example: the article discusses end-times theology of some groups in Israel and the US, and then again tries to slide Harper into the mix.
Here is a simple question: Barack Obama is either a disciple of Jeremiah Wright and the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright by virtue of attending the latter's church, or he is not. If he is not, can you explain why? Because if you choose "not" and can explain why, you can probably identity the parts of the piece that are neither factual nor logically coherent.
>I'm not seeing the "hate" in this piece.
It's a passive-aggressive hit job. Understand: when a person says - in essence - "Fu<k X", I take it as an affront if I am a supporter of "X". I am not fooled by passive phrasing of "Fu<k X", and I do not accept, "Oh, but I didn't mean you" as an escape clause. I've never had to push anyone's buttons very hard to get from "Fu<k X", to "Fu<k you, too".
*wipes froth from eyes* All valid points. It's an opinion piece. However, it's worth noting again that the mainstream media has not reported on this at all, and there are many comparable opinion pieces and editorials posted on this thread attacking NDP and Liberal politicians that hover around the same standard, if they're not worse. I don't think you're offended by the author's line of reasoning, I think you're offended by his point of view. Which is fair.