• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Rational is not an adjective one ought to apply to the word religion ... any religion or any denomination thereof.
I disagree. Ratio et Fides are not exclusive of each other.  I find them complimentary.
 
So does the Leap Manifesto count as Mulcair's (no so) hidden agenda?
 
ModlrMike said:
So does the Leap Manifesto count as Mulcair's (no so) hidden agenda?

I think it counts as a big old kick in the nuts to his chances with people who wanted a change from the CPC but cannot stomach the drama guy.
 
Technoviking said:
I disagree. Ratio et Fides are not exclusive of each other.  I find them complimentary.


I guess I understand what John Paul II was saying in Fides et Ratio (1998), but I respectfully disagree. I tend to find more comfort in Dawkins et al ...
 
Colin P said:
If the NDP is elected I plan on stocking up on good toilet paper, seems to be one of the first things that disappears in a utopia  ;D

I'd recommend a good hemorrhoid cream too, 'cause you know things are gonna get pretty rough in the end. ;D
 
Technoviking said:
I disagree. Ratio et Fides are not exclusive of each other.  I find them complimentary.

And some find them complementary too.
 
Kirkhill said:
And some find them complementary too.
And some, me included, haven't got a clue what you guys are talking about.  ;D
 
>I don't think you're offended by the author's line of reasoning, I think you're offended by his point of view.

I'm offended by his reasoning, because too few people can understand why it is invalid.

Trudeau flat-out lied during the press conference featured in the Akins article posted earlier.  Do you think people believe those lies or not?  Check the comment threads at CBC.

One of the supposed roles of a professional "Fourth Estate" is to ensure we are accurately- and well-informed when we step into poll booths.  Too many of the occupational media are dodging that while still wrapping themselves in the "professional" mantle.  "Opinion piece" is not an excuse for "lies and fallacies"; even an opinion must be factual and logically coherent when emitted by the media who presume to be more privileged and professional than mere pamphleteers.
 
Jed said:
And some, me included, haven't got a clue what you guys are talking about.  ;D

Don't worry - It is just the Catholics of Rome doing what they have always done - make sure that nobody understands what they say so they they can never be challenged on it.  Heck, they even invented their own langwidge.  >:D  Isn't that right TV?

By the way, as a good going Presbyterian I was raised to think of myself as a member of the catholic church.  But we talked Doric Scots so everybody could understand the debate.
 
Well, if you can point out a lie or a fallacy in this piece please do. The author has done nothing wrong by drawing a link between evangelism and the oil sector in Alberta and Mr. Harper's religious background and policies.

I doubt you apply this same standard of what is your understanding of the proper opinion piece to articles you agree with. Being well informed is great, but how many Canadians are aware of Mr. Harper's religious background? This editorial goes a long way in explaining what are often incomprehensible policy decisions.

 
CBC poll-tracker (308.com) has:

Conservative    122
NDP                113
Liberal            102
Green                1

Of any church, I cannot understand criticism of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.  The whole founding purpose of the church was missionary work, largely overseas where the people are black, brown , or yellow.  They do considerable work overseas helping with the physical and spiritual well being of countless millions.  I am not a member of this church but know several people who are and they are all more morally upstanding than me.
 
Kilo_302 said:
...but how many Canadians are aware of Mr. Harper's religious background?

Who fracken cares? Personally I think the PM has done well to keep his personal and professional views separate, despite the claims from his opponents that we were headed for a Christian theocracy.
 
ModlrMike said:
Who fracken cares? Personally I think the PM has done well to keep his personal and professional views separate, despite the claims from his opponents that we were headed for a Christian theocracy.

I should hope most people would care if his beliefs are having a direct impact on policy. You know, science is a good thing and all that. Someone who believes the end of days is nigh is less likely to think about investing in the future. He hasn't mentioned his beliefs on purpose, because he knows the average Canadian would view them as being off the wall. His goal is not a theocracy overnight, he knows Canadians aren't ready to regress that much socially. But he's been very successful at incremental changes that reflect his world view.

If he was a Muslim, even a moderate one, would we care then? His church is literally as fundamentalist as the Taliban is. Does he believe this stuff, or is he just playing for votes?

More reading on the subject:

http://thewalrus.ca/stephen-harper-and-the-theo-cons/

Buitenwerf’s sermon is no barn-burner. Occasionally during a hymn, scattered worshippers lift their arms skyward, palms raised in praise, but this isn’t some emotive, revival-style service, studded with ecstatic sobs and hallelujahs. East Gate is a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, founded in 1887 by a Prince Edward Island–born preacher named Albert Simpson. Infused with a zeal for faith healing and more aggressive evangelizing abroad, Simpson’s breakaway sect was part of what divinity scholars call the holiness movement, which agitated for a return to Methodism’s reformist roots. Now, with more than four hundred thousand members in two thousand churches across the continent, it’s considered squarely in the evangelical mainstream. According to its Statement of Faith, adherents believe the Bible is “inerrant” and the Second Coming is “imminent.” Women are still not accepted for ordination, and a position paper on divorce does not mince words on a related matrimonial subject. “Homosexual unions are specifically forbidden,” it decrees, “and are described in Scripture as manifestations of the basest form of sinful conduct.”

Buitenwerf admits that the prime minister isn’t a regular attendee these days, but for many the surprise is that he shows up at all. For more than a decade, the man who remains an enigma to all but a trusted inner circle has kept his religious identity largely under wraps. Then last year, Lloyd Mackey, the Ottawa correspondent for a Christian news service, blew his spiritual cover. In a slim, rambling volume entitled The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, Mackey traced the Conservative leader’s odyssey from the blithe stolidity of the United Church in suburban Toronto where he grew up to East Gate’s makeshift metal pews.

Harper never did give Mackey a formal interview, but he had spoken publicly about his faith twice before, in both cases to small Christian outlets off the mainstream-media frequency. In February of last year, evangelical talk-show host Drew Marshall cued him on a Toronto-area station, Joy 1250. “Let’s jump into the Jesus stuff here,” Marshall said. “Rumour has it that you actually are a genuine follower of Christ.” Harper was primed for the query—relaxed, even chatty. “Yes, I became a Christian in my twenties,” he replied, before acknowledging, “I don’t talk a lot about it.” Still, he attempted to reassure secular listeners who might have tuned in. “I won’t say I always keep my faith and my politics separate,” he said, “but I don’t mix my advocacy of a political position with my advocacy of faith.”

Ten years earlier, Harper admitted to the now-defunct Ottawa Times that when he was a teenager he “would have been an agnostic central Canadian liberal,” but “life experiences” had led him to the Alliance church. He did not elaborate on those experiences, but according to others, Harper’s evangelical conversion dates back to when he was helping Preston Manning hammer out the Reform Party’s credo. Harper was fresh from his first stint in Ottawa as an aide to Conservative Member of Parliament Jim Hawkes, a solitary, disillusioning year that had shattered every certitude about the machinery of policy-making that he’d cherished. He’d fled back home only to face a traumatic breakup with his fiancée. Throwing himself into his master’s in economics, he addressed that dark night of the soul by embarking on a private intellectual quest: a crash course in philosophy.


Shortly after Manning recruited him, Harper began trying out the evangelical services that seemed to offer many of the party’s early players, especially his confidante Diane Ablonczy, such certainty. But Mackey fingers Manning himself as Harper’s chief spiritual mentor—a role that Reform’s godfather waves off. “I’d take that stuff with a little bit of a grain of salt,” Manning says. “Stephen was very unhappy about that book.” Still, Deborah Grey, Reform’s first MP and Harper’s boss during part of that period, confirms Mackey’s account. “Preston was key,” she says. “Stephen had some very long, very involved discussions with Preston in the late 1980s, early 1990s. He saw Preston and a faith that was real, and how you could marry faith and politics.”
 
Kilo: I'm Roman Catholic, but I can assure you I don't believe in everything my church says or what's written in the bible.  If I did I'd have stone half the city for various transgressions.

Just like I don't believe all Muslims are jihadists.

 
Kilo_302 said:
I should hope most people would care if his beliefs are having a direct impact on policy. You know, science is a good thing and all that. Someone who believes the end of days is nigh is less likely to think about investing in the future. He hasn't mentioned his beliefs on purpose, because he knows the average Canadian would view them as being off the wall. His goal is not a theocracy overnight, he knows Canadians aren't ready to regress that much socially. But he's been very successful at incremental changes that reflect his world view.

If he was a Muslim, even a moderate one, would we care then? His church is literally as fundamentalist as the Taliban is. Does he believe this stuff, or is he just playing for votes?

More reading on the subject:

http://thewalrus.ca/stephen-harper-and-the-theo-cons/

OK, Kilo. Now you are just insulting me and others who have a strong spiritual belief of some sort.
 
Kilo_302 said:
His church is literally as fundamentalist as the Taliban is.

I'm pretty sure that convert or die is not one of their tenets.
 
A lot of politicians, not all, to be sure, go to church or temple or synagogue or mosque or whatever. Some believe, others probably don't. Some, from both groups, listen and think about what they hear; others probably ponder the poll results.

I have no idea what Prime Minister Harper believes, neither do any of you or any journalist; maybe Mrs Harper does ...

I don't care what Prime Minister Harper (or M Mulcair or M Trudeau) believe about gods or creation or sin. I do care about their brains, abilities, ethics and values and I care about what they promise to do and what they have done ~ good and bad.
 
Kilo_302 said:
Well, if you can point out a lie or a fallacy in this piece please do. The author has done nothing wrong by drawing a link between evangelism and the oil sector in Alberta and Mr. Harper's religious background and policies.

I doubt you apply this same standard of what is your understanding of the proper opinion piece to articles you agree with. Being well informed is great, but how many Canadians are aware of Mr. Harper's religious background? This editorial goes a long way in explaining what are often incomprehensible policy decisions.

Ooooh!!

Can I play join the dots too?

raindrop-394-dots.png


I think I see......
 
PS  Alinsky was right.  It is so much more fun to focus on ridiculing people than actually having to deal with their message.  Assuming they actually have a message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top