Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Answering My Critic -- Part 7 -- Last Part

16. You're right though, things across the border did not happen over night, it took years of oppression, close-minded idealogies and total disdain for the international community. You have no idea how hard I have to fight the urge to rattle off a paragraph of insults, as that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That really is just a stupid comment. Canada has spent decades trying to define it's self as an indepentant and distinct nation (especially in terms of foreign policies) and you want to go jump in the American's lap?

Canada has so many years defining itself as ‘not American’ that we are losing what it really means to be Canadian. By pulling away from our traditions and roots, we are denying our founding peoples and the underlying principles and values that enabled these two great warring empires to co-exist on the same soil.

Do you really think that by stripping away our heritage in order to not be American, will make us any more Canadian? That is not independence, it is petulant self-mutilation. Trying to accommodate special interest groups in the name of being ‘progressive’ or ‘enlightened’ is tantamount to kicking out a pillar of a building and suggesting that the architecture did not match current trends. The pillar represents stability. Removing even one factor of societal stability will inevitably lead to the crumbling of societal norms. Like it or not, societal norms are what enable societies to perpetuate and flourish.

The problem is the generation who looks for instant gratification. The how does this affect me group. This isn’t about you. The effects of this will not be known for a couple of generations, just like the effects of the Residential Schools can only be determined now, from a distance. But the damage will be done, and in this case, it will be more pervasive and wide-spread because it will be systemic and nation-wide.

Societal institutions are put in place for the benefit of society, not for the comfort of individuals as we so often believe. Altering the institution of marriage, allowing it to yield its very meaning to accomodate a fashionable interpretation, leaves it open to further dismantling in the name of 'rights' and 'equality'. Recognition of this does not make me a bigot or a fascist. It makes me a Canadian who is concerned for the future of our country. I believe the SSM law will pass, and I hope that my concerns have been for naught. In the meantime, they are my concerns and I will not be silenced.

17. Just as an end note, I'd just like to point out that the Liberals managed to get re-elected in the midst of the scandal. Instead of accepting that this is the government the people want, you chalk it up to Liberal "deceit" and "lies". I'm sorry Canadianna, but that's just not it. You can point as many scandal, mistakes and whatever else you want about the Liberal government, just as I can do the same for any government before them, it doesn't change a thing.

I agree that the Liberals are the choice of some people (not most people and certainly not the people) – despite their assaults on democracy, their theft of billions of dollars, the concentration of power in the hands of a few (mostly unelected) advisors to the PM, the squandering of taxpayer money and the perversion of truth on so many levels. Canada’s willingness to accept the unacceptable, and defend the indefensible only serves to prove my point. Most people choose the status quo if 'it doesn't affect' them. By now, dissent is not safe in this country because it exposes you to the ridicule and wrath of those who control the press, the governing elite and the conforming masses. So, most people stay quiet in order to stay out of the crossfire.

It doesn’t mean they approve.

It means they are afraid.


gullchasedship said...

No, it means they don't give a rat's *ss.

Shane said...

...that and really... most don't give a rat's ass as long as the government legalizes their pot and supplies them free heroin. The ones that aren't high are for the most part afraid. there are, believe it or not, a lot of people who don't want to be the next Chris Kempling. A lot of people in this country (I believe upwards of 25%) are directly or indirectly employed by the government. Any of those speaking up in public against the Liberal sacred cows are setting themselves up for public censure at the least, loss of job at the most. Soon, actual jail time will be incurred for speaking out - note the Swedish pastor jailed for 30 days for speaking in his own church in a private meeting against homosexual behaviour. It is coming, and at the rate things are going, I expect it to be fact before we get the 2010 Olympic Games.

'Peg City Kid said...

16. That's what happens, that's how nations are definded, our is still young.

Canadianna, I want you to list all the prinicples and value we share with U.S.A. and then list all the ones we are in total disagreement. We obvuiosly don't agree on internation affairs, we obviously don't agree on care issues.

What allowed to waring nations to exist on the same soil? The british won, then the North won.

Our heritage? I didn't realize we had a heritage of being American.

17. Canadianna, unacceptable is denying someone rights based on claims, folklore and fairytales.

Your right, many people do follow the status quo, that's a fact of life. It would be exaclty the same if the conservatives were in power, so saying that means nothing. Thinking otherwise is just plain arrogance.

Linda said...

Brilliant display of classical rhetoric, Canadi-anna -- it's been a pleasure to discover your blog! The critical-thinking deficit in this country is at least as important as the fiscal one, and one might argue, more challenging to address. Not to mention that it's a primary cause of our much-bandied democratic deficit.

Canadi-anna said...

Peg, when I was referring to 'warring nations' -- I meant France and Britain. They are our founding nations.

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech.
Oops. Sorry. Those are American principles, apparently not ours.

In one breath you are saying you believe that religions won't be force to marry gays if they aren't so inclined and in the next you are saying that gays should not be denied the right to their religion (including marriage) and the government has an obligation to ensure that religion doesn't discriminate. You can't have it both ways.

And if religion is nothing more than 'folklore and fairytales' then why is it so important to you that the underlying belief systems be altered in order to suit your idea of what they should be?

And if they must be changed to reflect the 'moderate' worldview you espouse, then they no longer serve their intended function and are simply another apparatus of the state -- so why not just save time and abolish religion?

Linda said...

Canadi-anna -- I'm honoured. Consider yourself blogrolled as well! Maybe you should recommend Peter Kreeft's "A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist" to "Peg" -- sounds like he/she might benefit from a crash course in intellectual coherence... ;o)