Monday, May 30, 2005

One-Issue Propagandist

Gloria Galloway's continued focus on 'activist Christians' in the Conservative Party has removed any guilt I had, pegging her as an irresponsible scaremonger.

It doesn't even matter if she's not writing in a 'negative' way. Even if she is only reporting the facts, the subject matter is wrong.

Freedom of the press -- yes, I agree -- she has the right to write what she sees fit, and the Globe has a right to print it. But in order to maintain at least the appearance of being unbiased, Galloway's approach should have been to examine the religion in nomination races in general, or one-issue candidates across all parties --- not the Conservative Party in particular.

John McKay, evangelical Christian and Liberal MP in Toronto, estimates that over 20% of Liberal MPs (not just candidates -- actual MPs already serving in the House) are evangelical Christians, or have evangelical 'sympathies'. Even more than that are either Roman Catholic, or orthodox Christians. Their ability to separate their responsibilities as MPs from that as Christians has not been questioned by the media.

In fact, John McKay, a Parliamentary Secretary and member of the Privy Council, asked for and received, a special dispensation from the party to vote against the Civil Marriage Act. It is believed Paul Martin gave the dispensation because McKay's one vote wouldn't be decisive, but McKay had threatened to vote against Bill-C-38 regardless of this special authority.

One-issue candidates are not exclusive to any particular political party. One could argue that Scott Brison is a one-issue candidate. He left the Conservative Party because of the same-sex issue. It might be argued that Belinda Stronach is a one-issue candidate (her own advancement being the one-issue) Many people said that Glen Murray (failed Liberal candidate and former mayor of Winnipeg) was a one-issue candidate. Besides questioning their loyalties, I don't recall anyone making too big of a deal of the 'one-issue' that defines their political careers.

Chuck Cadman, the current hero of the Libs, is a one-issue candidate. When the Libs were soliciting his support on the non-confidence vote, it didn't bother the newspapers that his career in politics began with one-issue. Maybe people think Cadman's issue was a 'good' issue, and these 'Christian activists' are forging their political careers on a 'bad' issue, but the fact remains that no politician can remain a 'one-issue' MP and maintain the support of the electorate -- which renders the Globe's anti-Christian zeal even more disturbing.

And, I believe I could argue with considerable success, that most Liberal candidates are one-issue candidates. The issue is power. They want it at any cost. What they have to do for it is never an issue.

Galloway has allowed her anti-Harper, anti-Conservative predisposition to take hold of her writing. In a bid to discredit the Conservative Party by disseminating misleading information, she has become hostile to the opening of the public square to all who would have a voice.

Galloway's accusatory tone suggests she is obesessed with 'outing' Conservative Christians and branding them as cardboard cutouts, incapable of thinking seriously about any issue but homosexuality -- or perhaps she believes they are unable to hold more than one thought at a time -- something she would do well to worry about in herself. She'd have us believe that of any demographic group, Christians alone are unsuited to balancing the fine line between their religion and their politics. I would argue that to be able to maintain religious convictions in an increasingly secular world displays an incredible ability to work co-operatively and conjointly with those with whom you have considerable moral and spiritual disagreements.

While she continues to try to paint Christians as threatening to the democratic process, she diminishes the invaluable contributions Christians have made to education, civil liberties, and democracy over two millennia. Argue what you will, Christian values have shaped Western Civilization for the better. People like Galloway would do well to remember that.

Christians have not tried to impose their values on the government -- this government is attempting to impose its values on all Canadians. This important distinction should be remembered when the liberal press lifts its poison pen.

Mark Peters, Warwick, Policial Staples, and Dissonance and Disrespect, (among others, I'm sure) all have comment and/or links on this subject.



Mark said...

Hear, hear.

MindKnives said...

Someone needs to remind the press that the most outspoken religious social critic in recent memory was a Liberal MP. More than John McKay, Rose-Marie Ur or Dan McTeague, Roseanne Skoke spoke out again same sex marriage and gay rights in general with more vigour than anyone else. Included in this was that very public spat with Svend Robinson. All of it was based on her deep religious beliefs. Anyone else remember this?

It makes me wonder why the Cabinet is so bent on same sex marriage. Clearly their own backbenchers wouldn't be too upset if the issue never even came up. I'm sure they're not thrilled by the fact that the Liberals don't seem to really do much. There is no discernable vision or agenda guiding this government and insignificant issues to most Canadians seem to take precedence over all else. From the 'who gives a rat's ass' file, this morning I noticed they were debating a bill that would create an official symbol for the House of Commons. I certainly haven't noticed any demand for such a symbol. The only obvious symbol that i see from this is that it's so time for a new gov.

Jason Monteith said...

I agree with your comments Anna. As a Christian (a Catholic, to be precise), it is embarrassing that someone in our MSM can so thoroughly discriminate against Christians running for office through the CPC as Ms. Galloway does.

Les Mackenzie said...

The whole 'gay marriage' dabacle is a way to put a smokescreen in front of rampant corruption. How could a champion of human rights like the Liberals be all bad?

bob said...

Consider the source. No more need be said.