The Globe and Mail article on christian activists securing Conservative nominations from – gasp – Halifax to Vancouver is a bit funny.
But it’s not really funny.
Three ridings have nominated declared Christian activists.
Alert the media.
Oh. Wait. They know.
And the spin begins.
Read it for yourself. The bias is there and it’s not going to go away in one election.
The difficulty in Canada is Focus on the Family and similar activist religious groups are seen as single agenda US influenced right-wingers.
If a person wants to run for a political pary, more power to them. And if they want to put their faith out there, fine. It’s a democracy.
As a stated Christian and god-blogger I understand the racket. Hopefully Canadians will look at the candidates full platform and their abilities. My radar goes up a bit more than I care to admit when I see Focus on the Family. It’s up to the riding and it’s voters to make the decision on their candidates, and in a democracy, that is something to count on.
But yeah, I’d take a second look or a closer look.
I’m sorry, Focus on the Family Canada may well be appropriately distanced from it’s US parent. I’d like to believe the Canadians running FF Canada have our best interests at heart. But I don’t. I’ve seen too much nonsense coming out of the US to be swayed, and well tried marketing techniques from FF Canada that I tend to step back from. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada shares similar beliefs. But I’ve never seen hard/negative lobbying coming from them. There is no reason to believe the Canadian branch of Focus on the Family won’t fall into the same traps here as it has in the US.
We’ll see what their constituent base is I guess.
And when voters see Defend Marriage Coalition, it is up to them to decide if the candidate is going to represent their interests in Ottawa or their province.
I think part of what bothers me is that I wouldn’t vote for someone running on environmentalism, or gay marriage or language or any single issue on a municipal, provincial or federal level.
And to my shame I tend to think religious/churched people will jump on a bandwagon because ‘he or she is one of us.’ I know a lot of effort is put into that kind of campaigning, and I shouldn’t sell my fellow evangelicals short.
I know most believers think well beyond their ‘right’ to be in the political arena, ‘culture wars’ or separation of church and state, or their minority status. I know most don’t buy into those dynamics when they head to the ballot box.
There is a long long way to go in Canada before evangelicals who enter politics as evangelicals are going to be able to get past the image problems.
We don’t have Jewish or Catholic or Hindu candidates running as Jewish or Catholic or Hindu. Why is that?
Canadian voters watch the US, and most just don’t want religion adding to our divisiveness. I’d like to think we don’t have to go there, but that may be too idealistic.
We have Christians in politics, we always have. They are there, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical and they work hard. They haven’t used the faith card to get votes.
Evangelicals are a minority. Evangelicals are seen as right-wing. When candidates start using their religious affiliation and gravitating to a party to get themselves elected we need to look at why they are using that in their platform as we would anyone else. It’s foolish because we have believers in the NDP, BQ and the Liberal Party.
These three candidates in this article have put themselves out there. We’ll see how it plays out. Meantime, Canadian media needs to keep working to represent FF Canada, Defend Marriage Coalition supporters, and the individual evangelicals as fairly as possible.
I guess I don’t see anything wrong with FF. If there are issues you stand for and you find a group that supports them, what is wrong with having a particular group promoting those candidates? I guess the big questions is to define “right-wing” because it seems the definition get broader and broader thereby polarizing even more the already “Red vs. Blue” dichotomy. More people are being categorized as “right-wing” that in the past wouldn’t be considered in this category. I’m not saying this about you because I enjoyed your article, but to me this does a disservice to people. Your final sentence was great and gives me the true heart behind your post that I appreciate.
The Globe article got my dander up and I read the comments above only to get more annoyed. This is a version of what I sent to the G & M.
“I am looking for a lawyer right now to draft the “NEW” Christian Voter’s Rights Emancipation Act. I can not believe that Canada’s national newspaper could print such a story. The outrage should be screamed from every pulpit in this country. My family in Holland hid Jews during the war. Our nation just commemorated the 60th anniversary of putting an end to this type of discrimination and swore to never let it happen again. Now the “Grope and Flail”, on the front page, advocates restricting political involvement purely on the grounds of religious affliation. My outrage is multiplied by the lack of similar outrage of all Canadians. How “tollerant” will we become before this type of political exclusionism leads to segregation and crosses on the lapels of those who dare to get involved? Like the frog in the water most of don’t even notice the temperature rising.
How is writing a story about three evangelicals running for office political exclusionism?
I think the Globe writer doesn’t know how to cover a declared religious candidate.
The Globe has a liberal slant. If in observing or critizing the Conservative Party how they do so offends you, it’s great you take time to write.
I hope you didn’t send the letter to the ombudsman or editor using “the Globe and Flail.”:^)
I’m sure you don’t want to be just another disgrundled name caller.
Letters to the editor or ombudsman can be effective, when they are written with clarity and respect.
Here are a few tips.
http://wa.essortment.com/lettertothe_rvet.htm
If you unhappy with what I wrote, this is the place to talk about it.
My knowledge of Canadian politics is scanty, BD, but I’m guessing that suspicion about overt evangelicalism in politics has more to do with the perception of it being tied to the USA than the religious stuff as such. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Your points are excellent.
There was a flap about flag-burning as a form of protest a few years ago which prompted one politician to say “I would rather see someone wrapping himself in the constitution burning the flag than wrapping himself in the flag and burning the constitution.”
Similarly, I would rather see Christians witnessing to others by engaging them in political debate than pushing opponents further away by beating them over the head with Faith.
Of all the blunt objects in the political toolbox, faith is right beside bribery, obfuscation and ad hominem character attacks.
It’s one thing to get a nomination in a stacked meeting, it’s quite another to hit the campaign trail. When potential consituents hammer them with other issues like health care, taxes, infrastucture, education it’ll be an eye opening and hopefully tempering experience.
I think my friend from Wales is correct. Canadians don’t respond well to preaching speeches and do see religion being overtly used as counterproductive to the magnitude of concerns their districts face. It’ll depend a lot on how these candidates adapt to the blood sport of campaign stumping. We’ll see how they adapt to party policies eh? Every candidate faces lots of surprises on the road to election day, religious or not.
No people contrived association or institution will ever effect a just society. We, by our very natures, suffer from an undeniable and unavoidable conflict of interest; our very selves.
The more important issue for me is deciding what is “dog” and what is “tail”. Am I first a democrat, or am I first a Christian. The answer to that question is likely to determine how I approach the political arena in the first place.