Paul Wells looks at The Walrus Piece on Steven Harper and the religious right in - So much for the power of God.
McDonald quotes a colourful array of anti-gay-marriage, anti-abortion, occasionally millenarian characters who are “convinced that Harper is one of their own.” If the evidence so far is limited, there is a reason: “only after he wins a majority will he dare translate the true colours of his faith into policies that could remake the fabric of the nation.” How so? McDonald is not sure. Perhaps Harper would “transform the country into a stern, narrow-minded theocracy.” Or will he — McDonald is fond of phrasing her predictions as questions — turn over daycare to churches? Replace civil law by “Biblical prescriptions”?
Or is that all small potatoes? “What does it mean if and when a believer in the infallibility of Biblical prophecy comes to power and backs a damn-the-torpedoes course in the Middle East? Does it end up fuelling overenthusiastic endtimers who feel they have nothing to lose in some future conflagration, helping speed the world on [a] fast track to Armageddon?”
And you thought you were voting for a GST cut. McDonald introduces four religious conservatives as pillars of Harper’s Ottawa: Charles McVetey (sp) of the Defend Marriage Coalition, a “power to be reckoned with”; Dave Quist, a “seasoned political player” who runs the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada; and Rob and Fran Parker, who run the National House of Prayer.
Unfortunately for McDonald’s theories, they’re kind of a bunch of losers.
I’d really like to read The Walrus piece.:^)
Did anyone follow the money?
Published 2 years, 1 month ago
Search
Subscribe 
You are currently browsing the Bene Diction Blogs On weblog archives.
Related Entries
For blog design, Wordpress or MovableType coding or blog consulting, see cre8d design.
Chill, Bene. The dominionists aren’t at the gates.
Harper would have (1) want to do all those theocratic things and (2) have a supermajority to pull all that off. A mere 51% of the seats in Tory hands will have quite a few non-theocons who’d shoot down any over-the-top policies. You’ve been documenting the Turner-McVetey pissing match for a while; the Tories will have enough of the old-PC bunch like McKay and Turner around to keep any fears of a theocracy at bay.
Take a look down south for an example. The Republicans have had a majority of both houses and the presidency for 5.5 years and have very little theocon stuff to show for it, other than a “partial-birth” abortion ban, a couple of conservative Supreme Court justices and a small nod to faith-based charities. They’re constrained by the analogs to the PC crew, northeastern GOP moderates that keep the conservatives from running the show entirely.
Canada’s far from having a theocon majority, baring a massive revival. Even if they did, the Alliance-style Tories wouldn’t likely be flaming dominionists; Harper seems to be rather mild-mannered in his theology. From what I know of Harper’s Christian and Missionary Alliance (I went to a CMA church briefly in grad school), they seem fairly generically evangelical and not moonbats.
If a massive revival led to a theo-con government, I wouldn’t call that a revival.:^)
And yeah, I’m documenting the McVety shenanigans because few to none are.
I’m documenting them because a lot of good, busy and hardworking people don’t understand power and why someone would want to wield it in God’s name so duplicitously.
I’m documenting because I am evangelical and it’s best when things political remain in the open.
Canadians don’t know the language of the debate, we don’t know where the money is coming from and we don’t understand the faith that drives his/others sheep.
I was CM&A also Mark.
Most Canadians wouldn’t know what CM&A is, truth is, I think most of our exposure to evangelicals comes from US televangelists or the Sally Ann Christmas kettles.
McVety and his buddies are counting on that. So is his opposition I think. Say he is using a US political model, draw the clear connections and he’s demonized more than any home grown scandal.
I don’t want to see Canada in the rhetorical mess the US currently finds itself. I don’t want to see the willful and self serving polarization the religious right insists on in this country.
Even if he gets a majority someday, Harper does answer to moderates.
It needs to stay that way.
I think a lot depends on economics - the west (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) has tended to birth religious right. That may change as Alberta continues it’s boom.
Dunno. I have a lot to learn.
I do agree with you that Canada is not going the route the US has, I think we can learn a great deal from US experience so we spare ourselves some of the silliness and grief. But we’ve got some whether we want it or not.
I agree, Canada isn’t positioned politically or socially for theo-con takeover, unless they buy their way in behind our backs over a long period of time.
Australia is dealing with the Family First crew, New Zealand with Destiny, we can learn from the two countries as well.
They are both ahead of us in understanding and uncovering the wealth, power and influence of reemergence of Exclusive Brethren.
Any Christian in either country speaking up has my attention.
As does any believer in the UK keeping an eye on the BNP or others.
I haven’t yet gotten my hands on a copy of the Walrus article to see what MacDonald and Wells are talking about.
I was thinking about a majority evangelical (and theologically conservative Catholic) vote, not a majority dominionist vote; I’d be with you on the latter.
The ANZUS parties are unique due to the proportional representation in NZ (IIRC) and the transferable vote system in Australia; pure evangelical parties (at least ones with a shot of winning seats) aren’t going to happen in first-past-the-post systems like the US and Canada. Even Family First doesn’t quite fit the theo-con label, since they have a number of pro-government position that puts them well away from libertarian economics; they might be to the right of the Australian economic center, but their platform was far from American conservative on economics.
The BNP is a different kettle of fish. They’re more of a nativist/racist party than a Christian one; if they take a “Christian” stand, it’s more cultural than theological, a reaction against Muslims and Hindus immigrants from the old colonies. The UK Independence Party might be worth watching as a BNP-lite with less than half of the bile.
Baring a “moral majority”, both the Conservatives and the Republicans need a broad coalition of center-right folks, not all of which will agree with the moral issues of the day. There’s a higher percentage of evangelicals/conservative Catholics in the US, so the Republicans are a bit more hostile towards their moderates than the Tories are; a moderate congressman, Joe Schwarz, got beat in a primary here in Michigan.
That’s unlikely to happen in too many places in Canada. The Garth Turners are going to be safe in the majority of ridings.
No doubt Mr. Turner would be happy to hear that.:^)
Yes. We have plurality voting, which encourages regionalism.
It’s a simple system, workable for the average voter.
Do I hear you say Canada is too regionalized for Christian Heritage or other far right groups not to gain federal dominance?
I agree, BNP was a poor example, it is very much an identity party which holds several local seats, it’s unlikely even with their recent foray into religion they’ll achieve national success.
On a federal level Liberals or the Conservatives can pull moderates in if the issues are clear enough.
Reading Canadian political blogs,(for example) the average voter (of which I am one) doesn’t grasp the different responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments.
Moderate in Canada would be left in the US, which may stand us in good stead.
30 years ago, few people saw the religious right (broad tent) attempting to move to centre stage in the States.
But there they are.
Few predicted the economic clout, or the ability to target, merge to advantage, nor the ability to use available mediums so well.
I’m not as optimistic as you.
Charles McVety and his friends aren’t going away, we could not have predicted the technology and targeting skills they have to use to their advantage.
Evangelicals (Catholic/Protestant combined) make up about 19% of the Canadian population.
Most are moderates.
But the religious right (there has to be a better term:^) have learned to simplify and target peoples regional and core concerns. We’re as gullible or as vulnerable as any country.
Our voter turnout is continuing it’s decline, we’re down to about 60%.
The 18-34 crowd that don’t vote do have disenfranchisement as their number one reason, segments of our immigrant population are ripe for simplistic cultural values voting targeting.
I took some of my thoughts and information from this Ipso-Reid study the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada put up (2003) http://www.christianity.ca/church/leadership/2003/12.003.html