I guess I have officially made it. One of my posts has someone questioning my "Conservative credentials", saying I am a nanosecond away from becoming a Liberal and that more generally I am an ***hole. Sweet. Oh wait, let me correct that, a stupid ***hole. Wouldn't want to be a smart one, eh?
Here is the background. Yesterday I linked to an article in the Toronto Star entitled Stephen Harper just can't quit his inner-Evangelical [ed: there he goes linking again, he must be a really stupid ***hole]. I was going to go off on it thinking, incorrectly, from the title that it was a typically Toronto Star attack piece. Having actually read the article I noticed it was very complementary of Stephen Harper. The author does not think being an evangelical Christian is a bad thing and neither do I. It is my understanding that Stephen Harper is a Presbyterian who attends Church weekly. Of that I may be misinformed but guess what, I am a Roman Catholic who attends Mass weekly and it increases my respect for someone if they respect a higher authority, whatever that authority be, not decreases it. Are Presbyterians evengelicals? Since I don't think either terms should carry a negative aspect it was a distinction that I thought was irrelevant.
I did think the article made an interesting play on the concept that evangelical = bad. Saying that the views of evangelicals fit nicely with "Canadian values" but I don't need to defend the op-ed, read it yourself. Besides, I read all klnds of stuff and I will not be censored from reading sources, conservative blogging credentials be damned. I read the Toronto Star. I read the Globe and Mail. I read the National Post. I have read biographies of Liberal leaders. I have read biographies of Conservatives leaders. Anybody know a good biography on Jack Layton? I'll read that to. If it says something interesting I will comment on that as well.
The problem with Canada over the last decade was that it was a one-party state. Having seen the arrogance and corruption built up due to that am I going to accept a one-party Conservative state? Give your head a shake. I want a functional democracy with honourable parties putting out well thought out alternative positions and debating them maturally. Yes, I am an idealist small d-democrat. No one side has a majority on the truth. I would love to actually have a hard choice deciding what party to vote for. I am not blindly partisan. Although you might have questioned that for the last, I don't know, year.
And the "I support gay marriage" quote in your picture? Dude, the Conservative Party of Canada supports full rights to same sex couples. As they should at a minimum. Is there any reason why the state should say that a same-sex widow should be denied spousal benefits or inheritances. Please. The debate is whether to use the word "marriage" or "civil-unions" and the reason for the debate is to figure out the correct way to ensure religious institutions are not forced to perform ceremonies against their beliefs.
And I will hang out with, converse with or get my picture taken with anybody I choose. Regardless of whether I agree with their opinions or not. It is called being an adult.
Update: Who would have thought that Proud to be Canadian would be too left-wing as well. 'Cause he linked to and liked the column as well.
Update II: Even the Canadian Christain Conservative linked to the article.
Comments (17)
Geez Greg I guess you’d better stop talking to me. Who knows, socialism might be contagious. ;)
Posted by Greg | February 5, 2006 4:18 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 16:18
BTW, you and Bob are not untouched either. Check out his post before the one I linked to.
Maybe we should rename the Hotstove.
Posted by Greg Staples | February 5, 2006 4:32 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 16:32
Obviously someone it just a little to tightly wound.
Some of us don’t doubt your credentials.
Posted by Victor Marciano | February 5, 2006 4:38 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 16:38
I’ve always thought you were one of the few rational Conservative bloggers Greg, I should have known it was because you were a closet Liberal! Your timing for “coming out of the closet” is lousy though, we have no more brown envelopes to distribute. :)
Posted by BCer in Toronto | February 5, 2006 6:00 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 18:00
I don’t know. I think I still want to see your card before I’m sure. You know, the “I’m a ‘real’ conservative” card.
Posted by BBS | February 5, 2006 6:34 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 18:34
Well I don’t know, Greg…I always found you to be a rather smart a**hole ;)
Posted by Wonder Woman | February 5, 2006 7:14 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 19:14
I am Anglican but consider myself evangelical. I am glad Mr Harper shares my faith in the One true Lord and Saviour Jesus.
Webster’s Dictionary cites multiple definitions, including: Of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel, especially as it is presented in the four [canonical] Gospels. Protestant, Emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, through personal conversion, the authority of scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual. Of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism.
Posted by Roy Eappen | February 5, 2006 7:24 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 19:24
Well, I am lumped in with people I respect at least. As for calling us all gay, if he thinks that’s an insult he must be about 15 years old. I should tell his mom, but I suspect she knows he’s a wanker anyway.
Posted by Greg | February 5, 2006 9:15 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 21:15
Gee - I can tell you are upset. Anonalogue pretty-well defines the term “echo-chamber,” doesn’t he?
Posted by Deaner | February 5, 2006 10:39 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 22:39
Not upset, more like confused. The article that sent this guy off the deep-end was pro-Harper.
Posted by Greg Staples | February 5, 2006 10:44 PM
Posted on February 5, 2006 22:44
That article was completely over the top. With “friends” like that, who needs enemies?
I am actually glad you posted about the article. I saw it in the Star and assumed the worst so I didn’t even bother reading it. While the headline was loaded, the article was fair and complimentary.
No need for you to change what you are doing. As for Anonalogue, his behaviour reflects badly on all Blogging Tories.
Posted by Steve | February 6, 2006 12:19 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 00:19
You mean we aren’t all gay??? Aw geez. The parties will all be duller from now on.
Posted by Antonia Z. | February 6, 2006 1:04 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 01:04
When looking at a column you should remember that the columnist does not write the headline.
Posted by Greg Staples | February 6, 2006 8:20 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 08:20
I’m Presbyterian - am I evangelical?
m-w.com
Evangelical 1 : of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels 2 : PROTESTANT 3 : emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual 4 a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : FUNDAMENTALIST c often capitalized : LOW CHURCH 5 : marked by militant or crusading zeal : EVANGELISTIC
I guess I am if you use the 2nd definition.
Posted by Don | February 6, 2006 9:05 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 09:05
I would be a third. Or fourth. Or whatever. No linkage - my permalinks are acting up.
Posted by Shane | February 6, 2006 9:16 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 09:16
Oh yeah, and Presbyterians are Reformed Evangelicals.
But Stephen Harper attends an Alliance Church (Christian and Missionary Alliance). Unrelated to Presbyterians.
Posted by Shane | February 6, 2006 9:17 AM
Posted on February 6, 2006 09:17
Interestingly the Alliance was founded by a Canadian Presbyterian - A.B. Simpson
Posted by Reg | February 6, 2006 9:21 PM
Posted on February 6, 2006 21:21