Those of you who read my blog frequently know that I don't trash other bloggers. I do challenge my commenters, but even then, I try to remain respectful and civil.
Imagine my surprise at finding links to my page from no less that four lefty blogs, each with comments totalling more than a dozen commenters -- and all of them use my blog as a starting point to shred apart the collective intellect and acumen of the entire Blogging Tories blogroll.
When I opened my previous post by noting the hostility eminating from some of the lefty blogs, with regard to some priests refusing communion to MPs who advocated for same-sex marriage -- I thought even the dimmest amongst them would understand that I was throwing their extreme reaction back at them, with similarly extreme rhetoric.
Even in my comments section -- long before the lefty blogs wrote about how 'irrational' I am -- when someone commented about Charter protections applied to laws, not people, my response was: "I wasn't really thinking this would happen BTW. It was more just a way to point out how silly some of the blogs have been about this."
Some of these blogs say that I'm 'frothing at the mouth' or 'foaming at the mouth' -- yet with all that attention to my mouth, they never noticed my tongue, firmly planted in cheek. These lefty bloggers take themselves so seriously that the light from their own brilliance blinds them to reality.
For the record -- I 'get' the Charter. I realise that one could not 'charter challenge' Jack Layton's punishment of Bev Desjarlais, because Jack Layton was not making a law violating her rights. I should have said 'Human Rights Code' rather than 'Charter of Rights' but it is fair to say that Canadians understand their rights to be the ones guaranteed by the Charter. Since they guarantee similar protections, and since I implicitly said the recourse for the affected MPs would be a Human Rights tribunal, I fail to see how it confounded my leftist detractors to such a broad extent. I said 'Charter' instead of 'Human Rights Code'. So, sue me. At least I know Canadians didn't storm the beaches at Norway, and I don't think there was a big battle at Vichy.
My reasoning was correct, if I used the wrong document to support it.
That said -- after reading this paragraph from early on in the post:
Many of them have repeated the calls for yanking of the tax-exempt status of the church. Some have had the effrontery to ask 'who does the Catholic Church think it is?' --- as though, by enforcing its doctrine, the church has overstepped its authority.
Do they really think that I would believe a political leader should be hauled in front of the Human Rights commission for enforcing his doctrine? Get a grip, people.
My point with that post was that when you belong to an organisation, you agree to abide by the rules of that organisation. If you fail to live up, you take your lumps. Period. That goes for Comartin and Desjarlais. They each knew the rules of the game before they started playing. If the left feels Jack Layton has the right to punish Desjarlais, then surely they can understand the church's right to do the same.
Maybe this will make it more clear:
The Catholic church is an organisation with rules.
The NDP is an organisation with rules.
Catholics are aware of those rules.
NDP MPs are aware of those rules.
Catholics publicly advocated against those rules.
MPs acted against those rules.
Catholic MPs should face the consequences of publicly and unrepentingly teaching against a sacrament.
NDP MPs should face the consequences of voting against the politicy of the party on same-sex rights.
When the lefty blogs started calling for action against the church for enforcing their doctrine within their own congregations . . . I made a similar call for action against politicians. The lefties take both calls seriously -- but they support the first and deplore the latter.
I see both calls as fallacious -- and am floored by the slow-wittedness of their bloggers.
I notice none of them commented on my other points in that post - First, that if ever action is taken against churches for being 'political', all churches should be treated equally -- regardless of the government's position on their 'politics'.
And second, that churches should register as political parties so they could be political, keep their tax-exempt status and be free from state interference.
I meant the first point -- and I figure the lefties didn't address it because they would support politically active churches so long as they go along with the liberal-secular worldview.
And I was being facetious with the second point -- why do you suppose they didn't touch that one?
canadianna
27 comments:
Don't worry about it C. Some people are on a crusade to villify the right. You're a lot more articulate and forgiving than me - I'd just ignore the asshats and speak your mind.
The rest of us got it :D
Yes, leftists preach tolerance but they are by far the most intolerant. In this PC world, anyone who dare opposes gay marriage is a bigot, and the leftists make it known. Despite of the endless list of problems facing Canadians, the Libranos, them being ultra PC, went out of their way to make SSM an issue. All for the pride extremists, who think their lifestyles are equal with heterosexuals, which we all know is not the case. They're genetic deviants so why should an ancient and biological institution be changed for such a small abnormal proportion of the population?
Like it or not, Jason Kenney is right, there are and indeed should be just forms of discrimination. But in this PC world, discrimination is a big bad word and no one wants to be associated with it. Too bad for the opponents of SSM that the media is firmly behind the gay agenda so of course, everyone is afraid to speak the truth. The media has glamorized the gay lifestyle via the CBC, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, Queer as Folk and the like so even ordinary people who disagree with it are bigots. What is happening to this country?
Speaking as a left-of-centre lesbian who supports SSM, I have to say that I did get your point.
The Catholic Church has its rules, and the right to deny Commumion to "Catholics" who break those rules.
I might deplore the views of the Church as regards homosexuality, but I respect their right to discipline their adherents.
Those MPs denied communion should shaddap and stop whining. If they truly support SSM, then they are not Catholics in good standing. Period.
Strangely, the person I most admire in this whole debacle is Joe Comuzzi - resigning a Cabinet seat to vote his conscience took guts.
Your critics are your badge of honour.
I learned that a long time ago. They use you as an example, because you are extremely well written. You use ideas that they can't compete with. As a result, they devolve into name calling and rhetoric. That's why they can only call us names like 'racistmisogynisthomophobe etc"
Again, if the left starts calling you names, take it as a sign you are doing something right.
Canadianna,
I think you may be on to something regarding whipped votes and the Charter. My MP is a cabinet minister and was whipped to vote for C-38. It seems to me that I could have a Charter challenge because my freedom of conscience/expression was not expressed freely through my MP. Surely, in our Parliamentary system, free expression through our members of parliament is a charter right.
The "frothing at the mouth" comment that someone made about you came from a left-wing blogger who is routinely frothing at the mouth himself. Nobody takes that person seriously.
Your original post was fine. Any thinking person could make the connections you suggested.
The loud noises afterwards emenating from portions of the leftishere merely reflect the inability of some bloggers to apply basic logic to rational thought. But we already knew a few suffered from that handicap.
Blog on.
Congratulations! I know it's a pain in the ass when these trolls come lurking, but just keep in mind that it gets really lonely over in the moonbat cave. And, as is common to their genus, name calling comes as second nature. They park themselves and cause trouble; they are using the protestors tactics, but applying it to blogs. Like herd animals, they run around trying to piss in everyone's cornflakes, because they've lost the battle of logic long ago. I'm confident that moonbats are on the wrong side of history, so we've just got to humor their little games, because all it is, is games.
Ruth -- one was Calgary Observer (I know, I know 'nuff said), the other was Pigs vs Swine, and then there was Adam Radwanski (although that was about the Monte Solber post -- and I should have clarified that in my post) and there was one other . . . I'll look for it and let you know.
Cheers.
There's a reason that the Left has no sense of humor: to make something funny, you have to be able to think outside of the box so as to surprise people with the punchline. They are incapable of thinking past what they're told to think by their various "mommy" organizations.
You also have to be able to link things together in a logical manner to get to that punchline. If they can't link something as easy as "paying people not to work will make people not want to work", how do you expect them to come up eith the subtlety that it takes to make a joke?
Canadianna...this is a badge you should wear proudly.The only time the moonbats come out is when someone hurls a logic bomb at them.Actually,they are quite cute to watch,scurrying around like the vermin they are trying to infuriate others,sorta like hamsters on their little wheels,going around and around ad infinitum in their deluded world.
I don't believe that a Catholic MPs, whose job it is to make laws that govern everyone, not only Catholics, should be penalized for doing their civic duty, namely, representing the wishes of their constituents. It's not like the MPs in question are homosexual, or seeking same-sex marriage for themselves, contrary to the church's teachings. If that were the case, then I would say that the church had every right to turf them.
I believe that you would agree that it would be wrong for someone to be fired from their job for practicing their religion. Why then do you believe that it is OK for someone to be denied their religion for doing their job? I guess you don't believe in the separation of church and state.
I also fail to see where voting in the House of Commons can be construed as "publicly and unrepentingly teaching against a sacrament".
noel, you're missing the point. The Catholic MPs were not being punished for their votes. Both MPs who were sanctioned in this fashion advocated for same-sex marriage. Their belief system says that it is 'okay'. The teaching of the Catholic church is that homosexuality is inherently disordered, and that marriage is a sacrament, and exclusively between one man/one woman. The reason Liberal Cabinet Ministers were not similarly 'punished' is because most were vocally against same-sex marriage, but voted that way because for political reasons.
The NDPs were following both their personal stand and their party stand. The Liberal MPs were going against their personal stand in order to follow the direction of their political leader (and/or constituents).
If you don't see the distinction-- that's on you. The church does recognise that it can't control the way an MP votes -- but it can say that if an MP believes something that goes directly against the teachings of the church -- and publicly acts on that belief, or advocates support for that belief (through speeches in the House etc.) then they will have to face consequences.
Remember that queer Svend Robinson who wanted God taken out of the Constitution? Where was the outrage by the CBC when that happened? The Catholic church has been around far longer than vermin like the NDP or the CBC and yes, their support of queers is out of step with church doctrine. It's bigger than any social engineering that the NDP heterophobes want.
I will have to agree that it's a badge of honour. You know the expression being "Borked," right? You have been CalgaryObserved. At the risk of sounding crass, a friend of mine once shared some advise. He warned me not to get into a urinating contest with a skunk. I'll write you an e-mail about that. I'm still smiling about it. I hope you will too.
The observer's glasses are permanently fogged after a temper tantrum (most befitting a librano) a few months back.
The problem is this -- libranos have no sense of humor, period. And they cannot comprehend satirical commentary, especially from a worldview which does not coalesce with their self-centeredness.
Cheers, C, as always.
Since you guy's seem to love to rag on the left and their "slow wits" I'd like to take the time to highlight some of the wonderful examples of thought coming from the right.
Les, look at these comments. Do you not see them as an attempt to vilify the left?????
Ruth, Don't you think your jumping to conclusions?? Don't you think it's a little brash to say that just because Canadianna was hacked a Liberal did it? hooooo, evil Liberals. We hate righties, hoooooo.
Adam, shut up. Your arrogance offends me. You've just proved your a bigot.
"All for the pride extremists, who think their lifestyles are equal with heterosexuals, which we all know is not the case. They're genetic deviants so why should an ancient and biological institution be changed for such a small abnormal proportion of the population?"
Man, slap your parents for teaching you crap like that. Not only are you a bigot, your an arrogant one. You sit there and preach tolerance and you say things like this.
I've got news for you, You can disagree with anything you want. That doesn't make it wrong, nor in any way does it indicate that the majority of the people agree with you.
Perhaps passing comments like this are why the left is suspicious of the right and their motives.
I'm sorry, the Exile, the definition of Conservatism
is; "disposition in politics to preserve what is established." I don't know, but that's pretty "In the box" thinking if you ask me.
And "mommy organization"? what exactly are you referring to?? The Media?? Please.
In addition, are you suggesting we abandoned our welfare system?!?? Wow, logical thought at it's best.
Exile, I can catch a joke, in fact I'm laughing right now, I'm laughing at you.
Richard, your are a jerk. It's people like you who ruin this country.
It's Catholic vermin who forcibly removed children from the parents and locked them in prisons called 'Residential Schools' where they were beaten, raped and ridiculed. It's Catholic vermin who molested alter boy after alter boy.
I can sit here and list all the horrors the church has done, but I'm not going to because it's not in anyone’s interest, nor does it prove a point.
And just for the record, I want god taken out of the Constitution too, does that make me a queer?? You red-necked hick.
Having said all that, we can stop being the pot which calls the kettle black, or if you choose to remain in your clouds of ignorance and keep believing the Conservatives do no harm, that's fine too, it's a free country.
Your not frothing at the mouth, anadianna. You may spit a little but that's a far cry from frothing. =)
Canadianna, I agree with you on the first point. Jack had no right to punish Desjarlais for voting her conscience. Although, Comuzzi chose to leave, he wasn't forced.
I also think it would be ridiculous and yes, hypocritical to remove the churches tax exempt status.
Your posts were reasonable, articulate and well worth reading. The fact that they generated the response they did is indicative of the 'intolerance' of the so called all inclusive left. Stray from the approved line and you are villified.
You put it very succinctly and correctly. Both these MPs stood up and used their Catholic faith to bolster their position in direct oppositon to the church's teachings. They made a concious choice to do this. By making that choice, they should now be honest enough to accept the consequences that go with it. Bev was.
Anna: you may be confusing the "left" with the secular statists and their pals the new militant atheists...their belligerent agendas dovetail when it comes to deconstructing the church and damaging it with state sponsored bureaucratic tyranny.
Funny how these hypocrites whine about division of church and state (as if there ever was such an axiom in British rule of law) and yet have no compunction about the state dictating church dogma....funny how that goes eh?
just more leftwing moonbat genetic hypocrisy, like their talent for perusing tolerance through intolerance.
And uh Anna: try not to take any of the mind melting idiocy you read on moonbat blogs seriously, this is pretty much the most intellectually vacant place one can go to see an issue dealt with factually and rationally.
I have studied the charter and its case law for over a decade and my experience in seeing it discussed in cyber space, is that the left take it to be the founding document of the socialist state...but believe it or not, as vague and misread as it is, the charter enumerates individual civil freedoms and rights, not socialist group entitlements.
Outside of the mantra-like twisting of section 15(2) I HAVE ENCOUNTERED FEW LEFTIES WHO COULD DISCUSS CHARTER LAW INTELLIGENTLY WITH ANY KNOWLEDGE.
Also Anna, you an I may think that the charter means what it says and that a certain breech is obvious, but we must remember that this document was essentially stolen from us (yes the constitution belongs to the people, not the political elite) by the Judiciary in the Vreind ruling...from that point forward the courts are saying to us that what is written in the charter is meaningless and cannot be acted upon with full reliability....only the 9 cloistered monks of the SCC can read what is REALLY written there ( or not written as the case may be) and it is THEY who dictate the terms of the charter. What is written in black and white text in the charter is no longer self-evident. It means what the court says it means and not what is stated in the text.
peg city kid, call science bigotry if you must. Humans are not all equal, never have, never will. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there. Discrimination always has and always will be a part of any species, get over it. No social engineers or government statute can change this biological fact. Perhaps you should have taken more biology and less sociology in school! If being politically incorrect by speaking the biological facts makes me an arrogant bigot, fine by me.
Canadianna, I think you're missing my point.
"Both MPs who were sanctioned in this fashion advocated for same-sex marriage."
Yes, they advocated in respect of those not sharing their Catholic beliefs. They weren't advocating that Catholics should embace SSM.
"Their belief system says that it is 'okay'."
Yes, their belief system says it's OK for non-Catholics, not Catholics. And since they represent more than just Catholics, they voted in favour of SSM. Their vote has nothing to do with how they conduct their private lives, or what religious convictions they have for themselves. They, quite rightly in my opinion, have separated their religious beliefs from their secular duties.
This is similar to a Catholic member of the military or police, who has to set aside his/her belief in the church's teaching of "Thou shalt not kill", in order to be able to kill someone in the line of duty, or, in the case of commanders, advocate that someone else kill. It's the same principle.
noel, you're just plain wrong. Comartin has said that he hopes for a day when homosexuals can take the marriage class he teaches for the Roman Catholic church.
That goes beyond accepting it for people other than Roman Catholics.
Charlie Angus has commented to the newspapers that he is being denied communion based on his 'stand on same-sex marriage.' Not his vote, his stand. His stand is that it's a human rights issue -- that is inconsistent with the teachings of the church. As of yet, he has not been denied communion because he hasn't been in church to receive it.
One of the things that non-Christians/non-Catholics don't understand about Christianity -- you say that it should be alright for Catholics to advocate for something he knows to be a sin, so long as he's only advocating for it for non-Catholics. That is just plain wrong. The Christian faith obligates its followers not to turn others toward sin. If homosexuality is a sin, and a Catholic MP advocates for it -- even for non-Catholics, he is 'leading them astray' -- he is not giving as much value to their souls as to Catholic souls because he is fine with it if they sin.
You're getting beyond politics with this, to the basic foundations of religion. If you are not grounded in a religion you aren't going to understand the obligations and responsibilities that go along with that religion.
Noel, face it. The church is acting within its authority.
Well, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Adam, I called you an arrogant bigot becuase you consider Homosexuals to be, How did you put it, "gentic deviants". Last timed I checked, genetics had nothing to do a persons sexual orientation.
If someone is gay, it's becuase they made a consious decision, just like a homosexual person can make a consious decision to be straight. It's not because they were geneticaly inclined!!! Man, that's absolute crap. How did you do in those biology classes??
Your living in the dark ages buddy.
Well done C.
If you read any leftie blogs you quickly realize that hypocrisy is a staple of their political thought.
They are touchy and quick to anger because they don't actually believe themselves, self doubt is also a leftie staple. They use insults and derision over discussion and debate, because their points cannot stand up to an educated debate..that is why they only talk amongst themselves, to make them feel better about their flawed belief system.
Anyway..we are good, they are not.
'Peg City Kid said... just like a homosexual person can make a consious decision to be straight.
What? I don't like to get involved in this same sex issue...but I'm pretty sure you don't have to make a conscious effort to be straight or gay..you are what you are. If your mind and body are inclined to prefer something..I think that means you have a genetic predisposition, it's not a conscious choice. (I guess you can choose to fake it, but that's not good for you or your partner.)
Anyway, I certainly didn't have a "what gender do I prefer to be intimate with" decision day.
(see my earlier post about the left insulting rather than debating..applies nicely to this 'peg character)
Post a Comment