Sharpshooter Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 lolz. Running out of material, Sharpie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 The key point that you may be overlooking is that having specific religious beliefs are not the issue. Basing secular decisions through religious interpretation of supernatural dogma is not in her office's mandate. We did not elect the Vicar of Christ here in British Columbia, which is the most secular province in Canada, we elected a secular representative to make secular decisions on secular issues, based on secular evidence, informed by secular facts. She is being paid to represent the best future interests of B.C. regions and peoples, and not her own religious ones in her policy-making. That's not an expectation of intolerance, but of secular society holding a secular representative accountable for the manner in which she describes her decision and possibly her policy making process, which affects those of us who may or may not share her interpretations that inform her religious beliefs. Making social decisions based on religious dogma is a recipe for poor governing in today's world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 I understand where you are coming from completely. If it was up to me I wouldn’t want her as our Premier but when the alternatives are a forger (Adrian Dix) and a lunatic (John Cummins) I still think she is the lesser of the three evils we have to choose from. I think what exasperates this situation, at least in my eyes, is that she was never elected Premier of British Columbia. The Liberal Party chose her after Gordon Campbell’s resignation and the people of BC have yet to be given a chance to decide whether she should be our Premier. I think this is a flaw in our system personally. Consider that someone who has been essentially undemocratically chosen as our Premier has the fate of the Enbridge pipeline in their hands. To anyone who chooses to read about Christy Clark’s background it becomes evident of the huge role religion has played in her life. She studied religious studies in university prior to dropping out. She has also decided to send her son to a private Anglican church. If people were open to these facts and then elected her to the office of Premier I think it would be much more palatable to find that she uses the bible to guide her. Like I said I don’t have much respect for her or many politicians for that matter. If I had to forecast what happens she leaves politics again once the NDP win the next election. Personally I don’t want the pinnacle of BC politics to be an unelected university dropout who will likely quit at the first sign of adversity. That being said Dix or Cummins would likely say they look to the bible for guidance also or risk alienating a large part of the potential voting base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 To lighten the mood a bit: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyfan87 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 That large part of the voting base that you refer to vote secularly....and not because of someone's religion, or assertions of how religious beliefs will play into their policy making decisions. Christians, jews muslims voted for a Sikh and Sikhs have voted for Christians. At the end of the day, religion has never been at the forefront of voters minds in B.C politics when selecting a Premier, for as long as I can recall. This Bev Oda of the West is the first that I can recall that actually stated frankly that her religion and her religion's scriptures could come into play into how she makes policy decisions. That's more than uncomfortable for those of us rational enough to see her religion and its dogma and its contradiction filled book of intolerance for what it is. Of course I recognize pandering when I see it, but Chrity Christ on a Cross, has gone beyond simply the regular photo-op pander and the 'I respect their beliefs schtick' into full on religious right speech. I don't even think I've heard Harper say anything of this sort even, and he's one chair short of sitting at the Last Supper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 4, 2012 Author Share Posted August 4, 2012 Jai, Patton said it well, but Billy said it best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Jai, Patton said it well, but Billy said it best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Christy, if you're reading this, I find you very attractive for a middle-aged woman. Please PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I don't see why people have to bring this up in interviews. You are religious? Good for you. I don't walk around the office telling people that the trade I made was because being Agnostic or Atheist or Catholic really helped me. Whether it did or not is not the point. Other's don't need to know because then you are imposing something, even if not intentionally. Same argument as the gay pride thing. Good for you, but no one walks around shouting from the rooftops how gloriously straight they are so.... how about everyone just tones down their personal business. We are in an age of no filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Welcome to 1986, Christy Vander Clark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 "When did I realize I was god? well, one night I was praying and I realized I was talking to myself." - Peter O'Toole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuckFoston Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 You seem to not understand the whole gay pride thing. As for religion.... I'll pick Judaism, since they've had a long history of oppression. It is because for VERY LONG stretches of time, these two groups were forced to hide their affiliations. Think of it this way. Right now, the words "gay" and "Jew" are still pejorative terms to a lot of people. Unless that changes, they are right to be overt about their beliefs or orientations. In any sense, I've no idea why you're comparing Clark's comments to gay pride. She's saying this because she knows a lot of people vote just based on religious background. The fact that 50% of BCers are Christian might just be enough to get her in. Or at least, that's her line of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 I guess part of the disconnect between how you and I see this issue revolves around the importance in religion in one’s life. I just assume that if someone is religious and believes in God that it plays a central role in their life and shaping their outlook on issues. I hate to take a jab at religious folk but if a person believes in God (and the bible) how can they just take some parts and leave others. If I believed in a supreme omnipotent being I would give full credence to their scriptures. Even if I don’t understand it I realize that many people approach religion much more casually. Even so I expect that for the more casual believer their “faith” and religious belief still shapes their attitudes, beliefs and outlook. It’s a scary prospect but even if Christy hadn’t come out and said this I would have still assumed it to be the case. Being religious is part of the core makeup of a human being. It usually plays an important role in their life. Even if they don’t disclose the degree to the role it plays in their isn’t it safe to assume that they can’t divorce themselves from it when they hold public office? I think those people who voted for Christy (oh right I forgot she wasn’t elected Premier) of other religious denominations wouldn’t expect her to divorce herself from her beliefs once she entered office. It was an unwise move for her to comment on the role of religion in her life but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a calculated one. Things are looking bad for the Liberals and if they hope to win they need to minimize the appeal of the Conservative Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Most of my family was exterminated like vermin by Stalin's firing squad in 1937 because they belonged to an invisible minority. We can't even visit anyone because they were all thrown in mass graves and no one knows where they are. Oppression is nothing new here, but despite our tragic history I don't go around waving flags and being "overt" about my affiliations . Nor do I find it appropriate to use the oppression of my ancestors as a giant soap box for own agenda. As for the gay pride thing, it's like a rags to riches story. You were in rags all your life and suddenly you win the lottery so you go on and buy the tackiest most expensive junk to show off how much money you have now. You just can't be modest about it. Nobody likes that kind of showing off. If you are able to come out now as never before, that is great, but it is still only one part of you and often many make it the only part about them. Basically you determine how much of a big deal it is to others by how much of a big deal it is to you. It's come to the point where quite a lot of it is imposing. Like meeting someone and they shake your hand and say "Hi, I am Christy and I am a lesbian." Uhm, okay. But I'm not sure how that is going to help me order lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Most of my family was exterminated like vermin by Stalin's firing squad in 1937 because they belonged to an invisible minority. We can't even visit anyone because they were all thrown in mass graves and no one knows where they are. Oppression is nothing new here, but despite our tragic history I don't go around waving flags and being "overt" about my affiliations . Nor do I find it appropriate to use the oppression of my ancestors as a giant soap box for own agenda. As for the gay pride thing, it's like a rags to riches story. You were in rags all your life and suddenly you win the lottery so you go on and buy the tackiest most expensive junk to show off how much money you have now. You just can't be modest about it. Nobody likes that kind of showing off. If you are able to come out now as never before, that is great, but it is still only one part of you and often many make it the only part about them. Basically you determine how much of a big deal it is to others by how much of a big deal it is to you. It's come to the point where quite a lot of it is imposing. Like meeting someone and they shake your hand and say "Hi, I am Christy and I am a lesbian." Uhm, okay. But I'm not sure how that is going to help me order lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 This rant is hardly in the realm of realistic.. I've never ever met someone say "hi my name is ______ and I'm gay/a lesbian.", and I've lived in ???? San Francisco. You have a mindless belief that is nothing to be confused with some type of understanding about gay pride, or pride in general that derives from one form of singling a group of people out and treating them as inferior. Once people are singled out by such criteria they form a group and form an identity based on said criteria and it becomes a source of pride now. I'd suggest educating yourself on the issue but from the looks of it you'd rather just nonsensically rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 at atheists. - From an atheists. Oh no! She said something.. Lets not respect her belief... Face it Christianity/Catholicism have played a pretty large role in Canadian politics since the start of this country. How about our anthem: "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee." To make a big deal over this is ludicrous and silly Sharpshooter. As far as I'm concerned she can believe whatever she wants as long as she doesn't make us all forced to become Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 That line was actually added some time in the late 1970's, I remember there was another Oh Canada where that line now is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 Wow...I did not know that Norman...it's kind of like the fact that before the year 1954 the words "under god" did not appear in the US Pledge of Allegiance then, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 4, 2012 Share Posted August 4, 2012 That was only when it was technically official. It was less than a century earlier when it started being used, although it's usage wasn't all that much until the 1950s, and the policy making it official was conveniently square in the middle of the Red Scare era of paranoia and jingoism, the same of which followed 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.