Dave Zweifel: Religious zealots surge in our politics
By Dave Zweifel, Oct. 20, 2006 The late Miles McMillin, the man who followed founder William T. Evjue as editor and publisher of this newspaper, would often warn us back in the '60s and '70s that the biggest danger to America's system of government wasn't communism, but our country's own religious fanatics.[/p]In a day when hard-liners were running the Soviet Union, I don't think many of us appreciated what McMillin was trying to tell us. There were always religious zealots among us, after all, but not one of them appeared to have the power to somehow control our governments.[/p]Some 30 or so years later, perhaps we ought to open our eyes because what this crusty old editor warned us youngsters about is on the verge of coming true.[/p]While the Soviet Union has dissolved before our eyes, the religious right has succeeded in grabbing control of much of America's political agenda. It has a sympathetic ear in the White House - the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons of the world take credit for electing the president - and has elected enough of its own to get its way in many state legislatures.[/p] [table style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" align="left" bgcolor="#ebebec" cellpadding="0" width="200"] [tbody][tr] [td align="center" valign="top"][a href="vny!://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=103985&ntpid=0#" onclick="OpenPopup('vny!://www.madison.com/tct/photo.php?image=/images/articles/tct/2006/10/20/34360.jpg',389, 415);"][img class="Caphomeimg2" alt="Dave Zweifel: Religious zealots surge in our politics" src="vny!://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2006/10/20/34360_thumb.jpg" border="0" height="213" width="200"][/a][/td] [/tr][tr] [td align="left" valign="top"] <="greybox"> <="captimesPhotoLinks">Photo by David Sandell/The Capital Times [div class="photostory"]Julaine Appling[/div] [/td][/tr][/tbody][/table] The so-called anti-gay marriage amendment that is on the Nov. 7 ballot here in Wisconsin is an example. It has nothing to do with traditional legislating, but everything to do with imposing religious beliefs on all the citizens of the state.[/p]Julaine Appling, the flame-throwing director of the so-called Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, tipped her hand the other night at an Edgewood High School debate over the marriage amendment, which would for the first time legitimize discrimination in our state constitution.[/p][p style="font-weight: bold;"]She proclaimed that the separation of church and state, the historic concept embodied in the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, is a myth. She told our reporter, Judith Davidoff, that the separation notion is "just a fabrication" and that the church is the "moral gatekeeper" in every society - the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison apparently notwithstanding.[/p]It's zealots like Appling who seek control of America's political process in an effort to impose their own Christian beliefs on all citizens. Lost in all of this is that our forefathers fled to this country for precisely that reason - to escape their governments' intolerance of any religious beliefs but their own. What's the difference, pray tell, between these doctrinaire Christians controlling governmental decisions here and the radical Islamists' hold over so many Middle Eastern countries?[/p]We all should be able to pray and believe what we want. But we shouldn't allow one belief to subvert what America is and always has been about.[/p][em]Dave Zweifel is the editor of The Capital Times. E-mail: [/em]
I guess it was to be expected. Get enough people scared and they will turn to religion as the answer. The agenda was all about taming the American public and making them respond on a visceral level instead of using their common sense. It's working very well, isn't it. I hate to see a great concept such as the American Constitution go down in flames, but that seems to be what is happening these days. These are the very roots of eventual dictatorship. And Canada seems destined to follow in those footsteps with Stephen Harper. Scary scenario.
eh, the thing is about the Conservative Party of Canada is that they've got a history of imploding and disappearing for decades See: Mulroney, Diefenbaker and gosh before that some PM before King in the second world war.
For example. Look at the polls the Conservatives and Liberals are neck and neck and the Liberals don't even have a leader.
Then there's the laughable Clean Air Act
And the kicking out of green minded Tory out of caucus for free speech who might now join the Greens.
Then now there's McKay and calling Belinda a dog.
Conservatives like to put there foot in there mouths. After Harper implodes the party will then break up into factions again. Heck I wouldn't mind it completely going away (wouldn't that be nice). Maybe all the 'green' tories become Green members. If that happens it would be the BQ forming all over again for the Conservatives. lol. (BQ I think was formed mainly by conservative Quebecios politicians and some Liberal Quebecios politicos)
The Conservatives have a habit of imploding big time. They can't seem to get the idea of keeping their feet out of their mouths once they assume power. The Liberals have learned to be a little more discreet over the years, but there is something about having the majority that makes them feel invulnerable. As a result, they crash spectacularly. There are really no half-way measures in our elections any more.
What do you mean by that? No half way measures? What does that mean. Really sad thing though is the blogs out there. Its really become polarized. Just look at any Globe and Mail comment pages. I swear the number 1 rule I have in a debate when I'm against someone and the person completely hates me or says I'm wrong in every single sentence I simply ask this: "Is the sky blue?" and if they make some smart aleck comment like not really its cloudy today or something like that I've called there bluff essentially and it shows who's the idiot now so to speak. Works all the time.
No half-way measures means it is one or the other. No compromise. Either you want the restrictions of a Conservative party that favours big business, or you choose the party that does more for the average citizen. Both are lies, but one sounds better than the other.
I see like two extremes no middle. To be honest British Columbia needs a strong middle party.
You're right. It has never had one that I can recall, and I've been here for a long time. When I first came out here it was Social Credit all the way, and once they disappeared it has been either NDP or Liberal.
And both are two extremes from one another NDP is well in NDP and BC Liberals are the complete opposite of the NDP. Well if the Greens could ever get into parliament there's your middle party. Eco-capitalists who believe in social justice well thats about as centre as your going to get in BC politics.
Actually the Greens are an extreme party. Their ideas on saving the ecology are fine, but after that they don't really have much of a plan. Like it or not, our economy does rely on natural resources, and if they are closed down, so is the economey with loss of jobs.
Hmm, well then the most obvious answer would be for somebody in the NDP camp to become a 'blairite sotgwpdt' that is be a sotgwpdt in name only and basically be a capitalist pro business person while being 'sotgwpdt' in health/law/everything else.
It's not going to happen. The ideals are what counts, common sense doesn't.
Yeah but in this day and age policy has taken second place to style.
It has always been about who can spread the greatest amount of B.S. most convincingly. It is never about what is good for the country, just about what is best for the politicians.
Oh of course, there are only two Presidents for example that actually tried to change the US for the better well three. Washington - stopped Shays Rebellion from splitting up the states into little countries. Lincoln with the Civil War and FDR with the depression but lol both did some un nice things. For example with the South suceding Lincoln introduced the income tax. And FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court with more judges so they could rule in his favour. oh well, nobody's perfect.
It's all about the power. They will do whatever it takes to keep getting re-elected. They know their ridings well, and they know what will keep them in power. Very few actually want to help the citizens they represent. They are more concerned about the prestige of being in government and the perks that come with it.
So in speaking of power do you think that now ex CP MP from Ontario is going to switch to the Greens? I think he will because A) He'll go down in the history books B) He was a life long back bencher so this is his time to shine and C) You really have no power as an independent.
Sure he will. It's like a big fish in a small pond. He will do it for the publicity, and they will use him to further their agenda. It probably won't do much for him or the party.
Well actually according to the rules it will. The reason the big 4 (CP,LIB, NDP, BQ) have refused to have the Greens in nationally televised debates was because in order to be in a debate they said you have to have representation in Parliament. If the guy becomes a Green, Ms. May will now be in the debates with Harper, Layton, Duceppe and whom ever the Liberals pick. There by getting the Greens message out to the public and forcing the other parties to become more pro environment for fear of losing power because as you said Power is everything to the political parties.