More Christians Should Vote NDP

130 posts / 0 new
Last post
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

SRB wrote:

I don't agree that "murderous anti-human doctrines" are Christian (the faith that was the ostensible subject of this thread -- I don't think they are Jewish or Islamic or Buddhist, either, of course but that is not what we were originally talking about here). Despite the bloody history of Crusades, Inquisitions, religious wars, etc  -- which in my opinion represent terrible failures of the church -- the fundamentals of Christian belief, drawn from the peace witness of Jesus Christ, are neither murderous nor anti-human.

[For Christians, the reason for the need to put faith into practice is simple, it's a foundational Christian teaching: "So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. ...  Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith." (James 2:17-18)]. 

But for a fuller, more thoughtful and more intelligent reply on this subject than mine, I will refer you to 6079_Smith_W's post (#45), which is much more eloquent than mine on this and other related subjects.

Nice world view.  I would agree with your logic if the Xians didn't have the Old Testament as part of the "Good Book"  As it is the nastiest authoritarian governments use it too support dehumanizing laws.  Islamic, Jewish or Xian fundamentalists all have the same delusion about the revealed word of god being the hateful misogyny and homophobia contained in each ones version of the same Old Testament shit. I've never met a Xian I trusted who actually believed in the Old Testament as god's word.  Maybe that is the dividing line for religion.  The Conservative's attract adherents of the Torah and Koran and Old Testament who think the oppression contained in its pages is revealed truth.

Religion has no place in politics.  Politics is open to people of all religions.  I think those two things are not mutually exclusive.

6079_Smith_W

I think part of the problem is that those books are not just books of faith, but of law, and history, and myth. I think that there is a lot of wisdom and uplifting advice in what we call the old testament - Job, Isaiah and Psalms, in particular - but in the books of Moses as well. I also think if some Christians were more well-read with respect to what is in them they wouldn't be so quick with the literal interpretation. 

Or I should say what they think is a literal interpretation. They might be surprised to learn that the God of Moses was neither male nor female. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

No 6079 I have studied a bit about religions. 

What does surprise me is any person of faith who believes they can know god.  That is the part of the godhead that gets people in trouble.  If there is a god its fundamental nature is unknowable to a puny human mind. Any person telling me they know what is good for me because god has revealed it to them is not only wrong but extremely scary.

Unionist

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Religion has no place in politics.  Politics is open to people of all religions.  I think those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Yes - exactly.

One person says, "good Christians should vote NDP". Another says, "No, no, good Christians should follow Stephen Harper." [In fact, that's what the most rabid Zionists are recommending to Jews right now.] Then, instead of engaging people based on their conscience, their social and economic needs, their social solidarity, their families and neighbourhoods, etc., we engage them in a debate on what Jesus/Moses/Koran really said. This is toxic - for proof, see world history.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ NS

I disagree with you on the value of the OT, but I'm not questioning your reasoning. 

I think it is a very important book, not because of some peoples' claim that it is the literal word of some god, but because threre is a great deal in it which shows us who we ARE.

And as for looking at ancient wisdom with a modern lens, the Christians hardly have a monopoly on harsh justice., How about Krishna shaking Arjuna out of his compassion, and his resistance to killing his kinfolk in battle by revealing himself in all his glory?

Whether any of these stories are true or not, it is important to remember that they come to us as allegory. And we should learn from them accordingly.

But on the question of anyone having a batphone straight to some god? I agree with you 100%.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

One person says, "good Christians should vote NDP". Another says, "No, no, good Christians should follow Stephen Harper." [In fact, that's what the most rabid Zionists are recommending to Jews right now.] Then, instead of engaging people based on their conscience, their social and economic needs, their social solidarity, their families and neighbourhoods, etc., we engage them in a debate on what Jesus/Moses/Koran really said. This is toxic - for proof, see world history.

Except that not everything in those books and those traditions is hateful, and there is a good deal of it which is on the side of social justice. 

And if there is any central message that I take from the four books about Jesus, it is that we should not blindly follow the law, but have the discernment and the responsibility to decide how it should be applied in the most compassionate way.

Sorry... I don't want to get all religious on you (even if it is a secular interpretation) but I think it is far from black-and-white. And I know that to some religious people, my interpretation is completely heretical.

But then again, the notion that all religious people are the same, or even similar, is a myth. Look at the ridiculous faith vs works argument.

(edit)

And if we want to look at history, We would see that the struggles against absolutism, against religious corruption, for the right to read the printed word, against slavery, against militarism,  and against poverty, were all predominantly based on religious faith.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I remember when I lived in northern Ontario, being involved with the Anglican Church in my community, and I had a good friend who also played the electric organ for us on Sunday mornings. Every Sunday night she'd go to the Pentecostal Church to not only play their electric organ as well, but also get involved with their worship and fellowship - while she said she would remain a life long Anglican and support our church, her heart clearly belonged to the Pentecostals. I've never understood that until she told me she was a biblical innerant - that is, a biblical fundamentalist - which Anglicans are not.

6079_Smith_W

@ Boomboom

Ben Franklin said he thought the presence of lots of churches was a very good thing, and he used to go to all of them, although he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all (he came out with that belief late in his life). I think if people saw religious belief less like team sports and more like different ways of seeing which all have some value, it would be a far better state of affairs.

 

absentia

The problem with the topic title is just one word: should. Respondents generally take it to mean an injunction, as in somebody telling you what you ought to do. But sometimes, as, i think, in this case, it merely means "Given x, one would logically expect y to follow" - or, given their expressed belief system, one would expect Christians to lean toward the oppressed rather than toward the exploiter. I don't think it was meant as insult to "people of faith", but rather as a conondrum.

In any case, we already know that most of the people most of the time and all of the power-seekers all of the time are full of bulloney; don't believe what they preach and rarely practice what they believe. If even half of the people acted on the premises they claim to espouse, this would be a very different world.

6079_Smith_W
Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture
Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
Ben Franklin said he thought the presence of lots of churches was a very good thing, and he used to go to all of them, although he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all (he came out with that belief late in his life). I think if people saw religious belief less like team sports and more like different ways of seeing which all have some value, it would be a far better state of affairs.

He actually wrote a version of the New Testement that removes magical Jesus and replaces him with an Earthly, mortal Jesus.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I agree the title of this thread is a little pushy but after talking with my fundamentalist friend capitalism and Christianity are incompatible. This Health and Wealth movement in Christianity is a serious problem and is the logical crux that most people justify to vote Conservative and still feel they are adhering to Christian values. Jesus may not have been socialist but he was certainly anti-capitalist and anti-state.

Tommy_Paine

Le T wrote:

Quote:
Ben Franklin said he thought the presence of lots of churches was a very good thing, and he used to go to all of them, although he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all (he came out with that belief late in his life). I think if people saw religious belief less like team sports and more like different ways of seeing which all have some value, it would be a far better state of affairs.

He actually wrote a version of the New Testement that removes magical Jesus and replaces him with an Earthly, mortal Jesus.

Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin had an exchange on religion in Franklin's later years.   Franklin told Paine that while he agreed with his atheism, he didn't agree with Paine's strident representation of it.  Franklin still saw religion-- erroneously, in my view-- as having an ability to keep people prone to anti-social behavior on the straight and narrow. 

Odd tidbit I like to bring up about Franklin.   His will set up a charitable foundation, and while the foundation necessarily changed over the years, it didn't finally wrap up business until just very recently. 

Gotta love a man with a long view.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I always saw Jesus as a revolutionary, but that's me. Innocent

Unionist

So, Christians should vote NDP because Jesus was such a stand-up character. Er...

Ok, what about us Jews? We're stuck with the Old Testament. We think Jesus was a bit of a loser, a rabbi that couldn't hold down a respectable congregation. We don't have all the lovey dovey Sermon from the Mount stuff. So if we practise what we preach and live our faith and are true to our creed, whom do we vote for? Is there someone to the right of Harper around?

Oh wait, let's reinterpret all that Old Testament blood and thunder and Hebrew ethnocentrism and convince ourselves that Moses really liked to free slaves and shit like that. So he was kind of a leftie, right? Ok, I feel better now, I can vote for Québec solidaire.

Now the Muslims and the Buddhists. NDP? Green? Marijuana Party?

And let's not forget the atheists. They'll have to spoil their ballot. And the agnostics. They're not sure where the polling station is.

C'mon folks, this isn't just about Christians... or is it?

 

 

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

I never said more Jews should vote NDP. I'm not saying Moses was a anti-capitalist.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

And let's not forget the atheists. They'll have to spoil their ballot. And the agnostics. They're not sure where the polling station is.

Oh god.... I'm not touching that one. 

But now that you mention it, one might think Harper got his strategy for beating down the Canadian public to get his majority from the story of Jacob wrestling that angel. 

KenS

For what its worth, the leader of the Christian Heritage Party had always been a supporter of the NDP before that. Always took a sign and donated to campaigns.

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
I think part of the problem is that those books are not just books of faith, but of law, and history, and myth. I think that there is a lot of wisdom and uplifting advice in what we call the old testament - Job, Isaiah and Psalms, in particular - but in the books of Moses as well. I also think if some Christians were more well-read with respect to what is in them they wouldn't be so quick with the literal interpretation. 

Or I should say what they think is a literal interpretation. They might be surprised to learn that the God of Moses was neither male nor female.

You missed a few things. Often the prophets spoke against state injustices, whether those injustices were commited by Israel's rulers or foreign occupiers. When the Israelites turned towards a system of government that was common among its neighbours, [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=NIV]they were warned about the dangerous consequences.[/url] Ecclesiastes was a counter-cultural writing about the futility of the pursuit of wealth, power, and prestige. Jonah portrayed a God who would rather forgive people for their sins and renew God's relationship with them than punish them.

By the way, the habit in the United Church is to use the term "Hebrew Scriptures/Bible" in place of "Old Testament."

voice of the damned

Le T wrote:

Quote:
Ben Franklin said he thought the presence of lots of churches was a very good thing, and he used to go to all of them, although he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus at all (he came out with that belief late in his life). I think if people saw religious belief less like team sports and more like different ways of seeing which all have some value, it would be a far better state of affairs.

He actually wrote a version of the New Testement that removes magical Jesus and replaces him with an Earthly, mortal Jesus.

I believe that was Thomas Jefferson, not Ben Franklin, who wrote up the rationalist Bible.

And while I can appreciate what Jefferson was trying to do, I find it a little odd coming from a man who quite openly disbelieved the supernatural elements to begin with. What exactly was he trying to prove? His fellow rationalists would likely have been able to figure out for themselves that Jesus never walked on water. And the literalists would just assume he was a blasphemer, and chuck the book at the wall.

To me, it's a little like taking Aesop's Tortoise and Hare story, scratching out the parts where the animals talk to each other and have a race, because as we all know animals can't do those things, but leaving in "Prodding wins the race" as the moral lesson.

That of course would be the ulitmate in philisinism, because it's the talking animals that give the story whatever literary charm it has.

 

 

voice of the damned

Wow. The University Of Virgina has the entire Jefferson Bible on-line.

 

[url=http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefJesu.html]The Life And Morals Of Jesus Of Nazareth[/url]

Noah_Scape

The initial point is a good one - Right Wing Christians are hypocrits to support rampant capitalism - remember Jesus and the money changer outrage incident where he tipped their tables over?

And the hypocracy of "protecting the unborn" while being in favor of "wars of choice based on lies", and executions [to say nothing of the significant number of innocent people - now known to be innocent via DNA testing etc. - who were found guilty and were executed].

The list goes on. Christians voting for Harper seem willing to believe lots of things, but I don't want to attack anyone for their beliefs... even if I do get a lot of attacks from the Christians for being an outspoken atheist. [I have, in the past, denigrated religous people for being so gullable, but a better approach is for me to simply promote atheism instead of attacking religion]

===

Onionist - as an atheist who voted NDP, I helped some agnostic friends find their polling stations. Just sayin'...

 

===

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Hey Unionist - you are right the title of the thread is pushy. I wouldn't have titled it that today.

However, I think if you show Theo-cons a few of Jesus' anti-wealth passages it can sure shake things up.

Next time they say abortion is killing or gays are evil, say, well Jesus says you should give all your money to the poor so what do you think about that?

And btw, Jesus never said anything about gays or abortion. "St." Paul is the one to blame on that.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

I'm an atheist who helped elect an Xian with deep religious convictions. He trained as a minister and his life partner has been a United Church Minister for decades.  Strangely he stood alone in the House when it came to voting against criminalizing gay sex for teenagers. I believe he motivated many Xians to vote but most of them were trying to get him defeated.

The Good Book can be interpreted for good or evil just like all other creations of the human imagination.  I have looked but I haven't foud a YouTube clip of the Kids In the Hall doing their "interest" skit.  A couple of businessmen get acosted by the loud voice of god telling them how to live their lives.  They agree with god on all kinds of nasty things but balk at not being able to charge interest. 

6079_Smith_W

knownothing wrote:

And btw, Jesus never said anything about gays or abortion. "St." Paul is the one to blame on that.

Technically that is true, Although Jesus did bless a Roman centurion who felt he was not worthy because he was one of the oppressors, and he healed his manservant and lover. 

He didn't condemn them, urge them to repent, or run screaming. And even assuming the story was apocryphal, whoever did write the story did so with a specific lesson in mind.

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Centurion.html

(sorry for the garish, 90s-style web layout)

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

The Gospel like other religious tomes is a tool for humans to use to beat other people into submission.  Self righteous people always have god on their side no matter how evil their actions look to an observer. 

Rabble_Incognito

knownothing wrote:

I am reading this book Armaggedon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada by Marci McDonald, an I am frustrated by how many Christians (Almost All Denominations) vote for Harper and the Conservatives.

There are many quotes from the New Testament where Jesus addresses economic inequality. The most condemning is James 5: 1-5, "

1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.[a] 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

What happened to the Christian Left and the Social Gospel?

What do you folks think?

Excellent question - I think some religious folks believe that their affluence comes as a gift from a God who rewards the faithful and the good, and a bit of twisting of rationale: Those who don't have cash, aren't 'faithful' and 'good'. It's like a twisted view of carma.

The Unitarians are pretty left leaning many don't strike me as Harperites. But I don't know many Christian denominations.

6079_Smith_W

Thanks for the bump.

 

Come to think of it, the only national political party in Canada I know of that had a serious number of clergy among its founding members and leaders  was the NDP. 

So I would say that most of the religious people who should be voting NDP are already doing so.

 

 

Fidel

And if that isn't enough there are Christians supporting either wing of the pro war party in America supporting the killing of Christians.

But we shouldn't bring religion into it because that's a job for the Gladio Gang. Lapdog newz media and their bleeting supporters sometimes talk about "conspiracy theory" which is just code for the unspeakable truth.

<*))))><

KeyStone

I think there are three main factors in Christians choosing political parties:

1) Social Justice: The NDP are obviously very appealing on this front -which is why a large number of United, Catholics and Anglicans vote for them.Unforunately, there isn't much else.

2) "Moral" issues: Gay-marriage and abortion. For some Christians, these are their most important things.While gay-marriage is gradually becoming less of an issue, they don't waiver as much on abortion. If Christians view a fetus as a person, than this is an incredibly important issue for them. When the NDP don't frame all concerns about restricting abortion as misogyny, it drives Christians away and makes them feel unwelcome.

3) Attitudes toward Christianity. It seems that in any contentious issue involving Christiantiy, it is a safe bet that the NDP will be on the other side. There is a hostility towards Christianity, and while in theory NDP members believe in the right to practice religion, they ultimately view it as a bunch of nonsense that should be afforded only the very lowest priority possible. They view Christian beliefs as if they are a mental illness.

KeyStone

Double post.

Sarann

I am an NDPer and I certainly don't view Christian beliefs as though they are an mental illness. 

Skinny Dipper

KeyStone has some interesting points.  I wonder how well today's NDPers would welcome Tommy Douglas as leader of the NDP.  I do think some members would be irked if he stated that he was proud to be a Christian.

One of the successes of the evangelical churches is having the ability to create a community among their fellow Christians.  Their churches are not just places of worship once per week.  They are community centres where families can bring their children to participate in different recreational activities.  Within their churches, they are able to reinforce a set of teachings, rituals, and practices.  These newer Christian churches give a sense of structure and belonging that some of the more established Christian churches do not provide.

How can the NDP get devout practising Christians to join the party?  It could support bans on abortion and gay marriage.  However, that would very likely alienate the current supporters of the party.  We know that policy changes won't get everyone on board.  I do think that the NDP can get people to exercise their practice in Chritianity by supporting policies that emphasizes the charitable aspects of Christianity such as helping others.  The NDP can emphasize self-practices while comfirming communal rights.  One can be pro-life for oneself while being pro-choice for others.  One may also choose not support gay-marriage for oneself while supporting it for others.

The real test will be if NDPers can say to others one of the following statements:

"It's nice that you believe in your god."

"It's nice that you believe in God."

There are subtle differences in the meanings between those two statements.

Aristotleded24

KeyStone wrote:
While gay-marriage is gradually becoming less of an issue, they don't waiver as much on abortion. If Christians view a fetus as a person, than this is an incredibly important issue for them. When the NDP don't frame all concerns about restricting abortion as misogyny, it drives Christians away and makes them feel unwelcome.

You get around that issue by pointing out that abortion rates naturally fall when women have access to contraception and strong support networks after their children are born.

[url=http://catholicarrogance.org/about/abortion-1.html]Why Jews and Christians Should Be Pro Choice[/url]

[url=http://sojo.net/sojomail/2004/10/13#5]Pro-life Christian ethicist examines impact of government policy on abortion[/url]

6079_Smith_W

 

KeyStone wrote:

While gay-marriage is gradually becoming less of an issue, they don't waiver as much on abortion.

That belief isn't quite so universal, and the belief that it is has only developed since the rise of the Christian right as a political force.

Part of the reason why Kairos became a target was because of its support for reproductive health services.

When Roe v Wade passed it was seen as a victory for protestantism over catholicism.

To muddy the waters even more a Pew study of a few years ago showed that the catholic laity are more likely to hold progressive views than protestants. Again - largely because of the evangelical right.

So as SkinnyDipper alluded, I think it isn't only certain Christians who might want to re-examine their beliefs.

 

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

In BC the evangelical churches are the face of the Xian religion.  They dominate the politics in the Fraser Valley in white committees in what we used to call BC's Bible Belt and are also very prevalent in urban Vancouver especially amongst Canadians of Chinese and Korean descent.  The NDP used to have a very progressive Xian MP but he was too left wing for the party and was sidelined for voting against criminalizing gay sex between teenagers.

AB Right Winger

Gee... I wonder why real Christians (ie. not Anglicans or United types) wouldn't support the party that believes the strongest in KILLING BABIES in the uterus....

DUH!

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 

AB Right Winger wrote:

Gee... I wonder why real Christians (ie. not Anglicans or United types) wouldn't support the party that believes the strongest in KILLING BABIES in the uterus.... DUH!

A poster with a very, very short shelf life. Here is the part you seemed to have missed when you signed up for this forum. A woman's right to control her own body is not up for discussion

Babble Policy wrote:

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

 

6079_Smith_W

AB Right Winger wrote:
Gee... I wonder why real Christians (ie. not Anglicans or United types) wouldn't support the party that believes the strongest in KILLING BABIES in the uterus.... DUH!

Never mind that that "real Christian" thing is a bit of a moving target - for instance when Rowe v. Wade came down it was seen as a victory for Protestantism over Catholicism.There are plenty of studies which show the laity aren't quite so dogmatic as Catholic hierarchy. According to a Guttmacher Institute study U.S. Catholic women were 29% more likely than Protestant women to have an abortion, and 64% of U.S. Catholics do not oppose abortion in all cases. There are a few other stats in this article you might find interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/abo...

And I'm not sure what you mean by "real", but even those heretical Anglicans have a slightly older pedigree (by a few hundred years) than the modern evangelicals.

(edit)

@ kropotkin

Of course that isn't up for discussion; I agree. Our neighbour's claim to king of the hill status, and assumptions about people's values is though.

 

AB Right Winger

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

AB Right Winger wrote:

Gee... I wonder why real Christians (ie. not Anglicans or United types) wouldn't support the party that believes the strongest in KILLING BABIES in the uterus.... DUH!

A poster with a very, very short shelf life. Here is the part you seemed to have missed when you signed up for this forum. A woman's right to control her own body is not up for discussion

Babble Policy wrote:

babble is NOT intended as a place where the basic and fundamental values of human rights, feminism, anti-racism and labour rights are to be debated or refought. Anyone who joins babble who indicates intentions to challenge these rights and principles may be seen as disruptive to the nature of the forum.

 

 Oh, the point I was making here was not about how a woman legally has the right in Canada to kill the defenceless baby inside her... The point I was making was that perhaps this is why Christians are not being big ndp supporters. Just sayin'...

quizzical

"real christians"????? lol oh what fun......guess they "the real christians" especially those living in AB  just believe in mass environmental destruction  and woman and child abuse seeing as how AB has the highest incidence of both. oh and hate the poor and defenseless just like the "good christians in Abbotsford with their treatment of the homeless.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Social Gospel: as in Tommy Douglas's masters thesis on eugenics?

MegB

Troll effectively banned. Hate having to read garbage like that.

6079_Smith_W

autoworker wrote:
Social Gospel: as in Tommy Douglas's masters thesis on eugenics?

Yeah, and as premier he turned it down twice when the health department recommended it to him.

I guess one of the benefits of being unknown is that nobody is going to root through my garbage and find every stupid thing I wrote in school (and there were plenty).

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Social Gospel: as in Tommy Douglas's masters thesis on eugenics?

Yeah, and as premier he turned it down twice when the health department recommended it to him.

I guess one of the benefits of being unknown is that nobody is going to root through my garbage and find every stupid thing I wrote in school (and there were plenty).

 

Actually, his conversion came after he visited Nazi Germany, and saw the theory in practice.

6079_Smith_W

autoworker wrote:

Actually, his conversion came after he visited Nazi Germany, and saw the theory in practice.

Sure. Which makes him one of many people who had notions that seemed practical and humane to them, but which weren't properly thought out. There are plenty of things that seemed humane 80 years ago which are rightly seen as monstrous now.

If you want to see how easy it is to fall into that trap, look at some of the current warnings about euthanasia (and I do support a person's right to end his or her life; even if I am leery of the legal bar being set high enough).

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

autoworker wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Social Gospel: as in Tommy Douglas's masters thesis on eugenics?

Yeah, and as premier he turned it down twice when the health department recommended it to him.

I guess one of the benefits of being unknown is that nobody is going to root through my garbage and find every stupid thing I wrote in school (and there were plenty).

 

Actually, his conversion came after he visited Nazi Germany, and saw the theory in practice.

So he never actually DID anything wrong, and you demonized him for nothing.  And most people would argue that Tommy's creation of single-payer healthcare in Saskatchewan and his role in bringing it to the country as a whole MORE  than makes up for his briefly having a bad thought that he never acted on.

It's disgusting that you're trying to retroactively demonize on of the greatest exemplars of the common good in not only Canadian, but world history.  Surprised you didn't have a go at Margaret Sanger while you were at it.  Shame on you.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

autoworker wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

autoworker wrote:
Social Gospel: as in Tommy Douglas's masters thesis on eugenics?

Yeah, and as premier he turned it down twice when the health department recommended it to him.

I guess one of the benefits of being unknown is that nobody is going to root through my garbage and find every stupid thing I wrote in school (and there were plenty).

 

Actually, his conversion came after he visited Nazi Germany, and saw the theory in practice.

So he never actually DID anything wrong, and you demonized him for nothing.  And most people would argue that Tommy's creation of single-payer healthcare in Saskatchewan and his role in bringing it to the country as a whole MORE  than makes up for his briefly having a
bad thought that he never acted on.

It's disgusting that you're trying to retroactively demonize on of the greatest exemplars of the common good in not only Canadian, but world history.  Surprised you didn't have a go at Margaret Sanger while
you were at it.  Shame on you.

Shame? I didn't defend his thesis.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What he wrote in his thesis doesn't matter.  It was just a thesis.  It wasn't his life.  The thesis doesn't discredit Tommy and all the good that he did.  Why are you dwelling on something that doesn't matter?

Pages