Harper Conservatives: a party of thugs, liars, cheats, crooks, dirty tricksters - and Christians

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

NDPP wrote:

.... but no cigarWink

">http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110228/sussex-drive-bomb-threat-1...

you want to know what's sad?

How polarized this man has made us. I was a touch offended by NDPP's reaction, but my own wasn't much better. I immediately thought about the spin the Cons would put on this, using it as an opportunity to rally the troops around their beleaguered leader.

 

Frmrsldr

Fidel wrote:

Yes, apparently God is still more popular among Canadians than the two colonial administrative parties combined. The cult of impotence in Ottawa needs a totally fabulous makeover, or something.

Yeeaahh! That should be an "Absolutely Fabulous" makeover.CoolWink

Caissa

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is being called on to resign by the NDP after his office sent out a letter to Conservative MPs asking for fundraising help to mount an ad campaign aimed at bolstering support among ethnic communities.

According to documents obtained by the NDP Thursday and released to the media, the Conservatives have hatched a media strategy that would specifically target South Asian and Chinese communities in the Greater Toronto Area.

The advertising plan is branded "Breaking Through: Building the Conservative Brand" and details were sent along with a letter on Kenney's letterhead seeking funds to support it. The materials ended up in the hands of NDP MP Linda Duncan but were more likely intended for Conservative MP John Duncan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/03/pol-kenney-letter.html

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

So the Tories are caught red handed again.

Doesn't matter..Canadians don't seem to care what they do.

I can no longer think of anything that would adversely affect this party....It`s looking like the answer is nothing.

George Victor

Gee, my "letters to the editor" rationing period comes up this month (one every three months) and this is really inviting stuff...stuffing the truth down the throats of readers in Old Fartdom, as it were. The depth of ignorance, can always be plumbed - and altered.  How's that for not just lying down and giving up, copying the spirit of the Conservative mob? The title of this thread signifies a degree of frustration, rather than resignation, in my mind.

6079_Smith_W

I think Dobbin made a fair distinction between Christianity and fundamentalism. After all, he did ask "Where are the real Christians", and I don't think he was being facetious. 

If that's not clear enough, I think the paragraphs he takes distinguishing Manning's Christian ethics from Harper's should make it quite clear.

And as for leaving religion out of it, I think it is significant to make the connection because it is some fundamentalists' believe in politics as the the devil's work that is at the core of their assault on democracy and the rule of law.

 

George Victor

Yes, Dobbin made the distinction.  That kind of got lost.

Roscoe

remind wrote:

what in particular are you speaking about roscoe, a quote of what you are blathering about would be good?!

 

"That Herr Harper is a fundamentalist christian"  Post 34

 

 

"because the little corporal has to approve everything" Post 40

 

 

I'm blathering about whether these references are or are not against babble policy. Context is everything, I suppose, but it is difficult to relate these remarks to anything but nazis,no? Same thing with KKK, or kkk, as in "Amerikkka".

Where do moderators draw the line or is there one?

 

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Hmmm..Roscoe doesn't like America to be referred to as a bastion of prejudice?

Maybe Roscoe finds labeling Israel as an Apartheid state is also offensive.

' Herr Harper' ? King Stephen is doing a good job on his own of running the country as a dictatorship.

' The little Corporal' ?...Well,you lost me there...I fail to see how that is offensive.

Seems to me,if you want to get offended or if you're that easily offended,you should find our current government a hell of alot more offensive and disgusting than any comment you'll ever read here.

George Victor

 

From google: "Corporal Schickelgruber still has his followers, who celebrate his birthday every 20 April "

Roscoe

alan smithee wrote:

Hmmm..Roscoe doesn't like America to be referred to as a bastion of prejudice?

Maybe Roscoe finds labeling Israel as an Apartheid state is also offensive.

' Herr Harper' ? King Stephen is doing a good job on his own of running the country as a dictatorship.

' The little Corporal' ?...Well,you lost me there...I fail to see how that is offensive.

Seems to me,if you want to get offended or if you're that easily offended,you should find our current government a hell of alot more offensive and disgusting than any comment you'll ever read here.

 

 

Al, you must have a really tall ladder to mount that moral high horse. I'm surprised that someone of your obvious moral dedication isn't aware of common euphanisms for the twentieth century's greatest monster.

 

I'm not offended in the least, merely trying to tiptoe through the minefield of babble "policy" that takes vagueness to an artform and commentary from moderators that gives precedence to individual moderating style and opinion over hard and fast policy imperitives.

The examples I give are not offensive to me, merely examples. Are they or are they not offensive to babble policy?

 

 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

If not "offended in the least", why do you demand that people jump through hoops to satisfy your whim?

I ask because I am vaguely offended by your attempt to derail this thread, and your pretense of total innocence.

Roscoe

I'm not demanding anything. Simply asking if references to nazis ala Godwin's Law passes muster re: babble policy. If its too much effort, no problem. I thought of messaging a mod but decided they have enough to do. I'm surprised you consider a simple answer "jumping through hoops" or that such a serious topic is a mere "whim". Since babblers are never shy of giving other the benefit of their opinion, I asked.

At a whopping 5 posts in the last two days, thread derailment is rather moot, ne'st ce pas? Since you are already vaguely offended and babble policy is rather vague, perhaps you can give an opinion on the matter.

politicalnick

Hey people,

Keep all this in real perspective. What you say about Harper's party being liars and thugs can be said about every other party in our system. They will all tell you what they think you want to hear in order to get your vote knowing that, once they are elected, there is absolutely No Legal Obligation for them to keep any promise made or even represent the people of their riding.

This has been established in the high courts of Canada in multiple rulings in favor of the politicians when they are sued for not following the will of their constituents.

Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A. Marshall, Justice of The Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in his ruling on Dec 10, 1990 [MP Wilton Littlechild v. Citizens of Canada, Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Docket No. 9012000725] states "I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement." 

Now you know the truth!!

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

It's a kind of fake democracy we live in. Democracy is a "brand" rather than a means of decision making. it takes some effort to see this.

George Victor

It's just that, sadly, we've arrived at a situatios, obvious to any follower of political affairs, that has never been seen before. And that is entirely due to the existence of this motley crew:

Harper Conservatives: a party of thugs, liars, cheats, crooks, dirty tricksters - and Christians

 

It was rightly decided, that we must not generalize when it comes to Christians, however. There, too, there are good and bad, just as it would be just postmodernist sleight of hand to accept that all political parties are - or ever have been - as bad as Steve's creation.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

double post (I quoted when I meant to edit).

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Certainly Canadian society is "vestigally" Christian.  The majority would self-identify as Christian, even while eschewing any significant amount of religious observance.

But it is equally certain that "Christendom" is over.  The vestigal remnant of Christian privilege (tax free status for church buildings, for example) are now applied to all religions, and continue to exist more by inertia than by concerted effort.  In the public sphere, the two major Christian festivals have been subsumed into an orgy of commercialism.

In general, it has been right wing Christians who have kicked against the goad on this - although former Anglican Primate Michael Peers once let out a blast after being told that Christian clergy were not to reference Jesus at a 9-11 memorial event.

Ironically, one of the Christian right's particular bugaboos has been "the war on Christmas" - an odd crusade, given that most Protestant settlement in what is now the US was led by religious groups that explicitly rejected any observance of Christmas as a liturgical or civil holiday.  (The theocratic junta in England between 1645 and 1660 actually banned not only Christmas, but many secular activities associated with the feast.)

There was a time when a position of religious leadership in a major denomination guaranteed at least a hearing in the corridors of power and in the secular media.  Now that privilege appears limited to the Roman Catholic Church and to smaller "non-denominational" Christian congregations.  Again, a vestige of Christendom.

Public discussion of religion gets further distorted by the fact that the average reporter knows as little about religion as about anything else.  Thus the comments of a pastor of a small fundamentalist congregation are seen as more representative of Canadian Christians than the considered statements of the Anglican Primate or the United Church Moderator.

And as one moves around progressive circles in Canada, one more and more frequently sees an endemic prejudice against and contempt towards people of faith - even against religious progressives - as more and more secular progressives fall into the assumption that the noisy fundamentalist minority actually are representative of all Christians.

Today, in Saskatchewan, a nominated NDP candidate and his wife were accosted at church by someone who claimed that they were not Christians and that the candidates choice to run for the NDP was "Satanic."

Sigh.  It would be nice if serious conversation about the intersection of religion and politics were possible.  It really appears not.

politicalnick

Malcolm - Although a good conversation about the intersection of religion and politics would be nice we need to avoid bringing religion into government or its policies. Don't get me wrong, the morals and ethics espoused by christianity are very much in line with my own but these same concepts are held high by many religions around the globe. As a young boy I was taken to temple on Saturday by my mother's Jewish parents and taken to church on sunday by the Anglican christan family of my father and so now have chosen to forego organized religion of any kind. This in no way makes me better or worse than anyone else who may fervently attend church. I still hold many of the morals I learned when I was young and feel I am a spiritual person.

Organized religion has absolutely no place in the operation of government today and any canaidates choice to take part in a  particular church or not to take part in any religion at all should never be raised as an issue by anyone.

To call Canada a 'Christian' society is an affront to the obvious diversity of our population

NDPP

except our fair Dominion is so defined Constitutionally: 'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" I presume the Christian whitemen who framed it were referring to their Christian whiteman god...?

politicalnick

NDPP wrote:

except our fair Dominion is so defined Constitutionally: 'Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" I presume the Christian whitemen who framed it were referring to their Christian whiteman god...?

You almost got it in one try. Your error is in believing what you quote from is a constitution. It is a royal proclimation! A constitution requires ratification by referendum of the people....that has never happened here.

Caissa

politicalnick wrote:
  A constitution requires ratification by referendum of the people

 

When did that become the norm?

politicalnick

Caissa wrote:

politicalnick wrote:
  A constitution requires ratification by referendum of the people

 

When did that become the norm?

We are not talking about what is normal...we are talking about the correct application according to definition. The definition of a constitution is: 

A set of fundamnetal principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed as agreed upon by the people of that state or organization. This may be a written document or an unwritten set of commonly agreed upon principles.

By this definition a royal proclamation is NOT a constitution. If anything claiming to be a constitution is not agreed upon by the people then it is not a constitution it is simly a statute.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Not sure where Political Nick is coming from, but most of what he's written so far seems to be of the same individual sovreignty constitutionalism espoused by the Tea Party.  (That may not be a fair assessment of what Nick believes.  It's just an observation about his rhetoric.)

All that said, Canada has no established religion and therefore there is de facto "separation of church and state" - although that is an American doctrine and not a Canadian one.

Formal religious bodies have no role in government and government has no role in the affairs of religious bodies - as is right and proper.

But (barring mere formalism or other forms of hypocrisy), religious believers will, of necessity, engage in the political process in light of their faith - and it is absurd to demand that they not do so.  Frankly, I'm very glad that people like Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles brought their faith perspectives to public life.

The problem with the Christian right isn't that they are Christians (and some of them stretch that definition considerably).  It's that they are wrong - and to a lesser extent in that they wrongly demand their views be given a free pass because they are purported to be rooted in religious faith.

A recent court ruling in the UK (by a judge who is an active Christian and a churchwarden) makes it clear that religious believers acting in the public sphere have to make their case persuasively and that simply claiming "it is religious" is not sufficient.  I'll see if I can find an online copy of the ruling.

politicalnick

Malcolm - I will try to clarify my position.

I do support a lot of the basic principles of individualism and individual rights and responsiblility that are espoused by the Tea Party and ,yes, even the Freeman Movement. However, I realize that there is a need for some form of cetralized governance to ensure we all maintain the responsibilities required by implied 'reciprocal agreement' in exercising these individual rights. We also need a body to maintain the 'business' of the nation such as a judiciary system for redress of claims, road maintenance and internatonal trade.

I am more than willing to pay my share for neccessary public services like roads, schools and hospitals. I am not willing to pay into a public fund that is used for corporate lobbyists and politicians and their friends to stay in 5 star hotels on a 2 week 'fact finding' trip to Tahiti. A short while back the BC Liberal party took the premier and his cabinet plus all their aids to a 5 star fishing lodge for 3 days to 'plan strategy for the government'. Could this not have been done in a bordroom at the legislature? As if it wasn't bad enough they spent $87,000 of taxpayers money to book the lodge and meals etc for 3 days pictures surfaced of some cabinet ministers in the lodge's charter boats fishing.

First and foremost I am about creating a form of governance in this country that is dedicated to the people and I believe I have some good ideas on the reforms and changes needed to make things better for all Canadians. (See forum topic 'Much needed government reform') I have put forward these ideas and am trying to gather support to organize a concerted attempt to bring positive change.

I am open to all input and welcome intelligent debate and discussion to refine the ideas and the methods needed to get them in place.

Hellebor

 The Right Wing Fundamentalist are doing a nice job of turing back the clock 40 years, as far as Reproductive Planning, Family Planning, & Women's Rights are concerned, in the U.S. recently. I think their reach is far wider than we imagine, & their power is greater than we feared.

 A combination of the U.S. Constitution's (Freedom of ( sometimes hate) Speech, & Freedom of Religion (no matter how biased) has given the Right a platform & a bullet proof shield to hide behind & people are afraid to tinker with the document that their counrty is virtually built on.

 Thankfully Canada is different in that respect, not so hide bound & very capable of change.

 However, I agree that the Government of Canada has turned a blind eye to situations like the 'smuggling' of two 12 year old girls into the U.S. for a kind of polygimous marriage. What happened to Harper's rants about human traffickers? Did that get lost in the bugg-aboo of relgious freedom? Or are 12 year old girls another export commodity?

 Given the number of Christian groups (cults?) that exist in Canada, with an assortment of rules about 'consorting with the enemy' (that's anybody not in the group) socializing, speaking with, reading or watching banned material, & Godforbid -Marrying outside that religious circle, you may have small groups, but you sure have 100% brainwashed people within them.

 Since they are quite insular, most of us are not aware of them, their taboos, rules, & things that most of us would think are quite old fashioned at best, & illegal at their worst.(Bountiful, B.C. would be the most pubisized of these, but it's by no means the only group.)

 It is very possible for a wealthy religious group to be a corporate lobbyist to any level of government. Depending on their influence in a given area, they can & do lobby locally, provincially, & federally. Why is that news to anybody?

 I think we all remember studying about "The Family Compact"in the early days of Canada, & the Upper Canada Revolt against it. One small group of people who belonged to the same churches, & had a lot of money, & ruled everything including parliament.

 When you see relgious orgs recruiting by telling people that they can network & earn a lot of money by joining this church, they have truly crossed the fuzzy line between being a religious group , & investors group, or even a pyramid scheme. Tax Time!!

politicalnick

Hellebor wrote:

What happened to Harper's rants about human traffickers? Did that get lost in the bugg-aboo of relgious freedom? Or are 12 year old girls another export commodity?

I am quite sure that if you have a few weeks and a team of good lawyers you can find and decifer the section of the Customs & Excise Act that probably allowed the government to tax both sides of the transaction multiple times as well as charge them several application fees for the various myriad of forms that were required to approve the deal.

Hellebor

 The more 'back-up" people get on a truly stooopid idea, the happier they are. This is the real attraction of religions & cults alike, though all relgions may not be cults & vise versa.

 I would love to know if the religion in the U.S. South West, that has people catch, handle, carress, & eventually cook & eat rattlesnakes has tax free status. We can only hope that they are clumsy people with very cold hands.

 Caught smackin' the crap out of your wife & kids? Your lawyer pleads religious freedom & quotes a passage in the Bible as your defence.

 Councelling your daughter to quit post secondary school & go marry a Church geezer. "Hey, it's for her own good!" (I actually heard of that happening a few weeks ago, from the daughter.)

 Nutz! Nutz! They are all to some degree Nutz! Major religion, minor blip on the radar screen of theology, or raving loony cult? It doesn't matter.

politicalnick

Hellebor - I can hear and certainly agree with your frustration but you may have too broad a bush while painting the picture. I am not into any organized religion (had enough as a child) but I know many good people that are. Sure there are more zealots out there than ever before with even crazier ideas or spins on the bible. This does not mean that all people that subscribe to the bible are nuts.

Caissa

The government tried to block debate Tuesday in the House of Commons over its controversial in-an-out campaign advertising spending.

The Liberals are using their opposition day to debate and try to pass a non-binding motion that calls on the prime minister to order Conservative candidates from the 2006 election to repay any refunds they received for money spent on national advertising. The motion also demands Prime Minister Stephen Harper fire anyone working with the party who is facing charges over the advertising plan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/08/pol-inandout-debate.html

Maysie Maysie's picture

There is no reason that the "Lord's Prayer" is in my brain except for the fact that it was drilled into my head in the Ontario public school system from grade 2 (when my family moved to Ontario) to the end of high school. There is no separation of the church from public education. And if there is now, then that's new.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Yeah...I'm not old but I remember having to do the Lord's Prayer and O Canada before class started every morning back in Elementary school.

Even back then I didn't understand why I had to...After a while I refused to..I'd mime the words and eventually I wouldn't even open or move my mouth to do so.

Needless to say that I was always in trouble because if I didn't agree with or understand a rule,I'd break it.

I'm not sure if kids in regional schools have to do that anymore...I'm guessing Catholic schools or any other 'religious' school have morning prayers in their curriculum.

In the case of religious schools,I don't have a problem with it...After all,that's what makes them 'religious schools'

But there's no place for it in public schools.

Things could have changed...We had corporal punishment (the strap) in school back when I was a kid and I know damn well that doesn't exist anymore.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Here is an excerpt of the UK ruling I mentioned above:

Quote:

The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified [Law had called enshrining a moral view in law because it is held by a particular faith "deeply unprincipled."]; it is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective, but it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion, any belief system, cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious beliefs. Equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.

 

Further on the particular case here.

Frmrsldr

politicalnick wrote:

We are not talking about what is normal...we are talking about the correct application according to definition. The definition of a constitution is: 

A set of fundamnetal principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed as agreed upon by the people of that state or organization. This may be a written document or an unwritten set of commonly agreed upon principles.

By this definition a royal proclamation is NOT a constitution. If anything claiming to be a constitution is not agreed upon by the people then it is not a constitution it is simly a statute.

I agree with you entirely on this.

This is what egalitarian, representative democracy is all about.

This does not exist (as yet) in Canada with its unelected Senate (still appropriately called "the House of Lords" in the U.K.) and an inegalitarian, unelected and unrepresentative foreign sovereign (the British crown) being the ultimate head of state.

Frmrsldr

You're all over the page with this.

Here's an example:

Malcolm wrote:

 

Ironically, one of the Christian right's particular bugaboos has been "the war on Christmas" - an odd crusade, given that most Protestant settlement in what is now the US was led by religious groups that explicitly rejected any observance of Christmas as a liturgical or civil holiday.  (The theocratic junta in England between 1645 and 1660 actually banned not only Christmas, but many secular activities associated with the feast.)

You're confusing the Cromwellians in England with the Puritans in New England on the American continent. Provide a quote that establishes this claim: "..., given that most Protestant settlement in what is now the US was led by religious groups that explicitly rejected any observance of Christmas as a liturgical or civil holiday."

Although it (see further) wasn't first celebrated in New England (it was first celebrated by Spanish colonials in what is today the U.S.A.'s oldest city St. Augustine, FL and then after that in Henrico and other communities in Virginia), where do you think this "early" colonial white settler christian religious observance, "Thanksgiving" comes from?

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I'm not all over the page.  You're just having trouble following.

Christians - or any other religious group - have the right to express themselevs in the public square, and to bring the perspective of their faith to bear in their political choices and actions.  However, these perspectives are not to be privileged. 

Pretty straightforward, really.

While one could go into a fairly in depth discussion of the varigations of English dissenting protestants, the English Cromwellians and the New England Puritan colonizers were pretty much of a piece.  Certain Puritans went to the Americas to establish their intolerant theocracy.  Others stayed behind in England and, for a time, managed to establish it there as well.  On another thread you've indicated how confused you are about the political and religious history of England from the Reformation to the Hanoverian succession.  Let's not rehash that whole mess again.

Christmas was banned as surely in the Puritan colonies of New England as it was under Cromwell's damnable Protectorate.

There was nothing in my post about Thanksgiving, so the fact that it has several historical antecedents is irrelevant.

I was referring to particular aspect of modern evangelical ragemongering (the phony "war on Christmas" meme) and pointing to the particular irony that most PROTESTANT colonies in the Americas had actually banned Christmas observances.  That fact may be confusing to you.  It does not make it any less a fact.

Fidel

And imperialists were just innocent bystanders to it all. God save the Queen and Phil.

Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

Christmas was banned as surely in the Puritan colonies of New England as it was under Cromwell's damnable Protectorate.

There was nothing in my post about Thanksgiving, so the fact that it has several historical antecedents is irrelevant.

I was referring to particular aspect of modern evangelical ragemongering (the phony "war on Christmas" meme) and pointing to the particular irony that most PROTESTANT colonies in the Americas had actually banned Christmas observances. It does not make it any less a fact.

Four points about this confused mix-mash.

1. ALL the colonies (i.e., Massachussetts, Rhode Island, New York, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, etc.,) in America (excluding British North America - later called Canada) at this time were Protestant except Maryland which was called the "Catholic" state.

2. IF the American colonies "officially" observed thanksgiving, a CHRISTIAN observance/ceremony, THEN why would they refuse or actively discourage "official" observance/recognition of christmas, another CHRISTIAN observance/ceremony? This is a contradiction, in case you haven't noticed.

3. Were the majority of Protestants who came to New England intolerant of rival Protestants? Yes. But as history shows, they were not of the same beliefs as the Cromwellian Puritans(?) as they would have either stayed in England/not left for elsewhere or they would have gone to Massachusetts, etc., and tried to set up a like Cromwell state and later resisted the re-establishment of the Brtitish crown in the American colonies.

4. Provide a quote from a credible source that backs up your claim: "most PROTESTANT colonies in the Americas had actually banned Christmas observances."

George Victor

All of which justifies/contradicts the thread title, and the historians have not been led down the path.  Ya have a long arm, Steve.

Caissa
6079_Smith_W

@ Frmrsldr, Malcolm

Saying a prayer doesn't make a Church festival, and as far as I know, Thanksgiving is not actually part of the liturgical calendar - it does not celebrate some event in the life of Jesus, and it is not a Saint's Day.

As well, to say a ritual is Christian does not mean that all Christian faiths observe it. The Puritans didn't just ban Christmas. they also banned church marriage for the same reason - that it was a Roman revisionism. 

http://www.timetravel-britain.com/articles/christmas/ban.shtml

It might surprise some of the Puritans' philosophical descendents to know that marriage is not actually divinely-ordained at all.

To steer this back to the OP, I think Paul Martin's commons speech when he introduced legislation recognizing marriage equality is a good treatise on balancing religious faith and political responsibility:

http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2005/imp-176.htm

 

 

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Fmrsldr, you may want to stop pretending you know what you're talking about when you manifestly do not.

Christmas is a traditional Christian holiday which dissenting ptotestants rejected as being non-scriptural.  Most of the New England colonies were established by dissenting protestants.  Those colonies established by dissenting protestants (ie, protestant bodies not in communion with the established church) banned the observance of Christmas.

Thanksgiving (a uniquely North American creation) was an observance that (by the logic of the dissenting protestants invlved) was in accord with their strict principles - ie, thanking God is always acceptable.  Purporting to mark his birthday is not.

You are aware, are you not, that the New England colonies were established several years before their English coreligionists attempted to establish their theocracy during the Commonwealth.  The fact that they both happened in the same century doesn't mean they happened at the same time.  Your grasp of simple chronology (and much else) seems to be wanting.

George Victor

Two rulings by the Speaker of the House, Wednesday,confirm the accuracy of this thread's thesis...the moral state of the Conservatives (just to get us back to March, 2011).

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

And speaking of these tricky, lying cheats, once again they are accomplishing through their abuse of power something they could never achieve with the consent and awareness of the public: The privatization of Canadian water.

Frmrsldr

Frmrsldr wrote:

Provide a quote from a credible source that backs up your claim: "most PROTESTANT colonies in the Americas had actually banned Christmas observances."

I read the wikipedia article. It says that christmas was rendered illegal (by law) in Plymouth colony (which was later incorporated into Massachusetts colony), Massachusetts and Connecticut.

So the above quote is a bit sloppy and innaccurate as most protestant colonies (all were except (mostly) Maryland) had not (officially) banned christmas (services) - Plymouth colony (later part of Massachussets), Massachusetts and Connecticut were not a majority of American (protestant) colonies.

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Frmrsldr, Malcolm

Saying a prayer doesn't make a Church festival, and as far as I know, Thanksgiving is not actually part of the liturgical calendar - it does not celebrate some event in the life of Jesus, and it is not a Saint's Day.

 

So what. Thanksgiving is a christian observance and was/is(?) recognized by puritans - to the point where they took a break from their labors no less, even though it has nothing to do with jesus. They (puritans) probably justified/justify it by citing passages from the old testament bible where significant persons set time/a day aside to thank god for his/their blessings.

6079_Smith_W
Frmrsldr

Malcolm wrote:

You are aware, are you not, that the New England colonies were established several years before their English coreligionists attempted to establish their theocracy during the Commonwealth. 

Yeah, no kidding.

Malcolm wrote:

The fact that they both happened in the same century doesn't mean they happened at the same time.  Your grasp of simple chronology (and much else) seems to be wanting.

Your grasp of simple chronology and logic seems to be wanting.

Your "logic" goes like this:

Premise 1: Migration by puritans from England to the New England colonies started in the early Seventeenth Century. (True)

Premise 2: The establishment of the puritan Cromwellian Commonwealth occurred in the late Seventeenth Century. (True)

Conclusion 1/Premise 3: "The fact that they both happened in the same century doesn't mean they happened at the same time." (Partlally False)

Conclusion 2: It therefore follows that there was no puritan migration from England to New England during the period of the puritan Cromwellian Commonwealth. (False)

Since the founding of the Plymouth colony to the present day, there has been a steady flow (numbers vary year by year, of course) of migrants (some puritan, many not) from England to the New England colonies/states.

Ever heard of worlds like simultaneous, convergance, concurrent, overlap - the list of synonyms goes on - understand what these concepts mean?

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

*sigh*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving

So what are you telling me that I don't already know?

Nothing. See my post above on the subject.

Reading what people write carefully early on saves wasted posting later on.

Bacchus

Frmrsldr wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

Christmas was banned as surely in the Puritan colonies of New England as it was under Cromwell's damnable Protectorate.

There was nothing in my post about Thanksgiving, so the fact that it has several historical antecedents is irrelevant.

I was referring to particular aspect of modern evangelical ragemongering (the phony "war on Christmas" meme) and pointing to the particular irony that most PROTESTANT colonies in the Americas had actually banned Christmas observances. It does not make it any less a fact.

Four points about this confused mix-mash.

1. ALL the colonies (i.e., Massachussetts, Rhode Island, New York, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, etc.,) in America (excluding British North America - later called Canada) at this time were Protestant except Maryland which was called the "Catholic" state.

2. IF the American colonies "officially" observed thanksgiving, a CHRISTIAN observance/ceremony, THEN why would they refuse or actively discourage "official" observance/recognition of christmas, another CHRISTIAN observance/ceremony? This is a contradiction, in case you haven't noticed.

3. Were the majority of Protestants who came to New England intolerant of rival Protestants? Yes. But as history shows, they were not of the same beliefs as the Cromwellian Puritans(?) as they would have either stayed in England/not left for elsewhere or they would have gone to Massachusetts, etc., and tried to set up a like Cromwell state and later resisted the re-establishment of the Brtitish crown in the American colonies.

4. Provide a quote from a credible source that backs up your claim: "most PROTESTANT colonies in the Americas had actually banned Christmas observances."

You do realize that the puritans that left england after 1660 left BECAUSE  Cromwellian putitan england was dead and the Restoration of Charles II was happening? In fact many left after James II was overthrown (the Catholic King) and replaced by his daughter Mary and her husband William of Orange (the Protestant rulers)

Pages

Topic locked