Welcome Here, Formerly Canada
February 17, 2008 · By Aaron Unruh
As our intellectually liberal and politically Liberal overlords rush to accommodate the gentle souls of Wahhabism, they’ve also taken steps towards putting those dangerous Christians in their place. Premier Smirkalot himself, tackling the vital issues that preoccupy working Ontarians for all their waking hours, is taking steps to ban The Lord’s Prayer from the provincial Legislature:
Reciting the Lord’s Prayer to begin daily proceedings at the Ontario legislature is a dated practice that doesn’t reflect the province’s modern-day cultural diversity, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday as he proposed an all-party committee to look for alternatives.
It’s hard for me to work up much outrage over this, but we’ll get to that later on. But really: A dated practice? Doesn’t reflect modern-day cultural diversity?……..Oh, sorry. I nodded off for a moment there. On a related topic, did Premier McGuinty’s brain cease functioning some time in the 90s when these catch phrases were still kind of trendy? Aren’t they really the eight tracks of politicians’ excuse-making?
Oh well. Let’s turn to a more, ahem, coherent justification for banning The Lord’s Prayer:
My thoughts are simple, as soon as the belief of one faith is given primacy in public government that public government marginalizes all other faiths.
Indeed. At least now we can see the consequences of the exclusionary Lord’s prayer. But what does that marginalization by the “public government” consist of? Suppression of opposing religion and faiths? The rounding up of non-Christians into concentration camps? The burning of mosques and synagogues? Puritans showing up at Stageleft’s doorstep in order to throw him into a river with a rock tied his his leg? Well, not exactly:
The simple act of reciting only Christian prayers at the opening of legislative proceedings tells the populace that the Christian religion is, in the opinion of that public government, the only one worth its consideration, or time…
Well, offense is in the eye of the beholder. So it’s not that The Lord’s Prayer leads to mosque burning and suppression. It’s just that The Lord’s Prayer kind of makes non-Christians feel that they’re not really worth the consideration or the time of the government. The Christian kid gets all the attention while all the others compete for a passing glance from Big Daddy. Oh, gosh.
The operative word, of course, is “feel.” The Lord’s Prayer hasn’t affected Stageleft in any tangible negative manner. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, that blogger makes a living off of the government, not exactly an ideal vantage point from which to complain about government meaness (please do correct me if I’m mistaken). But The Lord’s Prayer makes him feel bad, causes him offence, and, this being Canada, those hurt feelings are sufficient reason to blast ahead and rid ourselves of any “dated,” non-diverse institutions we may have hanging around.
This, of course, leads to the inevitable replacement prayer. Look no further, Mr. Premier:
We call upon the higher powers of those gathered here and represented in this House for wisdom and guidance in our efforts here today…
To which the obvious response is, Won’t the atheists have their feelings hurt as a result? Stageleft you thoughtless cad.
But seriously. Ecumenicalism is great and all, but this is ridiculous. To equate Christianity with Islam and Buddhism and Tree Worship and whatever in our political institutions is to ignore the role that Christianity played in Canada’s history, not to mention in the development of those political and legal institutions that are currently up for wholesale reform for being too “dated” and for not sufficiently conforming to today’s current liberal fads. It’s a role that Islam and Buddhism and Tree Worship didn’t play because they weren’t around to any important degree. So they don’t get a prayer. Too bad, next!
As I said, it’s hard to be outraged by this. But it’s easy to feel badly as yet another bit of Canada gives way to the Trudeaupian wrecking ball. Canada is a nation that was founded by English and French, Protestant and Catholic, and our politics continue to reflect this in the form of traditions like the Lord’s Prayer (They also reflect aspects of First Nations culture and spirituality, though not nearly to the extent that they should). But that history and that tradition are incongruent with the brand new doctrines of multiculturalism and diversity and, most important of all, Stageleft’s hurt feelings. So out they go. And Premier McGuinty and Stageleft say to the Canada they inherited, “Good riddance.”
“In fact, if I’m not mistaken, that blogger makes a living off of the government, not exactly an ideal vantage point from which to complain about government meaness (please do correct me if I’m mistaken).”
You are mistaken. “Stageleft” is a group of three bloggers, none of whom are employed by the government. The others can disclose as they see fit: I have owned my own business since 1993.
I was referring to the blogger who calls himself Stageleft and who wrote the post in question, not the blog as a whole. Perhaps he can clarify how he has benefited from the state, if at all?
You stated:
“That blogger makes a living off of the government.”
“The blogger who calls himself Stageleft and who wrote the post in question” does not “make a living off the government”. What he choses to tell you about his work is up to him. I know he once worked for the Territorial government in Nunavut many years ago; that’s it.
Since we’re on the subject, perhaps you can clarify how you “have benefited from the state, if at all”, Aaron.
If it’s fair to ask the question of Stageleft merely because he has no problem with doing away with this practice then it’s equally fair to ask it of you.
Balbulican, thanks for the clarification.
Lulu, I won a scholarship from the government once. Any other weighty contributions to make?
Your implication was that since, in your mind, Stageleft had somehow benefited from the Ontario government, he had no business criticizing its practices. Hello totalitarian regime.
Any other snotty innuendos to make, Aaron?
“Your implication was that since, in your mind, Stageleft had somehow benefited from the Ontario government, he had no business criticizing its practices.”
Sigh, not really. The point was to illustrate how Stageleft had not been hurt in any tangible way by the Lord’s Prayer being read in the Nunavut Legislature. I thought that came across pretty well, at least to the general reading population.
But I understand why you would think that. Will you be running along now?
“In fact, if I’m not mistaken, that blogger makes a living off of the government, not exactly an ideal vantage point from which to complain about government meaness (please do correct me if I’m mistaken).”
Yawn. Your words exactly, dear. Now that you’ve been corrected, you’re backpedalling. Not exactly a position of strength but I can see why you might try.
One can assume that being a Blogging Tory means never having to stand by what you’ve said or implied.
Hilarious.
That’s exactly my point – how adorable of you to realize it.
Don’t be too concerned about my feelings, they’re not hurt, I just have a more inclusive world view than you do – I consider insular and intolerant societies to be generally negative thing things, you appear to disagree, as is your right of course, because we do not [yet] live in that sort of society.
Ya know, if any of us went to other less free lands we’d probably discover that the tolerance for our customs and our beliefs would be pretty darned low. If you want Canada lumped in with countries like that it’s your business, personally I’m glad we’re not there yet because I’m not a real big fan of becoming more like them.
As far as how I make my living I suppose I could tell you it’s none of your business, and I’d be perfectly justified in doing so, that sort of tactic is sort of pathetic IMO…. then again, maybe you are defined by who cuts your pay cheque and see things differently. But just to ease your mind Aaron, I once received government backed student loans, and for a while had an evening job teaching computer courses at a government funded community college (oh the horror ‘eh?).
Aside from those small forays into what you may consider “the dark side” I have spent my life working in either the private sector, or the non profit sector – sorry, aside from a tax refund cheque now and again, I’m not now, nor have I ever been, on the state payroll.
This is just another move by Premier Pansyface to bend over for all the little multi-culti groups out there. Way to go wispy man!
This is just another move by Premier Pansyface to bend over for all the little multi-culti groups out there. Way to go wispy man!
How Christian. Do you sneer like that when you hiss out the Lord’s Prayer?
“I consider insular and intolerant societies to be generally negative thing things, you appear to disagree, as is your right of course, because we do not [yet] live in that sort of society.”
I’m having trouble following your argument here. Was Canada “insular and intolerant” when the Lord’s Prayer was being recited in your provincial legislature? And what did that “intolerance” actually mean for you when the Lord’s Prayer was being read?
Sorry for trying to pull you past the realm of abstract platitudes, but I really think you need to start telling us why we should get rid of a long tradition on the basis of your hurt feelings and little else.
Lulu: “Dear”? “Adorable”? I don’t know who this person is, but is anyone else getting a distinctively Grandma vibe?
How Christian? Like you would care or even know what the word means huh? And I suppose Premier Pansyface is being the ultimate Christian by wiping out any trace of Christianity by banning the Lord’s Prayer? Your comments were much more “sneering” than mine.
What we have here Unruh is a failure to communicate with one LuLu, try calling her a douchebag, a c**t, a f**ktard and a short ass something or other and then talk about shoes…make her feel at home and the rest as they say is “history.” Good luck and happy communicating with this one.
I doubt that anyone here who is attacking Aaron has a monopoly on Miss Manner’s ways so why don’t we move back to what Aaron was trying to say which is why this matter has to be brought up in the legislature now when there are more pressing matters like the economy, terrorism and infrastructure that our politicians should be worrying about. As Aaron said, it’s not like the last 140 years have been intolerant dark ages, and even if so, it was certainly not because of the Lord’s Prayer being recited before Question Period every day!
why this matter has to be brought up in the legislature now when there are more pressing matters like the economy, terrorism and infrastructure that our politicians should be worrying about.
Because rightwing Christo-fascism is being put on notice.
Oh yes, that dangerous fascism that is Christianity. Riiiight! Pull your head out.
Matthew 6:
5″And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
So, now that things are back up, I ask regarding post #21 if Progressive even knows what the context of that verse is (aka what provoked Jesus’ words in that case)?
Who gives a crap, Matthew With No Last Name? Your “bible” is an archaic little book with rapidly dwindling credibility, assuming it evere really had any in the first place. Written decades after the events it purports to chronicle, it is merely a fanciful novel.
On the other hand, who does it hurt to not recite it? After all, it seems to be part of the sort of deeply confused idea that’s a holdover from monarchies: that the state has any real business or control pretending to regulate or sanctify itself religiously.
That’s not, however, what politicians in a democracy are supposed to do. They are supposed to do the people’s business. And the people are perfectly capable of saying the Lord’s Prayer, or any other prayer, as they please, any time they please. As are the politicians. It’s the act of trying to do it officially, FOR the people, which is nonsensical: both unnecessary, and demonstrating a sincere lack of appreciation for the whole idea of representative government.
But then, for all the claimed lack of interest, if you care enough about it to get all snippy and insulting towards those doing away with it, then perhaps you care a lot more about your perceived special privilege than you let on. In which case your whining about how having it hurts no one seems a tad hypocritical.
[...] (and lectures and lectures) Matthew and myself for writing mean-spirited, thoughtless posts, like this one. Instead, he’d like for us to write more thoughtful and substantive posts, like this [...]
I’m having trouble following your argument here. Was Canada “insular and intolerant†when the Lord’s Prayer was being recited in your provincial legislature?
Yup, and the more people of other faiths grew the more intolerant is was – times change Aaron, so should practices of this nature. The legislature says it represents everyone, and its practices should do the same, don’t you think?
And what did that “intolerance†actually mean for you when the Lord’s Prayer was being read?
I think I explained that – reread what I said.
Sorry for trying to pull you past the realm of abstract platitudes, but I really think you need to start telling us why we should get rid of a long tradition on the basis of your hurt feelings and little else.
Over time society has dropped and/or changed and/or created any number of traditions as it developed. It’s the difference between tradition for traditions sake, and relevant traditions.