Having been a Canadian all my life,I have just discovered to my horror that I hold “un-Canadian” views. (Grammar geeks: I have put those dual squiggly commas around that word because it's someone else's word--and for that matter, someone else's notion.
That “someone else,” by the way, is the Honourable (tough for me to say it so nicely) Thomas Mulcair the leader of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP). Apparently he was outraged recently that a Christian humanitarian group, having been given a donation from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), does not share his moral views.
And by extension, any person or persons that does not share his views apparently is—here's that word again--”un-Canadian.”
The issue at stake for Mr. Mulcair is that the Crossroads Christian Communication holds to the traditional view of marriage, not the fringe view. He has the audacity to speak on behalf of 32 million Canadians, by expressing his views as theirs—and I would like to match his audacity with something that resembles an open letter to him.
First, whatever happened to mutual tolerance, Mr. Mulcair? I thought we “bigoted, hate-mongering right-wing” evangelicals were supposed to be tolerant of all rights, races, and religions. Doesn't it work the other way, too?
Second, whatever happened to fiscal responsibility, Mr. Mulcair? Just for the record, sir, these so-called evil evangelicals have contributed over $535 million to development work overseas over the years—without asking the government for a penny. If the deep wells and clean water that many of these groups are developing were under-written by any form of government, it would have cost ten times that.
Third, whatever happened to factual reporting, Mr. Mulcair? You completely trump all the good that this particular group is doing, zero in on a view that is different from yours, then make some tenuous connection between this group and hate crimes in the host country. Are you sure of your facts, Mr. Mulcair? (I didn't think so.)
Fourth, whatever happened to consistent diatribes, Mr. Mulcair? By that I mean, Are you also going after government agencies that support child labour violation, human trafficking, specious immigration claims, and such? I wonder why your assault is so focused on evangelicals who do not embrace your particular worldview.
Last, whatever happened to founder's principles, Mr. Mulcair? I'm sure you know something about the NDP's founding principles. That said founder, a Mr. Tommy Douglas, was (alas, alas) one of those evangelicals—a Baptist pastor, no less. It seems that you are leading a party that has strayed very, very far from those great foundational convictions that Mr. Douglas (and the party) adhered to.
Strange admission for me, Mr. Mulcair, but I appreciate many of those same views today. One that we might share is the role of government in volunteer overseas development. My thoughts are that they should back off, and CIDA should not get involved in donating money. But, and here's where we differ, it wouldn't be for moral reasons. If that was the case, and it appears you haven't thought this through, we would have to throw out so many other efforts and organizations, that support despotic government worldwide.
Obviously, I could not, with a clear conscience support most current NDP positions, but I recognize the value in their watchdog role. I have stated here before that the NDP always make great leaders of the Opposition, but never leaders of the House.
If you want to fling the “un-Canadian” charge at people like me, I have every right to get my back up. You see, because of certain choices, which you apparently don't agree with, I suppose I have saved the government thousands of dollars over these past few decades by pursuing a moral lifestyle.
In concrete terms, let me spell some examples for you: No messy divorce and the financial fallout from it; no unstable employment issues;a family life that is in the process of producing responsible contributors to the economy; and no jail time, with all its social and emotional upheaval. How's that for starters? Multiply that by the millions just like me, and you understand why your argument is lame, porous, and faulty.
My point here is simple: Watch out for those Canadians you defame. That in itself, to use your word, is very “un-Canadian.”
No comments:
Post a Comment