[MattyM]

I believe in a higher power of some sort.

I'm not convinced that he/she/it may have had a son who walked the earth and who - according to popular art - may have looked a fair bit like Rob Baker. But thats neither here nor there.

But I don't beieve this sort of thing would be condoned by any god of any religion...

[NegPhil]

I rented this movie over the weekend. Scary stuff. These people ruin everything even summer camp. Unfortunately they are no longer held back behind the Mason Dixon line because they now occupy the White House. They are America. Gord help us all.

[fingernailsonhull]

If I was American, I'd be really concerned. As a Canadian, I'm sufficiently concerned to be watching Stephen Harper and working actively to ensure that he doesn't get re-elected.

Your point is well made, Sam. But do I detect an attempt to draw a comparison between the Bush administration and the Harper government? I don't necessarily think that holds water. But if your point was simply that Bush is a problem in the US and Harper (in your opinion) is a separate problem in Canada, then I have no beef with your post.

Carry on.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I'd go even further. I'd describe this sort of behaviour as abusive. These people are abusing these children.

I'd say that hits the nail more or less square on the head.

These people give religion a bad name.

[NegPhil]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=q1Rl0F5bR9o">http://youtube.com/watch?v=q1Rl0F5bR9o</a><!-- m -->

[MattyM]

that was random... and apparantly from Channel 4??

[Sam]

...do I detect an attempt to draw a comparison between the Bush administration and the Harper government?

I see some similarities. Both governments are headed by socially and fiscally conservative leaders who happen to be born-again Christians. Both give atleast lip-service support to groups who claim to support the 'family.' Ofcourse, their idea of supporting the family (or their idea of family as opposed to actual families) includes passing legislation that would limit my rights and the rights of my daughter - but that's another discussion.

I think what separates Harper from Bush is the opinions of Canadians. Harper wants a majority and, while Canadians aren't as enlightened as we like to think we are, we like to think we're enlightened. So far, Harper has done a better job than I anticipated in walking that fine line between not scaring moderate Canadians and not appearing to fail on deliverary of his promises to his socially conservative supporters. But, and this is a big but, he has managed to limit access to government services for those already disenfranchised by geography or poverty while buying votes in Quebec and southern Ontario. If he doesn't screw up significantly in the next few months, he may even pull off a majority.

That's when we'll see the real Harper. Personally, I don't want to see the real Harper.

[fingernailsonhull]

As a preface, I am Canadian. I'm only in St. Louis attending school. First, I doubt Harper is a born-again Christian. I don't think he has ever claimed to be. But I could be wrong. I do concede, however, that a large contingent of the Tories' voter base is Christian. At the same time, I'm not so sure we're not already seeing the real Harper. It is true that this budget is not a Conservative budget by any stretch of the imagination and it is designed to buy votes. However, I just don't buy the notion that Harper has some scary, hidden agenda that he's going to whip out if he wins a majority.

[Sam]

First, I doubt Harper is a born-again Christian. I don't think he has ever claimed to be. But I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think he is actually. Here's a link to an article in the Walrus about Harper's religious conversion and some of it's political implications:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/politics-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/">http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/ ... -theocons/</a><!-- m -->

However, I just don't buy the notion that Harper has some scary, hidden agenda that he's going to whip out if he wins a majority.

I don't think his agenda is that hidden either. If you're looking, his agenda is out there. He's already removed 'women's equality' as a mandate item for the Status of Women Canada.

I'm not really afraid of him either. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution. Harper would have a heck of a time reversing that. So. He's sort of stuck with Trudeau's little legacy there. All the same, I don't trust him, I won't vote for him and I'll encourage everyone I meet to not vote for him.

[fingernailsonhull]

First, I doubt Harper is a born-again Christian. I don't think he has ever claimed to be. But I could be wrong.

Yeah, I think he is actually. Here's a link to an article in the Walrus about Harper's religious conversion and some of it's political implications:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/politics-stephen-harper-and-the-theocons/">http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/ ... -theocons/</a><!-- m -->

However, I just don't buy the notion that Harper has some scary, hidden agenda that he's going to whip out if he wins a majority.

I don't think his agenda is that hidden either. If you're looking, his agenda is out there. He's already removed 'women's equality' as a mandate item for the Status of Women Canada.

I'm not really afraid of him either. Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution. Harper would have a heck of a time reversing that. So. He's sort of stuck with Trudeau's little legacy there. All the same, I don't trust him, I won't vote for him and I'll encourage everyone I meet to not vote for him.

I had not heard anything about Harper's Christianity. I'll need to check that out. As to voting in the next election (whenever that may be), I guess we'll agree to disagree. Thanks for the interaction.