Brief News, and Two Links Worth Looking At ...

Sorry for the silence around here. I have been crazy-busy at work, and since the election has been postponed, it seemed like an even better idea than usual to focus on what pays the bills.

Plus, my mom & dad were in town over the weekend. On Friday, my wife and I took Dad to a baseball game. It figures that Friday was the night that the Jays decided to stink up the joint, but it was still a blast to finally attend a major-league game with the guy that got me interested in baseball (and the Cleveland Indians!) to begin with.

Still on the family scene, last night we took the folks out to celebrate their anniversary, a few days early since on the actual date they'll be back on their way to God's country. They tied the knot in 1969, which means that as of 31 May, they will have been married 36 years ... man alive, that's really something. Sometimes the best sources of inspiration are those closest to home.

Anyway, on the political scene, here are a couple of interesting articles to get you thinking (and hopefully, commenting).

1. This one from the Globe is interesting, despite the rather slanted headline. Personally, I think Hugh Segal gets it right: a political party that closes its doors to people of faith - or that demands those people check their beliefs at the door in order to gain admittance - is on the wrong track. If "freedom of religion" - and for that matter, "freedom of speech" - is to mean anything, it's not enough to say that people of faith will not be persecuted. They must be allowed to advance their views within the democratic process. I believe that with all my heart, even if my religious faith is somewhat different from many so-called "so-cons".

That said, if you join a political party and seek to represent it, you are obliged to sign on to that party's platform. Now, you do not have to agree with that platform 100%, and you can - or should - be able use the structures of the party to attempt to change that platform. But if you're going to be a CPC candidate, that means you follow the CPC position. If the CPC has decided that it will not introduce abortion legislation - and it has - then you have a choice: Accept that the Party has chosen this position, and live with that decision (unless/until you and others are able to persuade the Party to change it), or find another political banner to run under.

2. This is from Reason, a US libertarian-friendly journal. It deals with the UK Conservative Party ... but maybe you will see some similarities that can be applied to the domestic scene. I'll have more to say on this another time (hopefully soon!).

More later.


At 1:08 a.m., Blogger Irish Eyes said...

You comments about party loyalty are bang on Jason.

Parties need to be accepting of all faiths and backgrounds. But once you have joined, you should support the platform.

If you can't do that, then you should reconsider your allegiances.

No you can't possibly support everything in a platform. I have serious reservations about the intellectual capacities of anyone who says such a thing.

Still, a party has certain "fouding principles" or core values, and those are what should be upheld at all times.

At 3:30 a.m., Blogger Mark Francis said...

About the same time Rick Anderson wrote on the topic and said that if riding nominations are being won by candidates pushed by marginal special interest groups, then there is a concern.

He seems to feel that the nominated candidate should reflect the community as a whole, and no be beholden to a smaller constituency.

Of all the ways to express the concerns I have, I think that's the best because it just doesn't apply to religion.


Post a Comment

<< Home