WR Leadership Follow Through

[stringer]

Originally Posted by Ali

Gravity is still a theory.

I don't think so.

[Full Curl Earl]

Actually, the scientific community is no longer separated on the climate change/Global warming issue. It's now science, not an opinion. She should have done her research on this very important issue. Thank goodness for all hunters she was not successful, or there would be a well head on every square mile of this Province! Do I think the PC's are any better? Only slightly. But I'll take what I can get.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Josh J

He never said that he did not believe it as a candidate. It's jsut that he did not make the comment as a candidate. He can believe whatever he wants to believe. That is his right. I can guarantee you that there are other candidates or now MLAs that share many of the same views as him, and that is their right as well.

Just about any candidate in any election will have views that others find disagreeable.

LOL OK. I don't even know how to argue with that.

So if the head of the local Ku Klux Klan runs for office and doesn't say anything offensive once he files his nomination papers, local black voters shouldn't be concerned or think that he couldn't represent them fairly and sincerely.... OK.... LOL Oh, and if Graham James runs for office after he gets out of prison, you would vote for him because he wasn't a candidate when he molested kids...

hang on, my sides hurt.

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

ok, lets examine your statement. In which role was he expressing his true feelings, and in which role was he lying?

How can a person say "This is what I believe" and then turn around and say "Oh, I don't believe that. I have my candidate hat on now". Sheesh... You get a TRUER picture of what a person actually believes when they don't have their "candidate hat" on.

Here's the thing about religion and public office. You can be any religion you want just don't let it influence you in your duties as a public official.

We have had 9 Prime Ministers with 17 mandates given by Canadians who were Catholic and only one ran into to issues with the Vatican with his stance on Gay Marriage. That was Paul Martin. At no time did Martin allow his religious views interfer with what the country was asking for - with respect to gay marriages.

Personally, if the pastor had stood on his election platform saying he was against gay marriages, then I would have had a bigger problem with his attempts to use the office to form a public policy. He made his beliefs known while he was in his role as a pastor (and if his church doctrine says he has to follow their edicts, then he did the right thing - even if those who don't hold similar views agree). In his election campaign, he remained neutral on his beliefs - which he should have - as those should not appear to be motivating his role in public office.

As for Leech, I was actually surprised that I was hearing that finally a white, male was acknowledging he had an advantage over anyone else. White, male privilege is often swept under the carpet as non-existent and the only way to level out the playing fields is to acknowledge it exists and get on with it. I truly believe that what Leech was trying to say was he was at an advantage for being white as he saw it as a neutral position with respect to special interest groups - he couldn't be accused then of acting for the betterment of one special interest group over another by virtue of race. Sadly, his speech writers sucked at getting that across without sounding like he was a huge d*ckhead.

I think that the one thing Smith dropped the ball on with these guys is that she wasn't clear that as a politician, no matter what their personal beliefs were/are they are required to act for all their constituents on all subject matters.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by pikergolf

Never happen Hal, science can't agree on anything let alone something that has so much money attached to it.

I am just as suspicious of so called scientific agreement on things like this as I am of political agreement. It is the money attachment that speaks loudest.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Yéil

Here's the thing about religion and public office. You can be any religion you want just don't let it influence you in your duties as a public official.

Perhaps, but the folks in the group he says are going to burn in hell certainly don't have to elect him. Would you vote for a federal party leader who said Albertans should burn in hell? or gun owners will burn in hell? You have to be responsible for your statements and understand that inflamatory statemenst will generate inflamatory responses from the public. WR can't cry about it. You want free speech? Great, take the heat then.

And to say someone's personal beliefs don't impact the performance of their public dutues is beyond ridiculous. Will the pastor support gay marriage or protection by the Human Rights Commission? Unlikely. Did Trudeau's personal beliefs impact any of his legislation? hmmmm?

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by stringer

I don't think so.

No, theories of gravity abound. The most recent one is the Unified Field Theory. I think you are confusing the law of gravity with respect to Newton's findings. It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs.

[Josh J]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Perhaps, but the folks in the group he says are going to burn in hell certainly don't have to elect him. Would you vote for a federal party leader who said Albertans should burn in hell? or gun owners will burn in hell? You have to be responsible for your statements and understand that inflamatory statemenst will generate inflamatory responses from the public. WR can't cry about it. You want free speech? Great, take the heat then.

And to say someone's personal beliefs don't impact the performance of their public dutues is beyond ridiculous. Will the pastor support gay marriage or protection by the Human Rights Commission? Unlikely. Did Trudeau's personal beliefs impact any of his legislation? hmmmm?

It is the right of the public to react however they see fit to his statement, providing they do not act out against him physically. I support Danielle Smith for upholding free speech, the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. In fact, if I had been on the fence about who to vote for (I was not) that would have cemented WR in place right there.

Also, of course everyone's beliefs affect their performance. just like someone who believes the rich should give all their money to the poor would try to influence that in politics. The important thing is that a politician acts according to his concsience and according to his constituents.

[Miles1996]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

So if the head of the local Ku Klux Klan runs for office....

Oko,
If anyone that is or was a member of the KKK runs, then it only makes sense for non-whites to be concerned with that's person's possible election to public office. Do you think that the prospect of anyone who was, or is, a Christian getting elected, should cause panic in the gay community?

Because if you do, and if you are equating the KKK with Christians, there is nothing else to say, not because it offends me, but because it is a ridiculous analogy. If it was simply rhetoric taken to the extreme, then I'll offer my opinion on why I believe that the pastor's blog entry was misrepresented and used as a tool to manipulated the masses.

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Perhaps, but the folks in the group he says are going to burn in hell certainly don't have to elect him. Would you vote for a federal party leader who said Albertans should burn in hell? or gun owners will burn in hell? You have to be responsible for your statements and understand that inflamatory statemenst will generate inflamatory responses from the public. WR can't cry about it. You want free speech? Great, take the heat then.

And why then limit it to what is articulated by a candidate? Why not consider if a candidate is of a particular religious view that it would be a given that they would believe what their church says is a sin? Why would you vote them in if you knew they held the belief that any sinner (to them)would burn in hell? There are dozens of religious doctrine that exist that list off a multitude of sins that would result in the said soul to burn in hell. What is the difference between a candidate that has made their beliefs public over the ones the believe in the the same types of doctrines but remain quiet?

With respect to your question on Trudeau. He was Catholic. I can't say that I've seen any of the legislation passed during his term as PM or an MP that was affected by his religious views. Now his views of French Canada and the Monarchy are whole other matters. Not sure which I would say is more partisan.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Josh J

There are a great many scientists who do not ascribe to global climate change. It is a theory, and as such until it is proven it remains that. There is plenty enough evidence to show that much of the research results for the global warming science was tailored to suit the agendas of those who wanted to push global warming.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Don't confuse scientific hypothesis with a scientific theory.

It takes a LOT of evidence to become a theory.

Great education here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Full Curl Earl

Actually, the scientific community is no longer separated on the climate change/Global warming issue. It's now science, not an opinion. She should have done her research on this very important issue. Thank goodness for all hunters she was not successful, or there would be a well head on every square mile of this Province! Do I think the PC's are any better? Only slightly. But I'll take what I can get.

Wrong.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Yéil

And why then limit it to what is articulated by a candidate? .

Because to my way of thinking, what a person chooses to knowingly articulate in public is (or should be if the person is honest) a telling measure of his beliefs and intentions. For me, a politician's beliefs, stated or observed through behavior, are important. Election results would suggest I'm not alone in this belief. A thrice married adulterer who pontificates about "family values" doesn't register on my credibility meter.

I don't label or generalize about anyone because of their membership in a religion or racial or culteral group (within reason), but I DO label them based on what they publicly declare.

[Josh J]

Originally Posted by Yéil

And why then limit it to what is articulated by a candidate? Why not consider if a candidate is of a particular religious view that it would be a given that they would believe what their church says is a sin? Why would you vote them in if you knew they held the belief that any sinner (to them)would burn in hell? There are dozens of religious doctrine that exist that list off a multitude of sins that would result in the said soul to burn in hell. What is the difference between a candidate that has made their beliefs public over the ones the believe in the the same types of doctrines but remain quiet?

With respect to your question on Trudeau. He was Catholic. I can't say that I've seen any of the legislation passed during his term as PM or an MP that was affected by his religious views. Now his views of French Canada and the Monarchy are whole other matters. Not sure which I would say is more partisan.

x2

[Josh J]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I don't label or generalize about anyone because of their membership in a religion or racial or culteral group (within reason), but I DO label them based on what they publicly declare.

Publicly declare what their religion has been publicly declaring for thousands of years? What he said is nothing new. And it is the official position of many, many churches and many more Bible-believing Christians.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Josh J

x2

So it doesn't matter what someone running for office has ever said or done before they filed their papers? Only what they say in front of the microphone at the candidates debate? Well, that's your view. We will never agree.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Josh J

Publicly declare what their religion has been publicly declaring for thousands of years? What he said is nothing new. And it is the official position of many, many churches and many more Bible-believing Christians.

That's great. I'm not saying he shouldn't have made the statement or held the belief. I'm saying he should stand by it, that he should be judged by it. It's what he believes.


Well, guess the majority of Albertans don't hold the same view, so can't really argue with the electoral result, right? If they did, Danielle would be selecting a cabinet. In the end, really nothing to argue about when I think about it

[Josh J]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

So it doesn't matter what someone running for office has ever said or done before they filed their papers? Only what they say in front of the microphone at the candidates debate? Well, that's your view. We will never agree.

No, it does matter. And he obviously was not elected. But in my mind, in this instance, it should not have had any bearing on the outcome of the election. The platform of the WR party has always been that they will not deal with issues of morality, so whether or not he supported gay marriage would have had nothing to do with his performance as an MLA.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Josh J

The platform of the WR party has always been that they will not deal with issues of morality, .

And voters have to decide whether they believe that promise will be fulfilled or not. Many didn't. That seems clear.

[firegod74]

I don't think it had anything to do with her campain. I think the problem is that Alberta has its blinders on and all they see is the Conservatives in front of them. I don't think the common person sees how the party has changed over the years, and they are just voting out of tradition.

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Because to my way of thinking, what a person chooses to knowingly articulate in public is (or should be if the person is honest) a telling measure of his beliefs and intentions. For me, a politician's beliefs, stated or observed through behavior, are important. Election results would suggest I'm not alone in this belief. A thrice married adulterer who pontificates about "family values" doesn't register on my credibility meter.

I don't label or generalize about anyone because of their membership in a religion or racial or culteral group (within reason), but I DO label them based on what they publicly declare.

So as long as any candidate doesn't open their mouth in public you are willing to ignore what they "might" believe given their affiliation to a religious doctrine? But if they articulate their beliefs, you will take that as a telling measure of their beliefs and intentions...

That makes no sense. The "adulterer" would only be considered an "adulterer" if there were any religions that prescribe to that belief. There are many religions and beliefs that polygamous marriages are sacred. So what you are saying that it's ok for you to determine when someone is sinning according to your own belief systems but not someone who is running for office?

Is attending a place of worship not in and of itself, a public declaration of a belief? Is stating ones religions preference not an act of a public declaration? According to you, you sound like you'd prefer a candidate to remain silent on what they believe so that you can apply what ever belief system you have to them....hmmm....

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Yéil

So as long as any candidate doesn't open their mouth in public you are willing to ignore what they "might" believe given their affiliation to a religious doctrine? But if they articulate their beliefs, you will take that as a telling measure of their beliefs and intentions...

That makes no sense. The "adulterer" would only be considered an "adulterer" if there were any religions that prescribe to that belief. There are many religions and beliefs that polygamous marriages are sacred. So what you are saying that it's ok for you to determine when someone is sinning according to your own belief systems but not someone who is running for office?

Is attending a place of worship not in and of itself, a public declaration of a belief? Is stating ones religions preference not an act of a public declaration? According to you, you sound like you'd prefer a candidate to remain silent on what they believe so that you can apply what ever belief system you have to them....hmmm....

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you have to be careful generalizing about someone's views on specific subjects based on their religious affiliation. If someone says they are Catholic, it might be a reasonable bet that they believe in God, but there are varying views within the church membership about gay rights and birth control regardless of what the Pope may say. But if a Catholic comes out and publicly says "Gays will burn in hell and I'm against gay rights and gay marriage" then I'll take them at their word. I will believe that they believe what they say. And I'll take them at their word even if they file nomination papers a week later.

They have a perfect right to believe what they believe, and say what they believe. And I have a right and duty to decide if they can represent MY views. If I think they can, I'll vote for them.

I think perhaps you are having a little trouble with this because it involves the WR. Let me flip it around for you.... Let's say the President of PETA runs for the presidency of the AFGA.... are you suggesting his or her previous statements made before filing nomination papers should have no bearing on your vote? Only what they say in their speech at the convention?

[Redfrog]

I find the honesty of these two guys and the support from their leader absolutely refreshing. This was simply dirty politics with the PC beating the drum about a couple of non issues.

Redford has already shown how quickly she will toss someone under the bus for her own gains.

The preacher's beliefs are no different than a lot of other Christians in office. They can recuse themselves from these issues or vote as their constituents want them to or abstain. We saw it with the LGR. Members who held strong beliefs voted party lines and some who supported the LGR voted their constituents.

Da white guy simply was not clear. There was no racial slur or slam intended.

Smith supported her candidates who had done nothing wrong other than speaking their mind. No hate crime there in spite of how it was spun.

It did damage the WRP and cost some votes. But at the end of the day the right thing is still the right thing to do even when it's hard.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

I find the honesty of these two guys and the support from their leader absolutely refreshing. .

I do too Red. Good that they stood up and said what they believed and people got to decide if they wanted to support those views or not.

[Yéil]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that you have to be careful generalizing about someone's views on specific subjects based on their religious affiliation. If someone says they are Catholic, it might be a reasonable bet that they believe in God, but there are varying views within the church membership about gay rights and birth control regardless of what the Pope may say. But if a Catholic comes out and publicly says "Gays will burn in hell and I'm against gay rights and gay marriage" then I'll take them at their word. I will believe that they believe what they say. And I'll take them at their word even if they file nomination papers a week later.

They have a perfect right to believe what they believe, and say what they believe. And I have a right and duty to decide if they can represent MY views. If I think they can, I'll vote for them.

I think perhaps you are having a little trouble with this because it involves the WR. Let me flip it around for you.... Let's say the President of PETA runs for the presidency of the AFGA.... are you suggesting his or her previous statements made before filing nomination papers should have no bearing on your vote? Only what they say in their speech at the convention?

I'm actually having no problems at all irrespective of it being WR or PETA.

What I'm getting from you is that as long as a candidate remains silent, it affords you the opportunity to "read between the lines" on their particular degree of their belief systems and to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may not in absolute, agree with everything their religion's doctrine dictates it's all good - in your example of a Catholic not agreeing with church doctrine of birth control, gay marriage - you know that the church is against it, but you hold out that some folks will not agree with it. However, if they articulate their beliefs and it leaves you no room to blur the lines between what you think and believe in, or want them to believe in then you won't vote for them. That would be your choice to spend your vote anyway you decide.

What you have also articulated is that if a candidate speaks to their views in their day-to-day occupation is one thing, that if they don't repeat it while running, they are liars. Those two opinions seem in conflict with one another.

[HunterDave]

Free speech or not, I don't think that the WRP needs candidates with the kind of baggage that the Pastor is carrying or someone that is going to make politically incorrect and controversial statements. The party is young and hopefully now that they are somewhat established, better candidates will emerge to replace the bozo's. Perhaps recruiting some of the experienced PC incumbents that were defeated is an opposition.

[260 Rem]

Ms. Smith has already acknowledged that WR positions will be reviewed. She's a smart cookie and now knows better what it will take to win. One huge problem WR will have to overcome is the "flip - flop" label that is so repugnant to the WR loyalists.

[bessiedog]

Yeil... Oko wins this one by default.

He used the word 'thrice' in a sentence on this board.

game over.


Here's the sticking point with old Pastor such and gayburner...

He's a pastor... his mandate is to Promote his views..... Albertans are not going to 'take the chance' that he can separate church actions from state actions when the dude spends his life PROMOTING HIS DOGMA

... which happens to **** on alot of peoples karma.... heheh.


#2. He posted his views up on a website for the vast world wide interweb to see..... Like most Albertans.. I'm NOW gonna assume he's not a secular kind of fellow.... he's got some evangelism in him. So when it comes down to me making a tiny 'x' , in front of his name... lot of people went.......ummmmm... naw.

Now i'm gonna get a little gross here.. your Trudeau example is invalid... he didn't make that constant public knowledge and keep his beliefs out there for the media to pick up on it.

Granted, in the age of the interweb and being that watergate is now something the media aspires to, whether its legit or not, a candidate needs to be able to prove he can separate church-state.

ESPECIALLY since we see soooooo many south of the border wanting to incorporate the two.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Yéil

I'm actually having no problems at all irrespective of it being WR or PETA.

What I'm getting from you is that as long as a candidate remains silent, it affords you the opportunity to "read between the lines" on their particular degree of their belief systems .

NO, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying I will take at face value what the person publicly pronounces. Period. How much clearer can I be for you? No reading between any lines at all.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

NO, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying I will take at face value what the person publicly pronounces. Period. How much clearer can I be for you? No reading between any lines at all.

So are you saying you would rather have a candidate who kept his true beliefs from the public?