I'm guessing it's a reference to the Unitarians. If ever there was a bunch of left-footers, that's them.

It's a joke.

Fuck.

The NDP came out of the CCF, which was basically a political extension of the social gospel, which is a reading of Christianity that emphasizes Christ's social teachings (love your neighbour, help the poor, feed the hungry, etc.). Their influence was very strong in the early days of the Party -- hence Tommy Douglas, and before him JS Woodsworth -- which is why they pushed so strongly for universal healthcare and the CPP, for example, but for the last 35 years or so, the party has shifted very strongly to the secular left.

What exactly Harper means by his statement, I'm really not sure...if he's saying that the NDP has shifted away from its religious roots, I agree completely. If, however, he's suggesting that the social gospel is an historic error in interpreting Christianity...then he's ensured I'll never even consider voting for a party with such a right-wing reading of the Bible...

Anyway, the Liberals should be making a bigger deal about this, where Harper starts complaining about Canada;s descent into moral relativism and nihilism...

What's unclear about it, Chris? Modern Western Christianity has no shortage of clergy who disavow--either implicitly or explicitly--the teachings of the Bible, favouring instead a milquetoasty "social justice" ethos that bears only the most passing resemblance to the faith they claim to champion. Unsurprisingly, these people are almost universally statist/redistributionist, politically, and hence they are warmly welcomed by the NDP.

But otherwise, Don is right. It looks like it was played for mild chuckles.

Please explain how a social justice reading of the Bible is at odds with the New Testment. I seem to have missed the places where Jesus called for a tax system that favours the rich...or deep cuts to social spending...or shunning and/or attacking minorities...or war of any kind. If you could tell me where, specifically, Christ was in favour of such principles, I'd love to see it.

Beg the question much, Matthew?

Likewise, I must have missed the bits in which Jesus argued that government-run daycare centres were preferable to parental care, called for pointless handgun bans that will do nothing to reduce crime, favoured morally hazardous welfare policies that only entrench the poor in their poverty, championed unregulated access to abortion, cheered those who would abandon millions of innocents to the whims of psychotic tyrants, and generally advocated the reduction of individual human responsibility to a nullity via the continual, unending increase in the size and responsibilities of the leviathan state.

If you could tell me where, specifically, Christ was in favour of such principles, I'd love to see it.

I honestly didn't get it.

Fuck.

So what's your point? That Christ wouldn't have supported the Liberal Party? I'm not arguing he would have. I doubt he would've supported the Conservatives, for that matter, since he was, from every account in the New Testament, someone who didn't out much stock in earthly power. As far as "morally hazardous welfare policies" go, I think you'll find he did say that people need to feed the hungry, clothe the poor, help the meek, etc. Nowhere that I've ever seen does he say that helping those in poverty is covered by a statute of limitations, and that after one handout you should abandon them to whatever fate befalls them. As far as the rest of your arguments go...I don't know about pre-emptive war, but he was pretty clear on turning the other cheek...something along the lines of "seventy times seven", and them some. For the "reduction of human responsibility", I think that any reading of the New Testament generally implies that everyone is ultimately responsible to God and only God.

In fact, I think that the same could be said of faith (or lack thereof): in the end, whether it's genuinely Christian or simply, as you put it, a "milquetoasty social justice ethos", is a matter between the individual and God. And I'm not going to allow the likes of some theo-con ideologue to tell me that my faith is less valid just because it doesn't jibe with his political viewpoint.

Hope you didn't take my 'Fuck' the wrong way - considering the substantial context that was provided!

I just finished reading the speech and then umpteen (anti-Harper) blogs and I was exasperated.

Anyway - how 'bout those Sens. Fuuuuuuck.

"...it doesn't sound like a man who one day hopes to be Prime Minister"

And that's a good thing, wouldn't you say?

We need more people in government who haven't orchestrated their entire lives with the goal of achieving the highest office in the land - for its own sake.

Like, say John Kerry - or Paul Martin.

I'm pretty sure its a joke made at the expense of the "godless socialists". Which isn't entirely a fair comment as election studies show the NDP do score better with self-avowed aethists than they do with other elements of the religious specture.

More fundamentally its likely a barb aimed at the hippy jesus elements of some of the oldguard prodestant churches who have their feel good social justice views but have failed to consider the moral content of the bible as being of any great importance. Its usually a tangential reference to a failure to appreciate the "sanctity of life". Though in more recent terms it would likely be applicable to United Church ministers who don't happen to think the fact that the bible comes out against homosexuality should influence their opinion on gay marriages. Essentially disregarding the religion they claim to represent in favour of their "social justice" views. He's probably referring to people like Bill Blakey.

It's a good thing to a point, Kate. But I'm not going to let the refreshing candor of it all overshadow what he actually said — which was no big deal, but still rather more disparaging towards Canada than I'd like. Not that there's anyone better out there.

"We need more people in government who haven't orchestrated their entire lives with the goal of achieving the highest office in the land - for its own sake."

What has Stephen Harper done outside of politics?He's a policy wonk who crossed over. And more power to him! But to claim Stephen Harper is any less of a professional politician than Martin, or Layton and Duceppe for that matter, isn't being exactly honest.

But, of course, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives aren't interested in power.

That certainly explains the decision to elect Stockwell Day as leader, as well as some of the gaffs last election.

Good point.

"Though in more recent terms it would likely be applicable to United Church ministers who don't happen to think the fact that the bible comes out against homosexuality should influence their opinion on gay marriages."

Or even more, the United Church Moderator who publicly mused that perhaps Christ wasn't the Son of God after all. I'm more of a FSM-believer than anything, so it doesn't bother me much - but shouldn't the senior officer of the Church at least pretend to believe the central tenet of the faith he leads? His honesty was, I guess, preferable to hypocrisy - but wouldn't honour compel one to resign in such a case?