Harper rolling the dice with his eternal salvation

…While various groups including the religious right were willing to cut the Conservatives slack when they had a minority government, they now want the majority government to pay attention to their concerns. Some critics suggest abortion is part of a hidden agenda they’ve always feared would reveal itself under a majority government, even though Harper has insisted time and again he wants no part of opening up the abortion issue under any circumstances. We do think that at the very least, whether Stephen Harper wants to initiate this debate or not, that this debate must occur in Canada,” David Krayden, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, said Thursday….(Source)

Harper has no business jackbooting debate on abortion.  He made a very stupid promise to the Canadian people, one in which it would be very immoral to keep — both in terms of trampling on freedom of speech and sustaining the attack on the dignity of the human person.

If Harper refuses to allow the debate on abortion to progress,  his very salvation will be at stake.

Can anyone, in their wildest imagination, believe Harper would have ever said this:

“As ong as I am prime minister we are not opening the debate on the environment.” – H/T Stephen Gray

7 thoughts on “Harper rolling the dice with his eternal salvation

  1. Well it’s certainly better than letting that fully pro-abortion, anti-Catholic Layton and his socialist NDPers rule the roost!! It’s bad enough they are the official opposition! Extreme socialism = Communism lite, but any form of Communism is bad!

  2. I think we need to cut Harper some slack and give him some time. Incremental changes come slowly and that is our best hope.

    I do not understand why some pro-lifers bring out the knives and clubs at politicians who refuse to jump at their every whim? If you look at the Clergy, and I am talking Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelicals, who say they are pro-life but never lift a finger to support that view. As I mentioned in a previous post, one could wear out three pairs of shoes in my city looking for a pro-life message or even prayer intentions, nary a word from these double speaking clergy.

    If there is any duplicity it exists in the churches, who say yes we are pro-life but vote with their inactions. They are no different than politicians who claim to be pro-life but vote against it. If I would rate our clergy I would give them an F, they get a lower grade than our conservative government.

  3. Now Stephen, fair enough, so that makes many of our clergy damned to Hell? I think we are both a bit harsh, even if there is some truth to these statements?

  4. I think both Stephen an Cliff have made some good points.

    My personal view is that change will necessarily come incrementally (as Cliff suggests) but the only way to get the politicians to move is to get their attention with robust and vigorous pressure (as Stephen suggests).

    It’s like trying to get a mule to start moving. The animal can be stubborn so we’ll need to do more than just whisper sweet nothings into its ear. At the same time, however, we can’t expect the mule to respond my sprinting like a thoroughbred.

    So yes to vigorous pressure, but also yes to being patient about the speed of change.

    Thanks my 2 cents, for what it’s worth!

  5. And just think if an entire congregation waltzed into an MP’s office and demanded change, don’t you think he/she would have to listen, but if only one or two pro-lifers speak to them they are ambivalent.

    We need re-enforcements and we need them now, and yes then we can be patient and gentle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
6 × 5 =