Sunday, January 02, 2011

From Stealth Fighters to Stealth Evangelism

Apparently Stephen Harper is an evangelical Protestant.After reading the article about it, including his main church, his spiritual leader, his supposed beliefs and his hair products, I filed the whole mess under, "Things I do not care about".
But what if he is using his position to further his beliefs?
Thanks for the tip, Dear Reader! I had almost forgotten that people in power are able to push personal agendas without fear of any consequence more severe than being ousted from office (For more reasons why I hate Democracy as a system, see Democrapy)
Let us break this down in the fashion I enjoy so much.
One of two things will hold: one, he will accurately represent his beliefs or two, he will not.
If he does accurately represent his beliefs, two further things will hold (I love doing this. It is just like unpacking Christmas presents except at the bottom of the wrapping paper is a solid understanding of a concept) either we will support and agree with his belief or we will not. If it is the case that we do not support his beliefs, well, it is unlikely he is going to come to your house and sermonize at you until you elect him, so try not to vote for people that you do not support. On the happy chance that you do support his beliefs, you could do worse things than supporting his agenda and electing him. I  am not entirely sure that simply disagreeing with where the beliefs came from is enough reason to discount someone from office.
On the other hand, of course, if he does not accurately reflect his beliefs, we have a much larger problem on our hands than his religion being the "wrong" type. In every election there is an air of trust; we put our whole country in the hands of one individual, and it could turn out quite bad. That is a risk we have to take, same as that time you ordered a Russian bride off that website you thought was "totally legit" and then those weird charges showed up on your credit card.

The only thing we have genuine reason to be concerned about is that in most religions, as in most academic circumstances, we defer to a higher authority ( I mean like a priest or such, not God). The notion that the country's main leader is deferring to a religious authority that none of us have any say in the nominating of is pretty unsettling. Then again, neither do we elect leader's spouses, no one objects to having a married Prime Minister, but few marriages practice complete decision-making autonomy. If we Canadians should pay attention to any aspect of a leader's life, it should be who they are pillow-talking to. 

Also, how did I miss this article back from May that says the federal government is going to start paying its employees to troll online to "correct" any "misinformation" they find? From now on, anyone who does not say they seriously are not a federal agent will be assumed to be one. No lying, promise?

No comments: