I'm still grinning about this.
I had someone come to me today in reference to my recent submissions that I had made to local and national papers. Thankfully a few of the papers decided to run my letters and it seems that a few people got the chance to read them.
Someone having seen my article came to me and with much disgust in his eyes asked me "Who do you think you are?"
Me? I asked
"Where do you get off writing crap like that in the papers?" he said.
Ahhh! I thought to myself. He has obviously seen my article that ran in the local paper referring to Jack Layton and him needing to step down. Well, I said to him. You want to know who I think I am? I'm a proud Canadian that cares about the abuse of power in my country.
Its funny you know. I use to sit and wonder how I would ever be able to get heard and to ensure that the views of my family and I would not fall on deaf ears. Well, I think I found it.
To the guy that called me an idiot for saying what I thought about Jack Layton in my letter, thank-you for the inspiration to carry on. Its view points just like that, which make this sort of thing needed.
Ron V. thank-you for always speaking from your heart and believing in your cause. You inspire people and you hold others accountable.
Christians, always remember "all scripture is God breathed and right for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. So that the man of god may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You say you are a proud canadian but what you wrote in the paper says that you are oppose to the powers that be, that being the far left. You live in a different world and hold a different world view that is hindering the agenda of the progressive. You are the problem, your faith, your regressive morals and your desire to make everyone a christian. It is time for you to keep your mouth shut and let us change you. If it wasn't for you and others who say they are proud canadians then we would truly have a great nation void of christians and those neo cons.
ReplyDeleteI'll first respond by saying;
ReplyDeleteFor someone that is so passionate about their view point, why do you feel it necessary to remain anonymous? I’m proud to stand here and confidently say what I am and where I stand.
You should know a few things about me before you label me as clearly as you have.
1. I have served my country and I do respect my leaders. But, I also hold them to a higher standard and make them accountable for their choices. It’s called democracy and free speech.
2. I have not always been a Christian. I can honestly say that I have held some of your same view points. I'd be curious to know what you actually know about my Christian faith. It seems you feel you have an extensive grasp about what Christians stand for. But, I question whether you actually now anything about it all.
3. Not surprising, I do not live in a different world. But I do hold a different view point from you. One that is Conservative in nature. So you are correct in your assumption that I am hindering the "agenda of the progressive". That is the nature of any "conservative" left or right. I find it odd that someone that holds such an obviously strong Liberal view point would be so intolerable of others. It is your same Liberal thinking that has given rise to such things as gay marriage, legalized prostitution and abortion. So to say that I am “the problem” seems at the least hypocritical.
You may need to read up on your history a bit to understand this next part:
4. My faith and my "regressive morals" are the basis for most of the laws in the whole of North America. Weird how such a regressive agenda and belief can be used as the moral bench mark for most of the first world countries in the world. I’d be curious to have you go back and look into the history books to see what freedoms and rights that you have today because some “regressive” Christian decided to step forward and tell someone that they have made a mistake and need to own up to it. As I stated in my original letter, the call of every one is to teach, rebuke, correct, and train in righteousness. (Acting in accord with moral law: free from guilt: morally right or justifiable, a righteous decision b: arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality Merriam Webster definition. Feel free to look up every one of those words. I think you will find the true motivation behind what I write.
5. My desire is not to make everyone a Christian. Actually that may just show the true lack of understanding that you have regarding my faith. My true desire is to spread the word and to allow people like you to make an "educated" decision.
6. I also think it is worthwhile pointing out that none of what I state is anything but pure fact. I use nothing but what our current laws state, what current stats or polls say, or direct quotes made by the individuals. So to be completely honest I really cannot claim any responsibility for any of the information provided in my blog or the articles that are published. I merely ask that people respond to the will of the majority and own up to their own words.
Lastly.
If it wasn't for me and "others who say they are proud Canadians", Atheist and Christian alike, you my friend would most likely be speaking German right now and probably wouldn’t have the luxury of writing such an uniformed and hate filled letter such as that. Instead of telling me to shut my mouth you should be thanking Canadians like me that hold our politicians to there word and our laws.
Thank you for your response. It only proves to strengthen my belief that what I am doing is right. Watch for more of my letters in your local and national papers.
The main argument of the Coalition is to replace the Conservative government of Stephen Harper on the premise that the current government is not democratically elected. This is based on the argument that more Canadians voted against the Conservatives than voted for them.
ReplyDeleteLayton's assumption is that democracy dictates that in order for a government, either a single party or a coalition to be legitimate, they must have the support of 50% plus 1 of the voters. If they don't, then even if they have the legal authority they lack the moral authority to govern Canada. But if that is the theory, there is no reason why it should only be applied to the country as a whole but to every elected member to parliament.
According to Elections Canada, in the election that was held on October 14, 2008 45,387 certified votes were cast in the riding of Toronto-Danforth.. Of that number, Jack Layton received 20,323 or 44.8% of the total. In other words there were more people voting against Layton (25,064) than voted for him. So where exactly did Jack Layton get the mandate to represent the good people of Toronto-Danforth in the House of Commons?
All other party leaders received more than 50% plus 1 from their constituents. Stephen Harper (73.0%), Stéphane Dion (61.7%) and Gilles Duceppe (50.2%), not so Jack Layton.
Jack Layton can't have it both ways. If the Conservatives are illegitimate because 62.4% of Canadians didn't vote for them, then Layton is the illegitimate MP for the riding of Toronto-Danforth because 53.2% of voters voted against him. If Jack Layton actually believes that the Conservative government must go because a majority of people didn't vote for them, then he must do the honourable thing and resign his seat in the House of Commons.