Given that the most significant international developments since 2001 rotate around the clash between fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, I think your op-ed piece is bang on the money, Raif. Thanks to the US, these fears were already well-"mongered" before this article was so well-conceived.

I love it Rafe , good article. I always wonder how the Church gets hijacked by right wing conservative groups. They only care about abortion and gay marriage, kind of like a pervert morality. They never mention human rights, poverty or justice issues, In the last election Leonard Krog said that if Jesus was here today he would vote NDP, LOL. Basically Rafe , the ten commandments did not consider homosexuality a priority over adultery , lying and killing. We have a few good Christians in our church who have traded wives etc who hold themselves in very high regard. I also hate the fatalistic nature of the church, the worst things get they feel the closer Jesus is , instead of doing something they pray and hope to be taken away. Keep Mary Polak and others away,

There is a very basic conflict for fundamentalists of any stripe who seek public office in a democracy.

In a democracy, decisions are supposed to reflect the will of the majority, within a framework of constitutional checks and balances that safeguard minority rights, set out rules of fair play, etc. Elected officials commit to respecting all this when they take an oath of office.

So unless candidates are willing to put their religious and philosophical values aside when those clash with their commitments as elected officials, they have no business running for office. As Mair pointed out, this principle doesn't just apply to religious candidates--it applies to anyone who is unwilling to bend their personal agendas when necessary.

This doesn't mean that politicians can't have values or that they can't enter public office to promote change. But at the end of the day, they must be prepared to compromise when necessary, and fundamentalists aren't known for being good at that, which is why they make people so nervous.

The Bible teaches that you can't serve two masters, a lesson that many who seek public office forget. It's not just the religious folks either, as many of the MLAs who lost their seats or nearly lost their seats last month found out.

I have to wonder, given recent events, if Peter McKay regrets merging with Reform? How might the political landscape look today if the PC party was still an option?

In kindness to the conservatives out there who no doubt feel that this issue unfairly targets them, I have some sympathy. No one bothers to ask politicians of other stripes what their religious orientations are. However, such questions are fair game if a politician's religiousity translates into significant and radical consequences for the rest of us, something Rafe seems to suggest.

The test of fairness would be to ask ourselves, "Would similar questions be directed at NDP members whose resumes showed that they had an avowed and continued membership in... let's say... an environmental terrorist organisation?" I suspect such members would find their environmental fundamentalism to be of interest to all those pesky reporters out there.

On a different note, I find one aspect of this phenomenon terribly odd: why is it that the Christian fundamentalists seem to gravitate to the political right? I have read nearly every book and chapter in The Bible (some parts dozens of times), and I am quite familiar with the ideas and values espoused by the various paradigms along the left/right political spectrum, and I can't-for-the-life-of-me figure it out.

If a Martian studying Earthlings learned about our religion and politics, and encountered this question on the final exam, which answer would be circled? (Question: Devoted Christians are most likely to embrace the ideals of... a) socialism, b) fiscal and social conservatism) Based on his/her reading of the various texts, the Martian would feel pretty confident guessing (a), but the little alien would get that one wrong... Go figure.

I'm encouraged by fundamentalists securing Tory nominations. They're fish in barrels, who will be picked off one by one by federal Libs and NDPers, and Harper's majority will thereby be denied.

This is Reform's legacy: social conservatives who believe that the country will follow them, only to find that the urban/rural split in Canada works in the exact opposite way that it does in the US. They consistently misjudge the values of the country as a whole, and are perpetually disappointed.

Davey-boy, really interesting comment. Seems like it has a lot to do with the authoritarian, (clearly devised manual and clearly controlled nature) of the political right... Christian fundamentalists gravitate to the security of that black and white mindscape, and see this as honoring the father and The Father, that to question or disturb the status quo ( that embodies family and religion) is to sin. They do not recognize the irony in their political viewpoint that rejects the idea of difference, the idea of multiplicity, and yes, the mother of all religious beliefs... tolerance ... instead these ideas are perceived as a direct threat to the authority of the Father and the Family, that may cause, God forbid,... one to stray...or rebel away from the fold...

Ironically, if Jesus Christ still walked the earth today, he would, I am sure dwell in the political left... far left, I would think. And no doubt, his radical views would once again be considered a threat to the latest version of Pontius Pilate that resides south of us.

"There are so many more relevant issues to talk about than the Conservative party's MPs religious views."

Considering what such people have done on the US political scene. I think it's a very important topic. Canada is not a nation based on "morals" dictated in Fairy tales. The last thing I want is "Christian Morality" in my government. Having fundementalists in power can mean my life can be directly affected by a religion in which I have no belief.
We're not talking christians that go to church on Sunday and that kind of thing... we're talking fundies. You know the kind that shoot abortion doctors. Mainly because it seems to be christians who abstain from morality more often than anyone else.
As well, with creeps like Gurm the worm in the party, you don't really buy all that garbage about the Cons being "honest" do you?

I agree in large part jamez... but our present neo-con provincial government believes in a dangerous "morality" of its own kind...I don't believe in traditional religion, but I do remember the old bible stories from sunday school days...Mary Magdalene... "he who would cast the first stone"...

What do you think Jesus would make of "The Safe Streets Act"?

The safe streets act is pretty stupid. Anyone who needs money enough is not going to stop asking for it. So the whole thing just gives cops an excuse to throw homeless people in prison. Which is all they really want, I suppose to attempt to cut down on that doubling of homeless people in the LM (partially sarcastic here).

Using ones religious to guide one's personal lifestyle is no problem at all. In fact, I have interacted with many good open minded practicing Christians and Muslims.

However, imposing ones beliefs on others is selfish and undemocratic. Which is what Christian and Muslim fundamentalism is all about; and in the extreme, they incite the killing of innocent people such as was the case in the WTC and abortion clinics. They are all blinded by a skewed interpretation of the good books and dwell on fear of others to consolidate power and control.

Politicians ought to have the common sense not to advance their own narrow religious agendas while representing a multi-religiuos constituencies. Apparently, it is no common sense at all.

That's why its preferable to keep church and state separated. And we as Canadians must never allow fundamentalists of any sort to succeed. Otherwise, the ugly history of atrocities in the name of God, religion and empire are bound to be repeated.

Good comments Davey-Boy and Lynn.

There are a lot of preachers in the NDP's past and I think that was a good thing. Christian values seem to be pretty much on the left, at least economically. But you're probably right Lynn about why some churches go to the right.

Don't mistake fundamentalism with a literal belief in the words of the bible.

The bible is hot, forcing engagement with its constant contradictions. That's its strength.

Except for those who've been burned by the way life (and political leadership, as Rafe notes) requires thought, reconsideration and occasional change.

This basic and human challenge can be avoided in the cool shade of fundamentalism -- where demagogues create and enforce a static and self-righteous "truth" by choosing which scriptures to take literally and bending into pretzels those that don't fit their biases and desires.

Christian fundamentalists, "islamofascists" or ultra-zionist wingnuts -- they all rely on people being willing to chant slogans and comfort themselves with anger instead of thinking for themselves.

Followers of fundamentalists are proud to be sheep. When there are enough of them -- as we've seen to the south -- a nation of intellegent, caring and sharing people can be rustled, its honest and hard workers fleeced, its poor and sick left to the wolves, and its young stampeded to crush millions in pastures seen as greener by the pastors' big business buddies.

Further growth of fundamentalism and its increased infiltration into politics here can only destroy what little democracy Canada now enjoys.

I wish I knew what to do to get them to flock off.

Interesting thread, good comments. What would Jesus say about the Safe Streets Act, indeed!

It seems we are less afraid of religion and religious values than of the authoritarian way that some would have it practised--especially when such authoritarian modes of practice start getting mixed up with state governance.

I wonder to what extent that is linked to our public education and higher education systems. In that respect, Canadians seem to have much in common with other countries that have high levels of mostly secular education (our average education levels are significantly higher than Americans'). Once taught to think for ourselves, we are less inclined to accept authoritarian systems that offer to do all the thinking for us?

If we lower the tone of this debate to the lowest common denominator I believe you will find that fundamentalists of all stripes are thoroughly sexually repressed individuals.
At the risk of overgeneralizing, I believe that fundies must have a very warped sense of the world around them along with a burning desire to make others conform to their dogma.
Sorry fundie lunatics out there but my karma just ran over your dogma...and oh yeah... raising children using your twisted logic is the worst form of child abuse... suck on that for a minute or two

The conservatives have abandoned the middle. The Liberals have lost the "moral authority" to govern.

Who is going speak for the majority of Canadians with moderate values and whose primary economic interests are to see that their children are educated, their parents are able to live with dignity and that they are able to put little bit extra aside for themselves?

Hmm... I wonder if the federal NDP has noticed the opportunity out there. Are they capable of listening to what country wants rather than telling country what it ought to want? Is the party capable of transforming itself from an esoteric concience into the practical voice of the middle?

The US Christian right is neither Christian nor right.

As a movement it is anti-Christ.

They may yet succeed in destroying the USA.

They have designs on every secular based western democracy.

Although the book they pervert in order to derive their so called legitimacy is different their socio-political aims are no different than those of the Taliban.

No different at all.

I have friends who are Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindus, and quite possibly a few other lesser-known religions, as well. I am none of those religions, nor do I wish to be. The only ones who have ever tried to “convert” me were a couple of newly-minted, fresh-out-of-the-convert-box fundamentalist Christians.

“You HAVE to believe...or you’ll go to HELL...” is a pretty succinct synopsis of what I went through with them for a couple of months. Then I just gave up and walked away. It made me a little sad, because up to the point of their enthusiastic fundamentalist revision, we got along really well.

Some of my friends are very religiously observant, some are casual, and some are non-practicing. None of the others ever tried to convince me that their way was the only way.

Fundamentalists do not believe that their right to swing their religion must stop at the point just before it hits my nose – to paraphrase an old saying.

That is precisely why they scare the **** outa me!

I agree with gryphonrider. The only ones that knock on my door to try and "convert" me are Christian Fundamentalists. I respect their beliefs, but sadly they do not respect mine. Maybe when they mind their own business, and worry about themselves before targeting people like homosexuals, they will be electable. For now, even the most fiscal conservatives with middle of the road social values find it hard to put an "x" by their name on a ballot.

Hi Rafe - I believe you are a former colleague of the late Mel Smith, who, I believe, was a respected constitutional expert, Queen's Counsel, key negotiator for British Columbia during the patriation-of-the-constitution talks, and a duputy minister in various provincial government departments, including one headed by yourself. He was also a Pentecostal, if I am not mistaken. Additionally, I was under the impression that he was a good friend of yours. I do not actually know what his position would have been on SSM, abortion, and the like, although I could make a pretty good guess. I'm wondering if it was your acquaintance with Mel Smith that led you to believe that people of his religious persuasion would be dangerous figures in government?

Not bad, Rafe, but a little heavy on the rhetorical questions. Have a look at last month's Harper's editorial by Lewis Lapham, "The Wrath of the Lamb" and then follow it up with the other two articles on the role of the religious right in American politics. If Canadian politicians of any party are in favour of the kinds of blending of church and state that are beginning to occur within our southern neighbour, then we ought to be spooked bigtime. I believe that Trudeau's comments about being in bed with an elephant are relevant here, as well. Thanks for raising the issue here, though. We need such a wake-up call. (Wachet auf? :) )

Who was it said: "You can tell you have created God in your own image if he hates the same people you do.

LOL Hga

how true...

Lots of people need to read the Charter of Rights and freedoms:

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

There is no separation of church and state in Canada - it's an American concept.

The Liberals have reveresed their stance on gay marriage in only 5 years. Where was the witch hunt for them when they voted to preserve the current definition, in a majority parliament when they could have set any policy direction they felt.

Ontario has given serious consideration to allowing trial by Sharia law - a religious doctrine.

Politicians of every stripe show up to every religious function every day trying to win votes.

Look at an electoral map: there is a serious view that right wing conservatives such as Warawa, Hiebert, et al represent their constituents. Warawa represents the valley and, let's face it, the Valley is not Vancouver where substantially more Liberal values are dominant. Hiebert represents white rock, where my (and everybody else's) grandparents live. These are communities where conservative values dominate.

Or is the Member of Parliament for Prince George supposed to represent the values of the citizens of Vancouver?

Are Members of Parliament everywhere supposed to ignore the charter?

Don't forget that first line. It may be poorly placed, and you may wish it weren't so - but it is there.

quietpenguin: It says "God", not religion. Big difference.

I don't accept religious authority over God.

I don't think God does either, Te Aro Arahina. :-)

Lynn:

So you're suggesting that the God they're referring too is Buddha? Vishnu? Gonesh? Allah?

All of these religions fundamentally disagree with the Christian / Catholic term God.

So I'm not sure what your point it - the biblical Christian / Catholic god is, in fact, enshrined in our Constitution, and it was done fairly recently: 1982.

No, it isn't.

There is no such narrow limitation imposed by our Constitution on God.

Each religious persuasion has the freedom under our Constitution to worship God ornot in any way they see fit --- provided it does not contravene our Criminal Code.

You might take a good look at the Ontario Court decision as to why the practice of Shariah Law was not permitted in Ontario. It has nothing to do with a preference for Christians (whose community also includes Catholics except by the most narrowminded bigots.)

Why should you be afraid of Fright-Wing Christians? Follow the attached link and be afraid — very, very afraid...

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

You may want to take a shower afterwards.

quietpenguin: Could you please post the section of our constitution (or a link to it) that defines God as "the biblical Christian / Catholic god." (quote from your last post - I don't know how people get the neat little box quotes that they use in Tyee posts, but I wish I did).

I have no idea where to find such a thing, and it would be scary and interesting for me to read the actual words to which you refer if you are correct in your assertion.

I would have thought that any well thought out Canadian constitution would have acknowledged the fact that God/Goddess concepts are very personal to individuals, and that freedom to experience such things in ones own way are fundamental in a country that values human rights.

Well said, Te Aro Arahina. The clause quietpenquin quotes actually protects pluralism. "The rule of law" part of the quote is very significant as Te Aro points out in her Ontario example. The two parts of the quote work hand in hand.

The two parts of the clause work together and thus do not impose the Christian religion "but rather expresse the ground of Canadians' understanding of their rights and freedoms. The clause expresses the recognition that the source of these principles is lawful and is promulgated to people, not as adherents to this or that religion, but as being equal to one another."

"O Canada"...you're a better country than some give you credit for...

I'm not that afraid...the balance is tilted the other way in Canada. Fundies are a vocal minority with delusions of grandeur, who continually shoot their political party of choice in the foot. I'm far more frightened by insidious fiscal conservative/corporatist USA-takeover types than I am of Canadian Gerry Falwells.

Harper and the Calgary School are what frighten me; Stockwell Day and his ilk are a joke in comparison.

Tom Khorski had an article on this issue in The Hill Times. He took issue with Jeff Simpson and others who claimed that a dozen or so Tory nominations amounted to a take over of a party in the context of a 308 seat House of Commons.

He also said that he found it hard to believe that the same editorials could be written if one substituted the work Jewish for Christian.

I had to say reading it that he made a good point. I would provide a link but the Hill Times is mostly paid subscription only.

I'm seeking earth bound angels for stimulating conversations in the hot tub...eg: avoiding a theocracy in Canada, how to spot right wingers on a nude beach, did Michael Jackson molest Stephen Harper (is that why he's so creepy?) etc.

This can't be said enough times: Economic policies are a direct reflection of our deepest values. I absolutely refuse to listen to the Canadian Taliban prattle on about morality and scriptural principles when their political avatars have climbed in bed with the Calgary School. How can Warawa, Silver, Reid, etc. look themselves in the mirror every morning, purporting to represent "family values" when their party is wedded to a low-tax, small-government, union-busting ideology that keeps children in poverty and working families homeless?

It's absurd, and Canadians of all denominations (and lack thereof) should be challenging this drivel every chance they get.

quite right. they do not "impose the Christian religion" but they certainly define the framework of our charter as recognizing the supremacy of god.

I quite simply made a point that there was no separation of church and state in Canada - it's an American concept.

But to argue that the "God" declared by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not the Christian god is dubious at best.

In any case, the problem if not religion in and of itself. Reigion can be both a powerful force for good and bad in the world - it has been responsible for killing millions, and possibly saving just as many. Religion brings structure and morality to people's lives - a valuable thing at times.

Fundamentalism is the problem.

Last year, when I was working with Conservatives, I defined the abortion debate not as Pro-Life/Pro-Choice but as Anti-Choice/Pro-Choice.

Abortion is a serious decision that women do not enter into lightly. That a bunch of fundamentalists want to take away women's right to choose a medical procedure is appalling.

Russ Hiebert is anti-choice.

Joshua Hauser was anti-choice.

Mark Warawa is anti-choice.

Randy White is anti-choice.

Stephen Harper is pro-life, at least by my read of his public comments.

There is a tremendous difference.

That this discussion continues to get framed in religious terms contributes to the misunderstanding over the issue. There are factions of every religion that are opposed to abortions, gay marriage. There are just as many non-religious people opposed to all of these issues.

There is an issue here of geography: want a good illustration? Look at the land mass the Conservatives represent.

Look at the Washington State electoral map too - it illustrates the same basic divide.

Is WA a "Blue" state? Not even close. Like BC, the coast is more Liberal and tends to win their vote, but the rest of the region tends to vote Conservative (we used to joke about this in Ontario, actually, when the Metro Toronto area used to vote Liberal and the surrounding regions voted Tory - damn 905ers.)

So back to a question I posed: is it he job of the Member of Parliament for Langley to represent the views of Langley, or of Vancouver?

My point being that although I find him and his ilk reprehensible, perhaps Mark Warawa is doing exactly the kind of job that he was elected to do?

I was taught by "penguins" and they had their heads up their asses too. Yeah..Harper needs all the apologists he can find because the bottom line is that sooner or later most Canadians will wake up to the fact that this christian crap is just a smokescreen for the establishment of a totalitarian state.

thanks to redtory for the link..check it out

http://www.reandev.com/taliban/

No, separation of Church and State was originally a French concept, and the result of covert agitation by the Freemasons who brought about the French Revolution and who were, also, instrumental in the American Revolution.

There is and was nothing dubious about the intent to support the pluralism of our Canadian society from the moment the repatriation of our Constitution was conceived. This was the paramount political dialogue of that age, and there is more than enough on record, including Hansard, to prevent historical revisionism in favour of tilting God into one particular religious persuasion.

As Mair wrote:

I agree with Theodor Adorno's definition of authoritarism wherein any system of belief, no matter how ideal, how pure, will be perverted to suit the agendas of the authoritarian personality. A personality which I consider mentally ill, Stalin being a prime example.

This is why it is paramount that the Human Rights enshrined in our Constitution are extended to protect all individuals within our society, and why someone like Warawa, must subvert his personal beliefs to that purpose.

There is no reference to a Christian god. The "supremacy of God" is very similar to the American Declaration of Independence, which recognizes "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

In many ways by grounding this in the law, it also prevents the kind of secularization, where totalitarian ideologies act ironically like religions themselves and prevent religious freedom.

This clause recognizes that both religion and secularization can be the same side of a very dictatorial coin. This clause is very Canadian in its emphasis on pluralism.

holy crap...all that sagacious insight has me in a lather...even though I play for a different team I'd like to figuratively sodomize some fundies...right now

I've noticed some media opinion lately saying the media at large has a double standard.
While front page headlines scream about Tory fundamentalists, the media seems subdued about similar attitudes among many Libs.
Most recently, a group of Lib backbenchers revolted over the proposed same sex marriage bill, demanding changes to ensure churches' policy choices would be unaffected. One Lib left the party over it. Although this was covered, I didn't notice big headlines like "Moral divide rips Liberals,religious social conservatives revolt - Martin caves to pressure". There are also Liberal ridings where conservative religious constituents band together to work for Liberal social conservative candidates (sounds oxymoronic).
Harper silenced and pushed out Randy White, perhaps the most outspoken of conservative Conservatives, yet the media played down Harper's efforts to marginalize extremes in his party. It wasn't that all many years ago that the most outspoken social conservatives were actually Liberals. Anyone recall Roseanne Skokes' campaign against "homosexualists", as she called them? Tom Wappel's been another long time example.
It's quite possible social conservative activism is more prevalent among Conservatives.
It may still be true the media has been unbalanced in it's coverage of the Liberal conservative faction, which definitely exists.
Anyway, the more successful the evangelical crowd becomes in pushing the Tory party to the right, the weaker the party will become: It will become less and less appealing to most voters, which won't bother me.

Quietpenguin, the representative from Langley has an obligation to represent the views of her constituents, even if they're mostly fundamentalists of some flavour. However, she also has an obligation to honour the Constitution, including the minority rights enshrined therein, and must be prepared to set aside the fundamentalist agenda when the two conflict.

That's exactly the problem. By definition, fundamentalists hold that their moral authority is derived from a supreme being that over-rides everything, even the Constitution.

Where this is true, the very act of swearing an oath of office is therefore a lie, and the individual who is prepared to swear a false oath is not to be trusted.

amen to that brother...I just read something about the re-establishment of the PC Party..I do hope it polls a bit better than the current BC Socred Party. I'm not sure if David Orchard is up to it but it strikes me as being a great idea if those wary of the CCRAPpers were to support, morally or otherwise, the rebirth of John A's Party.

Here we go again!
People flailing away at symptoms and never getting to the root of the problem.
Think about this folks. Underlying in this entire issue is a general mistrust of each other, and a blatant mistrust of politicians. There is only ONE cure for this, and that is to put away my I don't your God attitudes and place strong leashes on the politicians which will prevent them from doing anything controversial aside from that approved by the majority of the citizens by referendum.
Deny the politicians the ability to force their individual views, on any given subject, on the citizens.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I was taught that in public school in grade 8. That was a long time ago for me but I remember it yet.
We in this country live by majority rule.
And contrary to what many of you think, the people of Canada are not unruley and mean spirited. And if I may say so, they are actually pretty well able to make an informed choice on any matter if they are given the opportunity.
If what you may present makes sence to them, I am certain that they will approve it.
If it's a good product, it will sell. If it looks like it comes from wing-nut central, it will still be rejected. That's why the greens can't get elected. The delivery of the message is wrongly recieved by the voters. If we had the tools to have individual initiatives put before the people, perhaps some of the good things that the greens, or anyone else for that matter, could have an impact on our society.
But as it stands now, a handful of influenced politicians are in control of the agenda and the information delivery systems. That's why guys like Raif are so able to spark a fire.
Remember the bull fight.
You are the bull. The matador's red cape are the "issues" you are fighting over. You chase the blanket thinking that if you can get it you will solve your problems. The problem is that you won't. Your problem is the guy holding the blanket and waving it in your face. He's the one setting your agenda, and he's the one that decides where and when he is gonna do you in.
You have the power to kill the problem, but you have been flim flammed into chasing the blanket instead of ending your problem with finality.
Politicians are the problem. They are subject to human weaknesses the same as you and I.
What I suggest is simply denying them the opportunity to fall.

governance by referendum..in theory not a totally worthless idea..in reality you have the same problem that we currently have..those with critical thinking facilities will continue to be well informed and the ever growing mass of the dumbed down and stupid will gobble up Canwest crap and skew the results of these referendums

quietpenguin: To make this even clearer, linking the rule of law and God is highly significant here... this is a God that acts in law-like ways, that above all each person under the law is equal to another...in this case the rights and freedoms protect those who choose not to believe ...as well as protecting "the rights" of those who choose to believe... to believe in their own God.

To correct my own statement above, I think it would be more accurate to substitute the word "worship" for "believe"...right Te Aro Arahina?

The rational here is simply this.
Where the population controls those who make laws in the first place, extreme legislation won't even make it to the order paper in the first place. Things like unenforcable gun laws would never even start. Look how much has been blown away there as an example. Money that could have gone to health and education...feeding the legitimatley poor, or under employed single parents. How much would a could Billion dollars do in these areas?
How much well needed compassion could $2,000,000,000.00 bring?
I use gun control because there has always been laws regarding hand guns being registered in Canada. Yet it was an unregistered hand gun that a woman in Prince George BC was shot with by her ex. It was an unregistered gun that shot that man who was pumping gas in Que. wasn't it? Laws are only good if they can be enforced on those who don't abide by laws in the first place.
Anyway, how many retarded things does government blow money on that could be better spent, that they wouldn't do at all if there were controls on them by the people.
Canwest is not the only source of information. If there was a referendum coming up on a controversial issue, I know that people would ask for and find the information they need to make the informed choice. Or they simply won't vote.
STV was an issue most people didn't understand.
Just once, I would like a pollster to simply ask the question to those who voted yes to STV, "DID YOU THINK YOU WERE VOTING FOR A SYSTEM THAT GAVE YOU MORE CONTROL OF POLITICIANS WHEN YOU VOTED YES TO STV?".
I believe that you will find a very high number of people will say yes to that question. Most people thought that STV would give greater control of politicians to the people. It won't, but they hoped it might.
Let's put honesty first in Canadian politics for a change.

my 2 cents worth.i am a church going christian and totally believe in the separation of church and state. frankly until this problem
arose i don't even think it was something anyone paid any attention to in the great white
north. then we get those crazies in the cellar
below us screaming about religion (correct me
if i am wrong but isn't one of their big deals
separation of church and state?)i think rafe
had a very good article there. i also agree with him that if we all did practice love thy
neighbour or even better do unto others etc.
the world would be a much better place. it is
not necesary to my beliefs for you to believe
what i do. all i want is to be able to practice
my religion in peace. i do not preach to you nor do i want to do so. on another talk show here in victoria the motormouth who was on wanted to know why everyone thought harper was great but no one would vote for him. simple his religious beliefs scare the crap out of us. by the way i did check out that website and you are right it is terrible scary and yes you want to have a shower afterwards. thanks
for the tip.

to freebc: You are failing to acknowledge the fact that Canada's political landscape is more a reflection of the voting patterns of that large block of the public who are easily swayed by mass media than those who take the trouble to separate the wheat from the CCRAP.

Yes, Lynn, people should be free to worship whatever they like in the privacy of their hearts.

to Lynn and Te Aro: why don't you two get a room...don't be posting the luvnest photos on the web either...if this rant sounds like frustration you would only be partly right...I had no takers in my online quest to move the debate to my hottub...I'm going to happily settle for a date with some of Mrs. Hand's daughters..way more satisfying than dealing with the uber intellectual gasbaggery that seems to permeate this blog

Oh on the contrary.
If you put the control of politicians in front of the average voter, you would find that all of a sudden, they will look to see what's really going on.
The problem that the voters have, is this.
"So what if they are doing XYZ thing, you can't stop them. They're all the same. It doesn't matter who you vote for...they tell you one thing and then do something else after they're in."
There is no cure for apathy. But there is a cure for helplessness where the masses are concerned.
It only takes one group of determined people a very short period of time to fix a wrong. The wrong we have in this country is what the Brits stuck us with in the BNA. That has to change. Until it does, the average Joe can't do anything, and consequently they won't even try.
It's a sad thing to realize, but deep down you know I'm right here.
What we have is too many diverse agendas that are unbending and uncooperative. The result, total disunity and paralyzing politics that we have right now.
Until differing groups can lay their issues aside until a way is formed that allows ALL issues to be put forward for the public to look at, AND, let the chips fall where they may, put such a system in place, politicians, and those that own them through favours and bribes, will control everything.
If I don't agree with the left wing agenda, and you don't like my right wing agenda...so what! Neither of us gets what we want without the ability of full public debate and final resolution by the public.
What I'm looking for is democracy, something we don't got in Canader. Not by a long shot.

oh yeah...along with the uber intellectual gasbaggery I also have no use for the ill conceived, ill informed, monosyllabic grunting from right wing apologists in their pathetic attempts to win people over with half baked logic

oh yeah...along with the uber intellectual gasbaggery I also have no use for the ill conceived, ill informed, monosyllabic grunting from right wing apologists in their pathetic attempts to win people over with half baked logic

Sleeps? Was that directed at me?

does the shoe fit? do you wear turtlenecks to obscure the flaming crimson? is your IQ consistent with your room's temperature? or have you always identified with the schoolyard bully? or hidden behind her/his skirts... either way that would make you a card carrying lichspittle of the right

Excellent link, Red Tory. Now here's a couple of gems straight from the goofy book that makes people talk like that: I Corinthians 14, 34 and 35 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Or how about: I Timothy 2, 11 and 12: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

Fundamentalism is the root of all evil. Perhaps when evangelical christians stop behaving like hate spewing bigots Canadians might trust them enough to vote for them. Down south our good christian neighbours have killed 100,000 Iraqis including old people, women and children without a peep from the christian right. The only word more abused in politics than "freedom" is "God". I'll stick the lying, stealing Catholic Liberals.

hey redhandjill
don't forget about the depleted uranium... there are estimates that approx. 1 million Iraqis will die over the next 10 years from the toxic residue from these weapons.. shouldn't Americans be questioning why, with the overwhelming military superiority of their forces, did their government need to deploy these weapons..after all, in Desert Storm, limited use of these weapons caused a huge increase in disease and birth defects among US troops... the truth of the matter is that "The American Way" is all about genocide and population control.

Sleepswithangels

You're so right we should also count the 500,000 to 1,000,000 children that died under the sanctions. Perhaps we should just refer to the millions dead in Iraq without a peep from the christian right. Maybe if there were more homosexual activity in Iraq those atrocities might get some attention eh? I know if Jesus Christ came back to earth in the second coming you would be hard pressed to find him in an evangelical church.

This article shows why we need STV. If you're a fiscal conservative but not a moral one, under the current system, if the fundies take over your riding, your forced to either vote for a person you don't like, or a party you don't like. Under STV, you could ensure that the fundies got no more than their base of power and would have a choice on who you wanted to support. Hopefully, then the fundies could form their own party rather than trying to sneak in the backdoor, and then spend the rest of the time on the back bench, while real politicians got down to solving real issues.

hey redhand: homosexuality is strictly forbidden in fundamentalist Islam...of course they do it every chance they get.. much like pedophile priests and wacko christians the hypocracy is massive and unrelenting. The reason I might seem a tad bitter in my rants is that I don't want my children to be victims of the 'friendly fire' that our neighbors to the south are fond of. Canada's right wing parties are closet branches of the most vicious, bloodthirsty, evil regime on the planet and I won't sit still and let these morons destroy what is left of nature and society.

Sleeps, it's funny how when an attempt at logical assumption is put forward, you and the other emotional lefties turn to name calling.
Why it is that you folks seem so insistant on making me to be something I am not is beyond me.
You don't even know me.
Because I believe in the collective wisdom of the people, you ignore everything else.
You think you are something special. You are a communist at best. You know what's best for everyone and you won't tolerate any disputing of what you have said.
As for anyone else's comments, you are more than willing to discount outright and make up what isn't readily apparent.
You are dishonest to yourself and to those you have contact with, pretending to be something you really never will be.
All I have said from the outset here is that without a voice, without a meaningful vote, nothing in this country will change.
You can (and will) bitch about everthing that any government does, about anything someone else tries to do, with out ever putting your cowardly ass on the line.
At anytime, my name is available to any who will ask. You will only hide behind the handle used here.
It's no wonder the cause of the greens and the NDP is hindered so much.

Amen Sister or Brother - sleepswithangels

Other than fundamentalism I believe apathy is the 2nd worst evil on earth. Good people need to stand up. One of the greatest things in our country is our committment to tolerance, if we allow our federal politics to be hijacked by right wing lunatics we're making a big mistake. What I can't figure out is why people would vote nutball conservative over the NDP or the Green Party?

hello freebee: You don't know me either but you have made the following statements:

" You know what's best for everyone and you won't tolerate any disputing of what you have said." That sounds like transference to me. Just because I have an ability to skewer the right wing troglodytes of this world does NOT mean I won't tolerate dispute of my comments.
"As for anyone else's comments, you are more than willing to discount outright and make up what isn't readily apparent." what blog are you reading? ...come on..some examples asshole.

"You are dishonest to yourself and to those you have contact with, pretending to be something you really never will be." this is so far out there it defies comment..sounds like more brain dead rhetoric from wackoville.
"You can (and will) bitch about everthing that any government does, about anything someone else tries to do, with out ever putting your cowardly ass on the line." another very telling example of transference... you couldn't possibly know that I am deeply involved in the BC political scene and do indeed put my ass on the line in public but willingly use the anonymous nature of internet blogging to blow of steam. If you, like "colin" have registered gun ( I suspect that you do), why don't you do us all a favour, stick it in your ear and pull the trigger...nothing happened right..just a wasteland.

hi redhandjill

the simplistic answer to your query is that mass consumerism has infected the western world to the point that people believe, consciously or sub consciously, that right wing parties will protect their right to plunder the planet. There is also a deep seated fear that it will all end if we start getting serious about protecting mother nature.

RE: freebc diatribe

If you have read freebc's slagging of me then you may also hear some warning bells ringing.. am I nuts or is his rant plagerized from some Christian polemic? Anybody out there recognise his drooling prose?

to: freebc and other fascista

bring it on beeeaaatch

actually, sleepswithangels, I think you make a good point about fundamentalism and sexual repression...to make your childrens natural thoughts evil is to control in the most abusive of ways and controlling thought is the name of the fundamentalists game.

In regards to the over 100,000 lost lives in Iraq and the many more to follow... in a war savagely perpetrated by a Christian fundamentalist government that coyly continues to pretend that the only victims are its own...

In Lenny Bruce's final peformance he did a bit with a thick German accent, as the high ranking Nazi official Adolf Eichmannn speaking to those who refused to recognize their own complicity in the horror of Vietnam:

"My defense: I was a soldier. I saw the end of a conscientious day's efforts. I watched through the portholes. I saw every Jew burned and turned into soap. Do you people think yourselves better because you burned your enemies at long distance with missiles without ever seeing what you had done to them?"

oh yeah...along with the uber intellectual gasbaggery I also have no use for the ill conceived, ill informed, monosyllabic grunting from right wing apologists in their pathetic attempts to win people over with half baked logic

does the shoe fit? do you wear turtlenecks to obscure the flaming crimson? is your IQ consistent with your room's temperature? or have you always identified with the schoolyard bully? or hidden behind her/his skirts... either way that would make you a card carrying lichspittle of the right
Would you Mr. Sleeps with angles, like to tell me where you have the idea that I'm a closeted red neck? That would be the turtleneck comment...
Card carrying what? I hold no memberships in any party because I do not believe in their fundemental reason for existance. All parties, want to be elected, and to keep getting elected, over and over again to gain and keep control of the affairs of folks like me and some other tolerant people. You ain't one of them so you are excused from this. Active politically? Really.
Where the hell did the schoolyard bully thing come from?
You have made many disparaging comments about 'Fundementalist Christians' here, but I don't know why you are feeling so threatened.
Fundementalists acount for something in the order of 2-3% of Canadian society. Is that threatening to you?
Extreme wing-nuts like you are a greater percentage of society than they are. Why do you feel so threatened?
I won't even call you a leftie anymore. All of the lefties I've ever met are sincere people who want to see the average persons lot enhanced and to help the down trodden folks at the bottom of the social ladder. They help in food banks and most anywhere that you would hope to see one of those fundementalists at if they held to the Bible.
You aren't good enough to call yourself one of those.
I don't have to agree with a persons politics. I can disagree, but I don't have to be disagreeable.
Mike Summers
Vanderhoof BC

I am bringing to you sleeps.
This is where your intolerance tells you to use words not found in dictionaries, to slag people you don't know.
Do you have a name? Or are you hiding?
Mike Summers
Vanderhoof BC

hey mikey...again with the assumptions...if I were to list all my charitable works my cover would be immediately blown and I would have much less time to poke fun at people who among other things don't believe in politics...did I hear you right..you don't vote..don't believe in political parties??? that makes you a prime candidate for propping up dictators. So I was right in pegging you as a fascist... score one for instinct.

Has anyone found where freebc plagerized his rant from? The sooner we do we can expose Mike Summers from Vanderhoof for the twaddle spewing fool he is

With inspiration from Tyee posters, I offer the Eight-Point Hammond Index for Fundamentalism in Nominally Democratic Countries, or

“The Taliban Politics Index.”

It’s sequential. You have to believe in number 1 before you believe in number 2, etc. Except that you can skip “0” at any time.

0 Tries to live according to his interpretation of his Good Book.

1 Helps others live by his interpretation of his Good Book.

2 Whether or not they want that help.

3 Votes to have his country limit citizens’ behavior according to his interpretation of his Good Book.

4 Campaigns, knocks on doors, donates money and services, to persuade others to vote to limit citizens’ behavior according to his interpretation of his Good Book.

5 Lies, manipulates, cheats, confuses, threatens, steals, scaremongers, hacks the vote, obstructs, blows blogsmog – does the full Rove – to lead his country away from evildoers and on to the path of his interpretation of his Good Book.

6 Supports silencing lots of people, if that’s what it takes to defeat the terrorists who oppose conquests supporting his interpretation of his Good Book.

7 Thinks of the killing of lots of innocent people, if at all, as a kind of a bonus. And how can you really serve God without using torture?

8 So confident he will be enraptured, if he only works tirelessly to produce Armageddon, that he’s gleeful about killing anyone unrapturable. (Completely unaware that this defines self-fulfilling prophecy… and evil.)

Miscellaneous Notes:

A Those who don't vote are between zero and three.

B Those who vote without challenging themselves to understand the issues are between one and three-and-three-quarters.

C Four-and-a-half is for newsmedia hacks and managers vigilant in slanting coverage to please an owner who’s educating society to support his interpretation of his Good Book.

D (Thou shalt not kill? Turns out “commandment” and “number one” are Bible code for “this is the only part you don’t have to take literally.”)

E I’m not sure the actual Taliban would rate an 8… Anyone know their policy on Supreme Cataclysm?

F Many who wrap themselves in the fundamentalist flag do so for reasons of greed and sexual repression, and have little real commitment to spirituality or religious understanding. Others do, but are unaware of the power they give away to the megalomaniacs who appoint themselves Interpreters of the Good Book.)

G Sorry I couldn’t make this an index for individuals without using the masculine pronouns, at least not readably.

Ha! Redhandjill, if any sort of real Christ-figure popped up, I think fundamentalists would be the first to line up and cruxify him/her.

sleepswithangels, that's got to be the first-time anyone has ever called me an uber-anything, particularly intellect.

Here's how Salon paraphrased Carmen bin Laden's memoirs, Inside the Kingdom: My Life in Saudi Arabia, which if you felt inclined to trust the source, seems to bear out what you said in an earlier post..

""Women don't matter to a Saudi man," Bin Ladin explains. "Possessing them matters -- matters crucially -- but once the women are locked in and breeding, what happens among them doesn't count for much." The rules in Saudi Arabia, it seems, are at once terrifyingly oppressive and weirdly arbitrary."

I guess if you're gay in Arabia, it helps if you're also a masochist. Of course, the same thing could be said about the States ... I don't want to see the same thing in Canada.

Te Aro; please don't take my outburst personally. You and Lynn had gotten me so hot (in a good way) and neither of you acknowledged my not so subtle come ons so I had to try and slap you down..you understand n'est pas?

I'm still LOL after reading Peter Hammond's Index.
Message to freebc: you are taking yourself way too seriously boy..stop playing with your gun and get involved..start your own political party...see if you can launch a campaign to draft Jim Keegstra or Ernst Zundel as your leader... people will flock to your party..
You can berate them when they don't live up to your high standards....maybe then you'll be able to trot out the knee high boots, Sam Browne belt and the brown shirt and give them a piece of your mind... if you have trouble locating said piece don't worry microscope technology should up to the task in a few more millenia

If I am not mistaken mike summers is a cab driver in Vanderhoof. Not a member of any political party?

commentor: Mike Summers, Reform BC
posted: 08-16-2004

thanks ursus

well well well....helloooo mikey
if this is true then it explains a lot
I guess, in your defense, Reform BC is almost a non entity so your're off the hook...NOT
you lying, duplicitous sack of ________
I'm dying to hear you squirm out of this one mikey... you give hacks everywhere a bad name

there goes raif blowing major volumes of hot air again. he seems to get more confused daily. pump it up tyee!!!

sirjohna

your parroting of the shop worn cliches employed by right wing media pundits to marginalise Rafe's contributions somehow lead me to conclude that your choice of handle must have been a cry for help....you subconsciously were seeking to add some measure of credibility to your views....me, I don't sleep with nearly as many angels as I'd like

smoke another doobie sleeps.

Fighting civil rights for gay people is one of the biggest sources for fundraising for the relegious right. Now with legislation about to be passed this will no longer be the case.

I look forward to this being over it has dragged on too long.

I look forward to this being over it has dragged on too long.

Amen and Hallelujah!

hey slurjohneh

freebc is looking for recruits for the 4th Reich...better dust off the lederhosen and pull that swastika out of your ass..and oh yeah...when you implement the final solution make sure you put drooling, monosyllabic, plagiarising buffoons like you, freebc and all your cronies on the trains first....it's called 'quality control'

If Jesus showed up today, I wonder if he would head to the Fraser valley or West Van. No he would be down town on the east side feeding the homeless, maybe Lorne Mayencourt and all the other right wing supporters would have him arrested under the safe streets act. Mary Polak would never talk to him because he was not converting gays, Gordo would be afraid to show his face in the hood. Stockwell Day would have him deported as a fundamentalist. In short most self proclaimed Christians have so much heavenly value they no longer serve any useful earthly purpose. Stop all the Jesus freaks talking in tongues. We are our deeds, be judged by your deeds alone.

stuart

I'm looking at my watch and it would appear that the gd rapture is a no-show again.
Every day I keeping hoping that these gd toe.the.party.line.scumbag.godboys and godgirls would get beamed up (or down) so we can get busy with healing the planet..the same planet that these gd fascista are screwing over so thoroughly

God is Dead... and boy is he mad-ness pas?

what about that Beaver Cleaver???
Now there's a handle to be proud of...
For those who are confused by this cultural reference, Beaver Cleaver is not a sex toy or was he???
Any thoughts on that Eddy? Please include lots of blasphemous adjectives in your rant

To those whose posts are more than personal attacks on other posters, thanks.
To so many others whose contributions carry all the wisdom of a six-year-old's "Nyah, nyah" -- like Deaks at his weakest and SlurJohnA at his strongest and SleepsWith obstructionally often -- give it a rest and get on topic.

I think Raif is right to raise the issue of fundamentalism in politics. If history has taught us anything, it is that doctrinal religious beliefs can be used to support any ideology from the extreme right to the extreme left. It can never be trusted.

Someone raised the good point earlier that the real question is, how have the fundamentalists been able to dominate the religious institutions and discourse. It's brutul. I mean, I would not have been extremely insulted to hear Tommy Douglas speak of the social gospel, but having George Bush as the central personality in the dogma game is a bit too much to take.

But Coservatives (bar Alberta), have figured that out. Pretty soon Peter McKay will be in there, and they will be a real electoral threat. I think conservatives know that they will never be elected so long as they have fundamentalists at the helm. And that worries me too.

to: peter h

I've only just started using this site two days ago and already I'm under your skin...must be a pretty thin one
If you don't like to see right wingers skewered then you had better stick to Fox news

Thats a great article Rafe!

But I would call it brainwashed rather than programmed politicians. (``Kill them all, God knows his own.''
-Pope Innocent III)

The Psychology of Religion
The first and most important thing to realize about religions is that they consist wholly of people believing things only because other people tell them to believe them (with spoken or written words), plus a tiny handful of people who do not believe but tell others what to believe (though even among religious leaders, almost all are themselves believers to some degree). The only alternative to obeying religious edicts is heresy, a term that derives directly from the Greek word for "choice". Thus freethinkers are by definition heretics, and only heretics can think freely.
http://www.mega.nu/ampp/ancient.html#psych

Practical religion is sociocognitive warfare. With this realization, a great deal of what is considered by Americans to be ``culture'' or ``political systems'' is seen to actually be religion. For example, though communism in the USSR was atheistic (denied ``belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world'' (from Webster)), it was obviously a religion. As one peruses the litany of establishment tactics in my introductory essay, the burrowing of religion into the American cultural landscape becomes clear. Many of the tactics squarely aim to subvert reason.

http://www.mega.nu/ampp/ancient.html#psych

kudos Nationalist...very concise

to: Peter H. and the other whiners out there.. politics is a blood sport..there are plenty of cliches that succinctly offer advice to the squeamish like "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" but I prefer the more compact ESAD or FOAD

I thought this quote from quietpenguin shows why we need the judiciary and the Charter:

"So back to a question I posed: is it [t]he job of the Member of Parliament for Langley to represent the views of Langley, or of Vancouver?"

Thank goodness we have the Charter and Constitution, so the openly gay people in Langley aren't legally stoned in the street. When the Supreme Court of Canada makes a decision they must do so for everyone and everywhere in Canada. The Christian Fundamentalist that is elected from Langley (I'm only using Langley as it was the example used - I'm not even sure who the MP from Langley is - maybe Langley is very liberal {shrug}) should represent ALL his/her contsituents that live in Langley. Only cowards pick on minorities and the weak.

I have heard Harper state that gay marriage might make sense in some provinces and not in others. He seems to want to take away the right of people across Canada to be treated equally and fairly. Does a gay couple in Calgary have less rights than the gay couple in vancouver? Harper seems to suggest that they do and that is fine with him. That is why he is so dangerous.

sleeps; are you a crackhead?

Nationalist's first link is a HUGE page with all sorts of articles about religion -- recent brain science on how humans create religious experience... Hitchens interviewed on Mother Teresa (saves me reading his book)... use of fantasy by Hitler and Mussolini... Feynman on bad science... anti-evolutionists' strategies... a dozen other subjects...

...although it includes some anti-islamic articles masquerading as 9-11 analysis and some links to libertarian and conspiracy theory trash.

...and, now that I'm a third of the way down, a complete Coles Notes summary of most of the world's main religions (diety, suffering, after-death, etc.) from Protestant sects to Sikhism to Scientology.

Thanks, Nationalist. Overall, this link has sparked a lot of thought and may prove to be a good reference.

is that all you've got johna? do you really think that most people who visit this site haven't already pegged you as a pathetic wannabe right wing pundit whose POV is lifted straight out of some Canwest rag..you would have just a teeny bit more credibility if you had not adopted the handle you did.. asking if I'm a crackhead just confirms what everybody knows...you don't have a life outside of these blogs
why don't you ask clubofrome (see Canada's Stupid Party blog) if you can join
lololololololol

I liked this article. I think that the current struggle against fundamentalism is a continuation of the Enlightenment, a centuries-long struggle against legislated stupidity and oppression.

I have no problem with moderate religious folks -- although I don't profess to understand why they cling to what I regard as fairy tales -- but as long as they don't expect me to take it seriously & live my life thereby, then they can believe what they want.

Keep religion out of politics. Any moral argument worth listening to does not need to base itself on a so-called holy book or prophet.

The problem with religion in politics is that it is based on faith. Faith cannot be demonstrated by reasoned debate. The alternate to reasoned debate is "might makes right". Therefore, using religion to justify political policy promotes the violent philosophy of "might makes right". Period.

Hey Sleeps! Get your mind out of the gutter. Beaver Cleaver refers to a tool that removes that portion of a mask that hides the face.

eddy
no shit..I did not know that....
it didn't work..I tried to supplant my mental image of a beaver cleaving with yours and... no luck

Is that what it meant in the old Common Book Wedding Ceremony where it said

"...and cleave one unto the other, forsaking all others..."?

I never thought of cleaving as an activity before. Some kind of folk dance, is it?

yes bailey
a folk dance indeed..now I'm going to get the folk out of here

sleeps; was that your attempt at comedy?

Extrememist of any ilk in poitics are dangerous simply because they have a driving desire to impose their deity's will on others whether that deity is is a god, commerce/material wealth or a political doctrine.
Jerry Falwell is essentially no different from the Mullahs of the middle east,nor from Stalin Hitler or Idi Amin.
Being religious,having a religious conviction or belief system is actully a highly positive phenomenon in democratic politicof nations, and we likely need more leaders who have compassion for people along with integrity and conviction.
A Tommy Douglas (that solid little Baptist from my home town)would be welcome addition to in any parilament.
What we may not need are persons, of any persuasion, imposing their specific, myopic and extreme views on a democracy, whether it be Fascism, Communism, Fundametalism, Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim or Hinduism or any other ism.
Person living by the guidelines of any one of them should be welcome in any democratic government. However, one hopes such people would be held by a majority to respect the integrity of the politicla system, the individul, absolute freedom of speech,and religion,always in a democratic and just electoral system, which allows for democratic change when a majority deems it necessary.
Frankly, I prefer heavy consultation with all people as in an anarchistic system, naturaly requiring that fanatic sentiments be tolerated but never allowed to undermine the freedom of choice for the majority and for individuals who bring no harm to others.
If one lives in a state, wherein the majority are fanatics or support such demons,the like of Stalin's USSR, one must accept the majority until enough people begin to crave independence and freedom. Only then can change be fermented. No outside state has any moral right to interfere in this process. Sadam would have fallen much earlier and naturally, had not the Americans been driven by neo conservative extremists to interfere in their affairs, well before either of the Gulf wars. Sadly the hijacking of a once great USA by psychopaths, neo cons and extreme right wing fanatics can be partially explained by the failure of their public education system and by the desertion or bastardization of the principles of their founding fathers.

Excellent piece dgb, and really astute point about American interference actually prolonging Sadaam's hold on Iraq.