Is God dead?

Quote:

“…although the proportion of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs is on the rise in Canada, the marked demographic trend is the increasing number of people who claim no religious affiliation at all. The new survey suggests that nearly 24 per cent of the people living in this country do not belong to any particular religion. That is up from 16.5 per cent in 2001 and 12.6 per cent in 1991.

In other words, the percentage of people who do not feel aligned with an organized belief has nearly doubled over the past two decades.

Christianity remains the dominant religion in Canada, but all of the Christian faiths, with the possible exception of Orthodox Christianity, are experiencing a decline.

I react to these statistics in different ways.

As a student of politics, it suggests to me that the strategy the Harper Conservatives have pursued – championing Christian Right causes, demonizing Muslims – is not very smart. Demographically, they are effectively putting themselves out of business.

As a church-going Irish Catholic guy, it makes me sort of sad. I’m no missionary – I consider religion to be an entirely personal affair, and detest those who are always lecturing and hectoring others about it – but I know I draw considerable comfort from my faith. It gives a measure of hope to me and, I believe, others. So how do the growing number of non-religious folks get by without hope? I’d find that pretty hard to do.

Finally, as a citizen, these statistics make me pretty happy. We are a peaceful diverse society, and growing more so. We are the envy of the world for this. It’s good.

Anyway, those were my reactions, from different perspectives. Surprise, a bit sad, happy.

What do you guys think?


Ontario politics, explained

Just watched NDP leader Andrea Horwath’s presser. Here’s what I think is going on:

1. Andrea Horwath is playing the role of a Liberal;

2. Kathleen Wynne is playing the role of a New Democrat; and

3. Tim Hudak is playing himself – that is, a Reform Party member.

Make sense to you? Me, neither.


Crowdsourcing a Sun News hit

I’m on Sun News a couple times today, and the producers (who are among the best I have ever dealt with, by the by) have asked me to talk about Al Gore and Syria.  Which presents a dilemma for me, The House Communist.  Here’s why:

  • Al Gore:  I think the world have been a better place if he had become President in 2000.  Then again, if he had become President, I very much doubt Gore would have been in Toronto this week, suggesting that Canada had a “resource curse,” was an environmental “open sewer,” and that we needed to get on “a better path.” I found that sort of talk over-the-top, and not particularly helpful.  I also note (a) Obama hasn’t exactly blazed a green trail since 2008, but Gore hasn’t been nearly as critical about that, and (b) the gazillionaire ex-Veep didn’t ride a bicycle to get here.
  • Syria:  John Baird really surprised me in the emergency debate on Syria, this week.  He was not nearly as bellicose as he has been in the past, for starters.  Moreover, he strenuously opposed military intervention, and he even lauded the United Nations.  Given Israel’s (defensible) anti-Hezbollah attacks on the weekend, and given the UN’s suggestion that Syrian rebels may be using chemical weapons – and not al-Assad – I found myself worrying that Baird had been captured by body snatchers.

Anyway, what do you think, O Learned Readers of wk.com?  The Sun New Network probably wants me to defend Gore, but I’m reluctant to do so.  And they likely expect me to oppose Syrian military intervention, but John Baird has already staked out that territory.

What would you do, in my liberal shoes?


Ontario Libs approvingly quote Sid Ryan?

…never would’ve believed it, until I saw it with my own eyes. The guy who leads an organization that comes up with resolutions the Jewish community regard as anti-Semitic? Seriously, this is the first guy to quote?

Bad, bad decision.  Andrea Horwath won’t appear in public with this creep.  Why would Ontario Liberals?


Cleveland: the greatest interview in the history of live television

Charles Ramsay is more than my new hero; he is a total rock star.  Some of the lines he has contributed to history are below.  Added bonus: the scary-looking skinhead beside him, with tats on his neck.

  • “He’s got some big testicles to pull this off.”
  • “I barbecued with this dude, we eat ribs and what not, listen to salsa music.”
  • Bro, I knew something was wrong when a little pretty white girl ran into a black man’s arms. Something is wrong here. Dead giveaway.
  • “She homeless or she got problems. Only reason she runnin’ to a black man.”


In Tuesday’s Sun: valuable

When a political party strays from its core values, what happens?

Well, it dies, for starters. Political parties, more than anything else, are a vehicle for the expression of certain basic values — which are, most days, a loose amalgam of beliefs, morals and emotions.

Now, political parties are also made up of leaders, advisers, campaign teams and whatnot, but those things come and go. For any political party to be consistently successful, values have to be constant and readily understood.

I just wrote a book about this subject, called Fight The Right, multiple copies of which I encourage you to buy. In it, I argue conservatives tend to win elections because they are really good at communications, but they’re also good at the values stuff.

Progressives, meanwhile, use too many big words, and have too many priorities. And when you have too many priorities, you don’t have any at all.

Despite a smaller voter base, conservatives are successful in elections because they don’t stray from what marketers call the Unique Selling Proposition (USP).

That term was invented by U.S. ad genius Rosser Reeves (who I wrote about in another book, The War Room, which you should also buy) to describe something about a product that distinguishes it from similar products.

The conservative USP is easy. You don’t need a degree in political science to figure it out. Conservatives dislike government, generally speaking, and liberals don’t. Liberals believe government can be a force for good. Conservatives don’t. If you know that, you’ll find conservative values are pretty easy to figure out.

Conservatives don’t like governments getting in the way with things like affirmative action, market intervention, environmental assessments, gun control, social security, welfare, or the United Nations. They don’t like those things.

Two of the things that conservatives consider to be at the epicentre of their values are fiscal prudence and the euphemistic “war on terror.” In this part of this century, conservatives can be seen continually asserting that they are better at (a) managing taxpayer dollars, and (b) protecting the homeland. That’s because, in the past decade or so, there have really been only two global events of significance — 9/11 in 2001 and the great recession of 2009.

Stephen Harper, being a smart conservative, knows that. As such, Harper and his Conservative Party have expended great effort in promoting this USP: Safety. With them, your tax dollars and your lives are safe. Over and over, every single day, Conservative Party ministers and minions promote the notion that, with them, your money and your family are protected.

This is why last week’s revelation by Auditor General Michael Ferguson is so huge. He found that Harper’s Conservatives have lost — yes, LOST — more than three billion in taxpayer dollars that had been set aside for anti-terrorism measures. When asked about the fact that his government had LOST THREE BILLION DOLLARS, Harper said: “There’s some lack of clarity.”

No, actually, there isn’t. What is crystal clear is this: Conservatives are the ones who claim to be smart fiscal managers and the guys who know how to fight terror. When now they are neither.

Progressives, you have been given an unprecedented opportunity to steal away a core conservative value. You have been given a chance to win the next election.

And that, you might say, is valuable.


Canada’s Nate Silver weighs in on B.C. ’13

Here.  Dix didn’t have a great debate performance, Clark did.  Also, going neg has worked for the latter – while refusing to do so hasn’t helped the former.

That all said, (a) NDP vote is much more efficient on the ground and (b) Mr. Grenier says closing the remaining gap is going to be pretty hard for the B.C. Libs.  I think Mr. Grenier is right.