Comments on: ‘We don’t do God’ http://www.hubbers.ca/blog/2008/02/01/we-dont-do-god/ picturing life in Aurora, Ontario Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:20:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Val http://www.hubbers.ca/blog/2008/02/01/we-dont-do-god/comment-page-1/#comment-525 Val Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:18:01 +0000 http://hubbers.ca/blog/2008/02/01/we-dont-do-god/#comment-525 <p>Yeah Elizabeth! I actually saw the original article and wanted to respond but the comments were taken so out of context I wasn't sure what the appropriate response would be - as always, Elizabeth is more than capable of defending herself so I guess we owe the National Post some props for the free publicity. :-)</p> <p>I do have to read Vision Green to figure out one point the article made that was not replied to by Elizabeth. They claim that while the Green's are opposed to Afghanistan and not opposed to an intervention in Sudan...</p> <p>Hey wait! You're a candidate... what's the scoop sir? Or have you lost your foreign policy expert recently (in my dreams)...</p> <p>I'm more than casually interested since I have an essay on humanitarian intervention due on Monday and I spend all my time reading about and being lectured to about this stuff. Oh yeah, cuz I'm in that degree program. :-)</p> <p>I'll go read Vision Green but I'd still be interested to know what you think.</p> <p>--------------------------------------------------</p> <em> <p>You'll want to read section 5-5 and 5-6 of <a href="http://www.greenparty.ca/visiongreen" rel="nofollow">Vision Green</a> (pages 94-96 of the pdf copy). This outlines our position on both Afghanistan and Darfur.</p> <p>Elizabeth is correct. Vision Green outlines our position much better than that press release did. For example it avoids using the word "crusade" and rather talks about how success will not be possible so long as the Taliban is able to recruit by framing the fight as a "clash of civilizations."</p> <p>The National Post was inaccurate in both our position on Afghanistan AND Darfur.</p> <p>To be clear, we do not oppose intervention in Afghanistan, but we believe that it should be a UN led mission to help the people rebuild their country and democracy. After all, Afghanistan was a modern democratic country before the US and Russia decided to fight their "cold war" there. (It was only cold for Russians and Americans. For much of the rest of the world things looked a bit different!)</p> <p>In Darfur, the Green Party ALSO supports the United Nations call for intervention. Again, a United Nations peace keeping and rebuilding mission, not a NATO offensive.</p> <p>The National Post has it wrong. Our policy is consistent.</p> <p>--Glenn</p> </em> Yeah Elizabeth! I actually saw the original article and wanted to respond but the comments were taken so out of context I wasn’t sure what the appropriate response would be – as always, Elizabeth is more than capable of defending herself so I guess we owe the National Post some props for the free publicity. :-)

I do have to read Vision Green to figure out one point the article made that was not replied to by Elizabeth. They claim that while the Green’s are opposed to Afghanistan and not opposed to an intervention in Sudan…

Hey wait! You’re a candidate… what’s the scoop sir? Or have you lost your foreign policy expert recently (in my dreams)…

I’m more than casually interested since I have an essay on humanitarian intervention due on Monday and I spend all my time reading about and being lectured to about this stuff. Oh yeah, cuz I’m in that degree program. :-)

I’ll go read Vision Green but I’d still be interested to know what you think.

————————————————–

You’ll want to read section 5-5 and 5-6 of Vision Green (pages 94-96 of the pdf copy). This outlines our position on both Afghanistan and Darfur.

Elizabeth is correct. Vision Green outlines our position much better than that press release did. For example it avoids using the word “crusade” and rather talks about how success will not be possible so long as the Taliban is able to recruit by framing the fight as a “clash of civilizations.”

The National Post was inaccurate in both our position on Afghanistan AND Darfur.

To be clear, we do not oppose intervention in Afghanistan, but we believe that it should be a UN led mission to help the people rebuild their country and democracy. After all, Afghanistan was a modern democratic country before the US and Russia decided to fight their “cold war” there. (It was only cold for Russians and Americans. For much of the rest of the world things looked a bit different!)

In Darfur, the Green Party ALSO supports the United Nations call for intervention. Again, a United Nations peace keeping and rebuilding mission, not a NATO offensive.

The National Post has it wrong. Our policy is consistent.

–Glenn

]]> By: Walkswithcoffee http://www.hubbers.ca/blog/2008/02/01/we-dont-do-god/comment-page-1/#comment-524 Walkswithcoffee Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:22:32 +0000 http://hubbers.ca/blog/2008/02/01/we-dont-do-god/#comment-524 Simply put, religious slurring in conservative cycles is standard operating procedure. During my brief involvement with conservativbes, I was likewise smeared as radical for being Anglican (I'm anglican lite). That branch of faith was decribed as "radical" by CPoC people. Being Anglican does not pass the CPoC orthodoxy test of fundamentalists... and therefore does not meet the national post's political orthodoxy test. Aside: they really go after you if you are Indigenous and Anglican (they cannot compute that). Cheers, Coffee Simply put, religious slurring in conservative cycles is standard operating procedure.

During my brief involvement with conservativbes, I was likewise smeared as radical for being Anglican (I’m anglican lite). That branch of faith was decribed as “radical” by CPoC people. Being Anglican does not pass the CPoC orthodoxy test of fundamentalists… and therefore does not meet the national post’s political orthodoxy test.

Aside: they really go after you if you are Indigenous and Anglican (they cannot compute that).

Cheers,

Coffee

]]>