Compromises and why evangelicals should give their heads a shake.

Even with the plethora of political parties in Canada, it is highly unlikely that any single political party comprehensively represents anyone's views. For that reason, although I am an evangelical christian, I support the Liberal party of Canada, and not the Conservatives or the Christian Heritage Party.

In discussions on one of the posts at Canadian Soapbox, I commented that in fact Christian evangelicals should be just as likely to vote for the Liberals as the CHP or the Conservatives. Immediately a CHP supporter let all hell break loose. Why? Because, being a Christian, I decided there were other things than personal morality issues that should determine how I vote.

There is a social morality too, and Jesus talked far more about giving to the poor and caring for the oppressed than about homosexuality. I am not saying that Jesus supports homosexuality, as the incensed CHP supporter maintained.

One has to make a tradeoff. And Jesus talked a whole lot more about certain issues than others. This same CHP supporter said that they support limited government. Well, that is not a position I believe Jesus would have taken. Evangelicals need to give their head a shake and realize the Liberal party, and maybe even the NDP, are in line with many of Jesus' teachings, far more than the Cons or the CHP.

These sorts of dilemmas applies to anyone, not just those with religious affiliation.
There are always compromises one has to make if one is to choose a political party to support. If one unconditionally subscribes to all the tenets of a political party, then they are likely either its founder, or a blind follower.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Abuse of Charter prevented

The Supreme Court of Canada voted today by a 4-3 margin that Hutterites, a sect who believe that being photographed willingly is sinful, are obliged to have a picture on their driving licenses. And it was the right decision. To do otherwise would have gone against the Charter.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been abused in significant ways in the past. Remember Mark Steyn's article on Islam, and the incensed complaints to the Human Rights Commissions over an infringement of the Charter? That was ridiculous, and an outcome favouring the Hutterite position today would have been a worthy equal.

If photographic identification is not provided on these licenses we may as well not bother with them. Let the four year olds drive! Okay, that's not what the Hutterites were asking for, but abuse of the system would be simple without photo ID. How can the police enforce the system if they don't have this crucial information? It's impossible.

That is any other ruling would have been inadmissible. In the Charter, the Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms states that it "guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

In other words, any rights or freedoms can be limited by reasonable demands of the law if they are justified, and photo ID is clearly such a limit. Were the judges to vote in favour of the Hutterites, they would have been disregarding the Charter, and that was the basis of the Hutterites plea!

If only people would read that first clause of the Charter...

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere