Printer Friendly

Letters to the Editor.

From Ron Gray on the dangers of Rory Leishman's voting advice

I'm a long time fan of Rory Leishman. We're all grateful for his pro-life stand, and we know he's suffered professionally for it. However, his advice on "voting in the next election" (Catholic Insight, September 2000) illustrates one of the dangers of punditry: we may come to rely on our own cleverness.

There are several errors in Rory's column. Let's start with the simplest:

l) He implies that the CHP caused Garnet Bloomfield's 1997 loss in Perth-Middlesex. But Bloomfield was beaten by 2,000 votes, and the CHP only took 900. Bloomfield would have lost anyway.

2) He accuses the CHP candidate there of "disparaging" Bloomfield. But Dr. Jamie Harris did not disparage Bloomfield. He was, however, quite properly critical of the Reform Party's failure to take any stand on life issues.

The CHP has always been careful not to attack individuals in other parties, because some are fellow believers, and we don't ever want to give the enemies of Christ the satisfaction of seeing Christians attack one another.

3) Rory suggests the CHP should not run in some ridings. But what gives anyone the right to deny any Canadian the opportunity of voting for the one party that publicly acknowledges the supremacy of God? If a citizen wants to use his or her vote to honour God, who has the right to say, "No, no, you cannot do that, because it might interfere with what we want from this election"?

Strange ideas for a fan of a party which speaks so much about democracy! Saying that one option should be excluded is anti-democratic. This is why I have warned the Alliance (and all Canadians):

"If you make democracy your god, you'll wind up with neither God nor democracy.

4) Rory says referenda are "the only likely means" of curbing abortion. But what about God?

Besides, Rory misunderstands Alliance policy. (Not surprising: they change what they say to suit the audience!) CBC Radio in Ottawa asked Mr. Day what he would do about abortion if he were Prime Minister. His answer: "An Alliance government led by Stockwell Day would not raise the issue unless forced to do so by a referendum in response to a citizen initiative."

But there's no framework in our Constitution for "citizen initiatives"--so that's a recipe for doing nothing! Besides, 50%-plus-one can never change God's decree that abortion is an abomination!

5) Rory says, "The CHP is fond of saying vox populi is not vox Dei", then adds, "But that's not the point. It's a matter of tactics."

Tactics were what the Midianites had; Gideon had the help of God. Who would choose mere human tactics over Divine aid?

There's the crux of his errors: his voting recommendations are based on his guesstimate of the probable outcome. Vote Alliance, he says, even if the candidate is pro-abortion, because media "experts" say CHP "has no chance."

Chance? Who said the universe is run by chance?

If Canadians don't honour God, He--the One who raises up and puts down governments--may very well decide to smite us with another Liberal regime...and keep inflicting them on us until we do give Him the glory that is His due.

God doesn't sit in Heaven, wringing His hands and saying, "Oh, what'll I do? The Alliance may lose!" God could eliminate abortion with a snap of His fingers. But He seeks our obedience. And the first commandment is the place to start.

If we honoured God, Canada would be blessed beyond anything we could imagine. But if we fail to honour Him, we could elect 301 Alliance candidates--or 301 CHP candidates, for that matter--and the nation would continue to deteriorate.

Without Him, we can do nothing. Read John 15:5.

The answer to Canada's social and economic decay isn't in any political party. It's in Jesus Christ. But only one political party is committed to honouring Him in the public life of this nation.

That's reason enough for all prolifers, including Rory Leishman, to support the CHP.

Ron Gray is the leader of the federal Christian Heritage Party. He may be reached by telephone (613) 788-3716
COPYRIGHT 2000 Catholic Insight
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2000, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Catholic Insight
Article Type:Letter to the Editor
Date:Nov 1, 2000
Words:698
Previous Article:RIGHTSLAND, a fairy tale?
Next Article:Dominus Iesus (the Lord Jesus).


Related Articles
Most papers receive more letters.
State courts uphold 'opinion' decisions in post-Milkovich era.
E-mail: Is it a blessing or curse?
Keep the spotlight on readers.
A case for printing 'name withheld' letters.
Rethinking the rules. (Editor's Note).
Creating a lively letters page: how do you sustain a lively exchange with your readers? The Masthead editor collected advice from a number of...
Why women don't write: time, fear, and society get the blame for lack of letters from women writers. Still, the Courant took steps to make editorial...
A look at the perpetrators: the list of interest groups encouraging "astroturf" is as long as the list of interest groups.
New research on the nature of letters and their writers.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters