Fair smair, it is of course relevant because blog postings are in the public realm. But, in the case of Suzanne and other FCP candidates, who cares? They haven’t got a hope in hell of winning a seat. I thought of doing what you’re doing, but then figured it was work to no purpose. If it was a TORY, then that would be different.

Whooee! I reckon all published writing is fair game. That’s one reason I turned down an offer to consider running for the Greens. My free-wheelin’ boogin’ style might come back an’ bite the party’s innocent ass.

WRT, the constituents being wrong, when my MP, Diane Finley, announced was going to vote against SSM, she said that her reason for doing so was that she’d received more input from the anti-SSM side and judged that to be the will of the majority of her constituents. I wrote to her an’ told her human rights can’t be dictated by the majority and that mob rule oughtn’t apply in human rights cases. I told her that sometimes a leader has to lead.

Seems like I might not be too far off from SUZANNE’s way o’ thinkin’. Ouch!

JB

Anything already in the public domain is open season, no bag limit.

As far as politicians taking direction from the vatican rather than their constituents, if any of them feel that conflicted about their faith versus their job, which is to represent the electorate, they’re not fit to hold public office. Like pharmacists who can’t bear the thought of dispensing birth control — that’s fine, Walmart’s always hiring greeters.

But the notion that “I am right on this issue, my constituents are wrong, and I’m going to vote under the direction of my Church instead of the people I was elected to represent” strikes me as profoundly anti-democratic.

Actually, I disagree with you here. It is _representative_ democracy. It is impossible for an MP to represent the views of every constituent in his or her riding 100% of the time, so they don’t. Our elected representatives make compromises all the time — constituent demands versus party discipline, personal conscience versus popular opinion. There have been plenty of MPs who have chosen to go with their own conscience rather than the popular opinion of their constituents. Witness the free votes on same sex marriage and capital punishment. It is, in my opinion, our MPs jobs to balance their own judgement on what is the best decision in a vote, with the advice of his constituents.

Democracy remains because the voters have the ability to pass judgement on how their representative has performed. If the voters choose to appoint Suzanne as their representative, and if they decide, on balance, that she hasn’t served them well, they can vote her out in the next election.

All that being said:

1) To what extent would it be fair ball to raise this specific issue during an election campaign, given that I live in the riding?

2) More broadly, is it fair to reference a blogger’s published work during an election campaign?

This has happened in situations which are unfair. I remember that when Jack Layton was running to be mayor of Toronto, a term paper he wrote in university calling for the toppling of the capitalist system got circulated in the press and actually made news. Its relevance to the race was marginal, at best, but it still happened.

Unlike a term paper written years before, however, blogs are usually more current, and often open up a window on the character of the person who runs them. And a lot of our elections are about character. Therefore, I would say that it is _entirely_ relevant to raise the issue, since the debate goes directly to Suzanne’s potential conduct as an MP. It’s a debate worth having.

Frankly, I think it’s a debate that she’d welcome.

“Frankly, I think it’s a debate that she’d welcome.”

Well, here we are. The lines are open. Operators are standing by.

“1) To what extent would it be fair ball to raise this specific issue during an election campaign, given that I live in the riding?”

Fair? You want to be fair during an election campaign?

“2) More broadly, is it fair to reference a blogger’s published work during an election campaign?”

There’s that word again…

Okay, snark off.

My answer to both questions is emphatically YES. Voters need to have as much relevant information about each candidate as they can get, whether from the candidate or his opponents. And in that sense, a religious bias that might put the candidate’s conduct athwart the best interests of the constituents really needs close examination. Any religion. Any bias.

And here’s food for thought: the pope is not just a religious leader…he is the head-of-government of a nation. He is in office for life, and that, in essence, makes him a dictator.

Any MP in this country who submits his will to the dictator of a foreign country ahead of all others is following a treasonous path.

Put that in someone’s pipe and see if they smoke it!

“Fair? You want to be fair during an election campaign?”

Well…yes. That’s probably why I’ll never run for office. That, and laziness. But yes, I don’t buy into the notion that we should jettison all our ethical principles to torpedo a political opponent (or make a profit, or get laid, or win a war).

Well, I could just as easily ask a socialist “Is it your intention to tell the people that their wishes will be superceded by your socialist beliefs?”

Yes, I have moral convictions that I have no intention of betraying. I am sure that the voters of Nepean-Carleton would appreciate voting for someone with a core set of values who holds them in the face of adversity. That’s what integrity is, after all.

That being said, elected officials should be flexible on a wide range of issues. Not every issue is a black-and-white moral issue, and I’m open to the people’s input on these matters.

“If on balance, you did not like the way your MP voted, you can choose to not vote for them in the next election.”

Sometimes the next election is too late. Especially if the MP got elected by lying. Or by hiding his real motives. I don’t need to know everything about the candidate — I don’t care, for example, if he hates spinach and loves baseball. But I damned well better know ahead of time if he intends to undermine my autonomy to run my own life as I see fit!

So, Suzanne…how do you answer the charge that by following the dictates of the pope against the wishes of your constituents…or even your own party… you would be engaging in treason?

“But is it your intention to announce explicitly to the voters of Nepean Carleton that their wishes will be superceded by your conscience, or, more specifically, by Roman Catholic doctrine?”

Damn, but I almost wish I were there so I could run the question up the flag pole in person and see who salutes…

“I AM there. It’s my riding.”

Guess I’ll just have to take the vicarious position, then, and doo my cheerleading thing from the Wet Coast. So…you gonna do the asking, then? In a public venue, I mean.

By all means, yes, voters need to know where candidates stand on important issues. Candidates who do or did blog provide that info in great quantities. This is good.

In SUZANNE’s case there is a ton of stuff. She is a fetus fetishist of the highest order. She is a homophobe. She is anti-feminist.

Oh and Catholic, bien sûr.

What more does any thinking person need to know?

I agree SL - if there is a complete 180 on something, a public stance on an issue that is such a departure from their previous “anonymous” comments that it can be considered a betrayal of sorts, then I think it should be brought up.

However, having said that I think a digital anonymity should be protected and respected if that kind of betrayal doesn’t occur. Some modicum of discretion should be expected, right guys?

How about kicking the party out, surely you are aware that you’re not only going to be dealing with how the Vatican may want you to vote, balanced against how you think your should vote, all tied in with what your constituents may expect of you… your party is going to tell you how to vote on certain measures, and that is how you will vote if you want to remain within the party.

Which is why a personal conscience is important. Because if the elected official sees the party stance is immoral, then he should follow his conscience.

Generally speaking, in my party, there is a large area of agreement on what might be termed “moral issues”.

I intend to follow my conscience on moral issues. My party will largely agree with my stances.

On non-moral issues, or on issues that are not set out in the party platform (because that’s what people are voting FOR), I intend to be open to the input of my constituents. My party tends to be open to the wishes of the constituents on these matters.

Morals and integrity? You are talking about entering the political arena, a place which has no room for either -

I understand your concerns, but notwithstanding the moral difficulties of the political life, someone has to do it. Again, this is a good reason why moral fortitude and following one’s personal conscience is important. That is how one builds integrity.

I don’t doubt your convictions but you don’t seem quite shark enough to survive there long.

But, if don’t try, you don’t get tested.

“Have you stopped beating your wife, Balbulican?”

I have never beaten my wife, SUZANNE.

There you go. A clear, succinct, honest, and unequivocal answer to your question.

May I request the same level of honesty and clarity, please? You are running in my riding, and I would like to know where I and the other citizens of this ridings stand in terms of your decision making.

“{f the voters do not like that person’s decision, then they are free to vote or not vote for that person. Any other position presupposes that it’s okay for a person to not follow his conscience. That is wrong. Or that people who believe in Divine Revelation should not stand for office. ”

Absolutely wrong, SUZANNE. Everyone should follow their conscience, and everyone who believes in Divine Revelation should absolutely run for office if they feel driven to do so.

But many Catholic policiticians, like John Kennedy, believed that in presenting themselves for an election in a democracy, they were accepting the need to make political decisions on the basis of politics, rather than their own spiritual beliefs. Kennedy stated that explicitly during his candidacy, I was requesting the same level of explicit honesty from you.

There is a difference between a Muslim candidate and a Taliban candidate.

“There is a difference between a Muslim candidate and a Taliban candidate.”

Yes, that would be the perfect analogy to explain why a vote for SUZANNE is a vote for someone who does not respect secularity - indeed, who claims that it’s anti-religious discrimination.

Those of us who do not shove our spiritual beliefs down the throats of others do not support theocrats for public office.

“But I think you’re not asking about Suzanne’s moral compass, but rather if Suzanne’s vote in parliament would be controlled from the Vatican. And in this case, I think you’re making a leap of logic.”

That is exactly what I am asking, quite explicitly, and that was issue I raised in the post I referred to above. And no, I am NOT making a leap of logic: please read SUZANNE’S statements in that original discussion, and note her careful evasiveness in this thread.

“Right now, Suzanne’s moral compass is closely aligned with the moral compass as expressed in the Vatican, but that does not mean that she gets her marching orders from there. We have to assume, unless we can prove otherwise, that there is no connection; that there is a possibility — even if Suzanne can’t conceive of such a one — that the Vatican might issue a moral edict that deviates from Suzanne’s own compass, and that in that case, she would act by her own moral compass and not by the edicts of the Vatican.”

But SUZANNE has called repeatedly for the censure and for the denial of sacraments to Catholic politicians who follow their own moral compass rather than that of the Vatican’s, James.

“Of course, we can just ask her: If there was a situation where the Vatican brought forward a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and told all Catholic politicians to vote for that policy or risk excommunication, would you follow your own conscience, or would you follow Vatican policy? Suzanne?”

Let’s see if you have better luck than me. (And it’s SUZANNE!)

Whooee! I ain’t sure that hypothetical could happen. SUZANNE couldn’t possibly have a differing opinion with the Vatican on anything.

That depends on the issue.

“Have you stopped beating your wife, Balbulican?”

I have never beaten my wife, SUZANNE.

You did not answer the question “yes” or “no”.

“There you go. A clear, succinct, honest, and unequivocal answer to your question. ”

I gave a clear, succinct, honest question to your answer. But you do not want to give me an opportunity to contextualize the answer. You said that you do not beat your wife. Fine. I want the opportunity to frame my answer, too. Otherwise, I just think you want to corner me into an answer that you want, rather than see the bigger picture.

May I request the same level of honesty and clarity, please? You are running in my riding, and I would like to know where I and the other citizens of this ridings stand in terms of your decision making.

Okay: how about you being honest: have you stop beating your wife, yes or no?

You asked me a “yes or no” question, but I was not allowed to explain myself. I asked you a “yes or no” question, but you give yourself the right to explain yourself.

But many Catholic policiticians, like John Kennedy, believed that in presenting themselves for an election in a democracy, they were accepting the need to make political decisions on the basis of politics, rather than their own spiritual beliefs.

Well, if you want a person of integrity, then that person has to know what his principles are, in case politics are wrong.

That is what integrity is.

If John Kennedy believes X is wrong, but “politics” requires him to do it, is he a person of integrity if he does X?

He is not.

You cannot do what you know is wrong and be a person of integrity.

I’d like to address James’ concern:

If there was a situation where the Vatican brought forward a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and told all Catholic politicians to vote for that policy or risk excommunication, would you follow your own conscience, or would you follow Vatican policy?

The pope doesn’t normally wake up one morning and decide to excommunicate people for breaching doctrine.

It takes a LOT to get excommunicated in the Church.

Excommunication is usually reserved to people who perform very serious moral acts– and even then it’s not enforced– and there’s only a small number of acts which merit excommunication.

It is also reserved to people who persistently flaunt Church authority in a major way.

It also takes a LOT to get communion denied.

Normally, the issues involved with these matters are patently black-and-white issues– e.g. pro-life and pro-family.

My party is there to present voters to vote for people who want to promote the pro-life point of view and traditional marriage.

So excommunication and denying communion are not a big issue in my party.

I would also like to address the issue of doctrinal development.

“The Vatican” is a word that is too vague to really describe Church authority. The correct word is “The Magisterium”. Because the Vatican, i.e. the Church hierarchy and bureaucracy, can say things that are not doctrinal and just plain wrong.

The Magisterium is the office of the Church that speaks on doctrinal issues. Catholic doctrines organically develop from understanding the doctrines of the past.

Normally, faithful and educated Catholics implicitly agree with one another to begin with, because they share the worldview of the Magisterium, and apply approximately the same principles to understanding doctrine.

So they usually agree with the pope to begin with. It’s rare for the pope to issue a pronouncement on doctrine that really contradicts what faithful, educated Catholics think. Because they usually see it coming through their own understanding of Church. doctrine. Sometimes the faithful get it wrong– which is why the pope issues doctrinal statements. But those statements are really more for dissenters than the faithful. You don’t need papal statements when the faithful agree. It’s only when a large body of Catholics contradict what has always understood to be true (and divinely revealed) that the Magisterium clarifies these issues.

This process takes decades, sometimes even centuries.

It’s not a matter of the “Vatican” issuing a memo to all elected officials to vote a certain way. It does not work like that.

But SUZANNE has called repeatedly for the censure and for the denial of sacraments to Catholic politicians who follow their own moral compass rather than that of the Vatican’s, James.

That’s right. Because being an elected official does not mean that you get to escape the spiritual consequences of your actions.

1)I agree with debeauxOs above, “Those of us who do not shove our spiritual beliefs down the throats of others do not support theocrats for public office.”

Is it okay when left-wingers do it?

Nobody is forced to believe in Divine Revelation. However, there are people who are not religious who share my viewpoint. Don’t they have the right to vote for people who represent their views?

It takes a LOT to get excommunicated in the Church.

I don’t think you’ve answered my question. I’m not asking about the likelihood of a dispute occurring between you and the Magisterium. I’m asking about what you would do if one occurred.

I’ll ask the question again, but first I’d like to point out that the denial of communion happens a lot more often than you imply. You say that it takes a lot to get excommunicated from the Church, but that hasn’t stopped American bishops from denying communion to Catholic presidential candidates due to their refusal to commit to a pro-life stance. A leading Canadian bishop suggested something similar for Paul Martin over the issue of same sex marriage.

It’s clear that Catholic bishops across this continent are able to exert a fair amount of local control. Consider, my Catholic wife has been excommunicated from the Lincoln diocese due to her membership in the Committee for the Ordination of Women. But that excommunication is not recognized by the bishop here, and she has been welcomed and takes communion in Catholic churches in the diocese of Ontario.

This isn’t the first time that the difference in approach of various Catholic diocese has manifested itself. Even though I was an Anglican, the Catholic church here in Ontario was satisified that I met all the conditions to allow a Catholic wedding after taking a fairly standard marriage preparation course. However, as the wedding was in Omaha, the rules of the Lincoln diocese applied, and they demanded (and the Ontario diocese had to rush to receive) a “disparity of cult dispensation” in order for the wedding to proceed. As far as the Ontario diocese was concerned, that dispensation was only required for a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian, but the Lincoln diocese had stricter rules.

So, denial of communion (which I call excommunication, but that may describe a more stricter incidence of above) does happen quite often and, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t take a lot to get excommunicated from the Church. Or, parts of it, at least.

So, I ask again, if the Magisterium developed a moral policy that you personally disagreed with, and suggested that politicians who didn’t vote with that policy be denied communion — as has happened in the United States over the abortion issue, and as has happened in Canada over the same sex marriage issue — would you follow your conscience, or would vote as the Magisterium tells you?