Tory MP: Foreign aid should be to convert to Christianity, English

MP under fire for views linking foreign aid to Christianity

Comments 'Twisted'

Jason Markusoff, Canwest News Service
Published: Wednesday, October 01, 2008


CALGARY - Controversial Conservative incumbent Rob Anders' political views are again coming under fire, as a local lawyer and humanitarian says Mr. Anders told her he believes Canadian diplomacy and humanitarian work should focus on changing outsiders' language to English and faith to Christianity.

Donna Kennedy-Glans said Mr. Anders, seeking his fifth term in Calgary West, made the remarks to her during a private dinner in late June -- although the veteran politician insists his comments are being "twisted" by someone with an agenda.

Ms. Kennedy-Glans, a Calgary West constituent, said she has come forward in the middle of the election campaign because she wants fellow voters to understand his perspective. She recognizes missionary work has value, but as the founder of a volunteer agency that helps train female professionals in such Muslim countries as Nigeria and Indonesia, she believes Mr. Anders' apparent views pose a security risk to Canadians abroad.

In an interview yesterday, Mr. Anders said her accusations misconstrue his position, noting he has regularly donated his time and money to helping Tibetan organizations, which practise a different religion and speak a foreign language.

Ms. Kennedy-Glans said Mr. Anders' comments came as the pair and their dinner companion -- local doctor and anti-poverty advocate Bob Dickson -- were discussing Mr. Anders' opinion that security and military defence take priority over "constructive engagement" such as diplomacy, foreign policy and humanitarian development.

Mr. Dickson, a family physician and member of foreign-aid advocacy group Results Canada, said he clearly recalls Mr. Anders' position and agreed with Ms. Kennedy-Glans' recollection of the conversation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe it or not, it's the National Post breaking this story. The Conservative right-wing-MP explosions are there, but most of the media just seem to be ignoring them this time. Remeber that this is the same guy who refused to speak with Nelson Mandela, calling him a communist and a terrorist.

National Post and Mcleans are actually reporting a lot about the Tory's trouble.


CTV however has become very Tory friendly over the last few weeks.


CBC is on a mission to make sure Harper loses.


This is really a non-issue, but if the crazy Former Alliance types start talking again, Harper will not be able to come back.

I've been following it, and yes, it is interesting that the NP broke this story. However, I believe the NP is very pro-fiscal conservatism, and not so big on social conservatism (unlike even some of the city papers in the same chain like the Calgary Herald). The same with Maclean's. And this is even from News Corp Canada.

True, when the Tory were spending like the NDP in their first term, they were very vocal in opposition.

christi-insanity is a terrible disease. maybe we should funnel some of that foreign aid money to help find a cure for it before any more MP's catch it.

^ I would actually like to fund some money to erase all forms of fundamentalism, including extreme intolerance towards religion.

salvius said:

^ I would actually like to fund some money to erase all forms of fundamentalism, including extreme intolerance towards religion.

Click to expand...

nothing wrong with intolerance when it is applied in the proper circumstances. as with being intolerant of people who want to force others to be part of a particular religion, i am also intolerant of those who want to take away my freedoms. i am intolerant of state religions, state funding of religions, and even forced atheism. i am also intolerant of teaching so called truths that are only truths because they can't be proven wrong or false to children. would you believe me if i told you i was god just because it can't be proven wrong? would it make it true only because it couldn't be proven wrong?


i believe people should be free to think what they want. i don't like religion (no secret) but i tolerate it to a certain extent. and my term christi-insanity was not an attack on christianity but rather an attack on insane christians who want to take the rights of others away. it was an attack on fundamentalist christianity. but i can understand how the two could have been confused since fundamentalist christianity is literal christianity, you know, the religion that teaches that those who don't accept jesus will burn in hell for all of eternity (how tolerant is that!). but i know that all christians are not literal christians which is why i applied the term to that MP and those like him. alot of christians (i don't know how many since i didn't conduct a poll) are good every day people who contribute to society just like everyone else. i not only tolerate them but i like them, not because they're christians but because i have no reason to not like them.

salvius, if you're a good guy and happen to be christian, i have no issue with you. if you are a fundamentalist and wish i burn in hell forever because i don't believe in god which can't be proven or disproven, want to take my freedoms away and defend those views as acceptable and just or not to be criticized from behind the cover of tolerance, there's a place on queen street you should get familiar with.

we're cool right?

Prometheus The Supremo said:

nothing wrong with intolerance when it is applied in the proper circumstances.

Click to expand...

Defining the "proper circumstances" is open to debate, of course.

Hydrogen said:

Defining the "proper circumstances" is open to debate, of course.

Click to expand...

should we tolerate using foreign aid to convert people to christianity? i'd think intolerance in this case to that particular subject is one of those proper circumstances. i can tolerate a person being allowed the freedom to have that view (foreign aid for conversion) even though i don't like that view but i will not tolerate that view being implemented.

I wasn't advocating any such policy of coerced religious conversion. My point was that one person's notion of applied intolerance may be excessive to another - even if they share a similar point of view.

I'm always wary when someone argues for intolerance in some form. I want reason first.

Why are Christians always trying to convert people? I get ocassionally get calls from Christian organizations myself. My family is Bhuddist, and Bhuddists don't go around trying to convert non-Bhuddists.

Hydrogen said:

I wasn't advocating any such policy of coerced religious conversion. My point was that one person's notion of applied intolerance may be excessive to another - even if they share a similar point of view.

I'm always wary when someone argues for intolerance in some form. I want reason first.

Click to expand...

i didn't say you were advocating that policy.

i take intolerant to mean "not willing to accept" or "not allowing". and of course there have to be valid and ethical reasons for that. i think we've become a bit weary of that word for what it has been associated with. people use it to describe racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and of course those are forms of intolerance but that doesn't make the word intolerance inherently evil. all racists are intolerant but not all those who are intolerant are racists. if you are intolerant of terrorism, that doesn't make you a bad person or your view an evil one. should those who are lactose intolerant take sensitivity training? so they can learn to accept lactose? society would get very shitty if everyone tolerated everything.

i also practice discrimination. i believe some foods taste better than others and i like clear sky over cloudy sky.

reductio ad wordium

doady said:

Why are Christians always trying to convert people? I get ocassionally get calls from Christian organizations myself. My family is Bhuddist, and Bhuddists don't go around trying to convert non-Bhuddists.

Click to expand...

it's not their fault. i think it asks for it in the bible. i think some do it because they honestly believe they are helping others by doing so while others do it to try and score points with god.

P.S, if buddhists don't go around trying to convert non-buddhists, does that mean they go around trying to convert buddhists?

Doesn't the Bible also prohibit blended-fibre clothing, and ask that adherents sell their possessions and give the money to the poor?

afransen said:

Doesn't the Bible also prohibit blended-fibre clothing, and ask that adherents sell their possessions and give the money to the poor?

Click to expand...

yes. it also says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. also, anyone who has been defiled by a woman will not enter the kingdom of heaven. also, disabled people are not allowed to approach the altar with gifts because god does not like those with blemish who are from the seed of aron. how the hell are we supposed to know which cripples are from the seed of aron?