Enough said


 

Glen Pearson thinks we might all move on.

I am a man of faith, though I’m quiet about it. I realize that such moments of solemnity such as the Roman Catholic mass are sacred affairs.  But by all accounts, Stephen Harper is a religious man and hasn’t been hesitant to claim it.  Yet whether he pocketed or ate the wafer is a matter for himself and his own conscience, especially at such a solemn occasion. To chastise him in such a way undermines the true meaning of both church and state.  I’m with the Prime Minister on this one. 


 

Enough said

  1. Funny that the Lib-Left condemns the church so often and yet have taken this idiotic story to heart. Quick, call the politically correct police, Harper may have offended some religious folk, start pretending like you're offended and rant and rave.

    Typical Lib-Leftie

    • Is it "typical Lib-Leftie" to support the Conservative PM on an issue of respect and solemnity?

      Did you read what Glen Pearson wrote before you posted this? Like where he wrote: "It was not a scandal and it wasn't deserving of the coverage it received. " Or, "There is no scandal here, only the need for the church to provide him an explanation as to why the welcome extended to him was treated in such a manner."

    • I am very proud of how the Liberals have handled this. The Tories would jump all over a Liberal PM who made such a mistake. I haven't seen a single Liberal MP attack the PM over this. I'm sorry your Lib-Left strawman doesn't exist.

    • You might want to move on.

  2. "Glen Pearson thinks we might all move on."

    Yuh think.

  3. Judging by the amount of people who are psoting on the CBC web forum article (1,000) there seems to be a consensus – basically why is this story eating up room? – the kicker though is I have never seen so many posts that start as follows = I am not usually a harper supporter BUT -> hmmmmm me thinks this may turn out to be one of those rare moments where common wisdom beats the heck out of partisanship and works out for the favour of the PM – I am constantly amazed by the wisdom of average canadians and the stupidity of those that should know better.

    • "Judging by the amount of people who are psoting on the CBC web forum article (1,000)"

      I love science.

    • What is taking up more room? The articles about this or the "1000" people who claim it shouldn't be a story but are commenting on it?

  4. It really is a minor mistake, regardless of who is at fault. This still being a story is almost (almost) as annoying as Michael Jackson: World Super Hero.

    It's because of such foolishness as this that the separation of church and state is required for any state to function past a 19th century mindset. I hope we achieve it soon.

  5. The church actually does have meaning, the state wants to mean more and more and more, but politicians most certainly don't mean anything except to enrich themselves.

  6. Magic crackers are bnuts anyway.

    this is more embarrassing for Catholics who accept the lunacy of a cracker transforming into HUMAN flesh and blood so they can indulge in a little cannibalism.

    What part of that seems sane?

    Believe whatever you want but to have political leaders believe in that nonsense – and journo's too – is a disgrace and distorts EVERYTHING in Canada.

    • While I will leave aside Catholic beliefs, I agree that this is story is to the shame of the Catholics, not the Prime Minister. Harper was in a lose-lose situation the moment he was handed the wafer. The fault lies with whomever handed it to him. And when you are a guest and your host holds out something for you to take, it is only common courtesy to take it. It is unrealistic to expect that Harper knows every nuance of Catholic beliefs–apparently, even the Catholic priests are unsure of the proper protocol.

  7. If not for the fact that Stephen Harper never wants to apologize for anything this would have been over days ago. He could say he was unaware of the protocol and apologized.

    That's it.

    But no, he can never show himself as wrong.

  8. And just to make sure you move on, the youtube video (from CPAC) of Harper taking communion has been pulled due to a legal threat.

    • Oh now this is interesting! Legal threat from whom?

      • SRC (Radio-Canada). But you can still see the original CPAC footage.

        • Here is a report on this: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4117/125/

          Does anyone know why Radio-Canada is involved if it is CPAC footage? The interesting thing about this footage is that it directly contradicts statements from the PMO. Whether Harper should have known better is debatable, but having the PMO lie about it is not.

          • catherine – why don't you and your fellow Liberals develop some policy proposals or do some fundraising etc instead of the recent Liberal Party staple: scandal-mongering. That's about all your party's been any good at in the last 3 and half years. Seriously, this is quite pathetic.

          • I consider this type of censorship important and serious, particularly when it is the real version of events being removed while the PMO is issuing contradictory reports. Independent of what one thinks of the specific issue, this strategy merits discussion.

            The hypocrisy is a bit much of you pointing fingers at the Liberals when it is the Conservatives spending millions on attack ads and wasting public funds on ten percenters which use the lowest level of character attacks. Yet, you don't want people discussing whether a CPAC newsreel of actual events should be pulled by Radio-Canada?

          • Liberals use ten percenters to, do attack ads to and of course have the left/lib media do their bidding.

            A look at the National Newswatch (should be re-named Liberal Newswatch) page today being a case in point. The wafergate "scandal" is gotcha journalism. We know the media hates Harper.

  9. The best way to tell if someone lies about important issues is to note whether they routinely lie about little things. If you believe (as apparently most Conservatives do) that the leadership provided by SH is your party's greatest strength, then the fact that Harper is a liar is important. So now the real question is which type of liar is SH: habitual or compulsive.
    Pathological Liar
    A pathological liar is usually defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. Pathological lying is often viewed as coping mechanism developed in early childhood and it is often associated with some other type of mental health disorder. A pathological liar is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused – it is done to get one's way). Pathological liars have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. A pathological liar often comes across as being manipulative, cunning and self-centered.

    Compulsive Liar
    A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right. Compulsive lying is usually thought to develop in early childhood, due to being placed in an environment where lying was necessary.

    • Speaking of being a liar, compulsive or pathological, Harper just spread a lie about Ignatieff in his closing remarks about the G8 summit.