How philosophy & science trump politics
Lorne Gunter, editorial columnist for the Edmonton Journal, is one of Canada's most clear-sighted observers of the political arena. In a recent column (about the dangers posed for the government by its environment and wheat board policies), Lorne made a statement that should be applied to issues of much more universal concern:
"The government's problem is that it has defined both issues in political terms, rather than philosophical or scientific ones," wrote Mr. Gunter. "And politically, they have the weaker hand; whereas philosophically and scientifically, they have stronger arguments."
That statement applies-in spades!-to the government's treatment of the two moral issues that are tearing this country apart: abortion, and same-sex "marriage".
Treating those questions politically is a losing strategy, no matter which way the government turns, because the electorate is so evenly split on these issues. Split right down the middle, precisely because they have been badly mis-informed; they've been denied access to the scientific and philosophical facts they need.
But the group that probably accounts for more than half of the Harper government's Reform-Alliance-Tory support base-pro-life, pro-family voters all across Canada-has much stronger philosophical and scientific arguments than their opponents have.
Play the hand politically, and not only will the Tories lose; all Canadians will lose-big time. But play it philosophically and scientifically-that is, spend time educating the electorate about the facts mainstream media refuse to publish-and both the government and the nation will move ahead.
The inescapable facts are that abortion and same-sex "marriage" are social and economic disasters for Canada.
There are many complex philosophical and scientific arguments against the anti-life, anti-family policies that have been forced on this nation by radical jurists and pusillanimous politicians; there isn't room in this brief commentary to explore them all. But a few simple and ineluctable facts will clinch the argument: Babies have a right to be born, and Canada needs those babies; and children need-and have a right to-a mother and a father.
If all couples were heterosexual, western civilization could continue to build on 20 centuries of progress; but if all couples were homosexual, civilization would end. Homosexual behaviour is unnatural, unhealthy, and wrong- wrong for the individuals who engage in it (their life expectancy is drastically shortened) and wrong for society. And if we continue to kill the future for the convenience of the present, we will have no future. QED.
Share to Gab
Other Commentary by Ron Gray:
- Pourquoi le PHC ? – 2e partie
- Why CHP? — Part 2
- Pourquoi le PHC?
- Why CHP?
- How Obsession With ‘Carbon’ Left Us Woefully Unprepared for the Disastrous Fraser Valley Flood of 2021
- Comment l’obsession du « carbone » nous a laissés terriblement mal préparés à l’inondation catastrophique de la vallée du Fraser en 2021
- Les cinq plus grandes menaces à la survie du Canada - un compte à rebours
- The Five Greatest Threats to Canada’s Survival: A Countdown
- Le dilemme de l’électeur pro-moral
- The Pro-Moral Voter’s Quandary
- Trois questions à se poser avant d’aller aux urnes
- Three Questions to Ponder Before Going to the Polls