Why Don’t We Believe Them?
Tue, October 31, 2017 | Author: Jo Boonstra | Volume 24 Issue 44
There are precious few things that I find so frustrating as the fact that we Christians keep voting for governments that have clearly indicated they’re not willing to deal with moral issues. During the recent election of the new Conservative leader, pro-lifers vigorously promoted their favourite candidates and many were delighted to have elected Andrew Scheer, an MP whom they claimed was solidly pro-life. There is no doubt he is popular. He is young, good-looking, and experienced, having served well as Speaker of the House. It is hoped that he will be able to unite his party and provide a credible challenge to the Trudeau Liberals in 2019. However, there is scant evidence that he will use his authority as leader to deal with issues like abortion and traditional marriage. The evidence, if we go by his own statements during his leadership run, is very much the opposite.
When asked by Rosemary Barton if he would “promote and defend the equality of marriage [same-sex marriage]”, he said, “It’s the law of the land . . . no legitimate Conservative leadership aspirant would revisit that issue . . . the Party has other things we want to talk about . . .” When she asked him whether he supports or opposes abortion, after briefly pointing to his voting record (which was pro-life), he said, “Our party and our caucus have constantly said that we don’t want this issue re-opened, we don’t want to have this as an election issue, we don’t want our caucus divided over this issue . . . as Prime Minister, I would maintain that commitment to my caucus and the Party that these issues wouldn’t be re-opened . . . our own caucus is not united on that. Some of these issues very likely wouldn’t survive a constitutional challenge, so what’s the value of talking about them?”
Why don’t pro-lifers believe the man when he clearly states his intentions? Do they think he was not telling the truth? The same scenario played out during the time of Stephen Harper’s leadership of the Conservative Party. Mr. Harper pledged over and over that he would not “re-open” the debate about abortion, yet thousands of his loyal supporters believed the opposite. They said, “Once he becomes Prime Minister, he’ll do something.” Then they said, “Once he has a majority government, then he’ll do something.” Then they said, “Once a majority of his MPs are pro-life, then he’ll do something.” That never happened because “avoiding divisive issues” was always more important than dealing with abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide, etc.
Now my question: “Why do we not believe government leaders and party leaders when they promise to do nothing to defend innocent human life, when they promise not to reinstate natural marriage between a man and a woman?” Conservative leaders have said for years that they will not deal with abortion—and so far, they have kept their word. Andrew Scheer has promised to follow Stephen Harper’s policy of avoiding debate on social issues. Why do we not believe him?
Leadership takes courage and sometimes leaders must defend their positions on important issues, even at the cost of unity. Of course, each of us would like to see the country united. But at what cost? 100,000 babies every year?
How can anyone vote, with a good conscience, for political leaders who have plainly said that abortion will continue under their watch? Why don’t we believe what they say?
Again and again Christian pro-lifers have voted for pragmatic compromise when they could have voted for a party which fully and unapologetically endorses Christian values, a party which stands for protection of life, families, and morals.
For those who wish to continue to support pragmatic compromise: don’t be surprised if things continue as before. Don’t be surprised when pro-life backbenchers are unable to find support from the PMO for their worthy bills and motions. Don’t be surprised when the debt continues to rise, even under a Conservative government. Don’t be surprised when more pro-life champions end up in jail, when pastors and Christian schools are forced to submit to secular edicts.
When politicians say they want to avoid divisive topics, what they mean is that people with solid convictions about life and marriage are supposed to refrain from expressing themselves, lest they disturb the delicate balance of power. Those who want to see abortion ended need to remember for whom they voted. If they voted for compromise, they shouldn’t be surprised when they get it.
Why not vote for the one party—CHP Canada—that will promote your vision of a Canada free of political correctness and consecrated to defend human life, traditional marriage, and freedom of speech?
Other Commentary by Jo Boonstra: