Saturday, June 12, 2004
I was reading the Daily News yesterday and I got sort of riled up about an editorial written by Charles W. Moore. The editorial was essentially an attack on Paul Martin and his incoherence when it comes to his stance on moral issues. Martin claims to be a devout Catholic yet he supports abortion legislation and same-sex marriage. This causes problems for Catholics, Christians, and Conservatives.
Moore's editorial attacked Martin and the left wing media for misrepresenting what Canadians really want. He cited polls that showed the majority of Canadians were not in favour of either abortion or same-sex marriage.
Paul Martin's ability to lie wasn't really what was at issue, what was at issue is that Martin is steering the country in directions that its populace does not want it to go.
I had some issues with the column, so I wrote Moore a rather ridiculous letter.
Not ridiculous funny, but ridiculous in the fact that I come to the defense of Paris Hilton.
Mr. Moore,
I was reading your Daily News column today (Friday June 11, 2004) and you seem to really take Paul Martin to task on his moral ambiguity. It's interesting how it seems like you attempt to keep a bi-partisan and objective perspective on the issues, but you let it slide a few times when you refer to ideas like a women's right to abortion choice and the right of same-sex couples to marry as "progressive". The quotation marks could be construed as sarcasm. Am I wrong?
It seems like you have a bigger problem with Martin's uniequivocal support for abortion rights for women and gay marriage than you do with his ambiguity.
He's a morally incoherent Catholic because he supports legislation that flies in the face of Catholic teachings. So what would you call someone who writes for a paper that carries ads (Daily News pg 51) for pornographic videos featuring a woman (Paris Hilton) who is only one year removed from 18 and most likely did not consent to the mass production of the tape?
Paul Martin has to deal with his own conscience when it comes to whether he chooses a secular or Catholic path, let's hope you've dealt with your own.
I included reference to the Paris Hilton ad because I figured that if he was such a moral guardian, that he would be/should be outraged by the porn ad. It wasn't a very strong point and it was a little ridiculous, but I just wanted to see what he had to say about it.
His reply is pretty good, mostly because he doesn't duck anything. The man hates Martin and loves God and he's upfront about it.
You construe correctly. I believe abortion is homicide, even in the extremely rare cases where it can arguably be justified on the basis of a clear-cut choice between the life of the child or the mother. In such instances the choice should be the mother's, but it is still the taking of a human life. I also am 10 0 percent opposed to the redefinition of marriage.
I strive to be fair and factually accurate, but the mandate of an opinion columnist is to be opinionated. Neutral objectivity isn't part of the job description, as opposed to straight news reportage where it is.
I do have problems with Martin's positions, but it is the prevarication and outright lying that really riles me. Martin pretends to be a good Catholic (I'm Traditional Anglican, BTW), but aggressively stands against Church teaching.
But it's not just on moral issues. Note the current TV ad insinuating that Harper would buy tanks and "aircraft carriers". In fact the Liberals themselves just placed a big order with General Motors to replace the army's Leopard tanks with Stryker 8-wheeled APCs, and NOBODY has said anything about aircraft carriers. It's flat-out lying, something the Liberals are well-practised at.
Martin rants about Harper's willingness to invoke the notwithstanding clause, but he himself said on Dec. 18, 2003: "Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the notwithstanding clause."
Yes (in response to "He's a morally incoherent Catholic because he supports legislation that flies in the face of Catholic teachings.")
I'm not responsible for ad content in the DN. Martin is responsible for legislation. Your argument is a total non-sequitur. Paris can take her lumps, BTW.
Christians are to be in the world but not of it.
Like all of us, I'm just a poor, unworthy sinner in need of Christ's redemption. However, one difference between me and Martin is that I affirm and attempt to live by the doctrines and moral tenets of my Church. He doesn't.
Thanks for your comments.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Moore
I did a little digging on Mr. Moore and found out that this awesome, awesome, progressive group REAL Women, they're sort of like the Promise Keepers so they're super fun. And they hate Svend Robinson for absolutely no reason...oh wait he's gay. It's only right.
They also deem Pierre Berton and Peter Gzowski left wing journalists. According to them Ted Byfield, a really classy stand-up sort who ran the Alberta Report, is just as deserving, if not more so, of the Order of Canada as Berton and Gzowski are. This totally makes sense to me and I'm glad someone finally had the courage to say it in print. I mean what did Berton and Gzowski ever do for this country? I never heard of either of those individuals publishing magazines that used pictures of aborted fetuses on the cover. For shame!
REAL Women also believe that Charles Moore deserves the Order of Canada. Again it makes sense.
Moore's editorial attacked Martin and the left wing media for misrepresenting what Canadians really want. He cited polls that showed the majority of Canadians were not in favour of either abortion or same-sex marriage.
Paul Martin's ability to lie wasn't really what was at issue, what was at issue is that Martin is steering the country in directions that its populace does not want it to go.
I had some issues with the column, so I wrote Moore a rather ridiculous letter.
Not ridiculous funny, but ridiculous in the fact that I come to the defense of Paris Hilton.
Mr. Moore,
I was reading your Daily News column today (Friday June 11, 2004) and you seem to really take Paul Martin to task on his moral ambiguity. It's interesting how it seems like you attempt to keep a bi-partisan and objective perspective on the issues, but you let it slide a few times when you refer to ideas like a women's right to abortion choice and the right of same-sex couples to marry as "progressive". The quotation marks could be construed as sarcasm. Am I wrong?
It seems like you have a bigger problem with Martin's uniequivocal support for abortion rights for women and gay marriage than you do with his ambiguity.
He's a morally incoherent Catholic because he supports legislation that flies in the face of Catholic teachings. So what would you call someone who writes for a paper that carries ads (Daily News pg 51) for pornographic videos featuring a woman (Paris Hilton) who is only one year removed from 18 and most likely did not consent to the mass production of the tape?
Paul Martin has to deal with his own conscience when it comes to whether he chooses a secular or Catholic path, let's hope you've dealt with your own.
I included reference to the Paris Hilton ad because I figured that if he was such a moral guardian, that he would be/should be outraged by the porn ad. It wasn't a very strong point and it was a little ridiculous, but I just wanted to see what he had to say about it.
His reply is pretty good, mostly because he doesn't duck anything. The man hates Martin and loves God and he's upfront about it.
You construe correctly. I believe abortion is homicide, even in the extremely rare cases where it can arguably be justified on the basis of a clear-cut choice between the life of the child or the mother. In such instances the choice should be the mother's, but it is still the taking of a human life. I also am 10 0 percent opposed to the redefinition of marriage.
I strive to be fair and factually accurate, but the mandate of an opinion columnist is to be opinionated. Neutral objectivity isn't part of the job description, as opposed to straight news reportage where it is.
I do have problems with Martin's positions, but it is the prevarication and outright lying that really riles me. Martin pretends to be a good Catholic (I'm Traditional Anglican, BTW), but aggressively stands against Church teaching.
But it's not just on moral issues. Note the current TV ad insinuating that Harper would buy tanks and "aircraft carriers". In fact the Liberals themselves just placed a big order with General Motors to replace the army's Leopard tanks with Stryker 8-wheeled APCs, and NOBODY has said anything about aircraft carriers. It's flat-out lying, something the Liberals are well-practised at.
Martin rants about Harper's willingness to invoke the notwithstanding clause, but he himself said on Dec. 18, 2003: "Let's say that some kind of decision came down that was going to force churches, synagogues, mosques or temples to redefine marriage in a way that that particular religion did not want to, then I would use the notwithstanding clause."
Yes (in response to "He's a morally incoherent Catholic because he supports legislation that flies in the face of Catholic teachings.")
I'm not responsible for ad content in the DN. Martin is responsible for legislation. Your argument is a total non-sequitur. Paris can take her lumps, BTW.
Christians are to be in the world but not of it.
Like all of us, I'm just a poor, unworthy sinner in need of Christ's redemption. However, one difference between me and Martin is that I affirm and attempt to live by the doctrines and moral tenets of my Church. He doesn't.
Thanks for your comments.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Moore
I did a little digging on Mr. Moore and found out that this awesome, awesome, progressive group REAL Women, they're sort of like the Promise Keepers so they're super fun. And they hate Svend Robinson for absolutely no reason...oh wait he's gay. It's only right.
They also deem Pierre Berton and Peter Gzowski left wing journalists. According to them Ted Byfield, a really classy stand-up sort who ran the Alberta Report, is just as deserving, if not more so, of the Order of Canada as Berton and Gzowski are. This totally makes sense to me and I'm glad someone finally had the courage to say it in print. I mean what did Berton and Gzowski ever do for this country? I never heard of either of those individuals publishing magazines that used pictures of aborted fetuses on the cover. For shame!
REAL Women also believe that Charles Moore deserves the Order of Canada. Again it makes sense.
# posted by Die Brucke @ 2:25 PM 
