Religious controversy, Canadian version

You asked for the name of an editor at a newspaper. She gave you one. Move on.

 

Accept that Bush never did such a thing, but Clinton did.

 

You're beyond predictable.

 

It probably should have been mentioned in the service that only Catholics are to take part. I'm not Catholic, but I've gone to Mass before and to a Catholic wedding and both times, it was clear that only Catholics could take part.

However, if this wasn't mentioned, it would be an easy mistake to make because most Protestant groups let any Christian (including Catholics) take part in communion.

 

If he made a potentially offensive blunder at the funeral of a Hindu, Muslim or Jewish public official, would it be more newsworthy?
Is it the Catholic angle that makes it not newsworthy?

 

this threat could have ended with HC's post.
Nothing more needed to be said.

 

So is this just the wrong board on which to discuss the concept of newsworthiness?

 

Star's Susan Delacourt, a veteran Ottawa journalist, puts the whole thing into perspective. It's not been a good week for Stevie, what with the communion debacle and the controversy over the federal gov's financing of Gay Pride Week.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/663787

The controversies stirred unprecedented numbers of hits and commentary on the Star's political websites this week and a media-wide flurry of outrage, jokes and instant analysis.

Pollster Nik Nanos sees simmering trouble for the Conservatives. As Nanos sees it, these controversies dealt with faith and gay rights – and Harper's government has done a lot of talking on these issues in a bid to keep the core voters happy, he points out. All the attention on the government's initial financial support for Pride Week and on Harper appearing to be insensitive to a religious ritual would give socially conservative voters pause.

"It hurts them for their core vote," Nanos says.

That's why this story is newsworthy.

 

I am suprised that the Toronto Star would print this given that they have no political bias.

I give this as much credence as Mark Steyn writing about unions.

 

Mark Steyn is a low-rent David Frum. I don't find his take on anything to be very intelligent or credible.

So Delacourt's analysis is wrong? Just because the Star is a self-proclaimed liberal paper?

I think she pretty much nailed it.

Harper's party has an identity problem.

As much he'd like to project a middle of the road, "ordinary Canadian" kinda image, his party is littered with homophobes and rednecks.

He puts a muzzle on every single MP but at the same time publicly humiliates Tourism Minister Diane Ablonczy for being a little too gay-friendly. He threw the nobodies on the backbench a political bone.

As the last election proved, a lot of Canadians don't trust him.

 

I don't trust anyone from any party in Ottawa, or at Queen's Park for that matter.

Nor do I trust any of the bureaucrats/unelected party officials for whom our politicians really work.

"Parliamentary democracy" is an oxymoron.