Holy Schmoley. I think I've Upset Mark Steyn Fans.

Yesterday I posted a piece on Mark Steyn's article that got him hauled before the Human Rights Commission. It was meant to be a continuation of my concern over the power that the Religious Right now have in this country, especially when it comes to foreign affairs.

Canadians seem to be in a stupor, suggesting they will vote for the devil they know. I just want them to know exactly what that might mean.

I do firmly believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which is why I was glad that the charges against Steyn were dropped. He might not be someone I read on a regular basis, and I'm sure he won't lose any sleep over that.

But when Stephen Harper stated that he knew he couldn't simply count on the neo-cons to keep him in power, but had to tap into the wealth and power of the theo-cons, this should raise a lot of red flags, especially with this statement: “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same. "Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments ... " ( Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons, The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, by Marci McDonald, October 2006)

Foreign policy should not be based on a biblical prophesy, and I've outlined this prophesy in several posts. This is something that needs to be debated extensively.

In my post, I did question why the Religious Right rallied behind Mr. Steyn, then linked to a column by Star columnist Haroon Siddiqui , where he claimed; "The subtext here is Muslims." (not in relation to Steyn but Human Rights Commissions)

If this was simply about freedom of speech, then why did they not come to the aid of Lesley Hughes, when she was brutally attacked by Peter Kent, over an article she had written several years ago? Should she not enjoy freedom of speech or freedom of the press? Should I not?

As I have stated in all my postings, this is not about attacking some one's religion. However, once these religious groups enter the political arena, they have to accept that they will be subjected to all aspects of political debate and discourse. They can't use their religion as a shield, and I don't believe they should receive tax breaks as religious organizations, once they cross the line and actively campaign for a single party.

Fundamentalism is absolute, and not open to debate; but the majority of Canadians are not fundamentalists, so where does that leave us, if our Prime Minster and a good portion of his caucus are? If the Religious Right are part of his infrastructure for the 'right-wing revolution', then I have a right to say that I think his architects lack vision and are destroying the Canadian scene.