Harper's War on Women Was Launched in the USA

I Burned my Bra For This? REAL Women of Canada and the Men Behind Them

"The woman who is truly Spirit-filled will want to be totally submissive to her husband . . . This is a truly liberated woman. Submission is God's design for women."BEVERLY LAHAYE, The Spirit-Controlled Woman

One evening in 1978 Beverly LaHaye was watching television with her husband. On the tube Barbara Walters was interviewing the feminist leader Betty Friedan, who suggested that she represented many women in America.

According to the story that LaHaye has repeated countless times, she immediately sprang to her feet and declared, "Betty Friedan doesn't speak for me and I bet she doesn't speak for the majority of women in this country."

From that day on, or so the story goes, she vowed to rally other "submissive" women who believed, like her, that "the women's liberation movement is destroying the family and threatening the survival of our nation." (1)

Betty LaHaye's husband is Religious Right leader, Tim LaHaye, co-author of the successful Apocalyptic Left Behind book series. He is also a founder of the Council for National Policy, where Harper gave his 1997 speech, where he vilified Canadians and our socialist ways.

Betty LaHaye's "submissive awakening" was in direct contrast to what she had been preaching several years before. Then as a pastor's wife, raising four children, she felt unfulfilled and hated the drudgery of her day to day existence.

One very well-meaning lady said to me in the early days of our ministry, "Mrs. LaHaye, our last pastor's wife was an author; what do you do?" That was a heavy question for a fearful twenty-seven-year-old woman to cope with. And I began to wonder, "What did I do?" Oh yes, I was a good mother to my four children, I could keep house reasonably well, my husband adored me, but what could I do that would be eternally effective in the lives of other women? The answer seemed to come back to me. "Very little!" There was something missing in my life.

In my case it was not the major problems that succeeded in wearing me down; it was the smoldering resentment caused from the endless little tasks that had to be repeated over and over again and seemed so futile. Day after day I would perform the same routine procedures: picking up dirty socks, hanging up wet towels, closing closet doors, turning off lights that had been left on, creating a path through the clutter of toys. (1)

So despite the fact that her children were still young, she returned to work full-time, as a teletype operator for Merrill Lynch. This job she claimed helped her to "gain confidence" and fulfilment.

By 1978 her children were grown and forgetting her life before Merrill Lynch, she decided that she would be the voice of submissive women everywhere.

Lahaye helped to form the group 'Concerned Women for America', drafting women's policy for the Neoconservative/Religious Right movement. CWA also sparked similar organisations in other countries, including our own version 'Real Women of Canada', who have worked in Harper's various parties from the beginning of Reform.

A branch group of Real Women, Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, helped to get Conservative MP Rob Anders elected.

Members of Concerned Women, regularly speak at Real Women conventions, and Canadian members return the favour.

In fact several Conservative MPs have also made the trek to Betty LaHaye's anti-feminist kingdom, including Vic Toews and Stockwell Day.

Given this kind of support for anti-feminism, should we really be surprised that the Republicans are attacking any funding to vulnerable women? That Harper's tax policies ignore single mothers, and pander only to high income households with one wage earner? Or that the Neoconservative government of David Cameron in the UK, is also targeting women in their "austerity" budgets?

This all began when stocking footed Betty LaHaye stood up and vowed to offer an alternative voice for women, who could find happiness if they would just totally submit to their menfolk.

So kick off those shoes ladies and get back in the kitchen where you belong.

As for me, I'm experiencing a case of the vapours. Could just be that my corset's too tight.

Sources:

1. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, By Susan Faludi, Crown publishing, 1991, ISBN: 0-385-42507-4, Pg. 247-249

Harper's War on Women Was Launched in the USA

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The woman who is truly Spirit-filled will want to be totally submissive to her husband . . . This is a truly liberated woman. Submission is God's design for women."BEVERLY LAHAYE, The Spirit-Controlled Woman

One evening in 1978 Beverly LaHaye was watching television with her husband. On the tube Barbara Walters was interviewing the feminist leader Betty Friedan, who suggested that she represented many women in America.

According to the story that LaHaye has repeated countless times, she immediately sprang to her feet and declared, "Betty Friedan doesn't speak for me and I bet she doesn't speak for the majority of women in this country."

From that day on, or so the story goes, she vowed to rally other "submissive" women who believed, like her, that "the women's liberation movement is destroying the family and threatening the survival of our nation." (1)

Betty LaHaye's husband is Religious Right leader, Tim LaHaye, co-author of the successful Apocalyptic Left Behind book series. He is also a founder of the Council for National Policy, where Harper gave his 1997 speech, where he vilified Canadians and our socialist ways.

Betty LaHaye's "submissive awakening" was in direct contrast to what she had been preaching several years before. Then as a pastor's wife, raising four children, she felt unfulfilled and hated the drudgery of her day to day existence.

One very well-meaning lady said to me in the early days of our ministry, "Mrs. LaHaye, our last pastor's wife was an author; what do you do?" That was a heavy question for a fearful twenty-seven-year-old woman to cope with. And I began to wonder, "What did I do?" Oh yes, I was a good mother to my four children, I could keep house reasonably well, my husband adored me, but what could I do that would be eternally effective in the lives of other women? The answer seemed to come back to me. "Very little!" There was something missing in my life.

In my case it was not the major problems that succeeded in wearing me down; it was the smoldering resentment caused from the endless little tasks that had to be repeated over and over again and seemed so futile. Day after day I would perform the same routine procedures: picking up dirty socks, hanging up wet towels, closing closet doors, turning off lights that had been left on, creating a path through the clutter of toys. (1)

So despite the fact that her children were still young, she returned to work full-time, as a teletype operator for Merrill Lynch. This job she claimed helped her to "gain confidence" and fulfilment.

By 1978 her children were grown and forgetting her life before Merrill Lynch, she decided that she would be the voice of submissive women everywhere.

Lahaye helped to form the group 'Concerned Women for America', drafting women's policy for the Neoconservative/Religious Right movement. CWA also sparked similar organisations in other countries, including our own version 'Real Women of Canada', who have worked in Harper's various parties from the beginning of Reform.

A branch group of Real Women, Alberta Federation of Women United for Families, helped to get Conservative MP Rob Anders elected.

Members of Concerned Women, regularly speak at Real Women conventions, and Canadian members return the favour.

In fact several Conservative MPs have also made the trek to Betty LaHaye's anti-feminist kingdom, including Vic Toews and Stockwell Day.

Given this kind of support for anti-feminism, should we really be surprised that the Republicans are attacking any funding to vulnerable women? That Harper's tax policies ignore single mothers, and pander only to high income households with one wage earner? Or that the Neoconservative government of David Cameron in the UK, is also targeting women in their "austerity" budgets?

This all began when stocking footed Betty LaHaye stood up and vowed to offer an alternative voice for women, who could find happiness if they would just totally submit to to their menfolk.

So kick off those shoes ladies and get back in the kitchen where you belong.

As for me, I'm experiencing a case of the vapours. Could just be that my corset's too tight.

Sources:

1. Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, By Susan Faludi, Crown publishing, 1991, ISBN: 0-385-42507-4, Pg. 247-249

The Creation of Mad Stevie: Sorry Robert Service

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

The Creation of Mad Stevie

There were strange things done for political fun
By a man whose blood runs cold;
His campaign trails have their secret tales
Of pure cunning as they unfold;

And while election nights, have seen queer sights
The queerest we ever did see
Was when we let down our guard, and without reward
We elected Mad Stevie

Now Mad Stevie is from Calgary

Though Toronto born and bred

Why he left that place to get in our face

T'was a decision we now all dread

He was always cold, and the tales he told

Were of a Canada he could sell;

Though he'd often say, in his evil way

"he'd sooner put us through hell."

But in our Canadian way, we gave him his day

At the end of that campaign trail.

Then the air turned cold! Because we were not told

That the devil would now prevail.

So our eyes we closed, as Mad Stevie imposed

a blackout to history;

The media were shunned, now our country was run

In unheard of secrecy.

And every night, we are treated to the sight

of Mad Stevie on the go,

Photos on planes, photos with Danes

Even photos with Marilyn Munroe.

And if you wonder, or sometimes ponder,

What he does with all those pics;

He lines the halls, and plasters the walls;

The narcissist's daily fix

Yes it seems quite low, but you have to know;

That Mad Stevie's not quite right in the head:

It's his cursèd cold, that has taken hold,

He doesn't govern but dictates instead.

So what have we done, for political fun?

And what's happened while we were asleep?

Well hold on tight and tell you tonight,

Because he's got us in trouble deep."

The first thing to tank, was our once sound banks,

As he sold out to AIG;

And when things went south, he opened his mouth;

And bought them for you and me.

Bought what you ask, what was this task?

That has us in trouble deep;

Bought all sub-prime, 125 billion and a dime

All that's left is for us to weep.

But that's not all, he had the gall

to pat himself on the back,

And though we're in a mess, he won't confess,

That our finances are out of whack;

Tighten your belts, he's always felt:

While adding more holes to his own

"I need more cash", he cries unabashed

His house of cards starts to moan.

"And I want a lake, we'll make it fake

And gazebos will dot the land.

And in days to come, I'll beat you numb,

You'll never see my slight of hand.

"In my month long flight, I'll stay out of sight,

Others will take the fall,

For census woes and heartless blows

I'm mute and on the ball.

"But I'm no fool, a circus school

I've built for my next career;

Because I know, that Canadians so

want to kick me out on my rear."

"But it's not just me", he cried with glee

"Stockwell Day is raving mad;

He sees criminal acts, and without any facts

Is building more prisons; the cad

"And what about Gail Shea, who was in a play

With Tilly Oneil-Gordon

It was closed first night, with not a patron in sight

Their careers now clearly done

"Or Jim Prentice, who got off the fence

And started making stuff up

We have no plan, and yet this man

Packed his release with a wallop

"And Peter MacKay, who sees to this day

the Ruskies on the attack;

'The sky is falling', how appalling

so why not get on his back?

"Or that Vic Toews, who everyone knows,

is a sorry excuse for a man

Or Dean Del Mastro, who everyone knows,

Could always use a good kick in the can

"I've prorogued before, I can prorogue some more

Just you wait and see

I'll lock up this place, and if you show your face

I'll make you a detainee

"And I'll not have to pay, 'cause I'll call it a day

And go on a photo-op

There's an empty wall, in the bathroom stall

Just begging for a pic of my yop

"And I've got me a Guy, who you'll rarely see

He's my Joseph Goebbels from Hell

He'll keep you away and make innocents pay

He does his job very well

"And Dimitri Soudas and John Baird the bad ass

Are ready to growl, snap and bite;

So if you want to rumble, It's you who will tumble

'Cause I'm your dictator for life."

But then came a sound, that has rarely been found

In a country not known for aggression

One day all awoke, and a new leader spoke

"I will make his downfall, my obsession"

So I'll finish my tale, and in this I won't fail

Because the ending is one of pure joy

We had our election, and made our selection

And finally got rid of our boy

There were strange things done for political fun

Good sense was clearly lacking

But we're finally awake, when Democracy was at stake,

And we've sent Mad Stevie packing

The Rule of Law or the Supremacy of God?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Last month a Quebec judge made a ruling on the rights of a Jesuit school to have the ability to refuse to teach anything that goes against their own religious beliefs.

According to a decision handed down on June 18 by the Quebec Superior Court, Jesuit Loyola High School of Montreal will be dispensed from teaching
“the Ethics and Religious Culture course” imposed by the Quebec Ministry of Education in the fall of 2008.

The Jesuit school administration asserts that the course’s contents conflict with the institution’s Catholic values. According to statements reported on the Radio Canada website (http://www.radio-canada.ca/), headmaster Paul Donovan stated that Catholic values must be present in every discipline, not only in religion classes, but in the other subjects such as English or Physical Education. (1)

Now this should have made a case for freedom of religion, except that the judge took it one step further, by invoking the preamble to the Canadian Constitution which states: “Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

This is setting a very dangerous precedence. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has already stated that they see it as a good sign, and many Religious Right sites are singing Hallelujah.

Atheists are suggesting that since they don't believe in God they should not have to support this, while others like the National Post are seeing it as part of our country's history.

What does the “supremacy of God” mean? At a minimum, it reflects a historical fact. From the early French explorers and Jesuit missionaries to the British institutions of Crown-in-Parliament, the architecture of Canada is incomprehensible without the institutions of religion. It is impossible to tell the story of Canadian finance without the Catholic driven caisse populaire movement in rural Quebec. Medicare is the product of the Protestant prairie pastors who led the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation. Today, our newest Canadians often turn to services offered by religious congregations of all kinds — indeed, our refugee programs more or less assume that this will be the case. Religion is not an alien force, but, to use an apt word, constitutive of who we are.

The Constitution describes not only who we are–matters of history — but also who we ought to be–matters of aspiration. This is likely what those who object to the “supremacy of God” find difficult. They think that such language excludes from the Canadian project those who do not believe in God. Yet even those Canadians should welcome God in the preamble. Something, after all, has to be supreme. And if it is not God, even understood in the broadest possible sense, then what is it? Fearsome it would be to live in the land where the works of man alone are supreme.

Of course they are right. Symbolically Christianity is part of our culture. But so too is a divisiveness, based not on the supremacy of God, but perceived supremacies of various religious beliefs, even within the Christian faith.

If courts start tapping into the 'Supremacy of God' as a legal argument, we have to ask "Whose God?" Whose interpretation of the Bible? Old Testament or New Testament?

Will judges have to memorize the Bible before they can make a decision? Will we need a representative from the Mormons, the Jews, the Jehovah Wittiness, Evangelicals, Lutherans, etc. etc., who have all interpreted the ancient texts differently.

And what about Buddhists or Muslims?

Because you see Canada was not founded on one religious faith. The French explorers and Jesuit missionaries were Catholic, and even when protestants arrived it was not a shared Judeau-Christian dogma. That only came about when Cyrus Scofield was asked to create that heritage.

Even during the time of Samuel De Champlain, Jews were outcasts. At Port Royal the French adventurers created The Order of Good Cheer, believed to be the first Euro-Canadian social club in North America.

We could also probably take it one step further and say the first integrated social club of Europeans and Canadians, since Membertou [native host] was an official member and any other visiting sagamores [chiefs] always held a place of honor at the main table, while their people were seated with the men on the floor of the dining hall. But then we could also say that it was the first social club in North America that banned membership based on racial or religious grounds. [Marc] Lescarbot says that everyone joined, except "the artisans, who were from a different class", or more precisely from the Jewish Ghetto at Saintes.

So anti-semitism is also part of our early history.

The Post article also states:

The Charter does not say that, but we ought to be grateful that it intuitively points in that direction. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only foundation for tolerance between different peoples, or for harmony in a pluralistic society, but surveying the global scene today it is the most secure foundation currently on offer.

Again that is not true. An arrogance of faith has often turned the western world into bullies. We are always invading countries. It has also created two world wars which pit Christians against Christians. The Religious Right claim that they are being bred out because of abortion, but those wars destroyed generations. Admittedly they were not about religion but territory. However, a good religious faith would have preferred diplomacy to so much death.

Another editorial by John Moore in the National Post is right on the money.

Christians in the U.S. and in Canada have engaged in elaborate intellectual exercises and historical revisionism to shoe horn God into government. God appears nowhere in the U.S. constitution, so his fans have concocted a school of foundational thinking that requires the more mystical Declaration of Independence to be considered a pre-amble. The phrase “One nation under God” was only inserted into the pledge of allegiance in 1954.

Canada’s union in 1867 was a far less exuberant affair than the creation of the United States. Our founding document reads more like something written by notaries, though I would argue that “peace, order and good government” — while less inspirational than “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — is a far more concrete and achievable goal. The British North America Act has nothing to say about religion save a formula for the funding of confessional schools. In spite of stubborn efforts in some quarters to float the fiction that the word “Dominion” was intended to reference God it merely establishes our status as hapless subjects of the British Crown.

Moore concludes that it was Trudeau's fault because of his devout Catholic faith. However, I think it may have been due to the influence of Catholic leader Cardinal Emmett Carter, who worked with Trudeau when he was drafting the constitution. Carter wanted abortion left out but Trudeau wanted it in (I have a lot of information on this that I will be sharing soon). This may have been an appeasement.

I do agree with John Moore on this, however:

Those who insist upon pushing God further and further into the public square become angry when secularists push back and then scurrilously accuse non-believers of having started the fight. Non-believers want one thing: to be left alone. What atheists and agnostics fight for is the preservation of the shared secular oxygen that permits the faithful and non believers to co-exist. But some religious people are like prohibition era teetotalers: it’s not good enough to be sober so long as someone else is enjoying a good drink.

If, as my colleagues insist something must be supreme in Canada, let it be the law and the ultimate sovereign: the citizen.

Touche!