A reader writes:
I noticed you do not comment a lot about politics in Canada and with
the recent legalizing of gay "marriage" there, I was wondering why
you have not said too anything about it? Do you have some sort of
policy about commenting on foreign countries?
Actually, I generally don’t comment that much about politics in other countries (or even particular political fights here at home) that much.
Partly this is due to the fact that I don’t follow what’s going on in other countries, and I don’t like to comment on things I don’t have a good handle on.
Partly it’s due to the fact that I prefer commenting on issues rather than individual political fights.
It’s also partly due to an experience I had about nine or ten months ago. If you cast your mind back that distance, you’ll find yourself right in the middle of the U.S. election. You remember: The one between the Texan and the Evil Guy?–the one who would have only appointed Supreme Court justices committed to locking in slaveryabortion for the foreseeeable future?
Well, during that election, some foreigners decided to try to weigh in an influence the U.S. election. One "newspaper" in England even "adopted" a town in the U.S. and had its readers write letters to people in that town to urge them to vote for the Evil Guy.
I didn’t like that, and not just because they were supporting the Evil Guy. I didn’t like it because this was a U.S. election and people from other places ought to let us sort out our own leadership, thankyew.
Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I realized, and so I have generally refrained from commenting on political matters in other countries.
I have done so a few times. For example, I wrote about the need to reject the European Constitution due to its civilization-destroying and totalitarianism-imposing effects. I wouldn’t be opposed to Europeans getting together and forming their own country if they wanted to. That’d be fine. But this constitution would have been bad news and accelerated the European civilizational deathspiral. I was concerned to see European countries retain enough autonomy to be the kind of laboratories needed to experiment and find ways to save themselves from the destruction that would occur if they all fossilized the current European "social model," which is killing the continent at present. Once Europeans see countries in their own neighborhood saving themselves from destruction, they’ll be inclined to follow suit, and everyone will be better off.
But that’s a kind of meta-political issue not attached to the particulars of party politics. Indeed, I wrote in hopes of doing my teeny, weenie little part to help preserve room for different parties to try different solutions.
As a result, I generally don’t comment on particular political fights. For example, much as I’d love to see the president of a certain European country whose name starts with "France" get his arrogant obstreperousness handed to him on a silver platter come election time, I expect that I’ll sit by the sidelines, keep my mouth shut, and not write "Anybody but Jacques!" blog posts.
It’s that "Do unto others" thing, y’know?
Since the Canadian homosexual "marriage" thing is an issue, though I could comment on it except . . . I’m not sure what I’d say about it except that it’s bad, that it’s a tragedy, that it’s an outrage, etc., and it might come off like kicking Canada when it’s down.
I don’ wanna be kicking other countries when they’re down.
Will Catholic Answers have some Canadian speakers on to explain the
situation? Because to me, it looks like a pretty serious human rights
violation (freedom of religion, freedom of speech) and it is similar
( I think) to what is happening in Europe now.
That’s a good idea! I’ll mention it to the folks who plan out the schedule. Maybe they can get a show put together on it!
In the meantime, if folks (Canadian or otherwise) want to comment on the Canadian homosexual "marriage" situation, feel free to do so.
