David Sweet is the conservative MP for our riding, Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale. Mr. Sweet won both the 2006 and 2008 elections, and with a quick look at his website’s “About David” page, you will find a bio of his political and non-political experience.

“Before his election to Parliament, David Sweet had a management consulting business for over 20 years, which included training services for a variety of corporate, public and not-for-profit sector clients. In addition, he was Vice President of Business Development for a Canadian, research-based think tank from 2004 to 2006 and served as President of two national not-for-profit organizations in the early years of the decade.” http://www.davidsweet.ca/cms/david-s...p1/about-david

On first read this information seems perfectly fine, and most people would move on. However, upon further investigation one will find that the “think-tank” that he was President of Business Development for is called “The Work Research Foundation” (now “Cardus”). http://www.cardus.ca/audio/784/ At the time of Mr. Sweet’s involvement in the organization, it had the following mission:

“The Work Research Foundation's mission is to influence people to a Christian view of work and public life. We seek to explore and unfold the dignity of work, the meaning of economics, and the structures of civil society, in the context of underlying patterns created by God.”

In the time since Mr. Sweet has left The Work Research Foundation they have changed their name to Cardus and have altered their mission statement in an apparent attempt to appear less focused on influencing the public:

“Cardus (root: cardo) is a think tank dedicated to the renewal of North American social architecture. Drawing on a long tradition of Christian social thought, we work to enrich and challenge public debate through research, events and publications, for the common good.” http://www.cardus.ca/organization/team/

However, they also openly state that:
“And Cardus isn't merely rethinking and researching an alternative vision for public life—we're actively working to renew and rebuild. Cardus is a North American public policy think tank, equipping change agents with a strategic public theology to renew North American social architecture.”http://www.cardus.ca/organization/news/9/

Cardus has removed almost all evidence of Mr. Sweet’s involvement with the organization. One of the few things that remains is a set of audio recordings include Mr. Sweet and various other WRF members discussing the concept of spiritual capital and faith in the business sector. http://www.cardus.ca/audio/784/

Although Mr. Sweet is no apparent current involvement in this group, his wife Almut Sweet is the Cardus controller. Other members of the Cardus team include Brain Harskamp (Director of Development) and Ray Pennings (Senior Fellow and Director of Research). Both just happen to also be on the Board Of Governors (Harskamp is the Chair) of Redeemer University College, which has received over $4 million in funding from the Economic Action Plan. http://www.cardus.ca/organization/team/

The most significant member of Cardus is its President, Michael Van Pelt, who was quoted at the Cardus founding conference as saying “Canada's new debate and that of the world will be one of faith and belief. It will be one of a religious character.” In 2009 Conservative Laurence Cannon appointed Van Pelt to the board of “Rights & Democracy”. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/22/r...-itself-apart/ Created by parliament in 1988, Rights and Democracy is supposed to be a non-partisan organization created to “encourage and support the universal values of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world.” http://www.ichrdd.ca/site/who_we_are/index.php?lang=en

Mr. Sweet states that he “served as President of two national not-for-profit organizations in the early years of the decade.” That sounds great and all, but again Mr. Sweet is hiding the truth. One of these national NPOs was a group called “Promise Keepers Canada”. Promise Keepers is a men-only U.S.-based evangelical Christian organization. Their mission statement is as follows:

“To ignite and equip men to become fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ – resulting in families, churches, workplaces, communities, and nations impacted by the grace of God through the lives of men.” http://www.promisekeepers.ca /pageid/15/

On Nov. 17, 2001 Mr. Sweet commented to Christian Week:
“[M]en are natural influencers, whether we like it or not…. There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow.”

In 2002, he told the Toronto Star that he “absolutely” thought homosexuality was a sin. Later, on December 7, 2006, he voted to reopen the issue of same-sex marriage in an attempt to “restore the traditional definition of marriage” http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=540.

I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter of an individual’s rights and freedom of religion. However, when a politician is so significantly involved in organizations that openly promote the mission of influencing people and public policy with Christian values, it begins to worry me. There should be a clear and transparent separation of church and state.

What is even more worrisome is the extent to which Mr. Sweet’s past has been hidden. No mention is made on his website, Cardus and Promise Keepers have both almost entirely eliminated his involvement, and publication like Christian Week have removed interviews with damaging quotes. It is clear that Mr. Sweet knows his past is damaging, and what is wrong is that he has intentionally hid the facts from the voters.

Oh noes! Christian politician! Oh noes! A belief system that does not match mine! Oh notes! He might have one vote in a 308 seat House! That's 0.32%! OMG he tried to edit his past record to look better by not throwing it in everyone's face. Politicians NEVER do that ever!

/Why don't you look at how his platform matches up with the other ones and make a post about that instead? It would be a hundred times more relevant.

/good researching skills though bro

Im sorry, but a belief that homosexuality is a sin and that men should lead women are opinions which are both socially and politically relevant and significant. How will Mr. Sweets views affect votes on same-sex marriage, the right to choose, funding for womens shelters, or support for Israel?

It is very difficult to separate personal views from political views, especially when one's views, like Mr. Sweets are so far out of the mainstream.

I'm not going to get into the particulars. Its the same crap always thrown around about Sweet.

If you bothered to look deeper into the promise keepers issue you'd know that quote is far far out of context.

it's also just part of the larger smear campaign to make everyone think that the Conservative Party is a bunch of bible thumping theocrats. Guess What? There are Conservative MPs and Candidates of just about every faith including athiests and agnostics.

Gay marriage isn't even on the radar to anyone I personally know in the Conservative Party anymore. The issue was about the lack of a true free vote. Lets also not forget there were many Liberals who voted against gay marriage and there were Conservatives that voted for (including Conservative heavyweights such as John Baird (one of the most trusted ministers), Lawrence Canon (Quebec lieutenant at the time), Peter MacKay (Deputy Leader), Jim Prentice (de facto Deputy Prime Minister at the time), James Moore (Considered future leadership material) and Christian Paradis (more recent Quebec lieutenant))

Originally Posted by J-Met

Im sorry, but a belief that homosexuality is a sin and that men should lead women are opinions which are both socially and politically relevant and significant. How will Mr. Sweets views affect votes on same-sex marriage, the right to choose, funding for womens shelters, or support for Israel?

It is very difficult to separate personal views from political views, especially when one's views, like Mr. Sweets are so far out of the mainstream.

Maybe, but that's why its better to look at the platform. Does he plan to try to outlaw same-sex marriage in his riding? Does he plan to cut shelters, or start a war with Israel? Can he even do any of those things as a House member (remember he's got less than 0.5% of a say in federal issues)? Or are his plans in line with the standard/more centre-ish conservative?

This whole essay on what groups he was involved with, etc, really isn't all that relevant compared to what he does in power, or plans to do. How much does his affiliation/religion affect his political ideas? That's the real question.

Like, if Layton was secretly a robot that thought his dog was his mother, I'd still vote for him if his platform followed what i wanted to see. Same for any elected official.

Yes I understand that issues like gay marriage and abortion are not likely going to come up, and that there are a wide variety of Conservative candidates who's views are far more moderate than David Sweet's.

In all honesty, both of you are right that electing David Sweet is not likely going to have any measurable impact on social issues like gay marriage and womens rights, since, like you said, such issues are largely determined by the party at-large's platform of which David Sweet's single voice has very little control over.

However, it still irks me that he has these views, and I suppose its up to the voters to decide whether someone who thinks like that is deserving of a seat in parliament, no matter how big or small of an effect those views themselves will actually have on politics.

Originally Posted by britb

Oh noes! Christian politician! Oh noes! A belief system that does not match mine! Oh notes! He might have one vote in a 308 seat House! That's 0.32%! OMG he tried to edit his past record to look better by not throwing it in everyone's face. Politicians NEVER do that ever!

I made no claim of my personal belief system. And regardless of what my personal beliefs are, my non-support for Mr. Sweet does not imply that I am non-Christian. I have voted for Christian politicians in the past, and I am sure I will in the future. My belief system has no impact on my vote, just as a politician's belief systems should have no impact on their voting within parliament. If you read my post you would understand that was exactly the point I was making. Your statement is not only juvenile, but ignorant.

When a politician has been a member think tank dedicated to renewing social architecture through traditional Christian beliefs, I am merely suggesting that this is a significant conflict of interests.
“And Cardus isn't merely rethinking and researching an alternative vision for public life—we're actively working to renew and rebuild. Cardus is a North American public policy think tank, equipping change agents with a strategic public theology to renew North American social architecture.”

Originally Posted by neko88

When a politician has been a member think tank dedicated to renewing social architecture through traditional Christian beliefs, I am merely suggesting that this is a significant conflict of interests.
“And Cardus isn't merely rethinking and researching an alternative vision for public life—we're actively working to renew and rebuild. Cardus is a North American public policy think tank, equipping change agents with a strategic public theology to renew North American social architecture.”

How is that a conflict of interest any more than having been a member of any other think tank. Also read some of Cardus's stuff. It's kind of interesting, not that I necessarily agree with it.

Originally Posted by arathbon

How is that a conflict of interest any more than having been a member of any other think tank. Also read some of Cardus's stuff. It's kind of interesting, not that I necessarily agree with it.

Any other think-tank? I would say that's not the case.
Some think-tanks, yes. For example, a think-tank dedicated to reshaping society in a Muslim light, a Hindu light, a Marxist light, etc. There's certain goals that contradict liberalism, secularism, and democracy in realization, and a member of think-tank dedicated to reshaping society with such goals in mind ought to betreated differently because of that (if they're running for public office).

Originally Posted by arathbon

How is that a conflict of interest any more than having been a member of any other think tank. Also read some of Cardus's stuff. It's kind of interesting, not that I necessarily agree with it.

I think it depends on the context and subject matter of what the think tank studies, and their purpose for doing so. I would agree that there are many think tanks that if a politician were to have been a member of, such would pose as a conflict of interest as well. The Fraser Institute for example is considered one of the top think tanks in the country. However they have had funding from ExxonMobile in the past.

The main issue I have with Mr. Sweet and Cardus is their clear stance on influencing and changing public policy based on religion. I feel that there should be a clear separation between the two. Most think tanks study political and economic issues, and although there is bias and conflicting interests within these subjects, they are still fundamental aspects of government and policy. However religion should not be an influencing factor in government regarding the creation of policy. It would be different if politicians such as Sweet went out and campaigned to the public on these issues and gave them an opportunity to vote based on this. But they don't. This is worsened by the fact that although he hides such beliefs from constituents, they are still the basis of his voting.

Mr. Sweet is a misogynist, informed by out of date, regressive ideologies. Promise Keepers are like North America's Taliban when it comes to women.

We are trying to move past the dark days when only men could be the head of the house, and when people believed in god. Promise Keepers are trying to fight progress and instill more patriarchy. How pathetic.

Here are actual quotes from PK canada. LOL

"
Pat Morley

Few words carry the emotional impact as “father.” Through him we get our first glimpse of what God is like, whether it’s a true impression or a false one."

"Rick Johnson When your children know you are praying for them—praying for their sexual purity, for their salvation and future--this knowledge gives them a guidepost to hang on to. It also provides a form of accountability more powerful than bare parental authority. When they see the kneel marks next to their bed, it powerfully affects the kind of choices they make."


"Kirk Giles

One of the greatest gifts you can give your children is to surround yourself with godly men, and to surround your children with those men."


"Great conference in Winnipeg this past weekend! It was so amazing to be there with my 3 sons ages 14,12, and 10. I was worried if they could make it through the hours of hard hitting challenges, encouragement and inspiration. Well they loved it, I could not believe the awesome thoughts and questions they shared with me about purity and being a husband. I'm convinced its never to early to equip our sons for the battle zone they will be walking into as they become men. Thanks so much for the help PK!"