Chungwawema

I agree that "mandatory volunteer" work seems like an odd idea. When I was in grade 10 my English 10 teacher got in trouble because he didn't make my class do volunteer work (which was supposed to be part of the class). While I have no problem doing volunteer work, the idea of forcing it does seem wrong. While responses and reflections on things outside of the classrrom may, technically (though I'd argue strongly against that!), an invasion of privacy but it also is an invaluable skill. Asking "what do I think?" and then being able to express what 'you' think is something that EVERYONE will need later in their lives - whether for University or for a job, or just for living in general. Asking a student to reflect and respond on, for example, a political action (which is something outside of the classroom) is hardly an invasion of privacy.

Forgive my ignorace, but what are the differences between Red and Blue Tories? We're not just talking about more left vs. more right Tories, are we?

But Jerry, MY city's better than yours! (please ignore that we *probably* live in the same city).

*sigh* Was it foolish of me to think we would have ONE thread where we would all get a long and just say, "have a good day!" or something similiar? At any rate, have a great Canada Day, and a long weekend - even if we all disagree we can still have good times

Even though I'm not religious, I always cringe when someone says "religion is for the weak." The complete and total superiority of that statement annoys the heck out of me. Being religious is a wonderful thing for some people. Being non-religious is also a wonderful thing for other people. Religion has, unfortunetly, been used as a scapegoat for many power-hungry groups and people. It's probably a safe bet to assume that when two religious groups are fighting, religion is more likely propped up as an easy explanation for the problem - usually it's just two groups that want the same thing and if one, or both, groups weren't religious someone would find another reason for some good 'ole killing. But, religion shouldn't play a major role in public policy - it's fine if some people want it to be a major part of their lives, but for those who don't want it, they should be free of it.

Do you happen to have any links (or just a name) to these studies? I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious to see them for myself.

Peanut Butter and Jam sandwiches are terrible, disgusting food items. They are the worst type of an already contemptible breed of food. 1. They pretend to be something unique and wacky when they are nothing more than gooey, gross mush. How FALSE they are! 2. When you first make these hypocritical sandwiches they act as though they bring both the best of Peanut Butter and the best of Jelly - but they really only capture of oil of the Peanut Butter and the, uh, slime... slime! of Jam. 3. They think they're better than Ham sandwiches! How can they even suggest this? But it's true, not ten months a go they suggested that Ham sandwiches were "over-rated" and "excessively fatty." But, then, in the ultimate flip flop maneuver, they suggested that we, the food consumers, would be best served by a PB&J - Ham alliance - what unholiness is this? Both the Peanut Butter and the Jam are old and moldy. We need new life in our sandwiches, we need INTEGRITY in our sandwiches! But Peanut Butter and Jam sandwiches have muscled their way into the hearts of the naive! It is truly disgusting that so many unknowing souls sit down for lunch, or maybe a light dinner, and eat these foul beasts!

Could you tell me one (or more) religions that actively support SSM? I'm actually curious (forgive my ignorance) - not trying to argue against you as I suspect we agree on the issue.

Gosh. Well. That ruined my point.

I can accept that forcing those opposed to ssm to accept ssm is wrong so long as you can agree that people who don't really love each other don't have a "right" to marriage, fair deal?

Having lived three years in the US (and 18 years in Canada) - I'm not absolutely sure I agree with you. In the US I've lived in, mostly, very small, mostly white, towns - so the racism seemed rampant. I don't think your comments are going to bring very friendly replies though

I really wanted to pick "no." Deep down, I think, I believe that choices needn't be reasonable to also be good - but I can't justify that.

August1991, Obviously Christians (or members of other religions) have the capability to be scientists (be they "Westerners or not) - that was not at all what I was talking about when I said Christianity does not emphasize the scientific method in its beliefs. I guess what got me a little confused was your definition of "the scientifc method" being the same as scepticism. Granted, I don't see scepticism and smashing a broken car with a rock as being, necessarily, at opposition. The differences you bring up between the Great West and other countries, all in all, I suppose I agree with (if there are a greater percentage of uneducated, then more people will seem ignorant). The internet can't always get tone and emotion across very well and I guess that I just caught a wif of Western superiority from your post that I probably shouldn't have. Sweal, My point was that the demand you were making for theocrats was unreasonable - I see the point you're making, though. Rather, I just don't think that demanding something that is admittedly impossible is a fair - or, an especially 'good' - way to make it. I think we can agree that Theocrats should keep their ideas out of public policy, though

Please, don't tell me you're trying to say that Western Religions stress the scientific method in their beliefs. A truly religious person doesn't need (or want!) the scientific method applied to religion (faith, remember?). I apologize if I missed your point entirely (granted, to me, a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, whether they're Chrisitian, Islamic, or otherwise).

That amounts to the same thing

If we're dicusses changing the structuring of the senate then, as someone else mentioned, we must also discuss changes in what the senate does. In its present state adding or subtracting senators doesn't make much sense unless we also change the purpose of our senate. Should we be changing the senate's purpose? Is our senate broken?

If someone here argues that the purpose of religion is to give weak-minded people a trumped up sense of importance I'm going to cry. Not so much because I'm religious (which I'm not), but because the sheer arrogance of statements like that offended my senses.

I'm sure if you read what you wrote again you'll see how silly you're being. I'm not a religious person, and I certainly don't think religion should have a place in public policy, but the argument you're using isn't really very strong. By sweeping aside the notion of "major" faiths you're being very pigheaded. To suggest ALL faiths must agree is quite unreasonable (as I'm sure you're aware) - you're basing your argument on the correct assumption that what you suggest religious groups do is impossible (not a very fair stance, is it?) Your previous statement that religious groups should get together and agree is not, by itself, unreasonable. But to them ignore an example of where the vast majority (which is all you're going to get, and all you should really expect) agree on the basis that 1) Not EVERYONE agrees and that 2) not EVERYONE agrees on EVERYTHING is just ridiculous, you can see that, can't you? Also, I think your idea of "substantial" may be very different from most peoples. The Anglican Church, for example, is one of the most "pro-SSM" groups - yet only a very tiny fraction of Anglicans world wide actually support SSM. Again, I agree with you in that religion shouldn't play a role in public policy - it's just that being so vehemently anti-religious is, in my book, about the same as being insanely pro-religious (you know the types, the ones who always try to convince you of your misunderstanding in not accepting God into your pathetically empty life).

That's not really an accurate, or fair, statement. Many of the "oppressors" are quite honest leaders trying to help their countries. Not all, but many.

I'm sure it wouldn't be especially high. I think Louisianna is really interesting place (one of the most interesting in the US). Though, to get this thread back on topic: I don't see what's wrong with having the government help promote Canada's uniqueness. I don't speak French, and I don't plan on really ever learning the language (I'll finish with German before I really consider anything else) - but the French aspects of Canada are one of the things I most admire about our country - it's awesome that Canada isn't the same as other places and it's awesome that we're not the same for a darn good reason.

I'm amusing you haven't seen how many normal Louisianians (I'm guessing that's not what they're called!) live. There are many French speaking people there and even a few French-only speaking people - What is this, people speaking a language other than English in the US? Never!

I'm attending a small public university in Illinois and it's very easy for the Professors to figure out a specific student's political tendencies. Yet I haven't had any problems with the Professors I've disagreed with. A good Professor will look at the merits of an argument, not whether or not they actually agree with the emotions behind the argument. I happen to think there are a lot more good Professors out there than a lot of people seem to think.

Okay, I understand what you're saying in that case.

Rutherford's a conservative? Sheesh, where have I been? (I *like* Rutherford!)

I appologize for having to ask you to spell this out for me (it is getting somewhat late, and my mind shuts down in the evenings), but how does this relate to the UofC and the UofT? I think the UofC is great school, but certainly "prestige" would be found higher at the UofT. I'm a huge believer in self-education, being that where you go to school (at the University level, anyway) doesn't really matter much if you actually have a desire to learn - but wouldn't "most" Canadians (even us Westerners) think that a "better" - relatively speaking - education could be got at UofT, a cheaper school?