Renegade

You are describing anectodes in which some people are intolerant of Christianity. I agree that intolerance is not restricted to any one segment of the population. I do not support intolerance for Christianity any more than I support intolerance for any other religion. I suppose that the question becomes muddled when the same symbol is representitive of both a secular event and has religious significance. IMO, the cross ties to Remeberance Day are purely incidental and the symbol is much more tied to religion than to Rememberance Day. I think if you asked a reasonable person what is the symbolic significance of the cross, many many more would tie it to Christianity than to Rememberance Day. Thus I maintain my opposition to the display of religious symbols by public institutions.

No, that's why I asked. So, would it? Religious displays do not belong in public institutions. Personally I don't see the phrase "beneath the crosses row on row" as being religiously signficant. It is simply a description of Flanders field, so I have no objection to the phrase. However I do think that state mottos, anthems and documents should steer clear of religious symbolism, justification, or references.

Excellent. You have the freedom to interpret Remberence Day in a way you see fit. Allow everyone that same choice. Nope. And and it wouldn't bother me if he did it a Canadian school either. Would it bother you?

How exactly do you know the intent of every single soldier who died in those wars? Perhaps they died so that we preserve the freedoms we have. Freedoms include the freedom of religion or freedom to act according as you see fit, within the bounds of the law. BTW, I would bet you 99% of Canadians, if asked, would associate a poppy as a symbol of Remberence Day and not a Cross. Until this thread I the thought would never even have occured to me.

Then who exactly do you suggest mediate rights disputes if not the courts? It IS one set of laws and one definition of rights. It is called the Charter and it applies to All. It is the courts who determine disputes within that framework.

Hmm, and where would you prove it if not at a trial? ------------------- If I said "Leafless, God damn you!", would that be a threat and would you infer that I had some kind of influence with a superior being who could actually carry out such an action? Maybe I should be suitably punished for daring to utter such a phrase.

There are many circumstances where I can see a legitimate requirement in which it would mean that a request for a cultural deviation cannot be accomodated. For example, a construction job may require one to wear a hard hat, and if a turban or there was some other cultural reason why a hard-hat could no be worn, I was agree that it is too bad and that person just has to suck it up. However, where there are rules which cannot be justified and would discrimminate, I think those rules should be challenged. Let me give you an example. Let's say I didn't particularly like orthodox Jews, and so I created a workplace rule that everyone had to work late on Friday nights, despite the fact that there may be no strong business purpose. Would that be a discrimmatory rule which should be challenged? It is "us" who demand separation of church and state. If you as a private citizen want to display crosses on Rememberance day, more power to you. If you are asking that the non-secular government should be party to a display of religious symbolism, then you are asking to violate the separation of church and state.

When there is a clash of rights it is generally up to the courts to decide which rights prevail. Perhaps the reason they come to the host country, Canada, is because the culture of Canada is to be open and tolerant and not one which imposes a set of cultural practices.

It's an interesting read. Personally I think it overstates the value. For example someone with $1 million in the bank, may pay $100,000 to increase his chances of living from 20% to 21%, but is unlikely to spend his last $100,000 on increasing it from 29% to 30%. In addition, all life is not equal. It makes no sense to spend $10 million to save a life which is at or near the end of its life expectancy.

Let's hear it.

It seems to me that we qare well past that point. Our planet is already overpopulated and the underlying cause of the severe environmental damage. Given the world's population can anyone rationally defend that having more kids is a good thing?

Actually I would say that even people who have kids do so out of self-interest. Either they value the experience of being a parent, or they possess a drive to propagate their DNA, or maybe even it is just a basic sexual drive. Either way they are doing so in most cases out of self-interest. The difference for those who don't have kids is that they have decided that their self-interest don't align with having kids.

Somewhat. There will always be some "unfairness" which cannot be rectified. However I agree that voluntarily compassionate actions can address some "unfairness"

If a preson voluntarily gives then no misfortune isn't redistributed. However, if you forcibly take from a person who has more you are essentially robbing that person.

To put it bluntly, yes it does. You can't eliminate misfortune, you can only distribute it around. To remove the misfortune of one person, you have to, at least to a certain extent, move it to another. Should that be considered "fair"?

You cannot have a universal definition of a quality which is only determined subjectively. "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder as much as "beauty" is.

Your bias shows through. Libertarianism is not at all the philosophy of the self-absorbed hermit. Libertarianism is only necessary as a philosophy because we live in close proimity and governs the obligations of our interactions. While a libertarian may personally have a standard of fairness, he expects that society doesn't attempt to impose his or its standard of "fairness" on anyone.

You can I suppose, however the bank is not obliged to permit you entry.

This is a non-issue which has been made an issue by narrow minded politicians and individuals. This is not a relegious or cultural issue. The question generically is should we allow the individuals to vote who cannot be identified by facial recognition. The answer is we alreay do, and have done so for many years. We have done so through maill-in ballots and proxy voting. Those votes don't count for any less than a personally-casted ballot. If a mail-in or proxy vote doesn't require facial recognition, and is still valid, why should it be an issue for personally-cast ballot?

How then do you classify those who don't believe there should be any intervention?

If someone is deemed not to be able to give free consent, then any restrictions on their ability to make decisions or enter into contracts is jepordized. For example if they can't give free consent, should they be allowed to vote, marry, buy property, etc.

I trust you have never been in the army. For the most part people don't "send their kids to fight". It is a voluntary decision to elist. Also, the overwhelming bias of those in the forces is toward the political right. Who gets to decide what is "fair"? Would it be "fair" if my neighbour is born beautiful and I was born ugly?

What responsibility do the parents have for financially supporting their children? It is afterall the parents who make the decision to have kids. If parents think that their kids are owed a standard of education more than the basic public level supplied, they should financially provide it or if unable t do so, should make their choice to have children accordingly. IOW, don't have kids you can't afford to take care of.

Huh? So when you make an error and admit it, it is an honest mistake, when I do so immediately following my post , it is an outright lie? If you wnat to report my "lie" please do so. I would welcome a ruling by the moderator. I see when you are cornered in your logic you resort to a poor excuse of "I don't care to have my time wasted "

My mistake. I assumed you were pointing to your response not that of another poster. Can I then asume your response is in complete agreement with the other poster? Really? where? Posting mortality rates, etc, doesn't at all relate to the interpretation of a document. I'm not sure how you can logically conclude it does.