blackbird
-
Posts
7,960 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
Religious and political leaders have a long history of using religion as a tool to manipulate people. If you think otherwise, you are naive.
FGM is a cultural practice, not an Islamic one. It's practiced by Muslims, Christians, and "others" throughout Africa and the Middle East. Even the Beta Isreal sect practiced it until the 1990s - along with their Christian and Muslim neighbors in Ethiopia. So when statistics say, for example, that 82% of Egyptian women have suffered FGM, they 82% of all women, Christian and Muslim. It has also been practiced at various times in other parts of the world, including England and America briefly in the mid-1800s. It was thought to be useful for women who didn't like sex, didn't like their husband or even just talked back.
As for your other comments, religious people rarely make much sense when they're doing what they think God is telling them to do.
I concede that there are religious leaders who do use religion as a tool. But not all. There are many bible believing ministers who actually believe what they are preaching and put in long hours working on their sermons and doing other good works.
According to Wikipedia, the practice of FGM is practiced mainly in a number of northern African countries. Some christians in Africa practice it as well. It is not taught in the Bible. It is not practiced by Christians today in the west as far as I know. I don't think it was practiced historically by christians. Africa seems to have problems with poverty, lack of education, and some continuing heathen practices, FGM being one.
-
6 hours ago, dialamah said:
I think he is pointing out that Islamic values are not so different than Western values.
Practicing Islam entails following the Five Pillars. These are certain rituals one must do for example praying five times a day. Fasting at a certain time. Travelling to Mecca once in a lifetime if possible. These rituals are required just for the sake of following a man-made ritual. Christians do not or should not be praying as a ritual. I think Jesus spoke against that. Muslims must prostrate themselves to the east , toward Mecca, the holy site, according to Islam. But there are many other practices they don't necessarily tell you about such as female genital mutilation, where they forcibly cut a young girl's genitalia. Over 100 million have this done in certain countries. Also, women must be covered and in some places not go out without a husband or chaperone. What about the value of a woman compared with a man? Does he say anything about that?
Once when I was in the Trans Canada Highway in Manitoba, I pulled off for a rest. Shortly after I stopped, a man stopped on the road allowance on the other side of the highway, got out, and spread a carpet on the ground, then knealt down on it and started praying. First time I ever saw someone do that.
Christianity is based on the Bible which was completed about 2000 years ago and the Quran was written contrary to the Bible's command to write nothing new. If Muslims really believed the Bible was a holy book from God, why would they reject that warning in the Bible against receiving another holy book? Of course I could the same question of the Mormons.
-
2 hours ago, dialamah said:
I think he is pointing out that Islamic values are not so different than Western values.
Can anyone see why a Muslim might make that claim? Of course there will be those gullible souls who will swallow that and then support Islamic immigration.
2 hours ago, dialamah said:I think he is pointing out that Islamic values are not so different than Western values.
2 hours ago, kactus said:It makes perfect sense what he says...
Religious leaders use religion as a tool to push their agenda. They ate like the good old Mafia back in old Italy where religion is used as a disguise for corruption. Just like the mafia some muslim leaders according to him are using religion to pursue their own agendas which is different from what that religion should be.
QuoteAny evidence that religious leaders are "using religion as a tool"? Ever thought they might actually believe what they are preaching?
-
4 hours ago, dialamah said:
This is your belief about the Christian God. It is not universally shared by all Christians. Saying "they are wrong and I'm right" isn't credible since you are all using the same book to prove your case.
Yet Islam accepts Christians and Jews into Heaven; they don't even have to convert according to my Muslim friends and relatives. Although its better if they do for some reason. Religious people make so little sense so much of the time.
Anyway I find your inability to accept any other than your own interpretation of God's word as valid too limiting for further discussion. Not much interested in having to constantly remind you that there are a range of beliefs in Christianity, all supported by the Bible.
The third last verse in the Bible gives a warning. "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" Revelation ch22:18 Clearly, the Quran is claiming to be an addition to the revelation from God, but this verse in Revelation expressly forbids it. The Bible was completed about the 1st century or first one hundred years after Christ. The verse says clearly no other revelation from God can be added to what is already written. That means the Quran written 600 years later cannot be accepted as a revelation from God. That means only the Bible provides the only written revelation on how to get to heaven. It also means the Bible provides the only description of God and revelation from God.
Mohammed allegedly received his revelation to write the Quran from the angel Gabriel over a twenty year period. But 600 years before this the Apostle Paul said "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him accursed." Galatians ch1 vs 8 This verse clearly forbids anyone to accept any new message allegedly from God even if it comes from an angel.
Moreover Jesus himself made it clear there is no salvation through any other way that through him.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6
-
1 minute ago, dialamah said:
Allah means God in Arabic. It's the same God as Christians and Jews worship, according to Muslims. Thus Jews and Christians can also be accepted into Heaven; the three religions are all valid paths to God.
Not all Christians believe in the Holy Ghost. Most believe Jesus is the son of God; Muslims assign Jesus equal importance as Mohammed, but do not consider him God's son.
Muslims do not consider their relationship with God "impersonal". The ones I talk to also don't seem to have much doubt about being saved, as long as they follow God's commands.
So a killer or homosexual who had faith would get into heaven along with the person who had attended Church and performed good works throughout their life?
Christian God has three persons in one God. So can't be the same God as Allah. Just saying he is the same doesn't make it so if he is different.
Christian God sent his Son to earth to die on the cross for sinners and was resurrected from the dead. Islam rejects that.
Christian God is will to forgive and receive sinners. Islam doesn't have anything about that. Do not accept that all are sinners and in need of being born again.
Islam seems to be a violent God ordering people to do violent things in many places in the Quran. Chistian God does not do that.
Islam has been spread by the sword of force through much of the middle east and world. Christian God's message is spread by the written word or gospel. God's love for man is emphasized.
A Killer or homosexual who repents and accepts Jesus Christ as his saviour would get into heaven. King David had committed murder but was forgiven and saved. The apostle Paul had christians put to death before he was converted and saved. In the bible, good works is not what makes a person a christian. Many non-christians do good works but only faith in Jesus as one's saviour and mediator will get one into heaven. Islam has no similar saviour or doctrine.
-
3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
For England, one place to start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation
Many of these people were hanged, drawn and quartered.
For Ireland, well, start anywhere. British policy was anti-Catholic from the Reformation on. The Reformation did come to all of Ireland and they had an established Anglican Church that Catholic farmers had to pay tithes to until 1871:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Church_Act_1869
Yes, I will look at those links more closely later today. I noticed the first link mentioned that the Pope had ordered Catholics not to obey the British authorities but to rebel. So some of them were tried and executed for treason. There is a memorial day called Guy Fox Day in which a number of Jesuits apparently planned to blow up the British parliament but it was caught at the last minute. I believe they were executed for treason.
-
31 minutes ago, dialamah said:
Just off the top of my head: Belief in one true God, belief that their holy book is the word of God, belief that women submit to men, that women's role is nuturer and child raiser, that man's role is to support, direct and control women, belief that homosexuals are unacceptable to God, belief in charity and mercy, belief that they submit to earthly authorities, unless that means going against God's law, belief that God will take care of wrongdoers.
Islam believes in Allah which is not the same god as the christian god. In Christianity they believe in one God but God has three person Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Islam rejects that and calls it three gods, although the bible teaches it is one God in three persons.
I am not sure the bible says that women's role is limited to nurturer and child raiser. Possibly. Christianity does say man direct and control women. It says they must love wife as himself.
Christian bible condemns homosexuality, but doe not say the person is cannot come to God. They can repent and believe. Is there any similarity to that in Islam? Don't think there is any way to repent and receive forgiveness for anything because there is no saviour.
Since there is no saviour and God is an impersonal god in Islam, there is not way to be sure of salvation. There is no mediator between God and men in Islam.
In Islam one's works is what counts to try to get to heaven. In christianity and the bilbe, salvation is entirely by faith which is a gift of God.
-
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Followers of Luther and Calvin. Not Luther and Calvin.
So there were no Catholics killed in Europe's religious wars? Catholics were never persecuted in Britain and Ireland?
This is what religion can do to people if you take it too literally.
In Medieval times, don't forget the Roman Church was the main power in the western world (Europe) at the time. It was very powerful. It controlled kings and emperors. So it had no interest in giving up any of it's power. It was not just a religious power but claimed power over all spheres. Rome sponsored Crusades when it deemed useful.
Anyone or any group that did not bow to the authority of the Pope and Rome would be considered as an enemy and needed to be destroyed.
Pope "Innocent also sponsored a crusade under the leadership of Simon de Montfort against the Albigenses of southern France in 1208. The Albigenses were members of a heretical sect known as the Cathari. Because they claimed their beliefs were based on the Bible, the Roman church later forbade the people to possess the Bible. The crusade got under way in 1209 and virtually exterminated the Cathari in southern France after many bloody battles. This crusade was strongly supported by both the Dominican and Franciscan orders. Heretics as well as temporal rulers had to bow to the supreme head of the Roman church." page 216 from book "Christianity Through The Centuries" by Cairns. Has Rome ever apologized for all these massacres and exterminations or taken responsibility? Of course not. They believe it was all justified because they claimed temporal authority and believed in unlimited power over the Holy Roman empire.
-
18 minutes ago, dialamah said:
If you go back and read what I posted, you will see that I specified situations where Christians are in positions of political and/or social power: closed Christian groups such as Mennonites, countries such as Uganda where people are very religious and throughout history where Christians held power. I also pointed out that as Christianity lost political and social power in Western countries, patriarchal attitudes decreased along with oppression of minorities.
I spent quite a few years studying the Bible and discussing it with people from different evangelical churches.
I found a website that describes the differences between Islam and Christianity. They are quite different. What similarity do you see?
" Compared to Christianity, Islam has some similarities but significant differences. Like Christianity, Islam is monotheistic. However, Muslims reject the Trinity—that God has revealed Himself as one in three Persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Muslims claim that Jesus was one of the most important prophets—not God’s Son. Islam asserts that Jesus, though born of a virgin, was created like Adam. Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross. They do not understand why Allah would allow His prophet Isa (the Islamic word for "Jesus") to die a torturous death. Yet the Bible shows how the death of the perfect Son of God was essential to pay for the sins of believers (Isaiah 53:5-6; John 3:16; 14:6; 1 Peter 2:24).
Islam teaches that the Qur'an is the final authority and the last revelation of Allah. The Bible, however, was completed in the first century with the Book of Revelation. The Bible warns against anyone adding to or subtracting from God’s Word (Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:6; Galatians 1:6-12; Revelation 22:18). The Qur’an, as a claimed addition to God’s Word, directly disobeys God’s command.
Muslims believe that paradise can be earned through keeping the Five Pillars. The Bible, in contrast, reveals that sinful man can never measure up to the holy God (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Only by God’s grace may sinners be saved through repentant faith in Jesus (Acts 20:21; Ephesians 2:8-9).
Because of these essential differences and contradictions, Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. The Bible and Qur’an cannot both be God’s Word. The truth has eternal consequences. " -
1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
Followers of Luther and Calvin. Not Luther and Calvin.
So there were no Catholics killed in Europe's religious wars? Catholics were never persecuted in Britain and Ireland?
This is what religion can do to people if you take it too literally.
I never said Catholics were not killed in Europe's religious wars. The religious wars would have had losses of life on both sides. They were probably partly political, partly religious.
But the Inquisition was a religious persecution, torture, and genocide on a large scale over a long period of time run out of the Holy Office in the Vatican. The Reformation churches in Scotland, England, the Netherlands and Germany did not conduct a church based persecution, torture, and killing of people to the best of my knowledge and I have read quite a bit over the years. I am not saying there was not the isolated case of someone being killed, but I don't believe there was any church sanctioned killing of Catholic people.
When you ask about Catholics persecuted in Britain and Ireland, I have not heard of it. If you have any information or links about it, you can give the links. There was no Reformation in Ireland; Ireland remained Roman Catholic to this day, with the exception of Northern Ireland, which became partly Protestant and remained partly Roman Catholic.
To find out all you have to do is Google Inquisition or Spanish Inquisition to learn more about that.
-
1 hour ago, dialamah said:
Exactly what many Muslims say: "They aren't following the Quran, therefore they aren't true Muslims".
When my Muslim brother-in-law started telling me what he believed, I was amazed at how very similar to Christianity it was.
They consider themselves Christians, and they tell me that you have the wrong interpretation of what it means to be Christian. You all say the same things.
I'm aware. Previously, this meant that women could not vote and that their 'Christian' husbands had the right to discipline them, or rape them. Only through secular pressure have those husbandly "rights" been eliminated in Western society. It certainly wasn't because the Christian Church had any interest in allowing women equal rights.
Exactly what devout Muslims say!
I agree, with the caveat that this is true of Christians in Western countries much more so than Christians in other countries.
The more conservative and religious a society is, the more likely that society is going to engage in oppressive behaviors. It doesn't matter if the religion of choice in that country is Islam or Christianity. They all use the same arguments to support their oppressive practices; the only difference in the arguments are these words: Christianity, Islam, Christian, Muslim, God, Allah, Jesus, Mohammed.
With all due respect, what you are saying is completely false. I tried to explain as much as I could but obviously you either skipped over it and ignored it or just plain are unwilling to accept a different view.
Christianity and Islam are as different as night and day. There is no comparison whosoever.
Who was given the vote and when women were give the vote has nothing to do with christians. Governments are made up of a cross section of society, not necessarily christian although there may be some there. Christians dont run the government.
In any church I have been in the last 37 years, I have never heard anything about husbands disciplining wives or raping them. That is bizarre and false.
Christians do not engage in oppressive behavior. Another false statement. You obviously know nothing about christianity or the bible. You really should do some research or talk to some christians who study the bible and know what they are talking about. Maybe a baptist or presbyterian or reformed church minister might be able to help you. Your idea that christians are oppressive shows you are completely off the track.
-
25 minutes ago, blackbird said:5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
The followers of Luther and Calvin were just as happy to kill heretics as the Catholics were.
That is completely false. Obviously you don't know the history.
..
-
5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:
We are going to rehash the Reformation debate here. I don't know who these true biblical sects are. Apart from the Quakers, I can't think of anyone else who has set a really good example. The followers of Luther and Calvin were just as happy to kill heretics as the Catholics were.
Anyone who takes an ancient religious book literally is bonkers. The Jews have lots of commentaries on what was 'really' meant in the scripture and that's how they all should be read.
I wasn't intending to rehash the Reformation, but because of Dialamah's allegations, it was necessary to go into some detail in order to properly reply. That's the way it is. If someone makes a number of comments, then it often takes a long reply.
No, Luther and Calvin did not kill heretics. Try googling the Inquisition and then google the Spanish Inquisition. I believe the Inquisitions went on for hundreds of years. The Spanish Inquisition was particularly brutal. There may have been tens of thousands killed; some claim millions across Europe, but I am not an expert on the numbers. Luther and Calvin were not in the business of running inquisitions or burning heretics. I have no knowledge of Calvin or Luther killing heretics except for one case in Geneva where Calvin was located. An Arminian named Servitus was executed or burned at the stake for heresy I believe. But he was not a Roman Catholic; he may have been a baptist.
But don't forget the Huegenots in France. They were a Protestant sect. The Roman Catholics rose up one day and by surprise slaughtered many or most of them on the St. Bartholemews Day massacre. Then there was the Albengenses who were also wiped out.
Wikipedia says:
The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition (Inquisición española), was established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms and to replace the Medieval Inquisition, which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition. The "Spanish Inquisition" may be defined broadly, operating "in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America."
.
-
2 hours ago, dialamah said:
1. The Catholics were and are one of the many faces of Christianity. You can certainly identify them as "not being really Christian", but that's exactly the same excuse some Muslims use when presented with evidence of what other Muslims do.
2. I rarely look at Catholics; I'm much more familiar with evangelical Christians.
3. Church of Mormon, especially the sect that follows polygamy. Hutterites, Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Coptic Christians, Christians in third world countries. Many Christian churches within Canada and the US support the patriarchal idea that women should submit to their husbands and should dress 'modestly'; should a woman fail to follow these guidelines, she may be 'talked to' or shunned by other church members.
4. In Uganda in 2014, the Christian government tried to pass a law making homosexuality a capital offense; they were fully supported by American Christian politicians. After an international outcry, they backed down and decided to only jail them for life. Nonetheless, many Christian Ugandans still think gays ought to be killed and some are doing so. There are Christian groups in the same area of the world who behave much as ISIS does; they just don't get the attention that ISIS does.
Yes, you can say all these examples aren't 'really Christians' all you want. I would call them 'conservative' Christians because they cling to old ways, rather than embracing change and progress. I would call progressive the Christians who accept and even ordain gays, who don't even mention women's duty to submit to their husbands, who don't criticize or shun women who dress less modestly. Same for Muslims: there are individuals and groups who are working to bring an end to conservative Muslim beliefs. In my opinion, it's conservatives and conservative religious people who are the bane of a tolerant and free society. It's progressives, those who aren't afraid of change, who challenge the status quo who bring the world forward - whether it's fighting for the right of women to vote in Canada in 1916, or fighting to allow women to drive in Saudi Arabia today. Same with gay rights in the Western world, and in the developing countries. Conservatives fight to keep things the same; they have objected to women's rights, black rights, gay rights, LGBT rights, and immigration - and many have used and still use the Bible to do so.
1. "exactly the same excuse" It's not really an excuse. It is based on the interpretation of the Bible. There has to be a basis for a religion. In christianity, the basis is the bible because the bible contains the original teachings of Christ, the central figure of christianity. If a large denomination such as the Roman church chooses not to follow the basic teachings, then that church can hardly be described as a model christian church and one on which to form a legitimate opinion of what real christianity is. Would you agree?
You can't compare this situation with Islam because the problem is different.
In Islam, the basis of what they believe is the Quran and Hadiths. If the Quran and Hadiths have a major teaching which is repeated throughout the writings, and 75% or 95% choose not to follow it, that does not change the fact that the teachings are still there. Would you agree? So whether the 75% say the minority are not Muslims, in the end the teachings are still there in the holy books. It depends on how one wishes to interpret them.
So trying to compare christianity with Islam is like trying to compare apples and oranges. They have different sets of issues that are not comparable.
Point 3. You mentioned a number of cults. These are denominations whose doctrines are contrary to the basic teachings of the bible. Most mainline churches agree on what group is a cult. So there is not much point in mentioning cults as an example. They represent only a small percentage of christendom. They are not considered as part of evangelical christendom. I think Mormonism practiced polygamy in Utah at one time, but it has been outlawed. Two men in B.C. are presently being tried in court for polygamy in a small sect in southeaster B.C. These are only a few people and do not represent the hundreds of millions of nominal christians in the world. There are no churches that practice or approve of polygamy in the world today.
Yes you are correct christianity believes that a woman should be submissive to her husband. This is taught in the bible. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing." Then a very important verse follows: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians ch5 vs 22-25
But the bible also teaches christians are to be submissive to each other. "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Ephesians ch5 vs 21.
Wives being submissive does not mean slavery. Each partner has their role to play. Husbands must love their wives as their own body (Eph. 5:28-32)
I know this is contrary to women's lib and feminism, but this is how God created man and woman. Each has a special role in marriage for the success of the family, which is the building block of society.
Point 4. Yes there are some perverse things going on in Uganda and other places in the name of christianity. Personally I reject the idea of laws against homosexuals. This is a cruel and hateful system we see there. I don't know what American preachers agreed with that. I have not heard of it. There might be the odd one, but I don't think it is common. It is heretical. I don't believe most christians would agree with imprisoning or punishing homosexuals in any way. It is not the way people should be treated. I know there are some people claiming to be christian in some African countries that have some very extremist views. It is sad really.
-
37 minutes ago, dialamah said:
In Western countries, Christians are held in check by secular governments. History and certain Christian majority countries and regions demonstrate that Jesus' teachings do nothing to prevent Christians from using violence to impose Christianity on non-believers, or from oppressing those they disapprove of - such as gays or women, especially women who don't know their place. Christianity is no better than Islam in its inherent patriarchy and tendency to oppress those who don't follow their religious dogma. A
Still, many Christians and Muslims reject this part of their religion and practice a much more progressive form of their faith, one I believe is much more in line with what their respective prophets taught. Those folks are ok by me.
There have been periods in history when the Roman Church did impose it's brand of christianity on the population. But this was not biblical christianity as Jesus taught. You have to understand the difference. Christianity as practiced in the beginning of the church age about 2000 to 1700 years ago was nothing like the Roman church's christianity practiced throughout the Holy Roman Empire after the Roman church became established several hundred years after Christ. Rome set up the Holy Office to run the Inquisition for hundreds of years. Many "heretics" were tortured and burned at the stake. Many people believe this was christianity but it was the furthest thing from it. There were several small sects who did not recognize the Pope or the RC Church but practiced christianity and followed the teachings of Jesus and the Bible in parts of Europe. They were eventually hunted down by Rome and killed. Biblical christianity does not oppress women or "impose" christianity on non-believers. Again you have to distinguish the Roman Catholic church down through the ages from small groups of true bible believers. True biblical christianity cannot be understood by looking at the big Roman church or the Eastern Orthodox or Russian Orthodox. These are a different thing from bible believing christians. Bible believing christians do not oppress other people or force them to become christians. Jesus and the apostles never did that either. People that used violence in the past to impose christianity or oppress people are not genuine believers but are in a cult or false religion masquerading as christianity.
Incidentally, I am not aware that women are being oppressed in churches today. I would doubt that very much. I think they are generally treated with respect. If you have any examples of where women are oppressed, let's hear it. It sounds more like a myth. If you want to discuss it I would be happy to.
As far homosexuality is concerned, many christian churches do not believe homosexuality is biblical and so do not agree with it; however they do not mistreat LGBT people. They welcome them if they want to attend their churches. There are a few churches that have gone astray and actually condone the practice of homosexuality itself and some even ordain homosexuals or lesbians as ministers. But nobody in the christian community mistreats them to my knowledge. Gay bashing is done by non-christians and hateful people in the general public. This is not the fault of genuine christians.
-
45 minutes ago, dialamah said:
Anyone can be a nutcase, not just religious people.
I think the nutcases you have to worry about are those who hold the reins of political power but don't respect the fundamental rights of the people they rule over. Religious or atheist can be dangerous. In Iran you had the Ayatollah. How many people did they execute in the 1979 Islamic revolution and afterward? How many infidels were killed in the last 1400 years across the Arab world? How many people did the non-religious tyrants Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot kill in the 20th century? How many people did the tribal dictators in Africa kill in the genocides, like Rwanda? Tyrants can be driven by some kind of false religious fervour or be atheists. It has nothing to do with christianity. But some like to lump christians in with any kind of religious extremists, which shows they don't understand christian teachings at all. But it gives them a feeling of superiority in their atheism.
-
10 minutes ago, eyeball said:
.
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:If we could eradicate religion, we could probably figure out the rest.
First you would have to eradicate 90% of the world's population. Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao made a serious attempt at eradicating all opponents, but in the end, it made no difference. Their ilk ended up in the grave sooner or later, and their legacy as tyrants is established.
-
17 minutes ago, kactus said:
I don't think anyone is asking about changing Canada to suit foreigners. I just find it a bit racist when someone posted here earlier that Canada is for judeo/ christians as if religion is the determinent factor of who belongs to the "club"...
Actually liberals and lefties are trying to change Canada to suit foreigners. That is one of Trudeau's main goals.
Some of the immigrants bring a militant religion to Canada and do in fact demand that accommodations be made for them. My comment saying Judeo-Christian culture should a basis for immigration also includes western culture and practices such as western respect for human rights, women, our parliamentary system of democracy, basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Using the term Judeio-Christian culture does not imply everyone has to be Jewish or Christian. That's where you err. It is a general term to differentiate the west from eastern cultures such as in the middle east, India, Asia, or Africa. It has been the founding culture in North America for 500 years. Liberals want to erase that history and claim we are an amalgamation of all religions and cultures from every corner of the world, probably in order to grab votes. The term is simply a way of describing the historic reality of the dominant founding Canadian or American culture. If you want to deny that and say that history doesn't count, then you are denying everything we have such as our judicial system, parliamentary system, basic human values because all these things are different in Asia, Africa, and the middle east. I prefer to defend our way of life and not be forced to change to accommodate those who won't accept it.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hot enough said:
Because Canadians overwhelmingly reject this type of virulent racism. You "majority Judeo-Christian caucasian people" are the ones who started and continued a century long genocide, so who in their right mind would ever consider this same group to have any say in anything that has questions of morality within.
Since you constantly accuse westerners of genocide, who would ever take you seriously on the subject of Canadian immigration? I have never had anything to do with geneocide and don't know anyone who has. So what's the point of harassing everyone about it? What could you possibly say about immigration since that is the subject, not genocide?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:
This is a new term made up to create an easier line of xenophobia to defend, in my experience.
You have already exchewed multiculturalism and religious differences, so using the term 'Judeo-Christian' is just wallpapering over incorrect ideas of "good" and "bad" groups based on religion only. Is an Israeli Jew allowed into your Canada, being non-European ?
Of course an Israel Jew would be welcome. They come from the same Judeo-Christian or western cultural background. Non-Europeans from certain other places such as the U.S., Australia, New Zealand would fit into our culture as well. The point was well made by a recent poster. What is wrong with trying to keep Canada as a majority Judeo-Christian caucasian people? As he aptly said, other countries protect their own religions and cultures. Why shouldn't Canadians be able to do the same thing?
-
1 minute ago, kactus said:
I think it is wrong to be judgemental the way you are. By saying Canada belongs to people from Judeo/Christians you are saying it is ok to have jews, Christians but it is not ok to have hindus, japanese, chinese, muslims etc. That is utterly and blatantly a racist view.
I am not ok with people with criminal records crossing the border. I believe in a fair system that treats criminals as they are regardless if they are muslims, jews or christians! It is absolutely absurd to define people by their religious identity...
OK so you define yourself as a globalist and believe everyone from anywhere in the rest of the world has the right to immigrate to Canada. You believe in open borders and Canada has no rights as a sovereign nation to decide who comes in.
-
1 minute ago, kactus said:
I think the notion of making Canada only for white Christians and now according to you Judaism as well is very selective and insulting to others who are equally Canadians....
I am not talking about people who are already here. Immigration policy is a legitimate issue for discussion except with leftists who want to impose their way on everyone else and shut down debate. Liberals and leftists are natural totalitarian authoritarians who would outlaw freedom of speech.
-
2 minutes ago, kactus said:
Fine....We agree to disagree because I really cannot understand this mindset being so selective. Maybe Because I don't judge people by their religion.
So I guess you believe in open borders and allow anyone in no matter what it does to our civilization? Most countries restrict who gets into their country in order to protect the country, but you wouldn't. Interesting. Many of those people walking across the border from the U.S. in Manitoba might have criminal records. You ok with that?
-
3 minutes ago, kactus said:
Well according to some posters native canadians are white christians only. If so you are discriminating against everyone else including thise practising judaism
No. Never said anything like that. I'm not responsible for what posters say. I've never heard anything like that anyway. You're trying to create something.
The Ill feeling between left and right on immigration
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by blackbird
I met a man once who worked on a contract in Saudi Arabia decades ago. He was riding in a car with a Muslim and expressed concern that the Muslim was driving on the wrong side of road in dangerous places. The Muslim told him there is no point in worry because if is time to die we will die. It is all in Allah's hands.
Yes, we see the justice system in Saudi Arabia that executed 50 or 100 people a year or two ago, many for questionable things. We see the justice when people are sentenced to prison for years for speaking out against the government on social media or some other medium. We see the justice when people in recent years have had their hands or heads chopped off in a public square in some countries. We see the justice in Pakistan when a Muslim woman converted to christianity is sentenced to death for blasphemy. Great human values!