Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,202
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. Another thought about this. If they can discriminate against students from TWU, why not discriminate against anyone who holds certain beliefs. How is it possible to find out exactly what individuals believe about something? It is not only that TWU students have certain values or beliefs, most of the society does. People from all walks of life have certain beliefs and people from various different religious backgrounds have various beliefs. Are they going to say to a Muslim you can't become a lawyer in Ontario? You better believe they are not going to say that. They would be taken to the Human Rights Tribunal so fast it would make your head spin. What about Jews? The list could go on. But for some reason it is in vogue to discriminate against WASPS, white anglo saxon Protestants. Time to get over that.
  2. I would add that the Japanese had a history of militarism, a kind of religious belief that one never surrenders. That' s why they had the Kamakazi pilots (or suicide pilots) who flew their planes into American ships. The Japanese military tradition was to fight to the death and the whole country was being readied to fight to the death should the American land on the mainland. Surrender was not in the vocabulary of the militarists that were in charge. It would take a spectacular event to cause them to change their minds. The atomic bombs saved a lot of American lives and brought the war to a quick end.
  3. Yes, I get your point and agree. This is a more difficult issue and could be quite complicated. But basically I think you are correct that the issue with the law society in Ontario was that the students signed a covenant agreeing to no pre-marital or extra-marital sex. But there could be more to it than that.
  4. The reality is I think that everyone has biases in one way or another. It is impossible to have a world with people free from some kind of bias. So why would they single out the TW students as unsuitable to be lawyers in Ontario. I don't see it as an issue of conflict of interest. I think it depends on what the issue a lawyer would be asked to do or defend, not necessarily whether the client is gay. I don't think it was suggested by anyone they would not serve certain clients based on their sexual preference. The law society is probably simply biased against people that have christian convictions. One can be representing a gay person in a matter that has nothing to do with gay rights or discrimination of gays. Those kind of cases are probably very few. If it was a case where for example a gay person wanted representation because he was being discriminated because of being gay, then the lawyer could advise the client, he simply can't represent him because of his religious beliefs. There are lots of lawyers around. This shouldn't be a problem. It is wrong for the law society to impose their own personal beliefs or lack of beliefs on other people and say that only people that fit their mold can become lawyers.
  5. We live in a society where multiculturalism and diversity is made much of. I don't think it is right to ban a segment of society because of their religious beliefs. This is where the issue of freedom of religion and freedom of expression will be tested.
  6. You're absolutely correct. A sensible voice. Lots of younger people growing up today have no idea about war. They have never studied it and live in a kind of dream world where they think about things in terms of peace, love, and selfies. As you pointed out, there were all kinds of horrors continuing every day. Not to mention the prisoners of war that were treated very cruelly in many cases. Just because some military leaders thought the war "was over" doesn't mean Japan had surrendered. They had not in fact. They were preparing their citizens on the mainland to fight to the death of every person. The Japanese military had no intention of surrendering if they could keep the fight going. That is ingrained in their thinking from history. That's why after the war, all Samurai swords had to be surrendered to the occupying American forces in Japan. They were considered a symbol of Japan's historic militarism and never surrender attitude. People had to take their personal collector's Samurai swords to depots set up all over the country and turn them in. Many some how made it back to the states and were given to some military veterans as a gift for serving.
  7. The claim that the war was over is nonsense. If it was over, why did the Japanese not surrender until after the two atomic bombs had been dropped? War is a very tragic business but it's not something where you give the enemy any advantage or sacrifice the lives of your own country to reduce the loss of the enemy. They were the enemy at that time and started the war by attacking Pearl Harbour where they killed three thousand people. Tens of thousands of American men died on the island of Okinawa to take it. Where is your sympathy for those people? Wake up. You do what you have to do to save your own people first.
  8. Americans made a calculation that it would have cost them tens of thousands of American lives to take Japan by landing armed forces on the Japanese island. Japan's military was not ready to surrender. They were preparing every citizen to fight to the death in Japan itself. Remember the objective is to win the war with the minimum casualties on your side. They calculated that the atom bomb would save a lot of American lives.
  9. The idea that the USA is "evil" I find nonsense. In WW2 the U.S.A. made great sacrifices of life and resources to defeat Japan in the Pacific and Axis powers in Europe. I believe it was thought by the U.S. powers that be at the time before the atomic bombs were dropped that military leadership in Japan were not willing to surrender and that to actually take the main island of Japan would involve huge loss of young American lives. Tens of thousands of young American men had already sacrificed their lives on the Pacific islands. It is fine for people who are looking at it in hindsight to give their opinion and claim it wasn't necessary, but the decision makers at the time were dealing with the information they had at that time.
  10. I agree. I have nothing against Muslims. I think it is wrong to equate being opposed to Islam as being against Muslims. There is a lot of that going on. In western democracies where freedom of religion and freedom of expression is paramount, people are free to believe in whatever religion or no religion and free to express opinions about other religions they disagree with. This is a historical right which has been exercised for a long time. The problem with the word Islamophobia, which motion the parliament just passed a few hours ago, the word is not defined. That leaves it open to individual interpretation. However we still have a Constitution and historical precedents which uphold freedom of expression. But if such a word comes into law, we may have a problem.
  11. The Old Testament has some verses which describe some violent historical things that happened several thousand years ago. But if you understand the context it is strictly a historical record, not an instruction for how anyone is to act today. The Quran on the other hand has over 109 verses which exhort followers to violence and the context in most cases could lead one to believe it is instruction for followers today. The interpretation of the verses is left to individual preferences as context in many cases is non-existent. The difference between the Old Testament and the Quran in this respect is the context in which such verses are written. Many people try to undermine the Old Testament by pulling verses out and claiming they prove that they teach violence. This is completely incorrect. It's context that matters. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
  12. The peculiar thing about the London terrorist attack is the media are still talking as if they don't know the motive. The CBC is great at obfuscation of the cause. In this case the terrorist had a record of some crime but was not on the immediate radar. This is similar to other attacks where the terrorist has had run-ins with the law and sometimes a criminal record. Some commentators have said the lone wolf attacker sometimes is a deeply troubled individual who has become radicalized. He adopts the belief that his only salvation so-to-speak from his miserable life is to commit an act of terrorism and die in the process. He believes (wrongly) that this will appease Allah and take him to heaven where he will receive 72 virgins. The question is how does society counter this false belief? I believe the best anti-dote to this false belief is the bible. But if you are not a christian, you would not believe the bible. The Bible counters it because it proves itself as being God's inspired word and therefore is the only ground and source for truth. The many miracles in the bible are just one of the proofs it is from God. One example is the miraculous deliverance of Israel from captivity in Egypt and the various miracles recorded in the bible as associated with that deliverance.
  13. The subject is the terrorist attack in London. Everything we are talking about is directly related. Why do we need another thread? Sorry for calling you a denier. Didn't mean to offend.
  14. What does "home grown" have to do with anything? He is still a jihad terrorist, correct?
  15. First, the number of terrorist attacks against Muslims is infinitely small compared with the number of jihad terrorist attacks in the world. Second, people who commit a terrorist act are not "christian" by biblical definition. I see you are a denier that jihad terrorism is connected with Islam. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
  16. What part of the world do you live? Are you trying to say jihad terrorism is caused by the west? Hundreds of people, including Muslims, are killed by jihad attacks every week. You think they are doing it because of US foreign policy? Come on! Did you read the link? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
  17. How about after he serves his sentence in Canada, then revoke his Canadian citizenship and send him back to his other country.
  18. The best way to know what you're talking about is to read the Quran itself. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
  19. That's true. More accurately it is a religious ideology because it demands that Sharia rules as government and all must submit to it.
  20. The question is Why Trump won. It's a tough question, but I think there was deep dissatisfaction with Clinton, Obama and his administration. Trump came in as a kind of renegade opposed to the establishment. He was going to drain the swamp in Washington. A lot of people who have lost their jobs or have seen their standard of living go down over the years became suspicious of the democrats and the mainstream media. There is a lot of distrust of established politicians who make lots of promises but never seem to change much. I think many people decided to give Trump a chance thinking he might actually go in and shake things up a bit and accomplish something.
  21. I don't claim to be an expert on anything, least of all Libya. I would have to look into it. If you're adamant about believing that Saudi Arabia is funding ISIS and Al Qaeda, there is not much I can say to you about it. Egypt had been taken over by the Muslim Brotherhood which is a terrorist organization. The U.S. didn't overthrow it. The Egyptian military took over. I never heard that drones kill thousands of people. I don't think that is true. They serve a purpose. I never said every single thing that happened was to fight terrorism. Terrorism is a real threat in the world today, whether you believe it or not. You seem to have some very strange beliefs. I think you will not believe anything I tell you. I may start another thread in which we can discuss some of these things. We might be chastised for straying too far from the topic here, so I will let it rest for now.
  22. I didn't say every single thing that happened was something I agreed with or that it was a good thing. We live in an imperfect world and not everything that happens can be approved of. -The U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on a report that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and might use them. I can't recall what I thought about it at the time. I think I may have agreed with the U.S. Many think now it was a mistake to go into Iraq. -Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE are I believe allies of the U.S. They are not funding ISIS and Al Qaeda. Not sure where you got that. -Libya had Khadafi who I think was causing the west a lot of trouble. Wasn't he killing a lot of people in his own country? They decided he had to be removed. I think there are still a lot of problem with Libya. Those countries are very unstable and have internal civil wars and revolutions periodically. -Egypt has been an ally of the U.S. for many years. The U.S. supplies a lot of money or military aid for Egypt in order to keep them as allies. It is better to have Egypt and Saudi Arabia as allies than opponents. That is why the U.S. gives them money and military assistance. -Drones are used by the U.S. to go after high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders. They have been successful. It is a major part of the war on terrorism.
  23. Sounds like you've been reading socialist/marxist propaganda. Those are the exact words they often use. I take it you are a young idealist. I read the odd book with those phrases when I was young. Thankfully I eventually woke up to reality about 40 years ago. Sometimes it takes time.
  24. He has had a significant impact. The stock market jumped up quite a bit signifying confidence the direction the U.S. is heading. The proper answer is confidence. It makes a big difference to everything.
  25. What part of the world do you live in? It sounds like you might be opposed to the west's war on terrorism in the world. What's your solution?
×
×
  • Create New...