blackbird

I think you are making too extreme a division or distinction. I don't think everyone fits neatly into either of those categories. There are non-religious people who see themselves as superior to other people that are a different colour for example. But in history there also have been religious people in christian churches in parts of the U.S. that believed that a white person should never marry a black person or have anything to do with one. That was based on a misinterpretation of some part in the Bible. There may be still a few fundamental type churches that believe that whites should not marry blacks although they may not believe in discrimination in other walks of life. I think Bob Jones university Baptists did not believe in mixed marriages but don't know what they believe today. Actually come to think of it, mixed marriages were illegal in some parts of the U.S. up until the 1960s I believe. There was at least one movie made about that. I don't know of any religious denomination that denies science. But depends what you mean by denying science. Many christians do believe that God created the universe and many believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible regarding creation being in six days. This does not mean they deny science. I'm one of those people. A large number of renowned scientists who lived from 1200 A.D. to 2000 A.D. believed in God, creation, and the Bible. There are many scientists who believe strongly in the scientific method and science in general who still do not believe in the theory of evolution but believe God created the universe as the Bible says. Dehumanizing people is a very broad term. Not sure what that would be in reference to. Prior to the civil war, slaves of course were dehumanized by many of those who used them, but there may have been a lot of people who had slaves and treated them with dignity as well. Slavery is probably as old as man. It existed in ancient history. In the earlier centuries parts of Europe sold slaves to buyers in the middle east. The Vikings were well known for taking people from Europe and selling them as slaves further south in the middle east.

It there still a lot of friction between the states that were in the civil war? Is there a noticeable difference between the people in the different civil war states, north and south?

LOL. Good one. Ok. When civilians are mistakenly killed in a war zone I honestly don't really know what happens. I would be just guessing. The man I met that worked in Saudi Arabia passed away a long time ago.

Read a book on the 250 yr history of the U.S. but my memory is not that great. You have inspired me to go back and re-read U.S. history, especially around the civil war.

Not sure what you mean on that. You didn't answer my question about Allah's will. What do you think about people who disobey the rules of the road and say if they have an accident, it is Allah's will?

Right. That's how the legal system works. It is assumed when a person is operating a motor vehicle they are responsible for the safety of everyone else around them. If you cause an accident, you are responsible. Doesn't matter if you didn't mean to do it. If the police think you caused it, you could be charged with an offence and have to go to court and be punished if found guilty. I once met a man who worked in Saudi Arabia temporarily. He heard a Muslim man say he (the Muslim) can drive on the wrong side of the road when he wants because he won't be killed unless Allah thinks it is his time to die. He is not concerned about safe driving because he would only have an accident if it's Allah's will. Is that really how some Muslims think or not? What do you think about that?

This reminds of when I hit the brakes to avoid hitting something, but was fortunate nobody was close behind. I have decided since to just not hit the brakes next time. I think it is a natural instinct to want to hit the brakes to avoid hitting an animal, but stopping on a dangerous highway to try to rescue some ducks in a more serious violation. It is probably better to hit an animal than to risk causing a serious accident. The way it works is one is responsible for their own actions while operating a motor vehicle and if there is a safe way to avoid hitting an animal that's fine. But if someone gets injured or killed or we cause an accident, our actions will be put under close scrutiny.

I guess I don't understand what all the talk is about culture. If they want to learn an aboriginal language in a course at school on a reserve, that's fine with me. But I don't know what else it means. There might be difficulty in funding a special person to teach an aboriginal language if it means another teacher in a small reserve at $60,000 to $100,000 a year. If that's what it means, I wouldn't support it. Someone from the reserve who speaks it could volunteer to teach it in evenings if they wish or even pay them something to teach it for an hour a day or a few hours a week. But that should be an optional subject. Too many aboriginals are not finishing school. There's an assortment of other problems that need to be dealt with like drinking water, housing, infrastructure, and major social problems. In such circumstances, culture, however that is defined, is the least of their problems. The idea that returning to some undefined culture is going to solve their problems is a myth.

Roman Catholicism is still the state religion of Quebec no matter how one wants to cut it. The fact that the crucifix is maintained in the legislature is evidence that it is the state religion of Quebec. 84% of the Quebec population is Roman Catholic and 6% identify as no religious affiliation. The rest are divided between all other religion. I am sure every country in the world has some laws or policies which favour their majority religion in some way. Quebec had trouble allowing Jehovah's Witnesses to do their thing back in the early 1950s. As long as they tolerate other religions and do no suppress freedom of religion I have no concerns about what they do. Bill 62 has nothing to do with religion.

According to a little book I have called "Was Karl Marx a Satanist", he was a Satanist. At a young age, he gave the impression he was a very devout christian, but after he left school, he apparently suddenly changed and rejected christianity and eventually became a Satanist. Communist ideology is in total opposition to the teachings of christianity which is probably why all religion was banned after the revolutions in Russia and China.

A significant degree of assimilation is necessary for aboriginals. It would be impossible to live the same way as prior to European settlement and growth. It is to their own advantage to assimilate. Some do so and have worked hard to get an education and professional career but not many. But many groups coming to Canada do not wish to assimilate but want to keep their own culture and way of living. Liberals encourage that. Their idea is a country made up of pockets of immigrants from different areas of the world, each with it's own culture and not assimilating with the anyone outside their group. That is the mosaic or diversity that Trudeau always touts as a good thing. Assimilation is considered a bad word in Canada.

The face covering is a mark of a backward-thinking culture and ideology that devalues women as mere chattels. It has no place in a modern society that professes to respect women as equals. Anyone who can't see that is woefully blind of the reality. Ignorance is bliss.

The CPC party has no position or policy on the face covering as far as I know. I don't know where you are coming from. Rather presumptuous. It was already reported something like 2/3 or 70% of Canadians agree with bill 62 in Quebec.

I found a new creation website which answers some difficult questions about science and God. Science or Cosmology has not been able to give proof or experiencial evidence that the universe began by natural means or without a designer and Creator. This website explains why: "On the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.12 " http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/is_god_real.html

I assume you must be operating from somewhere outside north America since since you constantly go on with your fake anti west diatribe. How much do you get paid? You wouldn't be getting paid much because your audience is miniscule and nobody believes it, except maybe Altai. So do you do all the work for gratis?

Immigration policy is likely driven purely by politics and with a view to votes from ethnic communities who came from certain areas of the world. The more a political party has invested in those communities, the more it is beholden to them in the future. The percentage coming from western Europe was greatly reduced decades ago with large increases from Asia, the middle east and Africa. I suspect no consideration will be given to protecting our western style culture since Trudeau says there is no such thing as Canadian values and "diversity is our strength". Many of these people who should be integrating have no intention of doing so and do not like our western culture. Western Europe made this same mistake and is now paying for it.

I explained why, but you are not listening. Obviously you are determined to equate it with terrorism and won't listen to any reason. You seem to have a mental block or a blindness. I will pray that Jesus open your eyes to the truth about Jesus and you come to Jesus and the Bible. Those who believe that Jesus died for them and rose from the dead, trust in him as Lord and Savior have their sins forgiven and will have eternal life now. See John 3:16, read the Bible, gospel of John, pray, and find a little church.

Same old same old. You have nothing new to contribute except the same old nonsense. Nobody believes it.

They already do. There have been a number of attacks in the U.S. and Canada by ISIS followers.

The U.S. had evidence that they were preparing to fight using civilians. I believe there are videos of civilians being trained to fight. Surrendering was against Japan's belief system. They had a strong belief it is better to die than surrender no matter what. We saw that with the Kamakazi aircraft fighter pilots who crashed their planes into ships on purpose even though they were killed. The battle for Okinawa was very difficult because Japanese did not believe in surrendering even when there was no chance. Thousands of American soldiers were killed there. The U.S. did not want to repeat that kind of battle on mainland Japan. It would have been much worse than the Okinawa battle because civilians would have been fighting on their homeland. The U.S. was not prepared to sacrifice thousands, maybe tens of thousands of American soldiers when there is a way to avoid it. Americans are responsible to protect their own people first. That's what war means. It is not an equal opportunity deal. Today, 77 years later, the U.S. and Japan are very close together. Trump is in Japan right now and with the Japanese Prime Minister, having dinner and discussing issues of mutual concern.

Yes, and if we didn't have 100,000 abortions a year, we might be able to reduce immigration by at least that amount. I suspect high immigration numbers has more to do with political parties hoping to make political gain by it.

If there is not enough working people paying taxes to replace the existing workers that retire or pass away, there will not be enough money to pay for our health care, old age pensions, and other social services we expect. That's the reason we need immigrants. Our own Caucasian population in Canada is not reproducing in sufficient numbers to even survive. We are also losing about 100,000 babies a year to abortion in Canada, likely mostly Caucasian because they mostly the ones who go for abortions. Any numbers of children less than about 2.1 per couple means the gradual extinction of that ethnic group. Canadian Caucasians fall below that cutoff point. I would prefer to see more immigrants from Europe so we could maintain our Judeo-christian civilization and culture, and less from Asia and Africa. But I don't think the government has that in mind or cares. Most will probably come from Asia, Africa and some from the middle east bringing their cultures with them and form enclaves in Canada.

What you don't understand is the U.S. did not start the war with Japan. Japan was not willing to surrender and was going to defend itself with every citizen on the island. They were preparing to fight to the last person. It would have cost the U.S. tens of thousands of lives to take control of Japan. That's why the U.S. decided the atomic bombs would save U.S. lives and probably save Japanese lives too because fewer people would be killed than having to fight hand to hand on the island as well as use conventional bombs which also kill a lot of people.

The mod said we are getting off topic. If you want to discuss this could you pls go to the thread titled "Anti-Semitism remains prevalent" which I gave a couple postings back. This topic will derail this thread which is titled Islamophobia in Canada. I think the question of Israel better fits that title. Or you can start a new thread.

We are getting off topic on this thread, but if you want to discuss Zionism and Israel, you can go to the thread "Anti-Semitism Remains Prevalent" under The Rest of the World and I will reply to anything you have to say about it. It should fit in with that topic better.