blackbird

You are correct. It is a very difficult problem to deal with. I don't think Scheer will be anything like a Trump. I don't hold out any hope he will do anything about the HRCs. Ezra Levant on The Rebel Media is probably the best hope to do anything. He was recently fined $80,000 by an HRC and has had a lot of dealings with them. That is an incredible fine. Other than that, I am not sure what can be done.

This is appalling. I would suggest anyone who is concerned about what the HRCs are doing consider joining the Conservative Party and lobbying to them to get rid of the HRCs. starting with the Federal one. If people have something they can lay a charge and follow the normal justice system. The HRCs don't follow the normal justice system. Go to conservative.ca and sign up and write to some MPs and Andrew Scheer about this. If we don't fight this, things are just going to get worse.

What does this have to do with the topic? Just your usual copy and paste anti U.S., anti west tirade. You must have been indoctrinated with this somewhere. Your modus operandi has long been known. You always repeat the same old thing but never accept anything anyone says.

No. It's not always about assimilation. It's far more complicated than that. I just looked up the definition in the Oxford and assimilation is the absorption of a minority culture for example into the culture of the majority. Missionaries did not and do not today see themselves as simply trying to assimilate people into a majority culture simply because there might be no other culture in existence in the places they go to. Radio and television evangelists for example are broadcasting on the air constantly and not trying to assimilate anyone into a dominant culture. Canada was different after the Europeans settled here and the population grew. When the Canadian government brought in residential schools, their policy was assimilation. They wanted to assimilate natives into the dominant culture of the country. They gave the task to several church denominations to do it through the residential schools. At the same time, the schools taught religion from the perspective of their own denomination. I would guess the denominations saw this as a missionary work. So assimilation and missionary efforts were combined in the residential school system. Denominations also built churches in various communities including villages which were mainly native peoples. However, missionaries who travel to foreign countries in the past, such as Africa, were more likely doing strictly missionary work. There was no dominant culture in those places to assimilate the natives into. But they were taking the message of the gospel to what was considered as heathen peoples, who may have had their own tribal culture and religion with witch doctors and alien practices, alien to European and what was considered as civilized thinking. So in those places, I think the only purpose of missionaries was to convert the natives to the christian religion. If you look back in history to the middle east and central Asia, when Islam spread through that part of the world, they of course were trying to convert the populations to Islam and were successful to a large extent. I am just reading a history of the world now which covers a lot of that. I hope that makes sense.

We are on a forum. Nobody needs your permission to speak. .You speak on here only for yourself.

Speak for yourself and I will speak for my self. OK? You can make rules for yourself, but not for everyone else.

Nobody is shoving anything down anyone's throat or forcing anyone to believe anything. One would have to be God to have that power. I'm not sure why anybody would get bent out of shape by someone else's comments. Reading is strictly voluntary. Take it or leave it.

I believe anthropologists say North American aboriginals came across the Bering Sea from Siberia or Mongolia. I believe they have verified the connection with DNA testing.

A lot of religious people sacrificed much of their lives to try to give young people an education in religious schools, probably without much compensation. Freedom of religion is a long-established historical part of our Constitution and society. I doubt that will change anytime soon. I would say the real threat to society is secular humanism which is anti-family and anti a lot of things and pro marijuana for example, none of which is good for society. If you want to see how atheism and humanism has damaged society, just look at the former Soviet Union and Russia. They have a huge crime problem and society is a mess. Plus they are ruled by a totalitarian dictator. Western European society is going down too. Many churches in England have been closed or are being turned into mosques. Look at the problems they have now. Actually it was the communist atheists in the former Soviet Union and China that murdered hundreds of millions of people and trampled on everyone's basic freedoms. Many good missionaries have laboured and spent their lives in the darkest backward places in Africa and other places to help those people. Christians have contributed greatly down through the centuries by supporting a civilized society with education, laws and good government because those are things they strongly believe in. I'm not saying there were not problems with respect to residential schools. Government had a policy of assimilation which turned out to be a disaster. Some former residential school students will tell you there were some good things that came out of it and they did learn something. in spite of the negatives for many of them. There were many positive things christianity has brought to the world in the last 2000 years..

The woman in question asked for a white doctor. The request was denied because the patient is not treated with dignity or respect but is just another number to be processed. The liberal media love this kind of thing where they can put the spotlight on anyone or anything that might be interpreted as racism or bigotry.

No. Patients have rights and should be treated with dignity. They are not there for the benefit of doctors or staff. People should be treated with respect in spite of their idiosyncrasies.

Yes, for sure. How about you?

She was not acting politically correct.

If you know a particular doctor in the clinic is gay, is it racist to bigoted to request a different doctor if there are more than one?

Never said she was. Maybe she was. Does she have to tell her history?

I went to a specialist 25 years ago, who happened to be a black doctor from Africa who was very difficult to understand. He treated me like s__t and it was the worst experience I ever had with a doctor in my life. I never went back to him and chose to drive 400 km and stay overnight in another city to see another specialist instead after that. I don't think the problem had anything to do with his skin colour, but it was his incredibly shocking attitude. Nobody deserves to be treated like that by a doctor.

According to bible experts the earth was created about six thousand years ago. So where were the aboriginals 14,000 years ago? Native rights activists will cling to the 14,000 year story because it means they have far greater claim to the land than relative newcomers whose ancestors came here a few hundred years ago at most.

The poor Governor General slipped up and mis-spoke a politically incorrect line. It didn't fit with the first nations and lefty narrative so he had to apologize and speak the correct phrases.

Yep, and the mayors in that area are opposed to the Energy East pipeline project. Appears they are dumb in more ways than one. Encouraging illegal migrants to come to Montreal is about as irresponsible as people can get.

The children of Israel clearly in Deuteronomy were God's chosen people. "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." Deuteronomy Ch7 vs6 KJV (1611). Abraham was the father of the Jews and the Arabs. King David was a descendant of Abraham. Jesus was a descendant of King David through Mary his mother and is therefore a rightful king of Israel. Jesus was a Jew and a descendant of Abraham. The holy scriptures were written by Jews. Learning parts of the bible takes time and patient study. It is not always like picking up a newspaper and just reading something.

You err in equating God with a tin-pot dictator. There is no similarity or analogy. God is our Creator, who keeps us alive by his power. All things were created by him and for him. As the Bible says, in him we live and have our being. The Bible teaches all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no peace possible between God and man without becoming a son or child of God by faith in Jesus Christ. You might think one who is living a moral, peaceful, and law abiding existence should be able to just carry on and be accepted by God. That's not what the Bible teaches us. I would suggest reading the first few chapters of Paul's epistle to the Romans and the gospel of St. John. The Bible says faith comes through the Bible and without faith it is impossible to please God. see Hebrews ch11. Until one is born again by faith in Jesus, he is at enmity with God. There is a wall or barrier between that person and God no matter how moral, peaceful, and law-abiding he might be. The bible says nobody is accepted on his own merit or goodness, because our best righteousness falls far short and cannot atone for our sin. When one believes in Jesus (that he died for one's sins personally and rose from the dead), then he becomes that person's mediator (or savior) between God and man. That is the only way the separation between a person and God can be eliminated.

I have to interject a comment. The Bible records supernatural events, which did in fact occur. If you take the supernatural out of the Bible, you lose the whole meaning because it is a supernatural book about supernatural events. You accept it by faith. That's what pleases God. The account of Genesis did occur exactly as it says. Noah's flood occurred exactly as it said. These are not myths and are meant to be taken literally even if we can't explain them in scientific terms. God is able to perform every supernatural event in the Bible. Those that come to God must believe by faith. see Hebrews ch11.

I have to say the Bible gives an account of how God created the earth and universe in a very short period of six days. This was how the Bible begins, but only takes up a few pages. The rest of the Bible has a huge amount of information about how God dealt with Israel (first few books of the Bible - Pentateuch), Psalms and Proverbs, God's dealings with Israel and prophecies. The New Testament gives the four gospels of Jesus Christ and several apostles give their account of the teachings of the christian religion. Ending with Revelation which has a lot of prophecy of the future. A central theme may be described in this verse for example: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." Proverbs ch3 vs5 Another verse I can't put my finger on says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (or wisdom). People who set themselves in opposition to God and His word are definitely on the wrong path and need to reconsider while there is still time. The way to do that is through prayerful study of the Bible.

The climate has always been changing. Nothing new there. But if you believe in man-made climate change and the doom and gloom, you've been had by the globalists who have there own agenda. The climate change business is a huge business with thousands of people making money on it. Over a trillion dollars a year involved, some say several trillion. There are biblical prophecies that forecast the future thousands of years ago and nothing is mentioned about climate change. If it was important, one would think it would have been mentioned, don't you think? There may be an Armageddon in the future and other things.

There are countless articles on that. Basically it comes down to the fact the KJV 1611 is the only version based on the received text for the New Testament. The modern versions are generally based on two corrupt manuscripts called Sinaticus (which was found in a waste paper basket in a monastery in the Sinai in late 1800s. The Vaticanus was discovered or retrieved from the Vatican library I believe. Two heretical churchman in around 1880 used these corrupt manuscripts to produce either a new New Testament or a new Greek Text to produce the English Standard Version. Generally modern versions translators believe these corrupt manuscripts to be more accurate than the received text. The received text is the collection of Greek New Testament manuscripts believed to be handed down through ages and used for the KJV completed in 1611. The modern versions do not follow the received text. The received text was a collection of Greek manuscripts which scholars brought to western Europe when the Muslims conquered the Byzantine empire. Since the original (which no longer exist) manuscripts for the N.T. were written in Greek, it is believe these Byzantine manuscripts are accurate. The Trinitarian Bible Society website may have some articles on this. Also google the two churchmen Westcott and Hort and find critques on them. The argument for the two corrupt manuscripts is that they are of a little older date than extant manuscripts. However, they disagree with the received text in thousands of places. Age does not necessarily prove anything because they could have been rejected by scholars in the early centuries but left in storage someplace. http://graceway.com/articles/article_025.html https://www.scribd.com/document/144266295/Jesus-Is-Savior-Westcott-and-Hort-Exposed