Mad_Michael

This strikes me as a bold sweeping statement that cannot be proven or disproven. Your question is too clever by half. You are serving up an invitation for clever theists here.

1. What difference does it matter? 2. Even if 90% of the population broke the law, you can be sure a significant proportion of them would be rich white CEO types who would never see the inside of a jail cell short of committing murder, so a significant percentage would never go to jail even if they all broke the law.

Save the left-bashing for an issue that deserves it. If the Canadian military has been shortchanged on equipment (and it has) then the federal politicians are 100% responsible for that. Indeed, increasing spending on equipment for defense has been in the election platform of almost every winning government going back to Joe Clark. Clearly, one can't blame the voters for this since they keep voting in favour of it. It is the politicans that fail to deliver it.

Interesting... I'll have to follow this up. I didn't realise that Ontario's share of immigration to Canada had actually gone down lately. Did any of the other Provinces actually start to take some or something? Rumour has it there are Muslims out there on the Prairies... is this actually true?

If you categorize income by age in Canada, seniors (over 65) are second only to the 55-64 bracket, which has always been the highest. The average senior citizen in Canada is doing better than the average working Canadian. Though, if the past is any guide, everything is not enough to satisfy this greedy segement of our society.

This warning does not do justice to the name in question. This Michael Savage has a long history of publishing lies. A few minutes of Google can demonstrate the man's extreme neocon views and history of 'playing fast and loose' with facts.

Gosh! Someone actually thinks Chris Matthews is a journalist? That's pretty funny. You'll be praising Althouse's reasoned jurisprudence and Coulter's modesty and civility next.

Is Ottawa a bishopric or an archdiocese? Either way, I'm willing to bet there is at least one real conservative in Ottawa. I love it when people use terms like real conservative - knowing that the one thing they DON'T mean is an actual conservative. What they really mean is a real liberal (of the classical liberal variety), but that doesn't sound right I guess. So what is "real" conservativism when conservativism can't admit to being liberalism? If you believe in the 'rule of law', you ain't no "real" conservative.

No... Descartes himself was the "I" - he didn't have to imagine the invention of himself.

Good to see that the old evangelism is still alive and kicking! I don't think the atheists have taken over the market quite yet.

Then it is settled...we already have a solution...the USA rules the Middel East. No, that means we've identified yet ANOTHER major problem in the Middle East.

Glad you have enjoyed it. Devout religious beliefs shape behaviour, both in the public and private domain. Therefore, what people privately hold to be true can affect your world. This will be so except in the rare case of a religious community shutting off all ties to the outside. There is a key distinction here that is at the heart of my argument with AndrewL. That is that belief in the FSM doesn't affect me at all and I have no right to interfere with that belief. However, as you pointed out, some people believing in the FSM may affect me if those people take their beliefs in the FSM into issues of public policy. It is here that I have every right to engage/argue and confront the believers of the FSM and their crazy public policies. That is the key distinction that I make with respect to religion. The only acceptable critique of religion is its interference in public policy. Religion of and in itself, cannot be rationally or reasonably be criticized.

I hide, therefore I am hidden?

The "I" is self-evident to the observer. The "I" is not the premise and the conclusion (ie. circular reasoning). The premise is "I think" and the conclusion is "I am". This is a self-proof of self-awareness of self-existence. That's it. And as I pointed out to Geoffrey above, it doesn't actually prove physical existence, only self-existence.

No. The USA rules the Middle East. No solution is possible without US support. USA has been the principal barrier to any resolution of the Palestinian issue. Blair has lots of credibility on that side of the equation. It doesn't matter if the Arab/Muslims don't trust him - they never trust anyone on this issue anyway.

I have not argued or suggested in this thread that European colonialism had nothng to do with the problems of the Middle East. I have only argued here that all of the 'problems' in the Middle East that make it famously complex and violent are all pre-existing the arrival of the European colonial powers. And yes, western colonial power has had a huge effect on the Middle East, magnifying, complicating and entrenching many of those issues. And the reason I'm making this argument is because if western colonialism is blamed for all of the problems in the Middle East (as myata wants to do) we can never improve the situation in the Middle East since that view of the 'problem' ignores the Arabic & Muslim contribution to their own problems. For example, when two kids are fighting, picking out one of them and blaming them entirely for the fight does not resolve the issue they were fighting about - indeed, it tends to make the fight-problem worse when you are not watching. The problems in the Middle East are manifold and complex. The western European powers are part of those problems, but not entirely the cause. And I unequivically deny the idea that Islamic terrorism is driven by jealousy or envy of our western technology. I certainly have never suggested anything so outrageous and facile.

To anyone who follows academic historians in Canada - this poll is no surprise at all. Trudeau is generally perceived by Canadian academic historians as the best PM in recent years. The historians have been quite kind to Trudeau and his policies. And Mulroney is roundly considered the worst (his empowerment of Quebec nationalism and alliance with separatists backfired on him enormously - the BQ practically was a splinter group from Mulroney's Quebec faction). Mulroney also holds the record as Canada's most fiscally irresponsible - greatest increase in deficit spending and greatest increase National Debt (real or per capita terms, Mulroney wins both) and Mulroney achieved this during the 2nd longest economic expansion cycle on record. It takes a special kind of idiot management to have Canada's fiscal situation seriously deteriorate when the economy was booming.

Methinks Dion wants to stir up a Quebec nationalist hornet's nest for his own partisan purpose. Dion lurches from being seen as 'weak and unattractive' as a leader to downright stupid with this move. When's the next Liberal Leadership convention? Can't happen soon enough!

I don't know. Why don't you ask the League of Nations that awarded the 'mandates' to Britain and France? These countries were legally obliged to rule by order of the League.

That's because it is categorically impossible to prove a negative. Aah, but it's not a negative. He has made a claim with his evidence. The challenge is to refute his claim. It should be extremely easy for all those atheists out there to collect. You apparently don't get it. He makes a claim - that is a 'positive' assertion. To "refute" that claim, one has to 'prove' the negative case. That is categorically impossible according to rules of logic. That is why the fellow is so confident with his boast/challenge. It is a very clever claim that easily fools the uneducated.

If it is an outstanding 10 year old warrant, it can certainly be legally applicable. Sometimes criminals evade them for many years. Evading the consequences of one's acts for ten years doesn't make one innocent of the charge.

Then you are no different then those whom you oppose. They seek a similar thing (they want it grounded in God - you want grounding in human terms).

No. If they seek to legislate public policy, you may oppose any such assertion with science and reason and logic (or even emotion and/or passion if you prefer). The line is that of public policy. Private beliefs are private property - you many not trespass. If they seek public policy, then you may engage as fully as you like as that is a fair fight. But it is the attack on the private property that I object to - especially if it is independent of a public policy proscription. No. One may only assert that 'deeply held religious beliefs' have no place in matters of public policy. That's because of the target of your attack. If the target is the other's belief, then they will object. If the target is the issue of public policy itself, then not so much. And that's why I object. You have the wrong target. Belief is not your enemy. Religious driven public policy is the only real enemy. Attack the public policy side and you are on safe ground. Attack the holder of a religious view on religious ground and you are open to the tag of 'fanatic'. Our western society wasn't built up by 'swaying moderates' away from the fanatics. Our western secular model was built up by demonstrating competance and success in public policy (and threatening to shoot the fanatics if they interfere). I seriously doubt they think God is nothing more than an allegory. They think it is true that jesus was actually the son of god, born of a virgin, and risen from the dead. And what business is it of yours if they do so choose? Really? Roman Catholics in North America use birth control devices at the same rate and frequency as non-Roman Catholics. So how can you say they believe God will punish them? And they may believe anything they like. They may even believe in Flying Spagetti Monsters if they like. And it only shapes their world, not mine. And yet, those moderates don't get all obnoxious, authoritarian and fanatical about it. Only the fanatics do that. Ergo, attacking the moderates is poor policy and is only likely to empower the fanatics. Which is my core argument here. Fair enough. I'm addressing a wider issue of civil society. Attacking religion only feeds and empowers the fundamentalists/fanatics. That is a historical fact. There is room for critique of religion - but ONLY when religion seeks to rule public policy.

When it comes to 'fundamentalism' or 'fanaticism' I make no distinction of religion. My argument applies regardless of your favourite flavour. We are pretty blase about carrying fire-sticks in our hands despite the obvious danger of fire. And lots of people drive cars without seatbelts - even though it is dangerous to do so. Humans apparently like a bit of danger - or are accustomed to it. No. Some rules need to be remade. Big difference. Yes, and this is perfectly reasonable. If the fanatics seek to legislate public policy, you have every right (indeed, a duty) to oppose them. But if they seek not legislation, and only hold particular views, what is the harm? Yes. And liberals and libertarians and poverty activists all try to do the same thing. Get their people into power. That is democracy. It is supposed to be messy. Then fight them at the ballot box. They are a valid opponent. They have a right to exist.

Do political moderates empower political fanatics & crackpots? Do moderate sports fans empower fanatical sports fans who want to beat up fans of the opposing team? Do moderate drinkers of alcohol empower alcoholics? No. They were ill-educated peasants. They thought they had it because they were taught it so. Teaching of such tends to change over time. Jew hating has turned. It is no longer 'rising', but 'falling'. Those who play that game are generally marginalised. And the twisted minds of fanatical believers is not the issue here. We've always had fanatics of various types hanging around. Categorically no. It is your desire to impose your agnosticism upon those who choose to believe is where I object. Knowledge and belief are entirely different things. One cannot use knowledge to 'beat' belief to death. Belief doesn't acknowledge the validity of that knowledge. Ergo, confrontation only results in violence. The ideas of the fanatics are their own. They are no business of yours or mine. If they presume to make an illegal act, we can arrest them and try them in a court of law. But there is no law against one holding stupid or fanatical ideas. It is their right to do so. As it is your right to disagree with them. But you don't have a right to force them to abjure their belief, no matter how obnoxious you might consider their beliefs to be. Not necessarily, though some certainly are. You have the right to speak out against global warming. It is when you may call anyone who opposes such a policy an idiot, stupid or evil that I have an issue. Such games breed more violence, not peaceful solutions. Polite? I think yes. And you cannot prevent others from taking offense (that is their business). But you can prevent causing offence where you know it will be taken. Giving offense usually serves little purpose in a discussion of public policy. No. You are arguing that Koresh was categorically evil and always was. I dispute this. Humans do change over time. In the early days, Koresh might not have been the crackpot he became. Hitler (for example) started off as a rather clever and sane fellow - he became a megalomaniac later on. One cannot fault people for not seeing his megalomania before it occured. No. Politicians duplicitely seek support from supporters all the time and then fail to deliver favours to that group. Bob Rae became Premier of Ontario and didn't enact the Communist Manifesto in government. His union supporters declared him the anti-christ because of it. Such action is common in politics. No. Pretending on is Scottish is as much a matter of belief as the belief in God. Indeed, didn't Senator Allan of Virginia pretend he was a 'southerner' when he categorically was not? People adopt facades all the time. You 'misunderestimate' nationalism. Many people think that because they are 'Scottish' they are morally and ethnically superior to you or me. Certainly more superior than 'brown people'. Thanks, I'll review the context of the speech to see how this stands.