Leafless

Exactly. And this is why condescending minority beliefs such as yours will never be taken seriously by those of the MAJORITY Christian religion, also a believe, my dear man. Absurd. WHICH "majority" Christian religion? And you're still quite beside the point anyway ... what makes the religious belief that murder is wrong moral while a non-religious belief that murder is wrong is not moral? You should just admit you have no answer and move on. In Canada Roman Catholics are the majority Christian denomination and I am not going to dig the numbers out again as they already have been many times on this site and others. The answer to the second part of your question is that there is no difference concerning the simple answer between a religious belief and a non-religious belief regarding murder is not moral per se. But there is in the sense of how you arrive at that conclusion without religion and the many other issue's that require some sort of religious believe to confirm your moral belief's without resorting to any legal definition. I'am not expanding on this any further with examples, since this is what separates religious morals from non-religious morals which could or will result with different convictions which could lead to conflicting values concerning ethics.

True. So, how do Canadians themselves decide whether or not to support the government on the issue of a specific war? Do they use religion, and if so how? Personally, I decide this by evaluating to the best of my knowledge, what degree a foreign threat is to Western style democracy and freedoms and well being to our country that could detrimentally affecty our country or will affect it if left unattended. Religion does not enter this equation concerning the fate of my country other than hopefully keeping it primarily Christian. How do you decide whether or not to support your government regarding issue's of national interest?

No doubt there will be pressure from religious groups. There as already been "740,000 emails asking the network to cancel the crucifixion scene." My major concern is the ongoing attack against Christianity, by way of mocking Christianity along with the veiled promotion of paganism.

Exactly. And this is why condescending minority beliefs such as yours will never be taken seriously by those of the MAJORITY Christian religion, also a believe, my dear man.

Christians should start thinking and acting like EXTREME Muslims, don't ya think? http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/cover101706.htm

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion Oh, I accept that that is your opinion. But that doesn't help make any sense of why the same opinion is moral if held by one person but not by another. Say again? That last bit was too garbled for me to parse out your meaning. Even if that view were factaully precise (which it is not), it sheds no light on the question we are dealing with on this thread. So, I'm still looking for someone to exlpain how the same opinion can be moral in one person but not another. Your question is illogical. Prior to the charter in this country Christianity and other religions substantially served as a standard concerning morals. With the advent of the charter, political legislation overruled the natural societal evolution of this country especially in the areas of religion and language. Your question cannot be answered because of this federal intervention. IMO the charter is destroying the fabric of this country. For your question to be answered the federal government would have to implement some sort of STANDARDS relating to morals like it did for language, concerning 'official bilingualism' and employment in the federal government.

So, who decides what is in "National interest" and therefore justified? God? In a free society supporting the government on important issue's relating to national interest are decided by a combination of concerns relating to opposition parties and Canadians themselves by displaying approval or disapproval in the way of voting in the next election.

But you just finished saying there is "absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason" Now you're saying it's justified if national interests are threatened? National interest and the military override personal beliefs relating to war. Religious beliefs relating to morals concerning killing can only apply during the normal times of one's self existence. But you could be EXTREME and go to jail if conscripted, rather than fight for your country.

It's like saying you have a university degree when you've never been inside a university. Morals are the same. If your not taught morals at an early age especially in school in a professional manner relating to religion, you will probably never consider them in the same serious light as someone who was taught morals from a religious point of view. You probably would not be asking this question if it was not for Trudeau's fairy equality charter and would still be in the closet with your other atheist friends.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm Itès already happening Ièm sure........I have been to parts of the US where the entire population of a shopping mall looked like a cruel eugenics joke...something to do with poverty, malnourishment and drugs... I've noticed the same thing in shopping malls in Toronto and Ottawa. Anyways it sounds like this guy has been watching to much interracial porn.

You must be confused concerning defending national interest with 'illegal' murders. When national interest are threatened and military force is utilized to combat the problem, it is not considered murder. Without national interest being defended their would be no base for religion nor anything else if the country is lost or risk being lost to the interest of another country.

Whether or not you accept it, the accepted standards of human behavior relating to good and bad IMO are primarily propagated or taught by religion and reinforced especially relating to the Catholic religion during the whole time spent in primary school. Christianity teaches what morals are from a religious point of view backed up your faith in that religion. You can also harbour the legal definition of what is good and bad on top of your religious definition which reinforces the overhaul concept between good and bad. I really don't know how children of secularist are guaranteed accepted standards of moral behavior from pagan parents and attend public schools with little time spent on morals if any. Generally speaking children of Christian parents will receive moral training in the home, some at school and through the church as in comparison to possibly none or very little moral training concerning children raised by securalist parents. That's what the difference is.

Although I am not overly religious but definitely support Christianity for reasons pertaining to culture and to the goodness of promoting an anti-pagan society, I will attempt to answer your question. Relating to Christianity, God teaches "Thou shalt no kill", so killing or murdering is totally against the law of God with absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason and which also constitutes a mortal sin. This of course is coupled with my private convictions as to why it is wrong to kill. Relating to secularism, if I learned or came to my own conclusion that it is wrong to kill but with no conviction other than my own logic, I could be tempted to kill for reasons I consider justifiable and could very well complete the act depending on circumstance.

theloniusfleabag The U.S. Southern Black situation concerning the Civil Rights Movement was in a totally different league than what your trying to make comparisons to.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction? Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"? Check out the definition of 'pervert'. And who determines what is perverted? organized religion (provided they can agree among themselves) the state, through its legislators each individual according to his own morality This is a good question considering charter rights trumps views dictated by Christianity concerning all of society. This is exactly why we need referendums in THIS particular country to answer questions such as this to form an absolute legal basis to create laws for the protection of society.

This is interesting! An atheist having higher moral values than his religious friends and then asserts some of his beliefs make him immoral to many religious folks. A contradiction to say the least. How so? He makes reference to equality which if referring to charter rights are imposed rights, not moralistic in any sense. He makes reference that his morals trump his religious friends whose morals are lower than his yet does not state what or any of his moral values are. This contradicts his claim of possessing higher morals.

This is interesting! An atheist having higher moral values than his religious friends and then asserts some of his beliefs make him immoral to many religious folks. A contradiction to say the least. Do you assume for one second that if in the event that this country was not dominated by Christianity but rather atheist and agnostics that morals would be totally worthless? I really wish it would, because it would put you guys in place quick. The only thing that is saving you now from an all out degenerative society is Christianity even though it is being beaten down by people like you. We could be though, headed in that general direction thanks also to legislation like charter rights.

Oh sure! Close down law enforcement agencies in our modern law abiding countries for a single week throughout the world and see what happens.

I hope it would be treated the same way as if the reverse were true. Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination What one hopes and what really happens are often at opposite ends of the spectrum. Time will tell. Borg Whites can definitely do something about this situation. Only deal with businesses that are at least known to be White owned. Demand a White doctor in the event of being hospitalized even if you are confronted with a serious illness. The same thing pertains to language. Shop only where you are assured the store deals only in English and does not hire ethnic minorties. Don't be an ass, stand up for your rights and don't let minorities push you around. The government simply lacks conviction to intervene in a situation like this and simply allow the masses to fight it out.

Religion has worked for many years CONTROLLING the masses. Have it your way we will all be barbecuing one another for dinner.

And who says, exactly, that all sexual acts must ultimately culminate in reproduction? Better yet, who are you, or any Christian/Muslim/Whatever actually, to dictate what constitutes as "misconduct"? Check out the definition of 'pervert'.

That assumes that G-d was created, as opposed to just existing. My view is that G-d is an invisible, all-enveloping presence. As much as I am an educated, non-superstitious person, there are some things simply not rationally explanable. Even the beauty of a sunrise, or a snowstorm, is something I doubt can just emerge without a guiding hand. Just my two cents. The whole purpose of religion is that it provides a believe based on 'faith' for man to fall back on as the darkness of the unknown confuses and paralysis the mind. How God was created is not of real importance since most religions regardless are built on the supernatural . What is missing in this discussion is the the basic question: What is more useful to society as a whole, secularism or religion? The obvious answer is religion since it supports and provides an inner strength and leads in a spiritual and moralistic way that secularism cannot provide. Science basically tells us we are a pile of evolved germs feeding on one another. How possibly will this nourish society and provide society leadership other than political and provide the will to carry on. Science is severely limited and although it has advanced in several areas including medicine it still cannot construct a human being, cannot explain what is the universe or what is it's purpose or in fact cannot even tell us what the planet Earth really is, among hundreds or thousands of other unanswered questions.

How right you are Charles. Evolution dictates we have evolved from the amoeba stage. Since as far as we know, no other life exist on any other planet, so a comparison cannot be made as to what we actually are. So according to evolution we are a pile of evolved amoeba in constant battle with viruses for survival in fact feeding of one form or another for survival. If in fact we can detect no other life in the universe, thus a sterile environment, we can assume we are nothing but contamination in a sterile universe. Religion sounds a lot more logical.

I guess it depends where you live in Toronto. You have to blame Quebec primarily and the Liberals secondly, for promoting and placing importance on culture over Canadian nationalism. Things no doubt will only get worse thanks to our gutless leaders.

Your type of freedom and Trudeau's does not really exist. The majority rules and no government will ever be able to delete that fact.