Leafless

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Aha! Yes, you are correct." What game are we playing here Mr. Hardner? Or is it there is simply no conceit in your family? You also wrote- " A prayer room would only be used by people in question, so how would students be 'exposed to it'." By simply knowing it's there and being used for support of an extreme religion. You wrote - " Then home school your child." Very inappropiate response Mr. Hardner both thoughtless and thankless to a country that allows to acknowledge and accommodate your religious concerns and then turn around and beat the drum to ludicrous religious demands concerning your religion.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Besides the jest you refer to was your own projection of opinions, so really you jest." Not quite. I never complained concerning the 'Lord's Prayer'. This is the nonsense your supporting and now want rights for 'Your religion'. What a load of BS. And why don't you plainly tell us what what exactly is your religion is so we can be more precise with replies? You also wrote-" Rodger has been asking you when/how that happened and now Iam asking you that to" Yes, Iam well aware of you asking questions! Anyways all of this started in concerning banning in Sudbury, Ontario, 1988. The singing of O'Canada and the reciting of the 'Lord's prayer was authorized and made legal originally by Regulation 262, Sec-28-(1) of the Education Act. Regarding complaints Section 28 of Regulation 262 encouraged or pressured religious minorities to conform to the practices of the Christian majority and that was an infringement of Section 2 (a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, resulting in a BAN. You also wrote- " Certain religions have requirements and they have to be accomodated to a degree" I don't think so. As far as Iam concerned the Islamic religion is simply to dominating for public exosure to other groups who have a right not to be exposed to that kind of stringent religion with controversial content ( in especially a school) as demonstrated by certain present day followers of that religion. I wouldn't want my child around a potential Islamic extremist.

sami You wrote- " What the Muslim world is trying to do is defend itself from what it considers itself as a second crusade." This is right out of the pages of ' tales of fiction'. You also wrote- " Our policies are made only to benefit us." And that's what the problem is. Your policies are all based on one common denominator, 'hate'.

Michael Hardner You wrote- " Allowing freedom of religion is vital to our status as a forward thinking democracy. We need to resolve issue's ariund public prayer and secularism with an eye on the future not the past. As such our Charter of rights and Freedom for separating church and state, and defining individual rights." We already have all the rights you need sire to accomodate in a private manner your specific religion. The problem though is you want to dominate and accomodate publicly the whims of a specific religion when battle lines have already been drawn up by the previous Liberal government to in fact cater to imported religious views by the separation of church and state especially pertaining to Christianity to accomodate those views. But now I gather you want government to return to recognizing religion including specific legal rights, but not Christianity but I presume Islamic or some other. Surley you jest. You also wrote- " Christian prayer hasen't been disallowed- it has only been made optional rather than manatory." The Lord's prayer a single short prayer was banned publicly in the classroom's of the nation. To say it has been made optional is ludicrous as this option is available 'privately' to any person of any religion.

sami You wrote- " I am sorry guys, but your attempt to claim Muslims as violent in comparison to other elements this centuries is borderline ridiculous." What are you saying sami?? Many wars include genocide or ethnic cleansing. What Mulims are doing following Islam is trying to dominate the world incorporating outright fear. Their doing this without a military, just a gang of extremist thinking they are accomplishing something by blowing themselves up in crowds of people with only the prospect of being rewarded by 'virgin's in heaven'. Pretty sick, pretty violent and defies all logic. But worse still is this is a highly organized effort and should be treated as an 'act of war' and treated as such by any country that is affected by these 'gangs of murderous cowards' against the source country of these deranged people.

Jerry Seinfield Is the U.S. 100% capitalism?? That's the inconsequential point BD was making.

In all seriousness Brison cannot in anyway shape or form be considered PM material as there are to many external predispositons are against this individual and would or could be considered a risk to the party.

Capitalism in the U.S. is known as a "mixed economic system". So, in fact it is not a socialist state like BD claims.

thejolyrodger You wrote- " P.S. Christianity did not build Canada ...Canadians did." One would have to very naive not to admit Canadian Christians were responsible for the building of Canada in the same religious fashion of the U.S. Christianity provided support for the conventional concept of marriage in Canada encouraging strong family ties and bonds in conjunction with government and buisness suppling the commercial resources to make this union viable through a concept of democracy and capitalism. Our system excells all others on the planet and is taken advantage of by other free and democratic countries mainly with great thanks to the U.S. for refining and encorporating this system and the universal language of the world English. Even Islamics and other socities ruled by religion are flocking to Canada to take advantage of the great system built by MAINLY Christians and a democratic government. We have many things to be thankful for in this country includes Christianity and let's not forget that all important factor.

Slavik You wrote- " so yes Canada should be seen as a secular nation." I made an error four posts back when I said- " The point Sami was trying to make I think, was that Canada is not a secular country (church controlled) compared to other religious controlled countries like Islamic countries." What I meant to say was... Canada is a secular country (not church controlled) and what your saying our legal code does not support any particular religion is not exactly correct either. But not everyone agrees that the Charter was implemented in a democratic way in 1982 when it was added to our original BNA Act by excluding a national referendum. What right does the government have to seperate church and state when Christianity and it's traditons have built this country? Regardless our Charter does support elements of the Catholic religion over any other religion so in that sense the country cannot be considered a fully secular country but rather a partial one. Canadians are entitled to their religious beliefs concerning the majority Christian religion and with non- government support I think helps destroys the binding force concerning unity and sells out our countries religious traditions.

BubberMiley You wrote- " So of that 43%, between 20 and 32% actually practice religion. All hail to the secular majority." If your talking fiqures relating to Christianity you must add the other 29% Protestant and when combined with Roman Catholic gives us 72% or 21.5 million Christian Canadians. So Bubber what are you trying to insinuate that we are a country of pagans? The point Sami was trying to make I think, was that Canada is not a secular country (church controlled)compared to to religious controlled countries like Islamic countries. But we have Charter factors concerning religion, swearing on a bible in a court of law, UN ruling that Canada discriminates concerning funding of Catholic schools, Quebec's own Charter, and a previous Liberal Prime Minister who was adamant regarding the separation of church and state. So has far as Iam concerned this whole confusing issue should be left to the legislators of this country as they got us there initially with Charter Rights and advocating separation of Church and state when it is clear Christianity is embedded in Canadian society.

geoffrey You wrote- " I agree although this would mostly impact fruit growers and farmers. Most manufacturing industry is unionised so illegal labour is rare." It is not only manufacturing that is affected as the construction and hospitality industries employ many illegal immigrants.

sami You wrote- " We are a secular country, not a Muslim and not a Christian one." According to 2001 census we are a primarily Christian country and NOT a secular country. Roman Cathilic= 12.8 million or 43% of the population Protestant= 8.7 million or 29% of the population Orthodox= 479,600 or 1.4% of the population Jewish =479, 600 or 1.1% of the population Islamic= 579,600 or 2% of the population Hindu= 297,200 or 1% of the population Sikh= 278,400 or 1% of the population Buddhists= 300,000 or 1% of the population No religion= 4.8 million or 16% of the population You also wrote - " It does not matter or is a majority or minority, all religions should be treated equally." They are sami. You are permitted to worship the religion of your choice. But what you are suggesting is forcing your beliefs during the hours of school or work which is not the responsibility of society as a whole, especially in a place supported by public tax dollars. Simply use the resources supplied by your religion.

geoffrey You wrote- " They don't pay taxes if they are here illegally. It's under the table." Another factor to consider is big buisness already receives various subsidies from different levels of government and now are treated royally by tax payers who are in fact subsidizing their labour pool by hiring illegal immigrants. Buisness should be severely warned concerning this practice or charged. This could partly explain why certain sectors of society are becoming richer and others poorer.

sami You wrote- " If they remove prayer rooms , does that mean kids will now have to break from school and go home to pray? I don't see the point in that. I had prayer rooms when I was in high schools." I think this question belongs in the hands of your religious leaders who must face the reality concerning your stringent minority religious beliefs or possibly considering private schools for Muslims who insist on praying five times a day. The Lord's Prayer was eliminated as you yourself claiming it was replaced with "quiet reflection time" which is also discrediting token acknowledgement with a small short prayer to the major religion Christianity this country was found on.

Drea You wrote- " Those who accept the official "version" of the "story" are blinded by there patriotism to GW Bush's America ( not the real America, that's all gone now folks-- sadly never to return)." Of course I accept the 'official version'. I live in north America and contrary to what you believe I have faith in the U.S. no matter who leads the country and personally I like G.W. Bush...you don't think he makes all decissions in a singular manner or fashion do you? Or is it you simply dislike the Republicans? You didn't answer my question...who's side are you on??

Bad link- See story at ctv.ca

It's about time government gets tough with illegal immigrants who have no respect for Canada's immigration laws and legal citizen's of this country. http://www.toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local...hub=TorontoHome

Drea Gee, who's side are you on anyways???

Warwick Green I cannot believe the double standard on this site suppoting foreign religious aspirations when it was the Muslims directly responsible for the elimination of the harmless 'Lord's prayer' in public schools. I suggest they follow school policy and go and pray in your mosques or whatever your official place of worship where all other religions do their praying. Stop embarrassng the country and it's schools with your minority religious views on public property.

Renegade The complexity I am talking about again stems from the troublesome Trudeau era and covers Trudeau's version of a 'just society' which centers on Quebec's place in society at the expense of the Canadian tax payer. This carries on from a wanted bicultural society to a multi-cultural society but for all practical purposes primarily centered on a bi-cultural society and progressed out of a no choice situation to a multi-cultural society. So the question of producing evidence in one area is impossible as a series of events is responsible for the situation where as Canadians are denied the infrastructure they built and nourished. I have already indicated mixed cultures are problamatic and my preference to immigration is 'White and English speaking' and I have every right to these views just as you have to your anti-White views. I think everthing as pretty well been covered and basically boils down to concerning this particular issue is 'personal opinion' in which we both totally disagree with one another and there is no sense in carring on very repetitous unproductive dialogue.

Renegade I don't have to agree to the concensus that high levels of ETHNIC IMMIGRATION is good for this country it is the government of this land that came to this harmful conclusion along with Charter changes without a national referendum. No government is going to advocate civil war and must accept the previous governments binding policies and can only attempt or change change previous legislations. Like I said previously Canadians were led down the garden path by initially a corrupt Liberal government unable to properly lay it's cultural cards on the table and is now paying the price. No one is objecting to NORMAL levels of immigration and it is clear you do not understand the complexity of this situation nor the reasons of objection outside of your continual 'RACIST ACCUSATIONS.'

Drea You wrote- " Why then did you say "only in America". That country is the only country in the world that harbours every culture and race in the world with very little cultural malcontent and everyone respects 'America comes first' over any private cutural aspiration factors. In other words most are happy to be freely assimilated and be proud of their American flag and the beliefs that go with it. You also wrote- " Blacks did not immigrate to the U.S. They were stolen and brought over. So they really can't "go home" now can they." Part of what you say is true but slavery was an accepted part of life in Southern U.S. and I don't condone that fact. But Blacks have progressed and many or most are treated like any other American. But they are free to migrate where ever they wish just like I as a Canadian might be forced to migrate because of government actions in this country and that is keeping Canada poor because of cultural related government ideologies.

Renegade Again you are trying to imply racist notions by including 'White' in everthing that spews from your keyboard. Is it my fault our society is predominately 'White' and I make reference to that fact? Again the point is in reference to 'significant ethnic immigration' and handing them the keys to an existing successful established society overiding an existing financially stagnant population due to the incompetent actions of various levels of governments. This is not immigrants fault but they are the medium used by government to cover their irreparable actions caused by government incompetency. And you find it wrong that Canadians should complain because of this? To have ethnic culture invade our country and compete culturally? Cultures are problamatic. Case in point English Canada vs. French Canada. Serious problems were avoided basically by forced government intervention to force the English to finance Quebec's cultural aspirations along with a Charter that discriminates aginst the English and advances that cultures ideologies even further into Canadian society. To be truthfull Iam sick and tired of cultural malcontent and discrimination and am voicing my opinion that the government of this country erred badly to keep immigration 'White and English speaking' and failed Canadian society to steer society to where immigration is not required.

Drea Why don't you read previous posts before posting comments that were already addressed.