sharkman

Or Jews.Ostentatious displays of piety are not something typical Jewish person does or expects from others. Harper uses those words because he is trying to send a message to Christians that 'one of them' is running the country. If his intention was to make a truly inclusive statement then he would have chose a more ambiguous phrase without a historical connection to Christianity. You are very suspicious of Harper. Maybe he's saying it to signal his secret alliance with Dubya who says God all the time. Maybe he's saying it to tick off the Liberals who wouldn't mention God if their Catholic lives depended on it. Maybe he just wants God to bless Canada. Tell me this: why would a politician say something like this when he knows he could alienate voters, when he has a minority government? It doesn't add up.

Understandable. Just like an ex-smoker tends to be very anti-smoking more than anyone else. Or someone who decided to become vegetarian....and now can't stand even the smell of meat. Very well said. And I don't loathe people who identify themselves as Christian either. I do feel that some people just say they are Christian but do not act very Christ-like. Christ was not judgemental, he was forgiving. Being anti-gay is not a forgiving way of living one's life. Jesus was very judging when he cast sellers out of the temple. Didn't he also have strong judgements on the Pharisees and the chief Priests? There is a place to say something is wrong, just as you have stated it's wrong to claim to be a Christian and then live without morals. As for anti-gay, I don't know how you view the Bible, but in Romans 1:27 it clearly states homosexuality is an error. For believers of the Bible to state this does not make them judgemental.

The traditions of the country he is in include the freedom the believe in a religion of his choosing so there should be absolutely nothing wrong with him saying such a thing. However, I am sure there would be many people who would be up in arms over such a comment. That is why I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticise Harper for making statements that clearly favour one religion over another. If you agree that there is nothing wrong with a Muslim PM calling on Allah to bless the country then I will agree there is nothing wrong with Harper calling on the Christian god to do the same. Okay, works for me.

In all seriousness, anyone who feels insulted by that should leave Canada. I would be more than willing to help pay their way to some more suitable home. In all seriousness, that statement is ridiculous. Most people who call themselves Christians are for the most part non-practising. Just do a poll and see how many Canadians actually attend chruch and you'll see it is far below 50%. Another fundamental error in your reasoning is this: Harper does not embody Christianity. He is apparently one of the most foul-mouthed politicians in the land. Oh, I would like do move to Honduras...if you would please deposit the airfare into my paypal account I would appreciate it. It's one thing to be religious, it is another thing to just say "Hey, I am religious...now let's get back to the f***ing negotiations..." What percentage of Canadians consider themselves Christian is the question you're not asking. But how many Canadians attend church, or what Harper may or may not embody are side bar issues at best. Again, Canada has a background that happens to be Christian, so for a PM to say God Bless Canada once in a while is not out of line, unless you've got a religious chip on your shoulder. Oh, and more bad news: I hear there are Christians in Honduras.

Please answer the question: how would you feel if the PM starting ending his speeches with 'May the light of Allah shine on Canada'? The answer is this is a country with a religious background. That background happens to be Christian. If a PM uses a quaint expression that includes the religious tradition of a country, it is no big deal, except for those with the above mentioned chip.For a PM to ask Allah's blessing, he would have to be a Muslim. The chances of that happening are slim and none. Even if it did, I bet he would observe the tradition of the country he's in. Why do people who want to debate something always come up with far out what ifs or use examples that happen to .00001% of the population?

God bless Canada is only insulting to Canadians with a religious chip on their shoulders. People with chips on their shoulders are usually patronized to their faces and ignored at all other times. There is no insult in that phrase.

You forgot to thank the little people! I'm only at 500 and something posts, oh well.

This is just politics 101, blaming the previous administration. I don't think McGuinty is the first. You can't blame them, what with over a decade of Liberal super arrogance and waste to clean up.

Your original statement was that Iran and Israel were 'end of days' proponents. I disagreed with this since this is a Christian thing (Second coming) and neither of those 2 countries are Christian. Iran's leader is crazy like a fox, I wouldn't believe anything he says, but would look to see what the effects of his words have. That might be closer to why he says them. Now, what specific groups within those countries might believe, that is another thing altogether.

Maybe try a few more shakes! Iran does not believe in the second coming or 'end of days' and neither does Israel. Bush may, but he hasn't send any troops to Israel yet as far as I know.

It's not meant to be neutral. It's meant to take a position. He rebuts other positions. If you want to make an anti-earth documentary, go right ahead. People can go see both and decide which side they're on. I think you and August are missing my point. You say he rebuts other positions, but these are hand picked talking points that Gore recites. Sure it's not meant to be neutral, but if he's not bringing in people of note who disagree with him it's just propaganda. Don't get me wrong, watch anything you want, but he's just preaching to the converted.

Uh, I think you are mixing up parts of different christian theories. The second coming scenario happens after Israel is wiped off the map. I haven't heard of any groups wanting to bring about the second coming by strengthening Israel. Defending it against her enemies is not part of some conspiracy, it's just a result of Hitler's extermination. Also, the bible refers to Israelis realizing that Jesus was the son of God, which isn't exactly conversion to Christianity, but I could see how some missionaries might be in Israel with this teaching.

I believe your list is sound, but the reality is immigrants can't just change their spots when they come to Canada. Since it is very desirable to live in Canada, they simply hide their spots. People that have lived in a religious dictatorship all of their lives and have learned to hate other religions or races will simply continue to live with these and other undesirable qualities embedded in their brains. The only immigration strategy that would reduce these concerns you have would be to accept applicants from countries that share our ideals only . For instance, a country that believes men and women are equal and is not a theocracy.

Perhaps it could be said that the U.S. template for governing is sound, but it can only be as good as the people running it. What troubles many is the way their Supreme court can look at the Constitution and decide it means something different than has been widely accepted since it was written. Then the intended design is replaced with a patchwork of changes which will add up to much less than the original.

Exactly. Except, I think this is a case of the party leaving him. It's one of the problems with the kook-left have such influence in the Democratic party. The Kook-Left will drive out more Democrats like Lieberman. Moveon.org made the famous statement "They Owned the Democratic Party" and it sure seems like they do. The Sane Democratic Party of JFK, Bill Clinton is dead.. This wouldn't be without precident, Reagan was orginally a Dem, but his thoughts on the matter were that he didn't leave the Democrat party, it left him.

Any thinking person should be able to see the lack of objectivity in a movie where only one side of the issue is represented. I know, I know, it's alright as long as it's the side you support, right?

It seems that movies are the new forum of the left. I guess they gave up on AM radio since the Air America strategy failed. Why should anyone view this movie as anything but propaganda? Does Gore debate the issues with someone of note who disagrees with the pablim he's spoonfeeding us? No, he hand picks certain talking points of those who think the 'the world is ending' hysteria is bunk, and recites rehearsed lines nicely, but no exchange of ideas occurs, just more dogma. After all, he's just a spokes-model for the left.

Johny, that was a tin foil reference of pure genius!

Seems like you guys are only suspicious of info if it's good for the U.S. For instance today I heard a news report that stated some detainees under U.S. supervision were fed bread and water for a time in 2003. News reports like these are embraced by those who tend to frown on the U.S. Anywhoo, it's still good news for fighting terrorism as al-Qaida is recognized as such even by the CANADIAN government!

New data recovered from al-Qaida shows they have been hurt by continued U.S. operations and the training of Iraqi security forces. Massive arrests, seizures of weapons, squeezing off of the militant's financial outlets, creating divisions within its ranks and training of Iraqi security forces have all taken their toll, documents show al-Qaida admits. It is revealed that their strategies include trying to destroy the relationship between the U.S. and the Shiites in Iraq, as well as escalating the tension between the U.S. and Iran. This links to the damning news for enemies of the U.S. In these documents they drop all pretense of the U.S. being crusaders, not using those terms at all. It's just another cheap attempt at trying to make the conflict a religious one when it is not. This is more great news for the Bush Administration, which has recently seen the top terrorist in Iraq killed, Karl Rove exonerated and it looks like a good June thus far.

Is your memory that selective? You repeatedly called me a fool for crossing pens with you. I still haven't called you anything... I picked up on twit used on others. I consider being called a LEFTY a pretty dreadful name too. I'll check to see if I missed any other good examples. Moreover, an ad hominem is no worse than cases where you've engaged in straw man attack. You know, misrepresenting a post so you can belittle it. You aren't an egregious perpetrator, but you get your digs in. I'll dig again tomorrow evening. Or perhaps you are big enough to point them out yourself? (I'm not slamming there, you might well be. I'd consider it a pleasant surprise these days!) Look Darth, I've never called you any names. You called me fool in one of your very first responses to me. Lefty is a description of a person's leanings, and is nothing like NAZI, which you used on Johnyutah. I do rarely name call, but again, I haven't called you anything. I only brought up lefty in explaining how people could think you are one, since your post info has it displayed under the "from" heading, and you Bush bash. Most people would rub those two facts together and consider you left of center. Like I said, however, I don't know what you are. You trotted out your schooling, even though it was done in a back handed way. I misrepresented nothing. I know afterward you took pains to explain how it was done to show how unlearned you are in that list of name calling that followed, but I'm not buying it. People that name drop or pedigree drop or whatever, are trying to score points with it. And here's a sample of your ranting: (Quote) Come to think of it, I've voted Republican more often than not: Arlen Spector, John Heinz, Bush the First. I never voted for Clinton, and changed my party affiliation for two presidential primaries just to vote AGAINST Cllinton and Kerry in the primaries (and for General Clark as the Democratic nominee). Of course, I've been VERY lucky: in the Atlantic and Northeast states, Republicans HAVE to be moderate in order to get elected. Moderate Republicans are the best problem solvers I know. Not like their neofascist kin. Yeah, I'm some lefty. If I'm a FAR LEFTY then you have to be a nazi-skinhead by comparison to me. In a case of fair for the goose being grist for the gander, I'm gonna call you lump you with the Skinheads and Nazis from here on out. After all, if you think the folks who vote for Spector, Todd-Whitman, and other clear-headed Moderate Republicans, you'd HAVE to be a fascist to call them FAR LEFT. Lynched anybody lately? Made any human skin lampshades? Surely you've gassed somebody? If you haven't got them, I know a place that has Jack-boots, cheap (hell, you might want to buy the boots I used for Halloween '02). I don't have a brown shirt, so you'll have to dig that one up on your own. See ya round, Nazi-boy. (End Quote) A little over the top, perhaps? Don't be common like some of those around here. It's the easy low road.

Actually, no(on what most religious groups came here for). They came so they could practice their religion without interference from the state. Now the state is saying if a young teenager wants advice on where to get an abortion, the school (arm of the state) can help her and not even inform the parents of this operation being performed on their daughter. However, if she is sick, they are not allowed to do anything but give her an aspirin! No wonder Christians are wondering why they are the only ones that see something wrong with the picture. If only there was another undiscovered land to go to practice their faith without interference from the state.

Unfortunately, it's a weapon that is used for political gain. Gets the votes out. You may be right about the tolerance, but I fear we have become so tolerant, right and wrong no longer apply. A society that lives in the year of the morning after pill and the age of the Gland only lives for one or two things. Rats, am I preaching?

Damn, boy, why don't you read what I actually said regarding said education. While logic isn't what I use to earn a living, it's NOT an asset in dealing with Johnny boy, Burnsy, and their ilk. I actually mean JUST what I said: dealing with folks who lie, distort, and get their facts bassackwards are tough for me because I don't usually have to deal with such blatant examples on a day to day basis. In undergrad, I would have been docked for even acknowledging that sort of crap. In debunking neocon falsehoods and half truths, that's a REAL liability. I really DO want to get better at dealing with them, and I'm a bit out of practise. In this case, education in one field (logic) is a DISADVANTAGE in the other (pure retoric, fielding smears and lies, etc.) so I'm not pumping myself up, I'm admitting a real weakness. I beg to differ, you brought up your education in a backhanded way, along with the phrase you like to sharpen your teeth with folks like him. Who even uses language like that? If you care to disagree with someone, fine, but don't expect these kind of strategies to win any points. I will give you that you seem pretty knowledgible, however. Perhaps that's why you draw out some name calling from others who have no such knowledge from which to draw.

Is your memory that selective? You repeatedly called me a fool for crossing pens with you. I still haven't called you anything...