sharkman

You'll have to find a more unbiased source than WorldNetDaily to make your point; the article seems to tell about half the story, and is very slanted. I tried to find some information elsewhere about the case and wasn't successful, but I did follow the link to the lawyers' home page. I'd be wary of lawyers who have their own agendas to push - are they out for the best interests of their clients or are they trying to further their own causes? However, to the point of your post, on the surface I would agree that there should be no barrier to the establishment of a Christian club in a high school, just as there should be no barrier to the establishment of a gay club. As long as no one is compelled to join either one, and members are respectful of those who don't choose to join, what's the problem? Oh come on, people! Liam linked 2 or 3 articles defending the aclu and they were from the ACLU website, and I didn't notice any of you saying boo about it. At least my source is independant of the two involved in the legal goings on. And so, Melanie, it would appear that 1) The ACLU is against more than prayer in schools and 2) You disagree with them on this one, since they are against the establishment of the Christian club. BD, I realize that the big 10 are not your cup of tea, but they are also not state sponsored anything in the U.S.

Happy that you agree you are engaged in speculation. The CBC is 'biased', to a certain degree, but nothing is free from it, and 'piblic' media is likely to be less biased than privately owned outlets. That's the way it should be, but there are too many activists on salary at the CBC and it keeps showing up in stories like these.

The ACLU isn't against Christianity, it is against forced prayer in schools. When a prayer (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wicca, whatever) is read over the PA system, everyone is subject to it, and is expected to respect it. Its the imposition and promotion of one set of beliefs over another that is the issue here, not which set of beliefs it is. Johnny, there is an older thread in the Moral and Religious Issues forum called Prayer in Schools that you might be interested in reading. I'm sure there are others there as well, but this one was quite long and well debated. The ACLU is against far more than that, here's one such case, where they supported legal precedent for a gay club in a high school, but then reveresed their support of the precedent when it was used to argue the establishment of a Christian club in a high school. They also hate the words intelligent design, and of course the big bad ten(cover your eyes!) commandments.

What? Both of them? . You obviously have a bad memory and were too lazy to actually LOOK at your posts on this thread. You have 7 posts that talk about Ann either directly or indirectly, 5 of them before I made my first post to you. If you can't deal with your Ann derangement disorder yet, that's fine, but when anyone can count your posts and you only claim two, it reflects poorly on you. Any idiot can see that! Also, perhaps I didn't know enough about you, but I called you a liberal based on your 7 post reaction to Ann. If I am wrong, so be it.

A PM goes to a hockey game in Edmonton on his way to Vancouver. Not a big deal. Now if he bought 2 brand new jets with taxpayer money when there were perfectly good ones in service already like Chretien, then you've got something. Until then, you've got nothing.

There have been 15 posts either directly or indirectly refering to Ann, this in a thread about a high school student getting her mike shut off. Personally, I love it. Kill, you've made the most posts in this thread with Ann content by far. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Try counting your posts on this thread, it may surprise you. Hitler was a bad example. Notoriety? He changed the map of Europe and killed millions of Jews. Geez, why is it when liberals get into with someone, before you know it the Nazis are brought up.

Ha, you anti-CBC people are hilarious. I checked the globe and mail website and the national post website, and still no mention of it. I guess you think the national post has a liberal agenda? Well, then I'm glad to provide even more entertainment, because the issue isn't what the post or G&M have, it's what the CBC has. Thank you for looking, but don't you think it's a little odd that the CBC is the only one that has it? How about they were tipped off, and got the scoop soas to shape the story. So how long have you worked for the CBC?

Wow, 10 minutes. You were on my post like white on rice in 10 minutes. She must be under your skin and how. And leaders of countries don't count, on account of that they can use armies to attack those they don't like. A twit with a nuke or an army is dangerous. A twit who writes books is easy to ignore. But Ann isn't.

'Procreative drive' and sexual drive are two different things. The church tried to demand that they be inextricably linked, but the majority of people would not like to have kids every time they have sex. What of oral and anal sex? Some prefer it, some don't. Would you suggest that I have brain damage because I like it when my wife goes down on me?It could be said that Homosexuality is a product of human advancement. When we no longer had to gear all of our activities to basic survival, we had more options. One thing that was created was 'leisure time', and sex for pleasure, rather than survival. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but nobody bats a 1000 in the ol' making babies department. Oral and anal are for people who get bored with regular sex, which begs the question just how much sex are you getting that you'd get bored with it and need new orifices? If Homo sex is the product of human advancement, then how come it was around in Roman times. Cause rumor has it they weren't so advanced back then, hmm?

Ah, yes, another thread hi-jacked by the personality of Ann Coulter. She's obviously being very effective to be under the skin of so many even up here in Canada. If she was just a mindless twit, it would be self evident and no one would feel the need to put her down. I think I'll read one of her books and see what all the fuss is about. Here's her take on democrats who worked nonstop for decades to get the price of gas up in the States, who now try to defend the rights of the average family from said high prices. AnnieCoulter

This is an absolute crock by the CBC. If any CBCers are reading this you have given me much mirth today. Any Canadian with half a brain knows if this had been tabled by the CPC, you'd have led your news with this groundbreaking threat to take us back into the dark ages of back alley abortions. Since a Liberal does it, you give it very little coverage and call it preserving womens' rights. Still trying to correct the 'mistake' of the voters' last election, are we? Protecting the Liberals at all costs and slanting all stories to give them favorable coverage will not work. But keep trying, like I said it's providing much mirth at your expense.

That's an astute observation. Same with the types that feel that have the 'wrong' sex.

But she is a homophobe. As I stated earlier, she clearly believes homosexuals are (as they say in academia) an "other" undeserving of participating in the same social institutions or enjoying the same status as heterosexuals. That's pretty damn homophobic to me. Homophobia, like rascism or sexism, mainifests itself in many different ways. A phobia is a fear, as I'm sure you know. Homophobe is like calling one a chicken. It's the most overused insult going, and does not add to the discourse. Usually, when someone has differences with the way I view things, I recognize it for what it is, a disagreement. In this debate in Canada, I can see that the left will once again try to whip up the fear factor by throwing phobia around. It didn't work last election, and I think Canadians are intelligent enough to recognize when they are being manipulated.

The school board obviously overstepped their bounds. They gave her some broad guidelines as to why mentioning God was inappropriate, but failed to mention they'd shut her mic off if she strayed. However, I think by the sounds of it they forewarned the sound tech to shut it off if she wandered. But it doesn't sound out of line for the education system down there. Remember 9/11, when many universities felt it 'inappropriate' to fly their own flag(U.S.) in the days after in case it might offend some of their foreign students. Political Correctness is just another form of censorship. Mentioning God when it's on American money and embedded in their constitution is not unreasonable.

No, I think rebuking is for a different circumstance. On the gay issue, we are just standing up for the truth, being the salt of the earth, so to speak. Maybe it's correcting. I think rebuking is for deeper spiritual matters or maybe one Christian to another who knows better. But I agree about forgiving. We can not forgive someone of their sin. Only God can do that. But we are to forgive a transgression.

How did the Liberals push anti-religion? Was it really anti-religion, or was it that they promoted social issues that did not jive with Christianity? It seems to me there is a huge difference. However you want to define it, the CPC is moving in a more traditional family/sensitive to religion direction than the Liberals were. Again, after 12 years of one direction from the Liberals, it would take a very long time to negate that with going in the opposite direction. Surely, at least you can understand what I'm saying.

I can see your point, but after over a decade of pushing an anti-religion stance under the Liberals, some small steps the other way do not begin to compare. If in 10 years, we have the same gov, I could understand concern, but not now.

On the whole, I must say I think the rules are quite fair here. I have had a few posts deleted at another forum, when I said get back to me when Christian missionaries are blowing people up and massing their populations, like in France. As you can imagine, this was in response to a comment that equated Christian missonary activities to militant Islam. One of his phrases was, " Maybe that's why some of these places string missionaries up." The moderatore recieved complaints about my post( I never called names or defamed him) but never deleted this post I've described. When I asked him to delete this other post as well to be fair, he declined, telling me not to blame other posters for my comments! I then invited him to revoke my membership, as I didn't want to frequent a forum that applied its rules as thus. Like I said, this place allows passionate debate as long as general guidelines are followed, and I find it pretty reasonable.

Well said, and an earlier post included results to a poll saying 65% of Canadians find nothing wrong with Harper using the phrase under question. Actual policy deserves scruntiny, but this?

Jesus also didn't deal with white color crime, masterbation, S&M, or saying you believe in the Sabbath but then going out and eating food in a restaurant, making other people work on a Sabbath. But it's easy to work your way through these issues if you follow the weight of the bible's teachings, if you see what I mean. I suppose I am getting off track and I don't mean to preach at anyone, so... By the way, Jesus didn't spare her life, He saved it.

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?