Drea

So are you giving your home to native land claims? Or are you simply a "renter" who has no stake in ownership? I find those that don't own anything don't want anyone else to own anything either. A while back *110% of British Columbia was "claimed" by natives... I guess they'll have to as Alaska if they can have that coastal area. Good luck with that. *including the cities Kind of reminds me of the story of the hen... Who will help me clear the land? Not I said the native Who will help me build the buildings? Not I said the native Who will help me reap the profits from my clearing and building? I will! I will! said the native.

As I pointed out the age of "Leo" would have been from 10000bce to 8000bce... so why would the Egyptians build a monument of a Lion if they lived during the age of Taurus? Should they have not built a bull instead? Also there is absolutely no documentation regarding the building of either the Sphinx nor the Great Pyramids. And the Egyptians recorded every single thing -- every trade agreement, every death... even when and how much the Pharoh crapped on a daily basis; but nothing on the building of the most impressive monuments on earth. Why? Because they did not build them. A much more ancient civilization did (or maybe you believe aliens did it?) Also, why do you think that Christians call Jesus the "Fisher of Men"? Why is the symbol for Jesus a fish? Because we are in the age of Pisces -- the end of it thankfully. I wonder what the "water bearerer" will be? LOL Maybe we will start worshipping whales and dolphins or icecream buckets.

The constellation was still there if by another name or in another language... If I call you *Jake* does your appearance change? Do you disappear as MDancer? Of course not. And dogs were around millenia ago, but probably not called the word "dog" but alas they still existed. Are you denying the fact that the earth has a 25,920 year precessional wobble? Here I can't get the link to work, nor will it allow me to copy and paste: http://ancientegypt.hypermart.net/royalarch/ The earth travels through space around the sun. It travels through spaces that are labelled by human beings accoding to which astrological constellation rose during that era. Astrological signs are/were used by human beings for the telling of time. It's not about "personality traits" or predicting the future. It is a tool for mankind to tell where it is in the largess of the earth's time span. By the way, the earth travels backwards throught the constellations (lets call them constellations that way you won't be confused and think I'm talking about some evil astrological/witchcrafty type of thing okay.)

Precession The Sphinx was built during the age of Leo... and if each age is approx 2000 years and we are entering Aquarius it would make sense then that: 2000ce to 4000ce -- Aquarius the Water Bearer 1ce to 2000ce -- Pisces the fish 2000bce to 4000bce -- Aries the Ram 4000bce to 6000bce -- Taurus the Bull 6000bce to 8000bce -- Gemini the Twins 8000bce to 10000bce -- Leo the Lion During these ages the constellation would rise before the sun on the winter solstice ushering in a new age. The age of Aquarius begins on December 21, 2012. Royal Arch

Precession The Sphinx was built during the age of Leo... and if each age is approx 2000 years and we are entering Aquarius it would make sense then that: 2000ce to 4000ce -- Aquarius the Water Bearer 1ce to 2000ce -- Pisces the fish 2000bce to 4000bce -- Aries the Ram 4000bce to 6000bce -- Taurus the Bull 6000bce to 8000bce -- Gemini the Twins 8000bce to 10000bce -- Leo the Lion During these ages the constellation would rise before the sun on the winter solstice ushering in a new age. The age of Aquarius begins on December 21, 2012. Royal Arch

Precession The Sphinx was built during the age of Leo... and if each age is approx 2000 years and we are entering Aquarius it would make sense then that: 2000ce to 4000ce -- Aquarius the Water Bearer 1ce to 2000ce -- Pisces the fish 2000bce to 4000bce -- Aries the Ram 4000bce to 6000bce -- Taurus the Bull 6000bce to 8000bce -- Gemini the Twins 8000bce to 10000bce -- Leo the Lion During these ages the constellation would rise before the sun on the winter solstice ushering in a new age. The age of Aquarius begins on December 21, 2012. Royal Arch

Some Egyptologists will argue that the Sphinx was built by them but they are wrong. They also believe that the Pharoh head was there as part of the original sculpture. They are wrong -- they wrecked a perfectly good peice of history by adding the human head (idiots!). Originally it was built during the age of `Leo`which was approx 10,000 years ago. We are now leaving the age of Pisces and into the age of Aquarius... Age of Leo

Surely is Chauchee... Hey Chauchee -- Disneyland is in the USA, not Canada. Gosh, you ought to try doing a bit of simple research before you post.

Discovery HD is right now airing a program on the evolution of agriculture. I believe human beings have had civilization for tens of thousands of years. There is evidence of water erosion on the Sphinx... and there has been no water on the Sahara for 10,000 years. I believe there was a world wide catastrophe about 8000 years ago... which would explain alot of `odd`extinctions. Mastadons, Sabre toothed cats, north american horses... the ancients that the Sumerians mention in their texts.. And this civilization will be wiped out too. Whether by nature or by mankind, it will perish. And when a future civilization finds evidence of us they will think we worshipped a shiny black box as we all have one in a prominent place in our homes. They will assume we recieved `special`*instructions from this `box` and that it must have been vital to our communion with `gods`. *and they will be correct in that assumption.

As has the English language evolved. Even in different areas of Britain the language is spoken in various dialects.... your point? [ Yes and you are stuck with the same old same old (never created or invented anything new) while the world moves on. While your totems are quaint they certainly are not "art" in any way. Native art is the lamest, easiest to create garbage... we all made a native mask in grade school... took one class to make the finish product. pffft. You think you are "better" because of "complexion"? Some people despise caucasians (of which you are 50% by the way) for childish reasons -- body hair and baldness have no bearing on a person's attitude or personality... unless you are a very shallow human being. Hey we agree -- I don't like to use Wikipedia either as it is biased. (Kinda like you innit?) Stupid bolding by the way-- does that make you feel special? Can't use the same font as everyone else can you? You sitting there thinking "I will look very smart if no one can read my posts!" ?

Along with the Bering Strait theory, there is also a theory that white europeans came across the (much lower) Altlantic Ocean. Native peoples are a blend of Oriental (flat noses, eye folds, little body hair) and Caucasians (long straight noses, high cheekbones, thin lips). Many many native people (especially the Inuit) could easily pass for oriental. So the natives owe their existence to both the orientals from Asia and the caucasians from Europe.

North American horses were extinct long before any settlers arrived... Natives obviously didn't think of the horse as a helper, but as food. History -- horses

Leafless, get over the French already! Sheesh. They have such sexy accents, leave 'em alone... And they deserve to be arrogant -- they've kept their culture intact in the twenty first century -- our so-called British heritage (I am not a Brit, are you?) got sucked into the "American" way.... that really pisses you off doesn't it? That the French get to have their own culture and language and yours has dissipated? Put the shoe on the other foot for a minute... Imagine if Alberta were the only english speaking province and how it would fight to keep that heritage...

For the most part I agree Moxie. But I think the problem is not in the fact that we allow them here but the fact that they all congegrate in one area. If they had to disperse throughout the country instead of all into the big cities I beleive we would have less of a problem. It's difficult to be a gangbanger at 50 below in a community of 4000. If they all were dispursed to our smalll towns they would have no choice but to integrate and learn the language. It would be tough to find somoneone else in Valemount, for example, who would be sympathetic to the "old" issues from the "old" country. As it is now they simply move from their old country to the old-country-within-the-new-country and never need interact with anyone out of their immigrant community. That is what is wrong in my opinion. Didn't we do this with Indians (not native peoples, people from India)... have them move to small towns back in the 70's?

Where does the money to build houses on reserves come from? The government. Where does the government get the money from? The taxpayer. So yah, you are living in a house paid for by others. That is why you have no respect for it or for yourself. It is a proven fact that if a person does not work for something (have a vested interest in it) he will not take care of it. This is fact. Just drive through any reserve and see how rundown the homes are... then drive through any "other" area (where people have worked and pay for their homes) and see how they are maintained. Just like a story I heard a while back... a wealthy man had bought his sons each an expensive car... one son wrecked his and the father was asking "should I buy him another one?" What do you think the father should do? Buy another one for the son who wrecked his?

Canada no longer has a leg to stand on regarding it's own seperating province. How the heck is the gov't supposed to fight Quebec seperation now? ... if they can do it with Canada's blessing so can Quebec. And that is what the Bloc will run with... Stupid stupid Harper.

IF handguns were as prolific here as they are in the states I would expect this teen would have been carrying one... she DID threaten the mall manager -- she said 'My daddy is a Hells Angel and he's gonna kill you!". Mall manager would be dead if guns were prolific -- as a daughter of an angel...she would have one... For sure. But I am all for guns. We should all have one. We should all shoot a person (or get shot) at least once in our lives -- it's not really free living if we don't (according to some). Do you understand facetious?

we should do the same here in Canada. That way we'd know that all gangbangers have 'em and the police wouldn't have to "guess" whether or not they are packing and could shoot them on sight. I am for it. And the young teen that threatened a mall manager and sprayed silly string in her face and wrote graffiti on the walls yesterday -- she could have simply shot her. Done. Of course the teen wouldn't be spraying silly string all over the mall -- she would've been spraying bullets -- nonetheless it would be a great excuse to take out a useless piece of skin imo. We all need handguns.

So "low level" christianity is better than non belief? But the only difference (as pointed out) between you and I is that I believe in one less god than you do. It's not a stretch really, to go from believing in one to believing in none. In my opinion the world was probably alot better off when all people thought of "god" was a "mother nature, all encompassing" concept. Monotheist religions are, by their very nature, exclusionary and violent -- do as I say or go to a burning pit (violent) and He doesn't believe the same as me so he is going to burn in a pit (exclusionary). I exclude no one. In my so-called belief system we all just wink out like little light bulbs. All equal. None excluded. And atheism is not a belief system. There is no atheist doctrine to follow, no rules of behaviour to be followed, no "if you do this, you get that". Frig how many time does it need to be pointed out for you folks? A Brazilion perhaps? We are all born atheists by the way. It IS the default position and therefore the most natural.

No matter what you or I or the dog next door believes... This woman was only able to escape the chains of Islam by becoming an atheist. If atheists didn't voice their opinions this woman would not even know that atheism is an option. Good for her that she found acceptance in atheism. She can now live her life free of idiotic dogma from a religion that deems her as simply a vessel for sperm (if that). If she had to convert to Christianity or *insert your dogma here*, she would have to jump through all of those "hoops" and I'll bet she is damn tired of jumping through religious hoops. Well she is doing much more than I am. And good for her -- we should all applaud her efforts instead of calling one another "fanatical". None of us are fanatics. But I am sure anyone fanatical, regardless of religion, will be on her radar.

So you must also believe that it's a-ok for women to be stoned, burned, etc... as long as it's kept quiet? How can you say they are wrong? They are just believers like you are they not? they just want to be left alone to believe their ideology. Fanatics cannot be "left alone" to do whatever they want. And if the only way to rid the world of these people is to educate everyone else -- so be it -- I am only one little part of the education process. Do you think that this woman would have been able to become an atheist if there were no other atheist voices? I may be a loud atheist, but that does not make me a fanatic. Thank. You. Very. Much.

Well AW, neener neener to you to. You run around calling people "fanatics" and have no clue what that actually means. I bet Maryam Namazie knows exactly what a "fanatic" is and I highly doubt if she would consider me to be in the same category as those who would stone her sisters. Too bad you can't tell the difference. It would make it alot easier to rid the world of actual fanatics if people like you would stop branding people fanatical. Would I kill you if you didn't convert to atheism? Would I kill you if you didn't wear what I tell you to wear? Would I kill you if you were raped? Atheists (no matter how loud they are) are not fanatics. Fanatics kill people (in 2008 we're not talking WWII here). Atheists just roll our eyes at the quaint notion of a sky daddy.

Right On! It's about time us atheists were recognized as the insurmoutable force that we are. By this time next year you will be praying in your linen closet for fear of atheist invasion. Booga booga. I bet you figured she should convert to your brand of insanity? Well she grabbed a brain and realized that she has no need of an ancient judgemental woman hater. And now she has joined that fanatical evangelical atheist movement you are so afraid of. She probably even realizes that the god-notion she tossed out is the same god you pray to. Good for her.

well this little feminist lefty thinks she is the greatest! Gives me hope that a muslim is willing to give up their antiquated notion of the sky entity -- maybe others will too! Cheers to a world without religious dogma!

You're right Argus. Western women do not face near the level of discrimination as in strict Muslim society. How does one educate a populace that believes men are inherently superior to women and that women are distainable creatures that need to be controlled, hidden from view and abused...? Suicide must be awfully high among women in Muslim countries. *sigh*