betsy

There's no such things as midwives in that scenario. If you go to the Christian Doctor, the worst thing that could possibly happen to you will be having to listen to his lecture of immorality, and perhaps his attempt to convert you to Christianity. He might talk you out of what you might be asking him to do...but I don't think you have any reasons to be concerned about your own personal sfaety. He is into saving lives, remember? Whereas your fate with the Muslim doctor is quite, let's say.....uncertain. With this doctor's abhorrence of anything having to do with sexual diseases/alcoholism and his insistence on the head-dress, is it far-fetch to assume he is a fundamentalist? Of course you do know how they regard women. What more, how they think immoral women ought to be dealt with. He'd give you a physical, alright! You'd be lucky to get out of his office with your head still attached to your body. Better yet to have a good grip on other possible scenarios, the broadway play "Little Shop Of Horror" comes to mind. For those of you liberal-minded women who support this kind of shenanigans from these Muslim students....you better think again! And mostly for your own good (since most women dealing with morning-after pills, abortion, pre-marital sex, some sexual diseases) are more likely to be liberal-minded like you....you better be loud in nipping this farcical demands of these students right on the bud. And make sure people with minds like these do not ever become doctors in our society. After all, of all people in this society, you should be alarmed the most!

Since some of you had brought in the issue of the Christian doctor, let me ask you this question...that includes Melanie too.... For those brave and open enough to answer, please explain the reason for choosing that doctor. Question: If you are a pregnant, unmarried woman, and there are only two doctors left on earth, which would you rather go to for an emergency physical check-up? You have to choose one. The Christian doctor who refuses to prescribe morning pills because he believes that by doing so he is killing a human being.... or.... The Muslim doctor who had not bothered to take the necessary lectures/exams/requirements on areas that he find offensive such as alcohol-related and sexual diseases (hiv, herpes, the simple clap etc..,) and who demands that you wear a head scarf when you see him. Note that both doctors view pre-marital sex as immoral. I bet there's no question that you'd be lining up with the Christian doctor!

I don't want to get into the morning pill debate again. Whether the morning pill kills a fetus, or prevent fertilization or whatever.....my point is that due to more than one reason, the two incidents regarding the Christian Doctor's refusal to prescribe morning pills and the Muslim students' refusal to complete their training are not comparable at all. The reason most notable is simply the fact that the Christian Doctors refusing to give morning pills are doing so in the belief that they are violating their oath of saving lives. Whether you agree or not with their belief and whether they're wrong or not, the fact remains that their focus remains on saving lives! Isn't that what being a doctor is supposed to be?

A couple of Political Analysts that were guests at Duffy said that the Liberal's problem in Quebec is more likely to have a "mirror" effect in Ontario. They say that the next poll might indicate a number much higher than that since they (the analysts) are starting to see signs of Liberal decline in Ontario and the Maritimes.

The latest poll was given yesterday at MDuffy Live. The question of the poll: Will you be comfortable with a Conservative majority? 60% said yes.

If I'm not mistaken, the doctors who refuse the morning pills are in a moral dilemma simply because they view the fetus (as soon as it is concieved) as a human being....and giving the morning pills is, in their view, committing murder. This is a direct violation of their oath: to save lives. This oath of saving lives is universal among physicians, I might add. And whether they refuse or not, I think it is safe for me to assume that these Christian doctors are nevertheless fully-trained in their profession. That they did not refuse or lack any training regarding pregnancy or lack any knowledge of contraceptives, just because they do not approve of premarital sex. In other words, they've met our Standards. And if push comes to shoves, if for some reasons they are forced to do an abortion, at least we know they can! That is a far cry from the issue we are discussing right now where-in the demands are simply descriminatory. And these are coming from students! There's one big difference there already between the two incidents! Just imagine how these students would be when they become fully licensed! When they have that power! What other outrageous demands they'll impose! Just so to refresh your memory...these are the reasons why the Muslim students refuse to take the course: First of all, as a simple example, how will they be able to treat...or properly diagnose someone with a liver problem if they lack the full knowledge? As a patient, don't you feel alarmed that you might be under a doctor who's actually a quack??? And then what? They'll refuse to treat someone who has liver disease unless they determine and satisfy themselves that this patient did not contract the illness from drinking alcohol? What is this? A Monthy Python skit? Surely, you can see and understand the stark difference between the two incidents. I'm actually surprised that you'd even think of comparing the two.

Right now all these little demands by some Muslim students and others like that dentist, may not look too serious. However there is indeed serious cause for concern. With the shortages of medical doctors, what are the chances that Canadians will end up complying with these demands, including wearing headscarves....or worse, converting to Islamic faith....just to get access to a medical doctor? What, could the radical Muslims found another way towards Islamification of the west? IMHO, this should be nipped at the bud asap. And it should be dealt with in a manner that would discourage others from doing the same. Any Muslim doctors who try to impose any of these shenanigans to anyone seeking medical attention should be reported right away...and if proven guilty, fined quite heavily on the first offense...and lose his license on the second. Students who don't want to complete their training as required by our standard should be booted out of school and should be blackmarked from becoming a doctor. A medical physician has so much power. That power should not be abused or used to coersce or discriminate. A would-be physician who entertains such abusive notions obviously does not have the simple requirement for becoming a doctor: the desire to save lives.

There hasn't been any that I can remember. The only threads that would seem anti-atheist are responses or defenses from some Christians making a stance against atheists aggressively attacking and mocking their religion. Because usually, it is the Christian religion that they are attacking. Of late, they seem to try to include "other religions" and every now and then give a lip service of generalizing all religions.....I suspect, just so it wouldn't be said they are anti-Christians only. The news clip on that convention (somewhere in the States) showed all these paraphernalias they were selling or wearing....all messages shown were just solely anti-Christianity. It makes me think that a lot of these so-called atheists are not atheists in the true sense of the word. Only one or two among our posters here are somehow I'd say consistently proving to be true atheist. Melanie is one I'd believe to be a true atheist. Most are just disgruntled or dis-illusioned former Christians....still having their own personal issues. I could sense their bitterness and angst through the vehemence and hostility. Their views are driven by strong emotions. It leaves me an impression that somehow, they just couldn't simply let go. Their loud uncalled-for insults and mocks only point out to the adage that.... they seem to protest too much.

Some anti-war people, unwittingly, give aid and encouragement to the terrorists. Some anti-war, unwittingly, help tip the scale in favor of the terrorists. Some anti-war, unwittingly, sides with the terrorists. Then, there are those. Ha-ha-ha! Then they should be specific and be very clear about being neutral! They should do their protests on both sides! They should criticize both sides! Precisely. Wouldn't you suspect a game show is rigged if the game host keeps rooting for the other contestant? You still think he is being fair when he keeps on telling you you're wrong even though you know you're right? When he's relentlessly finding faults to keep the score from you whereas he practically lets the other contestant get away with anything?

And the bleeding hearts refuse to see the folly in catering to all these accomodations: the backlash! The irony of it, instead of achieving tolerance and harmony, the seeming do-gooders are only pushing us all towards the opposite direction. Quebec PQ is now trying to pass a legislation that seemed to have two classes of citizenship. And this is in response to the growing concern of reasonable accomodation.

And we're not even talking about global aid yet. If I remember correctly Margrace was crusading for Africa in one of the old threads. Christian Missions have programs for leprosy and poverty in other remote places (one of which is Africa). Btw, they showed an Atheist Covention in the news only recently. They showed the numerous t-shirts they're selling in that convention. One thing that struck me....all the logos and messages on the various t-shirts were all mocks and negative attacks on Christianity. And only Christianity! I must say this Atheist Convention could very well be called, "The Anti-Christian Movement."

In that segment, I was discussing with AW the sarcasm in Scott's statement and for whom that sarcasm was clearly intended. The said statement cited by AW was: Thus I repeat my response for that: For those objectively reading that statement, it clearly shows the sarcasm intended towards those who readily practice their double standards! Considering the heinous plot that was exposed which implies evidence(s) that there are indeed enemies within us, what more enemies that are sitting in government....latching on an emotionally-charged statement, taking it out of context and making such a big deal out of it not only does it render the accusation of racism so misplaced...but also gives one pause to ponder that either the accuser have no understanding of normal human reactions and normal debate procedures in a mature forum....or she/he is a sympathizer. After all, we are at war with terrorism, and we are in a battle to protect and preserve our own society and way of life. So let's come clean. Whose side are you on? Speak for yourself, Coot. It may not make much difference to you whether we're at war...but it does to me. Our willingness or unwillingness to fight it does not change the fact that OFFICIALLY, WE ARE AT WAR! There is nothing wrong in voicing the unwillingness to go to war....but there is something questionable when someone consistently sides with the other side....to the point of using cheap tricks to dis-credit...or worse, silence an opposition (in this case, Scott). Collaborators and enemy sympathizers usually are not willing to fight a war against anyone they see as having technological advantages and those who could win the war....or for other reasons they may have, either personal or political or ideological. And since we know that our society has enemies from within...I do have the sensible reason to question the motive of those who seem to readily and persistently come to the defense of percieved enemies by deliberately taking discussions out of context. To reason and discuss is one thing....but to take things out of context??? And this comes from seemingly educated individuals whom we know could perfectly understand where Scott was coming from in that particular title. But anyway, you seemed to have missed my other question to you....so I'll repeat it again: Which part of Scott's opening statement vastly generalized all Muslims?

In what way?

However you both want to translate or spin why our men are fighting a war in Afghanistan is your own opinion. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS WE ARE OFFICIALLY AT WAR....and your opinion does not change that fact!

Which part of the opening post gave a vast generalization? Cite the exact statement that you found racist in that particular post.

<yawn> For a non-believer, that is. But not for me.

For those objectively reading that statement, it clearly shows the sarcasm intended towards those who readily practice their double standards! Considering the heinous plot that was exposed which implies evidence(s) that there are indeed enemies within us, what more enemies that are sitting in government....latching on an emotionally-charged statement, taking it out of context and making such a big deal out of it not only does it render the accusation of racism so misplaced...but also gives one pause to ponder that either the accuser have no understanding of normal human reactions and normal debate procedures in a mature forum....or she/he is a sympathizer. After all, we are at war with terrorism, and we are in a battle to protect and preserve our own society and way of life. So let's come clean. Whose side are you on?

If you read it, explain then how it is bigoted?

Don't ask me. Do your homework! READ! You're in a forum for crying out loud!

Gee...before you know it you'd also be insisting Bin Laden is not religious at all.

Pssshh. But changing Mohammad to Christ wouldn't be factual now, would it? History books had mentioned Mohammad involved in violence, that's just it! Like as if I made it up! Anyway is it an insult now to repeat what is documented???? And read again how I worded my statement! That was pretty tame actually. This statement, "but from the few articles I've read, his background was actually not impressive. They're talking mass murders and massacres, among other things," could've easily been worded into something really nasty. Now you're not one of these present-day scammers who'd think nothing of twisting historical documents just to suit their arguments, are you?

Until you read the initial post that followed the title, your opinion is nothing more than just an irresponsible speculation. He stated an opinion in the title....but, just like any book with controversial title, you simply cannot judge it by its cover alone. You're passing a sweeping judgement on something you know nothing about! What, you're like saying that the Mel Gibson movie "Signs" is about traffic/driving rules! And you'll insists it is so since he's been caught driving while under the influence! Your argument simply does not have any legs at all.

I've already explained why that imho that title is not racist. I went beyond the title. I entered the thread. I had read the initial post that explains what Scott was trying to say. Have you?

deleted.

Well it doesn't matter whether it is your thread or not! For the sake of clarification, I am asking a legit question! After all you are using that title as a comparison. What is that FAT SLOB thread all about? Or at least direct me to that particular thread. I have already explained as to how the Islam title is not racist, imho. I am assuming that it all boils down to the forum's definition of the word, "insult."