betsy

But that's it. We don't know that. Being gay or having sick fantasies about children is not wrong or a crime....until they act on it.

There is a difference between consensual sex and using one's authority to coerce and in effect rape another. I'll never be okay with paedophilia, and there definitely has to be some lines drawn in the sand. Teen sex is one thing, but sexual abuse is another. Having said that, this is also a problem in the workplace and needs addressing as well. When does teen sex become paedophilia? Right now as I understand it, our age of consent had been upped to 16. EGALE had been fighting it, wanting it instead to be dropped to 14....the reason: a blanket equality for everyone (heteros and homos). Which is baloney! Whom are they kidding? Upping it to 16 was just as making it equal for everyone (heteros and homos). So, why did they oppose upping to 16? But of course, the real vision of EGALE (as they've stated in their submission), is to have the age of consent abolished. Considering they've got a real tough fight on their hands (thanks to neo-cons) getting rid of the age of consent....trying to get the consent to as low as they can is the best they can do I guess....for now. One little step at a time. That's why I'd really love to hear Gerry's opinion about this....given his very strong abhorrence of pedophiles that he had started this topic and proceeded to smear and condemn the leader of the Catholic church....while conveniently overlooking the comparison between what the leaders of EGALE is actually trying to accomplish. So far I'm still waiting for Gerry's opinion. Ironic isn't it. A letter for a letter. On one hand, condemnation of a man over an alleged letter which contents is still a mystery to us all allegedly attempting to "obstruct justice".....while on the other hand, another letter submitted to the government and published, the copy of which is prominently and proudly displayed in the official site of EGALE, taking steps to offer protections for pedophiles by lobbying subtly for the elimination of the age of consent. If the elimination is not possible at the moment...well, they could settle to lowering it to 14 then. After all, it's better than nothing.

Well I think I might have spoken too soon...because come to think of it, the highly likely implications will be condoning an oppressive scenario. Have you considered the scenario that the whole Muslim population will be intimidated and forced by the radicals/extremists to use that kind of hospital? Have you thought about the women, at least? We know how women are treated in Muslim countries. You bet they'll have no say at all about whether they wish to get treated in a quality facility or this hospital from the dark ages. What about children? They may be living right smack in the middle of a civilized democratic country....but actually, it's like they're being thrown back to the pit. A poor woman dying and in pain, being denied the relief and cure....yet only beyond the gates of that hospital lies her hope to live. That's cruel! I mean it seems like a sadist's fantasy. So now, right in the backyard of a democratic society, a situation like this is just fine and dandy with you?

It will be a problem if the whole Muslim population are intimidated and forced to use such hospital. We already know that women have no say whatsoever in decision makings. I wonder what the lefties have to say about that scenario.

Here we go again with the Security Council.....how many months or years do you think before they even decide on anything? Then how many ultimatums? "Jong, please cooperate or else...." "C'mon Jong. We know you're just being pig-headed. Just cooperate and all is forgiven." "Now listen Jong, we really mean it. Stop it!" "One last warning Jong, or else!" "We're giving you another chance Jong, and this is the last warning." "Hey Jong, now this is really the very last warning!" "Jooong! Are you listening? Do you know that this is the last warning?" "Okay, maybe you did not understand. Let's back up a bit then. Jong, please cooperate or else...."

When have I approved of any religious freedom to kill all Jews? I am saying religious freedom to set up a Private (not publicly funded) hospital doesnt seem to be a problem. Religous freedoms end when they are being used to take away freedoms of others. Freedom of life is probably the most important so I would never approve of religous freedoms to kill people and any suggestion I do is ridiculous. Having their own PRIVATE hospital isnt restricting another groups freedom. Again on gays. Beheading them is definetly taking away freedoms from them. So no this isnt okay. When I said "when it comes to religious freedoms for Islamic people" I did not mean it to be taken as any and all religous freedoms should be allowed. In this threads context a private religious hospital is a freedom that is okay. I said nothing about allowing any and all freedom based on their religous beliefs. All freedoms, as I have argued in places on this forum, should be subjected to the harm principle. This includes religous freedoms for people of the Islamic faith. Im sorry I felt this should be implied and I didnt make it overly clear to you. I dont feel I am prejudicing against a faith when I say they cant behead other people. In a world where everyone has different beliefs I think we must balance freedoms. My argument against beheading isnt against muslim freedoms but in favour of freedoms for another group. I realize that there is still conflict between the freedoms but Im not purposely prejudicing a group, Im defending another groups freedom. My accusation against Christians is that they will always defend their religous freedoms but never admit anyone elses freedoms. In this case the freedom to have a private hospital is a reasonable freedom. I have no problem if people, including Christians, wont defend unreasonable freedoms such as killing jews but it is all too often that they refuse even reasonable freedoms. And I believe this is a problem with more religions than just Chritianity and is one of the reasons why I am anti-religion. Religous beliefs dont allow for, or at least people interpret them as not allowing for, reasonable compromise of conflicts of freedom. It is my personal opinion that rational arguments should be used not religous ones. Well your statement was misleading since you've stated "freedoms" in the plural sense (for both Christians and Islam), and giving gay marriage as an example on top of that. Gay marriage has nothing to do with the said hospital at all, I take it?

Only if you're about 5 foot 2 and have a small build. Otherwise you might want to put on a Sikh turban and big bushy fake beard. In any case, weren't we talking about taking off the veil when meeting with Jack Straw? I guess I missed how this has evolved into outlawing the Hijaab altogether. What....you don't think there aren't any Danny de Vitos among dah guys? Some Muslim guys I saw or talked to (convenience stores and pizza shops, etc.)...seem to be small built and about short. Or you mean there aren't women who are big-boned? I can't believe we're talking about this.

I agree. We should also boycott churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. I have no problem with that. Because that's just plain common sense to me, don't you think so? Actually I've been saying all along.....those who do not agree or cannot abide with a church's doctrine or belief...should go somewhere else whose belief is compatible with theirs. You'd be doing us all a great favor, and it will prevent conflicts and headaches. Begone....please. I beg of you. Churches or mosques have the right to practice what they believe in their own churches and in their homes. Taxi cab drivers have no such rights to enforce their religion on the public...in a public street...driving a vehicle meant for public service. If you do not wish to transport anyone with alcohol in their possession, then the logical thing to do is what Drea had said: don't be a taxi cab driver! Is that too hard to understand for us Canadians? It is just plain common sense! Just the nerve of doing their own "legislation" in our society!

So I'd very much want to hear what you think of this, Bradco: I think you already approve of Muslims to be able to exercise the freedom to kill all Jews. Apparently you have no problems at all with that. But how about ...one of your pet minority group? The gays? The Muslim religion does not tolerate gay marriages either. Actually they don't tolerate gays at all. The extremists and fundamentalist wants to behead all gays. So you're saying they should be given that freedom to express their religious belief? It's okay for Muslims to behead gays too? Because to not to agree with that would be nothing more than "prejudice" against the Muslim faith....a racism, pure and simple? I'm waiting for your answer...since you're so aggressive and prolific with your accusations towards us who disagree with your thinking....which I truly find confusing, to say the least. So correct me if I'm wrong. Explain yourself so I may understand your rationale. If you're going to make accusations...at least offer some explanations as to why.

When I first saw those tv ads asking for donations about Leprosy, Child poverty on tv (showing children from Africa and other third world countries)...I casually commented how sad it is to have all these sickness and poverty all over the world. I asked how can we possibly help all....it is impossible. A friend who was visiting at the moment smirked as she drank coffee. She said, "if I help, I'd make sure it is not to some kid who will be putting on bombs around his waist a few years from now to blow up and maim others." That is how some people are now beginning to think.

Yet if it was a white Christian hospital I bet there would be a lot of people on this forum that would say thats ok and anyone saying it wasnt was not respecting religious freedoms. It is a private religious institution. Who cares. Use the regular hospital system already in place. Im anti-religious and I have no problem with religous people having their own hospitals if they choose as long as I dont have to use it or have my tax money pay for it and I can still get healthcare elsewhere. It amazes me how people scream and cry about religous freedoms for Chritians on this forum ( ie on gay marriage) but when it comes to religious freedoms for Islamic people its a different story. Thats "prejudice and racism pure and simple". Well, if it is true that the religious group will build and fund it fully with their own money...I guess I'll have to agree with you that I have no problem with that either. I have a big problem if a religious group demands the government to build a hospital solely for its own use and practice of its belief....on the grounds of religious freedom.

http://www.melaniephillips.com/ September 7, 2006 How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime Daily Mail, 7 September 2006 "How long will it be before Christianity becomes illegal in Britain? This is no longer the utterly absurd and offensive question that on first blush it would appear to be. An evangelical Christian campaigner, Stephen Green, was arrested and charged last weekend with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour. So what was this behaviour? Merely trying peacefully to hand out leaflets at a gay rally in Cardiff. So what was printed on those leaflets that was so threatening, abusive or insulting that it attracted the full force of the law? Why, none other than the majestic words of the 1611 King James Bible. The problem was that they were those bits of the Bible which forbid homosexuality. The leaflets also urged homosexuals to ‘turn from your sins and you will be saved’. But to the secular priests of the human rights culture, the only sin is to say that homosexuality is a sin. Admittedly, Mr Green is not everyone’s cup of tea; other Christians regard him as extreme. But our society is now so upside-down that, by doing nothing more than upholding a fundamental tenet of Christianity, he was treated like a criminal. And yet at the same time, the police are still studiously refusing to act against Islamic zealots abusing British freedom to preach hatred and incitement against the West. The Bible is the moral code that underpins our civilisation. Yet the logic of the police action against Mr Green surely leads ultimately to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible itself is ‘hate speech’ and must be banned. This bizarre state of affairs has arisen thanks to our human rights culture which automatically champions minorities against the majority. As a result, no one can say anything disobliging about a minority without being accused of prejudice or discrimination. The problem for Christianity is that it holds that homosexuality is wrong. This, however, it is no longer allowed to say because it treats a minority practice as sinful. So it can no longer uphold a central tenet of its own faith without being accused of prejudice. This dilemma is currently tearing apart the Church of England itself. But it is also turning our whole notion of justice on its head. Author Lynette Burrows received a warning from the Metropolitan Police merely for suggesting that gay people did not make ideal adoptive parents. The former leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, also had his collar felt by police after he said that homosexuality was harmful. Notably, in his case the matter was swiftly dropped. If there’s one thing that terrifies our PC police even more than being called homophobic, it’s being called Islamophobic — even though Islamic fundamentalism poses a real threat to the human rights of gay people. If this wasn’t all so frightening, it would be hilarious. Christians, by contrast, get very different treatment. An elderly evangelical preacher, Harry Hammond, was convicted of a public order offence after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality. Although he had been the victim of a physical attack when a crowd poured soil and water over him, he alone was prosecuted. And Lancashire pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts were interrogated by police for 80 minutes about their ‘ homophobic’ views after they had merely asked their local council to display Christian literature alongside gay rights leaflets in civic buildings. Christianity is fast becoming the creed that dare not speak its name. It is being written out of the national script by ideologues seeking to hasten its disappearance. Yesterday, the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said in a radio interview that Britain was ‘no longer a Christian country’ because people no longer went to church. Local authorities and government bodies are systematically bullying Christianity out of existence by refusing to fund Christian voluntary groups on the grounds that to be Christian means that they are not committed to ‘diversity’. Thus local and central government refused to replicate the vocational training provided by the Highfields Happy Hens Centre in Derbyshire for young offenders and pupils excluded from school despite its impressive record of success, simply because it was run with a clear Christian ethos. Norfolk County Council objected to the inclusion of the word ‘Christian’ in the constitution of Barnabas House in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which houses homeless young men. And the Housing Corporation, the major funder of Romford YMCA in Essex which looks after hundreds of needy young people, objected to the fact that only Christians were board members — which meant, it said, that the YMCA was not capable of ‘diversity’, even though it was open to all faiths and none. The ‘diversity’ agenda, in other words, is a fig-leaf for an attack on Christianity. And to cap it all, we can no longer rely on our future monarch to hold the line, since Prince Charles has said that when he becomes King he will no longer be Defender of the Faith but ‘defender of faith’. But Christianity is still the official religion of this country. All its institutions, its history and its culture are suffused with it; Britain would lose its identity, its values and its cohesion without it. But minority rights are now being wielded against it like a wrecking ball. What started as a commendable desire to ban hatred of the gay minority has morphed into a hatred of the Christian majority. Behaviour which was previously considered to transgress the moral norms of the Bible has now instead become the norm — and it is biblical values that are treated as beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. This is no accident. The sacred doctrine of human rights — which explicitly sets itself up as the religion for a godless age — is the means by which secularism is steadily attacking the Christian roots of our civilisation, on the basis that religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive. Christianity has been dethroned as this country’s governing creed on the basis that equality demands equal status for minority faiths and secularism. As a result, it is being marginalised as no more than a quaint cultural curiosity. It is a process before which the Church of England has long been on its knees, going with the flow of moral and cultural collapse in accordance with the doctrine of multiculturalism — and then wondering why its churches are so empty, while those of uncompromising evangelicals such as Stephen Green are packed to the rafters. As a result, Christianity is being steadily removed from the public sphere. Various councils have banned Christmas on the grounds that it is ‘too Christian’ and therefore ‘offensive’ to peoples of other faiths, and are replacing it with meaningless ‘winter festivals’. This attack on Christianity is not merely something that seems straight out of Alice In Wonderland. It is not merely a threat to freedom of speech and religious expression. It is a fundamental onslaught on the national identity and bedrock values of this country — and as such will destroy those freedoms which Christianity itself first created. "

This whole article was taken from Melanie Phillips. "One has to wonder about a hatred of neo-conservatism that is so vitriolic it leads to the promulgation of so many falsehoods — many of them all too obvious — including the fabrication of a devilish (and fatuous) global conspiracy. Something as big and irrational as this is surely being fuelled by more than the passions unleashed by the Iraq war or hatred of President Bush, significant as those clearly are. I would suggest that it’s something to do with what lies at the very heart of neo-conservatism which, stripped to its barest essentials, is about restoring truth-telling and moral integrity to public debate. People forget, or never even knew, that neo-conservatism was never a manual for war-mongers. It started as a realisation among American left-wingers and liberals that the promise made by the ‘Great Society’, that poverty could be eradicated by throwing state money at the problem, was a lie; and similarly, that the idea that the Soviet Union could be appeased and contained was also a lie. The neo-cons realised that in both domestic and foreign affairs, a collapse of moral integrity — in favour of the politics of pretence, if you like, or lack of moral spine, or taking the path of least resistance — was leading to disaster for the west. So they advocated instead connecting to reality and reasserting truth and justice over fantasy and moral collapse. It is surely no surprise, therefore, that they should be so viciously attacked by the leading lights of a society hell bent on pursuing the politics of fantasy, appeasement and moral collapse at home and abroad. That’s why it is so dismaying to see the Tories sliding onto this bandwagon of anti-neo-conservatism, anti-Americanism and anti-Israelism while protesting all the time that they are doing no such thing. Far from Michael Gove wielding the diabolical influence over his party conjured up in Dalrymple’s review, the Cameroons have decided to surf a dangerous and repellent zeitgeist. Indeed, Peter Oborne wrote in the Daily Mail last Saturday: Conservative Central Office has confirmed to me that the latest adviser to enter David Cameron’s circle is the writer and historian William Dalrymple. This is humiliating for another Cameron confidante, the pro-American hawkish Tory MP Michael Gove. The west is under sustained attack from within, and the Tories are playing with fire." http://www.melaniephillips.com/

There goes multi-culturalism, eh? Just shows it is a nightmare! And speaking of nightmares...do you get the feeling, with the persistent attitude of the lefties inspite of all these things erupting all around us....it's like being in the Twilight Zone?

I did a google and came upon some blogs that gave links about this intifada. A couple of the links are down. On one hand I don't want to be paranoid about it....yet on the other hand I can't help but wonder if these links that are no longer available....did they change their mind about it? Was there pressure from anyone for them to take it down? Your first link Scriblett...it was not available when I clicked on it a couple of hours ago. I'll try again. PS I just did...and it still says "the page cannot be displayed."

No I haven't heard anything about this until now. Thanks for posting. Well, this is setting an example around the world...just like the violent protests that erupted in various countries all over the world...mirroring the protest that started in Europe. The question is: why is this not being reported by our media? Is the media "filtering" what they want the public to know?

There were women suicide bombers. And with the Al Qaeda threats, plus the London bombing...I don't think it is unreasonable for any government officials to demand such a thing. The Muslim woman should be the first one to understand that feeling...doesn't she know what's happening in England....what more, around the world? Instead of trying to politicize this like what she's trying to do, spurring the lefties to be indignant and outrage for her (and obviously it's working)......she should just comply with the demand if she really wants to speak to Straw. At least from random interviews done by the correspondent in London, several English people are supportive of Jack Straw. It is said that his stance may even prove to make him popular....and I wouldn't be surprised.

Newbie, I'd appreciate if you give your two cents about this. I'd like to hear your opinion about the post I made above #121.

Let's get back to your main focal point, Gerry. If you feel so strongly about it....to the point of condemnation without trial, based on your flimsy "evidence" that's nothing more than a letter whose contents have not been published, and that you say we have no need to see or read....then what do you make of EGALE? Based on this, by their own letter...suggesting that society should not have any age of consent at all? EGALE’s submission on Age of Consent to the Department of Justice Canada March 30, 2000 Child Victim Consultation Family, Children, and Youth Section Department of Justice Canada 284 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8 This submission responds to your consultation paper titled “Child Victims and the Criminal Justice System,” dated November 1999 (“the Justice Paper”), which raises the questions: Should the general age of consent to sexual activity be changed? The setting of an absolute age of consent is an inevitably imperfect line drawing exercise. No matter where the line is drawn, some otherwise healthy sexual activity will be criminalized and some harmful activity will be permitted. Both effects are of concern, and both should be considered. http://www.egale.ca/index.asp?lang=E&m...37&item=348 This letter strongly suggests where EGALE stands and how they feel that society should accept pedophilia. Not only does this EGALE seems to want to endorse this sexual activity as just another lifestyle...........but it is also taking some steps to offer protection for pedophiles and homosexuals who abuse minors, by convincing society to make those activities, legal. Let me say that again Gerry. EGALE is not only giving its opinion...but it is also TAKING SOME STEPS to do something about it. In short...we will have NO NEED to report these activities to the cops...if they are deemed legal! I wouldn't call them stupid, for they seem to know what they're doing and how to go about it. So where do you stand on this? Backed by this indisputable proof.....and not just an "allegation" about the existence of some letter that allegedly is proof of "obstructing" justice. Don't you agree then that EGALE is undoubtedly being LED by "morally bereft human beings?" Or worse?

You get that feeling too? Come to think of it Bubbermiley, why do you care? If I remember correctly from the topic about crack clinics, you seem to have no problem at all with your child being babysat by a crackhead.

Other Christian faiths had splintered from the Catholic faith....because they have a different view or interpretation. I'm not sure about this.... but I think the Protestant Church came to be because of some monarch wishing to divorce his queen in order to marry his mistress? And of course, divorce is not allowed by the Catholic Church. I think that was a way to go. If someone strongly think differently about a particular institution's belief and faith....then they should start their own. As someone pointed out somewhere in the forum...some churches offer marriage to gays....then, what's stopping gays from going to those churches and getting their church wedding? Some churches have women ministers....then, what's stopping those women who strongly believe that women should be allowed to become ministers....from joining those churches? Those churches identify themselves as christian churches, and obviously they share the same belief as these women! So why are they still insisting on the Catholic Church (or any other Christian Churches that refuses to recognize women ministers and SSM) to change its way...to accomodate their incompatible beliefs? What's the real agenda here? What about us who share the old traditional beliefs....why are we being FORCED to forego what we believe in? Whether some may say that our belief is wrong...or outdated....or descriminatory....it is still our belief.

But then of course....perhaps 20 years from now...the church will be facing another big accusation: age descrimination.

I remember the excitement when they did some changes with the service when I was young....choir singing was "modernized". Guitars and lyrics/melodies were youth-friendly. No problem with that. But now that I got older, somehow I long for the solemnity and the old traditional rituals (it has something to do with age I guess). But getting rid of celibacy.....how will it flush out perverts and pedophiles? There is no rule about celibacy or marital status with schools and daycares, and yet they get these perverts. As a matter of fact, a lot of pedophiles are married with children. Married men picking up minor girls. Marriage does not stop anyone from having their sexual fantasies (sick or not).....how many married men pick up hookers? Getting rid of children and minors from the church is I think the most effective way of flushing out these pedophiles and perverts who prey on minors.

Maybe. And psychopaths become cops. But I digress. I was raised a Catholic. I still remember our parish priest showing up unannounced for dinner one Friday night (to see if we were eating fish) and lecturing my mother and father about their parental obligations. I still remember my parents being absolutely livid with rage after he left. These were good Catholics who had sacrificed every week when the basket came around and shephered their brood into the church on every Sunday and Holy Day. We were expected to go to confession every Friday. We almost always did and held our breaths all through Saturday so we could take communion on Sunday morning. I think that all priests should be allowed to marry. In fact I think that nobody should be accepted into the priesthood until they have been married. I think that the priesthood should be a commitment made by both marriage partners. I don't think that single people should be priests. It is simply too big a burden to carry alone. Once you become a priest and start taking confessions, you are on your own with the worries of the world. It is a very lonely place. I guess it depends on whom you get as a priest. Your experience with that priest checking up on you at dinner....that was really awful. I'm not sure what the reason is why the Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. My father explained that if he is married, his focus will of course, be more directed towards his own family instead of his flock....especially when he has to also deal with the everyday reality of dealing with wife and children.

Just a question, why does the Church need to bring itself to the 20th century?