betsy

The UN need to go in and take the responsibility which Lebanon fails to undertake of dismantling Hezbollah. There is no question that Hezbollah had initiated the hostility - with the intent to annihilate Israel. Faced with this ultimate intent, there can never be any peace if one side had decided the only way to have it is to eliminate the other. Ceasefire will only give Hezbollah the chance to strenghten themselves. It will not endure. Besides, negotiating with a terrorist group only gives legitimacy to such groups. Since it is the thorn on the sides of both Lebanon and Israel...Hezbollah has to be removed once and for all. Lebanon must be forced to face up and be on the side of the UN in getting rid of Hezbollah.

His publicist is Jewish and from what I read apparently he has hired other Jewish employees. He is supposed to be producing a tv series about the life of a Dutch Jewish boy....and now they say this might be cancelled because of his rant. Why would he need to spend money to produce this tv series about a Jew? Some may say that he is trying to cover the fact that he is racist. But he does not need to cover anything. He does not need to make any extra effort. I don't think anyone blames him for his father's bigotry. All he needed to do is go about his business like everyone else in Hollywood.

I agree with the statement. However, I disagree with the font of choice. Admittedly, it is because the news can sell papers. What "right" would that be? The right to say-whatever-you-want-and-not-allow-others-to-listen-or-repeat-it? Hypothetically, if Mel Gibson could sue the officer for leaking the comment, what would the claim be? I don't know if it can be sued....for celebrities have been hounded by the media incessantly. The latest is the scandal with Prince Charles regarding his phones being tapped by the media....which however, resulted with some arrests. The fact that Mel blabbed to an officer of the law....an officer who's supposed to uphold the law, and that includes not contributing to circumstances which will undoubtedly exploit the situation for financial gain resulting from sensationalism, and have the arrested individual of being unceremoniously judged and tried in public opinion without any fair trial. It also puts into question the integrity of Law Enforcement, particularly this division that handled the case. Was there any bribes involved for releasing this information to the media?

There was a forum that had an interesting set up. It had a compilation of threads filed by the year. I think they kept as far back as they've started. It served as a nostalgic look back as to what was "hot" and how views were in what year.

I think one or two Liberal MPs are leaving the party over this and moving to support the Conservatives. The Liberals are a confused lot! They've always been....because the don't actually have a firm stance on anything. They always shift and sway...afraid of losing votes.

And these gay priests were preaching homosexaulity in the pulpit? I still don't see the difference. Their "rebellion" is not about some citizens of countries crying out for help to be saved from slaughter or oppression. No one is preventing these two priests from having their so-called marriage. They are opportunists in exploiting the media attention which they know they'll get...to apply pressure on the church to change the words of Christ. Theirs is only about bullying their way in a Church...bullying a congregation to distort and alter their faith....to accept as normal what their God had called UN-NATURAL! They are nothing more than BULLIES! And you can't sift through that difference? You've reduced the reasons for those wars to such low pettiness by comparing them to the actions of two petulant individuals not only bent on getting their jollies with the mockery of a so-called marriage to be accepted in Church.....but also to mocking Christ? Wow! Terrorists are bullies too, btw. So I guess it somehow adds up. As a parting comment, I'll just refer this link to anyone interested: "Marcel was struggling with same-sex attraction when he finally decided to take the big step of calling the local gay hotline. The person who answered the hotline offered to mail some brochures regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality. But the materials he received offered a whole new way of looking at what those verses said about homosexuality and he began to wonder if what he had always believed might be wrong. Instead, it offered religious explanations and arguments that sounded very convincing. So convincing, in fact, that young people like Marcel begin to wonder if there is any reason to continue believing what they used to believe. People who promote gay theology use a number of broader arguments to argue against the traditional view that homosexual behaviour is immoral." http://www.newdirection.ca/a_interpret.htm

Another excellent point! I would bet about some beligerent drunk muttering or referring to "nigger"...or "chink", etc.,

It's not surprising. The Ottawa Citizen had become a tabloid.

Would you believe a paranoid schizophrenic that is off his meds speaks the 'truth'? Alcohol changes the mind chemically. For most people this simply shows up as a lack of inhibitions, however, for others alcohol can induce a dramatic personality change - an otherwise gentle person becomes extremely violent. A normally stable person starts to experience paranoia. These extreme personality effects are more common among people who have an addiction to alcohol (like Mel Gibson). So I would say that no one can reasonably say that Mel Gibson 'spoke the truth' because he was drinking unless they knew his medical history and how alcohol affects his mind and personality. Excellent point. From what I've read...he tried to run away from the arresting officers when he was stopped. His behaviour was really bizarre.

If his movies do not preach anti-semitism....I don't think they should be stopped or barred just for his comments. He had apologized. Whether we think he is sincere or not, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. He is a talented man when he really gets serious with his movie-making...and The Passion Of Christ was one of the most moving and realistic portrayal of the last few hours of Christ. The way it was portrayed had me see and understand how it really was....the suffering that I had now realized took for granted. Besides, I'm waiting for Apocalypto. But then it is for the people to decide if they still wish to throw money to watch his films after all these. I really think he is dealing with some inner struggles. He's been brought up to think this way.

Interesting. The Pope has spoken out against the war in Iraq, so who do Catholic soldiers follow? Pope is also against Israel in the mideast conflict. Catholics in Isreal: duck and cover. It is interesting indeed I find....all these covert attempts at condoning and aiding terrorism. I thought you said you know the bible. Romans 13:1-6. Well, there's no point in arguing about the bible. We'll never see eye-to-eye. I have fallen into the trap of bible-quoting. I guess one has to be a believer.

The book of Romans was written by the Apostle Paul many years after Christ's death. It is his interpretation of Christ's teachings, not the words of Christ himself. the only books of the Bible that contain Christ's teachings are the four Gospels. I'd still believe Paul and would think of it as accurate interpretations. After all, he was one of the Apostles...and all of the Apostles were recruited to spread the words of Christ.

You know what, your argument comparing it to war actually does not seem to wash well. If I am not mistaken, it is said in the bible that we should follow the leaders of our state. Give me sometime to check it out. Anyway, I don't think there's any Catholic priest who preached about going to war in the pulpit. I'll bet there's a lot about praying for peace, or praying for those who suffer in the wars etc.., that kind of stuff.

An expose' or internal investigation by the catholic Church (in connection with the numerous scandals that broke out) indicate that there is some form of a clique that had formed among pedophiles. They tend to protect one another. Churches, like all other places that give some form of authority and access to target victims are usually infiltrated by predators. Schools and Daycare Centers are usual choices of employment by pedophiles. Not all priest choose to become priest for the reason of serving God. As to your criticism for the priest who sexually abused young children...I am among those many who would want to see them de-frocked. HOWEVER, if I say "de-frock him!" ...that serves as a cue for QC to bash the church for not forgiving and "turning the other cheek!" And as I had explained in my response to him above, I think the church gives them the chance to denounce their sins, repent and rehabilitate. BUT as we see now, that doesn't sit well with you. So between you and qc, I am between a rock and a hard place. The church be damn if they do, and the church be damned if it dont. OF COURSE, only one solution will make both of you happy: accept homosexuality and damn your faith! Anyway, your sample is still not the same as the scenario of the two priests who got married. For them to be on a similar level with that of your sample....the two priests will have to "un-tie the knot", denounce their sins and adhere to what the church authority would wish for them to do.

There is difference between the two scenarios. Those who supports military action (and I'm one of them), do so at their own risk of sinning. The two priests not only take the same risk...but they also wish to force their lifestyle upon the church, knowing full well that it goes against the faith. That is what I mean by "under sige".

And while we're at it, it is amusing to note that the new in-word these days is "proportionate" response. Just what do they mean by "proportionate" response or retaliation? How do you measure "proportionate?" What is the best course of action? Long-drawn skirmishes...which only prolong the sufferings, or one good whallop? Just like pulling a loose tooth...the best way is one good tug, wouldn't it?

Funny thing is: that is the very same impression I had...and still have of many of the Liberal leader contenders, and of Jack...except that no, they didn't strike me as televangelis (they'll have a hard time spinning about honor and other deeper values I guess). Just used car salesmen and rotten lawyers.

Coming from a soldier, I too am quite interested in what you seem to suggest. Yes, it does seem too easy to say that sacrifices must be made isn't it....coming from a civilian who is far too removed from the actual place of combat! I am interested in what wars you have participated, keeping in mind that being "retired" do not necessarily mean having seen the likes of World War 2 or the Korean war. I am a civilian very much aware of the difficult sacrifices our soldiers (and their families) are making for the sake of this country. Whether you approve or not of the reasons why we are in Afghanistan is no longer of immediate import at this point: we are already engaged and at war, if you hadn't noticed. Instead of civilians cringing and wringing their hands at the sight of blood and body bags....we could contribute in our own little way to alleviate those sufferings and make those sacrifices more meaningful for our troops...but at least, supporting the effort they make. How many bodies do you think is enough? Should we call it quits and run with our tails between our legs when we've reached 100?

The Liberals and the NDP will not publicly say that Hezbollah is a terrorist group...when in fact, it is listed as a terrorist group here inCanada. Harper, in an exclusive inetrview for CTV Question Period last Sunday made a very practical and sensible demand from the Liberals and the NDP. Since they (both parties) have been whining about being neutral, Harper would want them to suggest explicitly and clearly how they would demonstrate being "neutral", considering Hezbollah is a terrorist group. At least we know that two of our major political parties contending to lead this nation do not find anything amiss in condoning terrorism. They are willing to sacrifice not only the Jews....but also our reputation and good standing as one of the pillars of democracy, the allegedly "brokers of peace".... simply for political reasons.

Well, native children being raised or fostered by non-natives have been taken....simply because they were non-natives. Her own father was dismayed and surprised when he found out that the child was taken from her foster home (for he admits that she is better off with her foster parents). She died while in the reserve. She'd been gone for several months...and yet no one reported it. It was the foster mother who raised a lot of question and pressured the agency to find her. She's been tortured. Her own mother is a suspect. And this happened in the reserve, a population of only a few thousands. Apparently, she's not the only one victimized by the special childcare program for natives.

Another report that I heard (I don't know if it's Qana), the Israelis had dropped leaflets telling people to evacuate the area since it is a target for bombing. The terrorists have deliberately placed their positions in well-populated areas, in an attempt to use people as human shields, hoping for public support all over the world.

But considering his status (being a celebrity and all)...I think anyone who has the power to influence others should take the responsibility that comes along with it. It may've been just a stupid drunken comment....but a racist comment nonetheless....a racist comment that can influence others.

Yes!

But didn't things like devil and serpent come from Christian teachings, which the Europeans brought here?

The bible holds ample evidences that Jesus cares for the people of Israel. From what I understand, the only thing that stands between them and God is their stubborn refusal to acknowledge Christ as the Son of God. One passage strikes me for it is how Israel is today: Luke 19:41 Jesus weeps over Jerusalem "He came closer to the city and when He saw it He wept over it, saying "If you only knew today what is needed for peace! But now you cannot see it! The days will come upon you when your enemies will surround you with barricades, blockade you, and close in on you from every side. They will completely destroy you and the people within your walls; not a single stone will they leave in its place, because you did not recognise the time when God came to save you!"