betsy

And the right doesn't do this? Like with abortion and SSM?? But isn't the law and constitution based on Christian values?

If I am a member of the Church of England, should I continue to listen to and follow these two priests? And if I am in these two priests' shoes....do we have to not only go against the Lord's teachings, but also to play devil's advocate and pit Christians against Christians and cause the house of God divided? Should we compound it all the more with pride....luring and confusing more of God's sheep to be lost? Being priests, do we not know of good and evil? Of devils and Satan? Do we not pause to think whose will it is that had prevailed....and who silently cheers? Should we not then just quietly leave the Church and humbly place our souls' fates in God's hands?

Only God can make the final judgment. But the Church can judge whether the action goes against their faith or belief. Should the Church sway to the music of the times....even though it means losing a huge chunk of the flock? Take the easy way out by conforming to what the people wants instead of what the Church thinks GOD wants? Priests or Ministers are only human....and yet make such convenient scapegoats used by those who wish to undermine the Chruch. Who doesn't sin? Forgiveness is one thing. Succumbing to manipulations to change what is considered the words of God, and one's belief and faith is quite another. From a religious point of view....this could be posed as a challenge to those who vow to speak in God's name. A trial. A test in the face of temptation. Just like Christ facing the temptation of Satan in the desert. The Church of England...and all Christian churches under siege, should make a stand.

I've seen the Passion of Christ and no, I didn't see it as anti-Jew. But reading this allegations about his anti-semitism....IF Mel Gibson thinks reminding Christians that Jews killed Christ, and therefore should be hated....I'm not buying that (even though I liked most of his movies). Christians should be reminded that Jesus was a Jew. Btw, from what I've read somewhere...his dad was an anti-semite. Even published newsletters.

I never did like Chretien or Martin. And I happen to like Harper....AND BUSH. And I'm not apologizing for it. But then, I'm a Conservative...and I do share the same views and values that they represent. So of course I'm a "follower". I'm too glad with Harper's response to the pressure by some groups to call an immediate cease-fire. It only strengthen my impression of him: that he is a principled man. With a backbone.

That's true. It is Lebanon that should be condemned! For harboring and abetting Hezbollah! And letting them use their own citizens as human shields! Anyway, I won't be surprised to know that those civilians who still continue to stay in their homes after having been warned by Israel are actually supporters of Hezbollah.

Could you clarify? Getting what they deserved as in: What kind of bass-ackwards thinking put's one religous group smack dab in the middle of another religion's holiest land? And the resulting violence since then is justified? ??????? Why the displaced Jewish people after WWII couldn't have been given a chunk of land anywhere else, is a very good question? oh and I don't subcribe to the "It's their holy land" argument. Plenty of Jewish peole are worshipping just fine all over the world. I don't want to talk about who and what land belongs to where or whom. I am wondering about the sentiments of Canadians as a whole. The past cancellation of a prominent Jewish speaker to a university or college somewhere in Canada (sorry, can't remember the details now)....cancelled, due to protests from some other groups. And just reading and listening to the media lately. There seems to be a biased-ness in their reporting. Occasional vandalisations of Jewsih synagogues has been treated lightly. There's no display of outrage among the media...or outpourings of concern that try to garner sympathy for a particular group that is targetted by hate-crimes. Nothing like the coverage given to the Muslims' concern that they become targets anytime some terrorists kill and maim innocent civilians in the name of Allah. And the mid-east crisis now. Lebanese casualties are grieved upon daily.....but casualties among the Jews are all but ignored. Like as if casualties among civilians are not the same...no matter what race or sides. Our major political parties had clearly taken sides....although they try to appear neutral (for the sake of votes I imagine). The reason and root cause of the sudden eruption and escalation of this war is being ignored....both by the media and the political parties in this country! Either that ...or they don't have a sense of wrongness at all. There is nothing wrong about wanting to become neutral. But there is something definitely wrong when we knowingly accept an abhorrent act and throw away our sense of justice in the process.

But calling for an immediate ceasefire IS taking sides. This means we take the sides of Lebanon...who's harboring Hezbollah! Why don't the Liberals and NDP call for Lebanon to dismantle or kick out Hezbollah? Why is the Lebanese government letting Hezbollah use the poor "innocent" Lebanese citizens as human shields? Hezbollah has been deliberately using the citizens...casuing them to be in harm's way. Why hasn't anyone call on them for that? Why are we protecting terrorists????

I'm not referring to only some minority groups...but Canada as a whole. Not the blatant hate-spewing anti-semites....but the kinds that SILENTLY agrees the Jews are getting only what "they justly deserve."

I can't blame the Jewish community if they switched allegiance this time....in fact, I would find it strange if they don't, after watching Graham do a patronizing spiel on tv when he was bashing Harper for not calling an immediate ceasefire. "We can show Israel that we are their true friends by telling them to cease their attack on lebanon immediately." And then being careful to add that Israel have the right to defend itself. Defend how? It's scary enough to place one's security in the hands of people (such as the Liberal Party and NDP of Canada) who do not, and will not acknowledge Hezbollah as a terrorist group....what more, conveniently continue to ignore the fact that this group (along with other neighboring nations) want only one thing: to see you wiped off the earth. It is so smug of them to talk of "peaceful" talks and existence. They should reside in Israel for a couple of years and take on identities as a Jew...to know how it feels to be a Jew!

I wish taxpayers wouldn't have to fund CBC anymore.

I have no problem with him taking a position. I do have problems with him doing a PR flight. As I said, he could have freed up the plane and headed home commercial. I would have had more respect for that. Why should our leader have to head home via "commercial" when he is a likely target for terrorist acts? Free his plane and scramble to come up with new security measures with this "commercial" flight (which is no doubt an obvious PR stunt more flawed and a excellent magnet for much worse criticism).....just so to give space to evacuees? I see the headline now: PM RISKS ALL IN AN IRRESPONSIBLE BID TO LOOK GOOD. One gripe will be from an evacuee who gained a space on his plane: "What? He doesn't want to ride home with us? Trying to distance from us? Didn't give us a chance to thank him well enough? He doesn't trust us? He thinks we'll bomb dah plane?" Bill Graham will say: "What a doh-head. You know how much money we wasted on that commercial flight? Money that could've gone to helping the evacuees?" I think I prefer this so-called PR stunt that he pulled, thank you.

The UN is a self important organization and does not have the power to do that. I know. But anti-Bush folks....and those who are quick to use Bush as a mean to peg down Harper think so highly of the UN.

Anyway, it cannot be said that this is just Bush, Blair and company. The UN had acknowledged that it was Hezbollah who started the aggression. The UN itself had issued the terms for negotiations.

If Harper wasn't concerned about polls, her wouldn't have personally shown up in Cyprus. He could have freed up the plane, sent it on to Cyprus and taken a commercial flight home. If Harper was concerned about the polls, he would've waded carefully without giving an obvious approval for Israel! That's what the journalist were commenting...comparing him to the way the Liberals and NDP do the balancing act! Geez, you shoukd hear Bill graham on tv the other day giving this excruciating bulls*** about how as a "true friend of Israel" we should protect them from themselves, tell them to cease attacking (and quick to point out that Israel has the right to defend itself). I think doing what he did about going to Cyprus and giving some evacuees a ride on his plane is a way of showing that though he had sided with Israel against hezbollah, it doesn't mean that he is against the Lebanese. As a leader, he has tact without selling out on his principle. He's just proving that he's not afraid of stating his opinion and making a decision which he deem is fair and right!

Btw, can someone please explain what kind of help do these evacuees who had already arrived in Canada want and are complaining that they are not getting?

These rescued whiners should stop concentrating on their pathetic little selves and think about other civilians (both from Israel and Lebanon) still trapped in there who have to live with this and have nowhere else to go. Instead of protesting and berating Harper, they should direct their pathetic little protests to hezbollah and demand what the UN had been demanding in order for peace to be re-installed: Return the soldiers! Cease bombing Israel! But I agree with FTA Lawyer...it's the media! CBC is also having a field day magnifying this so-called "slow response."

No surprise here. It's just a matter of time.

Yesterday, mounting criticisms from Lebanese-Canadians had a journalist correspondent to Lebanon defending the government by saying more or less, "give credit where credit is due. We have not experienced this massive evacuation in 40 years." A couple of days ago, the news claimed there are 25,000 Canadians in Lebanon. Today, they're saying there are about 40,000! That many? And today, complaints and criticisms still continue from THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN RESCUED. Some complained that "it was too hot aboard the ship!" I understand the panic and anxiety of those who are anxious....thus heated words and passionate accusations were said. But to complain about the heat??? No aircon? Now some are demanding monetary aid! Get real! My empathy for these people is running thin when I hear of these nit-picking! I hope these Canadians spends most of their dollars here in Canada....since it is Canada who is shouldering these expenses for the trips to volatile countries! I'm angry...so consider this a rant! :angry:

I'm really curious about this. As I've said, there's hardly any explanations about the leaders' side of the matter. If native leaders held the status of being able to negotiate, bargain and sign treatise, I can only assume that they were not so helpless regarding the residential school fiasco. Show me historical reports or investigative findings, anything that showed the leaders at least tried to stop it....anything that backs up your claim and negates the simple statement from a credible link I gave, on which I base my assumption. Simple personal opinion on this matter is not good enough.

I believe and agree that sexual abuses, physical violence, forced conversions etc., did exist. Although they did happen, it does not mean it happened to everyone. However, possible fabrications of SOME stories cannot simply be dismissed as something that could not possibly happen. We've seen some alleged abusers from other cases (not native-related) that had been acquitted or exonerated. We live in a very materialistic society...with drug addiction an ever increasing problem. Cash rewards make an enticing incentive. Not just for the natives. But for possibly just about anyone. What is the difference between family law custody battles and cases of abuse in institutions? Obviously if one is determined to gain something (whether it be custody or money), one can possibly come up with just about anything. And with the residential school cases, the MOTIVES for possible fabrication may not necessarily be because of cash rewards alone. All I'm saying is that I don't think one should not even question and/or rashly dismiss the possibilities for fabrication simply because we know that abuses did exist and that they happened to the Natives. Taking it from an ex-spouse or from the government....the only difference I see is one's more likely to get something from the government.

For someone who's been repeatedly pointed out to be ignorant of the history of this land regarding the native issues, this ignorance comes with an objective outlook (free from any "guilt-induced" emotions clouding one's perspectives in a rash bid to atone), and quest for understanding....thus questions (which may be uncomfortable or deemed insulting by some, while bothersome and exasperating to the knowledgeable) are being raised by moi. I don't think anyone in this forum denies or doubt that there had been abuses and atrocities done, not only to the children who were placed in the residential schools...but also to families who had experienced having offspring(s) ripped from them, and some never to be seen or heard again. This same thing happened to aboriginals in Australia (I think). We're stuck into this quagmire because some are determined to use residential school atrocities to justify anything and everything. With all the investigative and historical reports printed about, the answer to my question remains elusive. I, as an outsider seeking information, simply wonders where the Indian leaders fit into this when children were being taken from families? I imagine desperate families sought their leaders' assistance and voiced objections to these practices. What happened? Why are there hardly any explanations as to what the Indian leaders had to do or say? It is this lack of thorough information, thus I base my conclusion on this meager explanation which actually makes sense to me: "Special Treatment for Aboriginal Children TOP The Residential School System Since the time of earliest contact, Aboriginal people and European settlers have seen things from vastly divergent points of view, because their attitudes and philosophies differed. The interaction of the two groups has been characterized as one of "COOPERATION and conflict but, more importantly, by misconceptions and contradictions.”4 " http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html#2 With the natives language, religion, and culture lost, the colonials and native leaders should both be held responsible, and therefore, equally share the blame.

It could be directly related to these residential school. HOWEVER, your ancestral leaders were as much guilty then as the colonials for having allowed themselves to be convinced...and to go along with the visions the colonials had for the natives. So far we know the purpose of the colonials, though ill-conceived they may have been. But what is not clear here is the purpose....or the reason(s) why your ancestral leaders stood by in cooperation and let it happen. Holocaust indeed! If by some rotten twist of fate it was the Germans who had come to colonized this land.....there wouldn't be any reasons to have any discussions at all. All negotiations and bargaining would've ended right there in the gas chamber.

I think she speaks with forked tongue. Somebody just told me that instead of treating the alleged abuses on one-to-one case reviews, our ever so practical and sensible Liberal government had decided to just give a blanket compensation for everyone! I think I am a native (at least I look like one)...and if my memory serves me right, I grew up in a residential school. Oh the conditions were so horrible! Someone please help. Where do I sign up for this cheque?

"Special Treatment for Aboriginal Children TOP The Residential School System Since the time of earliest contact, Aboriginal people and European settlers have seen things from vastly divergent points of view, because their attitudes and philosophies differed. The interaction of the two groups has been characterized as one of "COOPERATION and CONFLICT BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, BY MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONTRADICTIONS."4 One of the first, and perhaps the most enduring, of these misconceptions was that: Europeans assumed the superiority of their culture over that of any Aboriginal peoples. Out of that misconception grew the European conviction that in order for the Indians to survive, they would have to be assimilated into the European social order.5" http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter14.html#2