Moderate Centrist

RB, I don't think communism was good for anyone.

Craig•Divine Right of Kings - Craig•Adherence to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; ever hear of trials for heresy? Craig•Ever hear of witch hunts or the treatment of unwed mothers? Craig•How about the imprisonment of Galileo or the disputes over evolution Craig•The meek shall inherit the earth, the want of money is the root of all evil CraigYou got me here. I can't think of a specific example. Craig •This is also true of the Catholic Church– any debate of this sort was handled at the highest level and fed to the public top down. •Again, this is true of the Catholic Church Craig•Christianity – the one true faith Craig•The church certainly hasn’t been progressive in that regard either- again Galileo was only rehabilitated years after his condemnation. And there are many Christian Churches who adamantly oppose the teaching of Evolution. CraigI think you meant to say Christianity was a supporter of despotic King centred rule – again divine right of kings. I am not trying to knock the Catholic Church or Christianity because I believe when practiced it's got lots of great principles and has made great contributions to history. However I think we must clarify that the problem is Islam and politics mixed togeather. Islam should be open to critique. But we must not paint all it's practioners with the same brush. Christianity is separate from politics - this is one reason why the west is more politically advanced. If we lived under a theocracy we'd be in the same boat as the Arab world today.

Exactly and both Christianity and Islam have tons of examples of people doing just that.

Hi Neal, Well I guess the point I'm making or trying to make is that Christianity has many of the same attributes or "problems" if you will that Islam has. I'm not condemning Christianity (or praising Islam) rather I think it has to be understood that all monotheistic religions appeal to dogma. I think Islam and Christianity both have made contributions to history and Humanity and both have also been involved in great harm. I think Craig's comments are legitimate when directed at Monotheistic or organized religion as a whole rather than one specific religion.

Hi Craig, Well traditionally if you're a member of the Catholic Church there is no interpretation either. The Catholic Church was always Hierarchical and discouraged any dissent. The mass used to be read in Latin and the congregation was often told not to read the bible. And the message was clear - Either you accept the faith or you go straight to hell. I can't speak to the other Christian denominations but the beliefs of the Catholic Church are are anything but open to interpretation. In that respect there's little difference with Islam - only that we have separation of Church and State and many Arab countries don't.

Hi Craig, You mentioned the best newspaper in the world in your previous post. What paper are you referring to? Thanks

We need the CBC and BBC to get accurate responsible journalism which is largely not provided by the private sector on which dominates the news BUSINESS and has no interest in truth or the public good - only making profit.

We stayed out of it as we should have.

KrustykidWell attacking Saddam Hussain as we all know was on the books for years and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FIGHTING TERRORISM as is widely acknowledged by most thinking people. The 9/11 attacks were the shock that shouldn't have shocked. You're correct that the United States wasn't prepared for it but they were warned about it in several security reports which suggested airplanes may be used as potential weapons. See: Full story at: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...memo020516.html Also: http://www.usa-xile.org/news/0305/19/911questions.html The 9/11 attacks were first and foremost a failure of American security. Fighting terrorism is a police matter requiring international cooperation and coordination of information. Sending the boys off to war might make good news but it does nothing but increase animosity toward America. Fighting a conventional war and planning for pre-emptive strikes does nothing to prevent or fight terrorism. Resources should be spent not invading Iraq but rather putting pressure on terrorist hot beds in Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan and Saudi Arabia to name a few. These states do actively support terrorism. It is here the attention should be focused.

Yes but in this case the BBC is going against the government. Time to get rid of it? The BBC has one of the finest repuations in the news business. I see no need to get rid of it or the CBC for that matter.

Craig, We're not talking about Canada here. We're addressing the Bush Administration and how they "may" be defeated in the next election. FastNed... I understand your point of view but I don't agree with it. America is taking a path which is creating more enemies not less. Just because a person opposses the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine doesn't mean they side with terrorists or are anti-American. I believe there is a better way to deal with these issues and get as many allies as possible on board. I do no hate America nor to I hope to see America fail in it's attempt to protect itself.

Well I'll withdraw from this for now. Good points but I disagree with the bush doctrine. The situation with Hitler is different because in that sense he had a clear and intense drive to take over surrounding territory and was in a position to do it. Saddam was no threat to the US or his neighbors and had no capability to do serious harm beyond his boarders as the initial stage of the war showed. Americas' long term interests are not being served here. Remember the boy who cried wolf?

HI Neal, I'm not defending North Korea's leaders or suggesting India should attack pakistan rather I'm asking if it is legimate for other countries to adopt the Bush Doctrine. I don't agree with it and think it's reckless. Part of my objection to the Iraqi war was pre-emption as a doctrine could open a pandora's box. It's a policy that can potentially lead to instability.

Do other countries in the international community have the right to pre-emptive strikes if they feel threatened? Should India attack Pakistan? Should Japan attack North Korea? Or should this policy remain solely the right of the United States?

I would like to see Bush defeated in the next election but I doubt this can be done although the issues are there to do it. The following can be used against Bush in the next election: •the continuing American casualties can be used against the administration •the case for going to war in the first place – faulty evidence re: Iraq attempting to buy fuel for nuclear weapons from Africa •the size of the current deficit •the tax break to the rich •ignoring domestic issues •turning world opinion against the US With a strong leader the democrats could pull off a victory. I don’t see anyone on the horizon just yet who’ll inspire the voters but it is a possibility.

Hi Rhonda, Well I went to Church every Sunday for over twenty years and alot of what the church told us seems to be pretty similar to what other religions tell their faithful. They all believe in one God and that their religion is the best. Sure there's a few differences but once you cut through the fluff it's the same thing - belief in after life, prophets, one God and so on. I guess I look at it as a "forest for the trees" sort of thing.

Well as far as I'm concerned Islam, Judaism and Christianity are pretty much the same thing. My main point in my response to Craig was that in his criticism of Islam he described exactly the beliefs of the Christian system.

Craig said, Craig although your post was about Islam you've just described the beliefs and principles of the Christian Faith, specifically the Catholic Church. Therefore your rants against Islam are really rants against religion, which is fine. However to portray Islam as more backward than any other religion is silly. They're all the same and the majority of practioners are non-violent.

Hi Rhonda, Firstly American companies aren't going to be banned from working in Canada. Second I have serious doubts that Kyoto will even be implimented in any meaningful way. If companies are leaving Canada and the States to set up shop in third world countries it's because they don't have to pay decent wages, obey labour regulations or follow environmental law.

Hi Ned, Don't forget that if you are a Canadian and someone asks for help you also give. Please don't forget that thousands of Americans were stranded on September 11th and were taken in by Canadian families or that Canada committed what troops it could to Afgan or that Canada had ships in the middle east to help on the war on terror.

Hi Craig, Please explain where racism comes into this discussion. You lost me.

Hi Bill and Greg... and you too Ned, I think Ned was addressing me here and typed Bill's name by mistake. At least I hope he was cause I'm about to reply to him here. I think the point I was trying to make again was that Craig’s comments were very generalized. I simply find it amusing that the complaints against Canada on this discussion board are the exact same ones you’ll hear about the United States… from Americans. I do not believe any of those things about the States. Neither do I believe them about Canada.

"Chretien maintains he has principles ? Principles of what ? Cowardice, free loading, racism, hypocrisy ? Is this what Canada stands for ?" Your statement can equally be applied to the States. Agreed? What does racism have to do with Chretien's not going to meet Bush?

Craig, Why do you listen to it in the first place. There are plenty of private radio stations available to get your news from. As for private news programing just take a look at what they have on some of the major networks in the states - lot's of pretty faces and no brains. And you're wrong again on Hussain - Saddam is not a terrorist in the sense of Osama Bin Ladin and no link has been established between Hussain and Bin Ladin Period! Also - the 50,000 people murdered has been thrown around quite a bit. Let's get a source on that.