arif

Fair response. I think they were disingenuous and actually quite distasteful...I know people who didn't vote Liberal because of them. I cringed at the ads, terrible - I absolutely loved 22 Minutes (or was it Rick Mercer's show), the way they made fun of them! Hilarious! Welcome Trudeau, he was a great PM! Stephen Harper was even a fan until the Energy program. Arif

Me, I would tell the person that there is an open opportunity for someone to take your money, maybe you should protect it. I think most people would do that. Illegal immigrants are part of a larger problem, in the States, we're looking a lot about Mexico, poor people who are desperate, and a lot of the world is poor because of neoliberalist economic policies and unfair trade. But I agree, illegals shouldn't be allowed to purchase housing. Denying them health care is a hard ethical issue, because medicine has a Hippocratic Oath, for us in health care it would go against our profession to not provide care. Then, who should pay for it, should renumeration be sought from the countries of the illegal immigrants origin? Those countries are poor because of the same policies, not an easy question. If the ethical view is that America only serves the interests of Americans, then you simply crackdown on the illegal immigrants. But even so, it might serve American interests to use it's might and wealth in the service of international social justice, towards countries like Mexico, so that there isn't such desperation. I find this problem very challenging as an ethical issue, because it's hard to find fault with the immigrants if you were to employ the ethical tool of placing yourself in their shoes, or the Golden Rule, given the desperates situation they may be in. This position is criticized as "bleeding heart". The military expenditure of the States is outrageous, leading a world military expenditure that in three days spends the same amount as annual spending to deal with HIV/AIDS. So much for fiscal conservatism, it's always the Republicans that blow up the deficits, leaving even Democratic governments with their hands tied on social spending. The moral question is whether it's true that such a colossal military is necessary, and contributes to security in America and the world. The hawks would have you believe that if they didn't operate this way, we would be vulnerable to damage, destruction even annihilation. But the moral imperative here is clouded by the gains made by military power, such that when the US invades Iraq we can speculate over the oil interests, whereas other unstable regions are are ignored because there's no oil. Michael Moore for president? But on morality, the question is on what you believe. If you believe that a) Iraq has WMD, Al-qaeda and Iraq are working together and c) the Iraqi people will welcome you as liberators from their despot, then going to war in Iraq looks like a moral choice unless you are a pacifist to begin with. Straight pacifism wouldn't appeal to most Americans because of their own revolution and because of the World Wars. All three were untrue, so it's a question of who lied, who was incompetent or who is hearing only what they want to hear. It's really bad, all the stuff you mentioned, but I think that most people are moral all over the world. It's just that often they haven't got the right information, or they're greedy or power-hungry, which is like an addiction. People with addictions often lie, so that results in people not having the right information, and those addictions give people money and power. Arif

hey, there's an interesting book called "are we getting enlightened, or losing our minds". It tries to distinguish between spiritual experiences and mental illness. One of the themes is that the hallucinations and beliefs or "delusions" accompanying illness states such as mania, for instance, are usually move the person away spiritual growth, whereas those of spiritual experience, like a "kundalini" experience tend to move the person towards spiritual growth. The current DSM has allowed for spiritual experience, including hallucinations and non-ordinary beliefs to be excluded from an illness label. The DSM tends to include a dimension of functionality to most diagnoses anyway, such that to be illness, it must interfere with someone's life. Those that believe in UFO's and aliens and ghosts are not mentally ill, even if their beliefs may be false. So, myself, I've been extremely manic, and those experiences I have described as "terrifying beauty", because of their mystical and sensual euphoria (although even in mania, there were very bad moments). In the short run, they were really destructive, and following them was a kind of "fallout" depression. On the whole, I think I've been able to reconcile the whole course of my illness which ran intermittently for about 5 years until I stuck to medication. I still retain the beauty of some of those experiences, and tried to integrate them somehow into my spirituality, yet I've been humbled enough to know that enlightenment is something more than "experiences". There may be a contextual and historical factor to the prophets, that these experiences happened when they did to the people they happened to, which is maybe how we could see it as divinely destined that they had these experiences, and which were in fact more than the individual growth-generating kind of a "kundalini" experience, as they inspired entire faiths and continue to today. Perhaps the capacity to have these experiences must be present in humanity in order for prophets to appear. So, in some they have a capacity for spiritual experiences, some get ill, and in certain historical contexts, this capacity is channelled in divine revelation. For those who experienced mental illness, I sincerely pray for their recovery, and that they can reconcile their experiences with who they are. That they can maintain a spirituality, and live a stable and fulfilling life. in peace. ARif

Didn't seem to me like CBC was partisan. Maybe our own partisan interests determine that perception. Like the way the left feels the media is owned and controlled by the right, and the right thinks that the media is biased to the left. The editor of one of the papers (can't remember which one) endorsed the Conservatives before the election. If big business tends to favour the right, then private-only radio's going to respond to their ownership and advertising dollars, we need a public media. CBC is the best radio in Canada, I hope it stays!! Ideas, Quirks and Quarks, CBC overnight etc. ARif

Our new parliament is a minority, means that more pragmatic legislation will pass based on a lot of consultation with the other parties. If they adopt a culture of cooperation, they will actually end up representing all voters, and getting more moderate policies. The Liberals were so successful because they represented the centre, which is why they still did relatively well despite their problems. Liberal majority governments for so long gave them too much power. And the large PC majorities of Mulroney could be argued to have had the same problem. Minority governments might no be so bad after all, we might be looking at them for some time to come. But it's true that it doesn't favour the party in power, so it's hard to see that party adopting it, unless it ran on that platform, which of course the two parties with enough base to govern do not. Accountability of MP's? Is there some way to adjust PR to reflect more accountability of MP's? Arif

The article is nonsense, but I like to think I could find merit in anything so, multiculturalism has it's drawbacks, mostly when it is considered superficially the way this article has done. Years ago, I wanted to start a multicultural club at my university, because there were a lot of cultural clubs but I knew plenty of people that were interested in culture but weren't associated particularly with any of the clubs. Plus, I wanted to be able to get people from all of the cultural clubs together. Then, a friend said, you should call in intercultural, not multicultural. "multi" stands for a situation when there is a pluralism, but each sector of this remains equal but separate, "inter" stands for a situation where pluralism allows for mixing and integration, which I believe can occur without losing identity. The situation at the university was already multicultural, our club was to allow for it to be intercultural. We've done the same thing in our interprofessional program, instead of calling it multi, where each profession would take a course together, whereas inter means each profession contributes their perspective and the students learn from one another. The multi course, people from different backgrounds just happen to coexist in the class on a subject of common interest, whereas in inter, the subject itself is calling on the people to solve problems using the different perspectives. If a Muslim from a really patriarchal culture were to come to Canada with really sexist views, but through integration they, or at least, their children, adopt more equal views, that's great. The problem with cultural relativity, is that it is almost as if nothing in a culture can be wrong, thus nothing should be changed, and we should almost have a Star Trek like imperative not to influence people. If a Muslim family comes to Canada, and shares the warmth, humility and great sense of humour of their culture, and a Western family picks up on these things and it influences their kids, that's fantastic. We're not much at risk having found freedoms, equality of gender, and tolerance to be influence by values that are much less good for us. Yet, we can be influenced by values in other cultures that we do appreciate. I have students who traveled to Africa this summer, and they've described the people they encountered as the bravest, strongest people they ever met. They still ran into aspects of the culture they couldn't accept. As students in their role as health workers new to the place, it wasn't their place to change those things, by appropriateness they had to adopt some cultural relativity in approach. But on a global scale, I feel that integration will result in the best of all cultures, group identities such as "western", will retain their heritage and identity, but hopefully we can move away from less productive cultural baggage, just as others will have to to improve the quality of life of their people. That article sounds to me like Public Enemy's "fear of a black planet". "fear of a muslim planet?" PE was talking about an irrational fear that racial mixing will result in a world with all shades of brown but no white, since when white and non-white mix, the kid isn't considered white. By the way, there was strong opposition from within the Muslim community of having Sharia law in Ontario. And no, we don't have to accept everything proposed as a cultural or religious right from any group. I would say fear is the greatest threat to western civilization. ARif

Betsy, I think good parenting can be done fine without corporal punishment. Probably if the parent himself or herself is disciplined in the application of corporal punishment, it wouldn't cause great harm. I'm not too sure, but I don't think psychological studies offer much support to its usefulness. thing is, you get parents who lose their own discipline in using it, so if you didn't begin with a rule in your head that you're not going to use it, then it could lead to damage. For myself, from a very young age, I've followed "ahimsa" or non-violence from Gandhi's tradition. So, I've never been in a fight since grade 6. I would never spank my child. I'm pretty sure I could have discipline with them, but I haven't had kids yet so we'll see. Arif

Oops, I meant not going to vote today! Being out of town, had to vote in a special ballot, which kind of annoyed me, because I wanted to hear out the whole campaign and be part of the excitement today. It wasn't likely I would change my mind, but in principle I thought I should be able to decide at the end. It's a technical issue of vote counting that has to happen at the same place and time. Unexpectedly, I was able to return to my riding today! Oh well.... I'm whining and complaining, maybe I should leave the country! just kidding not going back to that discussion!!! ARif

Hasan, your dialogue is excellent, you didn't promote Islam as better than other faiths, merely pointed out its beautiful aspects. I believe Turkey has done well under secular government with religious freedom, I think other Muslim nations could learn from that. It's too bad some want to turn things into some sort of faith competition to the bottom. Someone said "Muslims regard Christians as in error." I don't, I'm a Muslim. We are aware of the problems of Islam, after 2000 years of interpreting scriptures in Christianity and 1500 of interpreting Islam, we should know by now that both revelation traditions can be turned into ugly things, do we want to go down the path of comparing all of the bad things to see whose faith is worse? Hasan sees the potential for Islam's movement away from fundamentalism, and toward a more enlightened expression and understanding of our faith. This enlightened perspective is not new, it has been there all along, as in Rumi below from the 12th century in Turkey. Jellaludin Rumi is an Islamic Sufi poet, who is now regarded as one of the most widely read poets in America, consider his beautiful interpretation. What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do not recognize myself. I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr [Magian], nor Moslem. I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea; I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heavens. I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire; I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity. I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulghar, nor of Saqsin; I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khurasan. I am not of this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell; I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan. My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless; 'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved. I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one; One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call. He is the first, He is the lest, He is the outward, He is the inward; I know none other except "Ya Hu" [Yahweh] and "Ya man Hu" ["O He who is"]. I am intoxicated with Love's cup, the two worlds have passed out of my ken; I have no business save carouse and revelry. If once in my life I spent a moment without you, From that time and from that hour I repent of my life. If once in this world I win a moment with you, I will trample on both worlds, I will dance in triumph for ever. O Shamsi Tabriz, I am so drunken in this world, That except of drunkenness and revelry I have no tale to tell. Jelludin Rumi The psalms, like my favorite Psalm 23 is also beautiful poetry from Christianity, and the great spanish Jewish poet Ibn Garibol, who incidentally lived in spain under muslim rule and enjoyed religious freedom and friendship muslims and people of other faiths. - words start wars, use them beautifully and we'll start peace. Arif this love is an ocean and there are no islands no land in sight (my little poem) ps Perhaps no single medieval thinker so represented the interweaving of the three Abrahamic faiths, as did Solomon Ibn Gabirol (1020-105 . A Jewish mystic who was a follower of the great Sufi Muhammad Ibn Masarra (883-931), he was scorned by his own contemporary co-religionists, though Ibn Gabirol’s works gained traction long after his death, and many of his works have recently been translated into English (on seven different occasions over the past couple of hundred years), German, French, Italian, Dutch, Yiddish, Latin, Persian and Arabic. Additionally, medieval Christian thinkers assiduously read him. His importance to this religion grew so strong that Guillaume d’Auvergne, the 13th-century Bishop of Paris, declared that the author of Fons Vitae (who was Solomon Ibn Gabirol, though this was unknown at the time) was “the most exalted of all philosophers.” http://p220.ezboard.com/frenseradioforumfr...opicID=48.topic

The Pax Americana is only a peace for Northern countries. The States are highly complicit in the context of many of the world's ongoing wars. Look at what they did to Nicaragua and Congo, those are the two I'm most familiar with, but there are many more. American foreign policy is not popular in the rest of the world, chomsky has cited this in hegemony or survival. When we are critical of the American administration, we're labeled anti-american, but I've travelled a few times to New York and Washington and found the people awesome, the society great. It's really important to be able to dissent, to be critical, it's the foundation of civil society, and the great thing about our societies. Just because we have great societies, does that mean it's ok to abuse and exploit other countries with the excuse that their governance is not as good, and sometimes it's done, like in Nicaragua in the 80's, where governance was improving, and in Congo where the States and Belgium had Lumumba, a democratically elected prime minister, assassinated, and then supported Mobutu - a leader so corrupt that his personal fortune exceeded the budget of his country, supported him because he was willing to allow covert operations by the CIA to neighbouring countries during the Cold War. The hypocrisy that the openly stated self-interest of American foreign policy is also meant to paternalisticaly help other countries is astounding. We haven't even begun with the Bretton Woods institutions. There is definitely something wrong there, as we've seen in canada, power corrupts, and as we see in American foreign policy, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I guess it's politically incorrect to be anti-american, political correctness being relative to your political perspective. Arif

Here are the seat projections from nodice.ca based on the latest polls. Conservatives - 126 Liberals - 93 Bloc - 59 New Democrats - 29 Stephen Harper as prime minister in a minority parliament with the liberals as official opposition. Nodice.ca also has the latest polls from which we could project what parliament might look like if we had proportional representation. Conservatives - 38% Liberals - 26% New Democrats - 19% Bloc - 11% Greeen - 5% Prop rep would mean a close approximation of seats assigned according to vote percentage. Voters vote for a list of candidates, and either rank them, or the list is based on the party's priorities. So, by my calculations, this is the approximate distribution. Conservatives - 117 seats. Liberals - 80 seats NDP - 59 seats Bloc - 34 seats Green - 15 seats This is 305 seats, but there are 308, so three seats would be distributed somewhere in there. I like that it would reduce the Bloc's regional influence, and represent the electorate who supports smaller parties, 5% of voters is quite a large number of people who won't even get a seat for their party. But I like voting for a candidate in my riding, rather than a list. What do you think? Arif

Wow, the discourse on this discussion really deteriorated at one point where the word pakkie was used, that's no good! we can do better! Ignorance knows no colour, creed or nationality, and is not inherent to Islam, just as the Spanish Inquisition is not inherent to Christianity. Having said this, at various points in history, evil has arisen amongst people. These abasing, violent and criminal actions and attitudes of these people who rape are appalling. Suicide attacks are appalling, as is indoctrination of hate, as is dogmatic blindness. There is an interesting study on race in New African magazine recently. Two Koreans are likely to be more genetically different than one of the Koreans and a random northern european. In other words, there is more variation within a racial group than across racial groups. The same may be true for faiths and cultures, but there is an interaction of nurture with nature. Nurture, or, environmental influences are going to be different for groups that are relatively separate from each other. There's a study that shows that two groups with divergent views, when only communicating in the 'in-group', will form more polarized and extreme views, and that when the two groups interact with one another their views become more moderate and reasonable. You'll find that moderate muslims have far more in common to moderate Christians, than they do to members of Al-Qaeda or the rapists discussed here. Stereotyping only provides convenience to the mind, it does not lead to truth. i think most muslims are moderate. Islam is going through a dark age is some areas. Islam was the height of world civilization when Europe was in the dark Ages. There were great philosophers and mathematicians and scientists that influenced the course of the development of our western sciences and philosophy. I do not have the answers as a muslim on exactly how to bring Islam out of that darkness it is in, nor does any individual on this forum, and of course criminals anywhere must be brought to justice. I do know that when you see a muslim in the street, when you see a brown face, you do not have any omniscient power to know whether the person you see is more like Avicenna, or more like bin Laden, so prejudice is not going to help you. Arif

Betsy, I really pray and hope that there isn't more corruption, it's bad for the country even if it is good for the campaigns of opposing parties, I don't think we should actually hope that the change in government uncovers more corruption, unless it's actually there. It's really tempting to overstate the case against liberal corruption, i'm not a liberal voter myself and i do think they should go for complicity either by act or omission in Adscam, and definitely if there are liberal mp's, party members etc. who have committed crimes, there should be justice for them, just as there will be justice for conrad black. But assuming that campaign desperation is evidence for more corruption is only an assumption. Jack layton looks equally desperate in asking for a loan of votes, and his party appears on all counts to be squeaky clean (svend robinson's ring incident seemed to stem from mental illness rather than lack of ethics, and is isolated and carries no relationships with other party members.) I resist being placed on the political left-right spectrum myself, yet people usually would place me to the left, but I absolutely do not appreciate the comments from shakeyhands, I am extremely passionate about raising the level of discourse amongst anyone, and his contribution was extremely poor. I hope that the freezing rain in CP did not inconvenience you, many best wishes for you and your family. Arif

Can't have free votes in parlimentary systems. Governments would fall constantly. Party discipline is a core aspect of our system, thats why the Party Whip is one of the most important people internally in a political party. Can't have your way unless you want to overhaul the entire system, and the only way to go where free votes are encouraged (and actually work) would be the American or French type republican (system, not the party) systems. You can if they are non-confidence votes, so only financials would be confidence votes. The NDP! what do you guys think of proportional representation for better democracy? arif

Betsy that was well said, we should meet sometime in CP. you know I agree that if there is a campaign for people to give up their culture in Canada, I'm against it. I've learnt alot and thank you. In posting the mayor's column and discussing it, I have not brought forth any greater understanding of the truly crucial role of faith in a secular and pluralistic society, and in my attempt to attack divisiveness, I have caused more divisiveness. For that, I'm truly sorry. I'm really sorry for being provocative, and I've learnt a lot about this issue. With great affection to my fellow canadians, I apologize, and I wish you health and happiness. It's important to me to revise my position as I learn new information and perspective. The very last thing I would want to see as a non-Christian is the erosion of the great tradition of Christianity. The very last thing I would want to see is Christmas cards gone, christmas trees gone, the joy and delight of children in Santa Claus, the story of the birth of Jesus forgotten. The last thing I would want to see is carols no longer sung, prayers no longer said, a community of faith washed away in a secular world out of a shallow notion of sensitivity. My wife's a vegetarian, and she would never insist in going to someone's home that no one else eat meat in front of her, that they must cook a fully vegetarian meal. In fact, I would say if we were to arrive at a home where it was last minute and her veggie status had not been established, she would stick to her principles and not eat meat, but in no way would she try to influence others or insult the host, or make them cook an extra dish. The vast majority of vegetarians are like this, and I think it's an apt model for how people generally negotiate differences in this country. You said quite rightly that the mayor spoke out, where in some places you may be attacked not be language, but with guns and sticks. That is the beauty of this place. Just as the vast majority of vegetarians are like that, the vast majority of all non-christian canadians have absolutely no desire to eliminate christmas cards, or any of the other beautiful aspects of it. I was just told by a friend that I have too high a confidence in human nature, but I think it's true. I'm not trying to minimize your or mr. dulmage's concerns, as perhaps i did earlier, only trying to un-target the concern. Thank you and good luck to Stephen Harper (I didn't vote for him, but he will be our new PM and I wish him all the best for leading Canada well). I worked a little with a Canadian who fell in love with the Phillipines and lives there most of the year, they were working with a cooperative in the barangays near Batangas City, on environmental issues and public health. He's a fantastic guy, and it's too bad our idea of having nursing students from UOttawa learn about public health there didn't work out. love and light arif

I'm not asking anyone to give up their beliefs, the context of this discussion are the false premises of the so-called "war on christmas". Arif The war on Christmas isn't a false premise. It's no longer allowed in schools, in malls, anywhere outside of the house or Church. Earlier in this thread, Kimmy posted talking about how people would feel if Ramadan was renamed "National Weightloss Month." It would be labeled as a huge attack on muslims. Yet efforts to remove Christmas from the holiday dialogue are viewed as progressive. How is that equality? How is that fair? Anyone remember Paul Martin's inability to say 'Christmas Wreath'? Like I said, I disagree with this move toward neutrality of language around Christmas, but what do you have to say about the "right to leave" kind of language? Can we agree that efforts to remove Christmas from the holiday dialogue are not progressive, but abandon the attack on immigrants? And it is an attack, no one would be grateful to be told they have a right to leave, and again, many people have pointed out that this campaign is not driven by immigrants or non-Christians in general, so why place the blame there? Maybe we have to get to the root of the problem, overzealous political correctness. But to say that you would be offended if I said Season's Greetings, is to introduce another level of political correctness, Season's Greetings does not demean Christianity, and the comparison with "weight loss month" for Ramadan is silly. I think we're moving toward a reconciliation. If there are non-Christian immigrants or others pushing for this, I would advise them to place their efforts elsewhere, although I would say that it would be excellent if in our country if we can unite around a sense of common interests, and also venerate all holidays. So, if we're not sure of the religion of the person we're sending a card to, we could send cards which say "Merry Christmas, Eid Mubarak, Happy Diwali, Merry Kwanzaa and Meegwech (don't think I spelled that right) and a happy holiday season to all people who are not celebrating a religious holiday this season, but share in the fact that we all have some time off work, unless we are emergency workers, in which case we heap thousands of blessings on you for your service at this time, and we wish all families peace, happiness, unity and love." Hallmark would have a hard time printing such a message, but in the end, though I am critical of season's greetings, I think basically that's what it is trying to say. In an era of mass communication, we lose the richness of communication because we don't have the time or space to put it there. And anyway, can a "war on christmas" ever be won? Arif

I'm not asking anyone to give up their beliefs, the context of this discussion are the false premises of the so-called "war on christmas". I've tried to argue that the beliefs to be defended as the Christian influence in Western culture go far deeper, are far more rich and meaningful than the defensive reactionary attitude of the "war on christmas", which by positing it as a war, creates an "us" and "them" divisivenes we don't need. Plus the implication that immigrants, or anyone, should exercise a "right to leave", is hurtful, my whole reaction to this began with that, and I'm praying to God we can get beyond this. I'm sure that the First Nations have had the worst end of the immigration that began from the 1500's on, certainly they would have a more legitimate complaint of threats to their culture and beliefs stemming from the residential schools, and other assimilitionist policies. It's like that joke - "my grandfather came to this country and as soon as he got off the boat he turned to the guy behind him and said, "what do you mean coming to my country." What this has to do with conservatives is that it appears that the "war on christmas" concept is emanating from the conservative religious right. I am absolutely sure that even the religious right, who I tend to disagree with most of the time, has something better to offer than this. If the "war on christmas" and its divisive pretensions should be dissociated with conservatives, then I applaud that dissociation and discarding of useless concepts, and we can move toward a more intelligent dialogue on religious tradition in a secular and pluralistic society. Arif

I'm not asking anyone to give up their beliefs, the context of this discussion are the false premises of the so-called "war on christmas". I've tried to argue that the beliefs to be defended as the Christian influence in Western culture go far deeper, are far more rich and meaningful than the defensive reactionary attitude of the "war on christmas", which by positing it as a war, creates an "us" and "them" divisivenes we don't need. Plus the implication that immigrants, or anyone, should exercise a "right to leave", is hurtful, my whole reaction to this began with that, and I'm praying to God we can get beyond this. I'm sure that the First Nations have had the worst end of the immigration that began from the 1500's on, certainly they would have a more legitimate complaint of threats to their culture and beliefs stemming from the residential schools, and other assimilitionist policies. It's like that joke - "my grandfather came to this country and as soon as he got off the boat he turned to the guy behind him and said, "what do you mean coming to my country." What this has to do with conservatives is that it appears that the "war on christmas" concept is emanating from the conservative religious right. I am absolutely sure that even the religious right, who I tend to disagree with most of the time, has something better to offer than this. If the "war on christmas" and its divisive pretensions should be dissociated with conservatives, then I applaud that dissociation and discarding of useless concepts, and we can move toward a more intelligent dialogue on religious tradition in a secular and pluralistic society. Arif

yikes, ok, let's not add to the misunderstandings in this great country, so let me explain what is wrong with what dulmage said and why it's not based on truth. Please understand that I prefer Merry Christmas myself, that I'm all for preserving Christmas traditions. And I'm sorry I was scary, I'm not actually scared myself of conservatives as people, but quite flummoxed by some of the far-right ideas. I guess I was looking for any moderate consensus amongst conservatives that a Stephen Harper government is not going to promote backlash against immigrants or any minorities. I thought folks might see what went wrong in the thinking. And it's true it's not a partisan issue, but I haven't ever heard any of the other parties oppose multiculturalism. My approach wasn't good. Ok, here's my thought. Dulmage is creating a fictitious backlash against immigrants. I've never met a non-Christian, immigrant or otherwise, who has whined or complained against Merry Christmas, or Christmas in general. Dulmage's implication is that immigrants whine and complain a lot, I don't think there is any truth to that. I'm not sure about that campain in Australia, but I don't believe any such campain exists in Canada, and I would never support it. I'm fairly confident that the trend towards the neutral language of the holidays is not the result of any campaign by immigrants or religious minorities. As far as dilution of Christmas, Western culture has done far more damage to the meaning of Christmas than any other culture. I'm a member of this culture and I love the West, all of these aspects of Western culture, it's Christian heritage along with the Enlightenment and philosophical traditions, democracy, separation of church and state, freedom, sciences, arts and civil society. When a society has such great traditions, it is disengenous to assert that these can be threatened merely by the presence of others, while the true decay may lie within our western culture. From this perspective, we can see that the Brick's "ho ho hold the payment", and Canadian Tire's incessant ads, the exploitation of Santa Claus, the desire for the market to capitalize to the full extent people's desire to be generous at that time of year, these forces are waging the true "War on Christmas", while the arguments presented by Dulmage displace society's malaise on the 'outsider'. If we were rooted in the true spirit of Christmas, we would be grateful to receive any greeting or card, knowing that another human being has thought of them with affection. I love the story of the Grinch, because he had a War on Christmas too, he took all the Who's presents away, yet the kept singing, and that dignity and spirit won over the Grinch, there was a reconciliation. We need a reconciliation of the need to preserve the Christian tradition in Canada, and the joy of being able to love our neighbour's, respecting their culture and identity. The season's greetings battle is a false one, when we create these fictitious battles we divide the country, and it is only a battle of consequence through these types of misunderstandings. Whether or not we think it is better to say season's greetings, or merry christmas, I can't see how we can possibly accept that the "war on christmas", whose parameters have been set by the christmas industry itself which is responding to mere demographics rather than campaigns, is a useful battle. I can't see how we can accept that suggesting to people who haven't whined and complained, that if they whine and complain they should leave, is in the Christmas spirit. It begs the question, suppose people did want to complain about some aspect of our society, then should they not be welcome in it and exercise their "right to leave"? Should Martin Luther King, in his criticism of racism in America, have exercised his right to leave? Where should he have gone? What sense does that make in a free society, where criticism and dissent is considered necessary and useful? I desperately am seeking some critical debate, you cannot just come out and say things which are not true, just because the attitude feels true to you. In the spirit of Christmas, we need reconciliation, we need to love one another, we need to respect one another's traditions, we need to be grateful that we live in a country without ethnic, sectarian or religious based violence. In the spirit of the election, I think we need to raise the level of debate beyond what it is now, and I was wrong in posing my challenge in the way that I did. I encourage people of all political stripes be open to pluralism. Pluralism is perhaps a cousin to multiculturalism, but is broader in incorporating a multiplicity of not only cultures, but ideas. Ideas move forward when they are met with other ideas. Critical thinking has been reduced to criticism alone in articles like the Dulmage column. The process of philosophical critique is to begin with charity to the idea, in order to understand it properly, then criticism to identify its weak points, then an attempt at synthesis and integration of ideas. In my analysis, I see no reason for a "war on christmas", I agree that people ought to be free to celebrate Christmas and say Merry Christmas, but critically it seems patently false to paint the picture of non-Christians and immigranst as enemies in a so-called "war on christmas". Finally, I think there's a lot of truth in the idea that if we look outward beyond ourselves we can heal ourselves. These divisions that we are discussing are a lot of hot air when you put it in perspective with our global situation, and the role that Canada can play in the world. When you have a world divided like this, with civil wars in so many nations, with lack of access to water, health care and opportunity in so many nations, and you have a country with a diverse population, with no internal organized violence, with excellent health care, with prosperity, with civil society, free speech, religious freedom and equality of men and women, we can be a leader on the global front, where we can help turn things around, because we've abandoned the idea of cultural superiority so that nations we're helping see us as partners not patronizers. When we look at our potential in that, it can unite the country, whichever party is leading. I pray that Stephen Harper will not divide, but will unite this country, and I think the best way to do it would be to reestabish Canada's humanitarian role in the world on a multi-partisan level. Arif

The mayor of carleton place made these statements in his column in our newspaper before christmas. I'm bringing it up because it's why some conservatives scare people. And it's so outrageous I'm obsessed with it and can't get it off my mind. Thankyou to the councillors who rejected Dulmage's comments. It seems pretty obvious who the mayor of carleton place, where i live, will vote for. Is this the way conservatives think? Is this a marginal far-right view? how will Stephen Harper deal with this type of thinking among those who support the Conservatives all the time, not only those who are voting for them as an alternative to liberal corruption. Stephen Harper has appeared more moderate, but is this just to win the election? Are there any conservatives out there who will state their rejection of these nationalist, anti-immigrant views? Arif CARLETON PLACE -- Four members of town council stood up publicly for multiculturalism here Tuesday night, taking a loud and clear stand against a Christmas newspaper column by Mayor Paul Dulmage. Feeling "the season was right," Dulmage used his regular Mayor's Corner column in last week's Carleton Place Canadian to lash out at pressure from non-Christian minorities which he claimed had diluted the celebration of Christmas. "We've gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But it seems that no one has a problem with that," Dulmage wrote in the column which primarily quoted remarks he pulled from an unnamed Internet source. "This idea of Canada being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity," Dulmage quoted the source. "If you wish to become part of our society, learn the language. "If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home ... because God is part of our culture," the mayor repeated from the source. 'RIGHT TO LEAVE' "But once you are done complaining, whining and griping about our flag, our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you to take advantage of our one other Great Canadian Freedom ... the right to leave." Using the platform of the regularly scheduled planning and development committee meeting, council members Brian Doucett and Art Quartermain and Deputy Mayor Linda Schmidt backed Coun. Wendy Leblanc as she read a statement critical of Dulmage's column. "We recognize that our community is home to families of different origins, races, colours and creeds," the councillor read. "We acknowledge that our community life is richer, more vibrant and stronger because of the contributions of all our citizens and, as a council, we will continue to do our utmost to ensure that all the citizens of Carleton Place live peaceable lives, free of discrimination." Taking the floor, an unrepentant Dulmage claimed the group of councillors had missed the point. He didn't elaborate. Coun. Gerald Kirby backed the mayor and Coun. Dennis Burn did not stand in support of the statement from the other councillors and did not comment. PERSONAL POSITION Later Dulmage told the Sun he received hundreds of e-mails and voice messages in support of his stand after his column got national TV coverage. He criticized council members for politicizing what for him was a personal position on Christmas. He added he won't be dissuaded from running again for mayor next November. Doucett said council guidelines allow members to make statements on any topic before officially opening a meeting. No motion was presented and no action of any kind recommended because councillors who took the action didn't want to draw out the situation. Doucett slammed Dulmage for a "knee-jerk reaction" in blaming non-Christian new Canadians for the politically correct treatment of Christmas. "There's nothing wrong with criticizing the commercialization of Christmas," the councillor said. "If the mayor would have apologized for offending anyone, he might have been off the hook." In a paid newspaper ad placed independently of council, Doucett said he found Dulmage's remarks "completely unacceptable in the modern global community we are a part of and are based on myth, opinion and innuendo rather than fact and truth. History has shown that people must speak out against such attitudes." When introducing the quoted comments in the Canadian, Dulmage, in his own words, railed against the "pressure from non-Christian faiths to dilute the celebration of the birth of Christ," including the custom of wishing "Season's Greetings" instead of "Merry Christmas." This, he wrote, goes against the sensibilities of most Canadians who are "Christians of many faiths that believe in God." Dulmage signed off noting the column had little to do with politics, "but I had to get it off my chest and I felt the season was right."

Too bad Stephen Lewis isn't running... Arif