AndrewL

Well then let me be the first "lefty" to state that Elizabeth May is now just a 'politician' like the rest of those bums. I do not support any attempt to appease or co-opt the religious vote. Lets see, what other party is there now.... ah whatever, its not like voting means anything anyway. Andrew

Ive gotten that feeling before to. I usually think its because they just so receptive to mainstream thought that they end up sounding like a commercial. No different that people who walk around wearing a molson canadian hat & Tshirt..... do they even realize they are just a walking billboard? I hate it when companies i work for give me corporate attire.... WTF..... they should be paying me extra to wear their logo. Andrew

What are you sugesting here andrew that soldiers don't pay the same taxes as you, or that our commitment to this Canadian mission insults you, or that soldiers should not have opinions and should not be heard from. or would it be to much to ask that before Canadians ask me to risk my life that they show the same level of commitment. None of that. You said yourself only a minority of Canadian actually support the mission (i have not seen any recent polls, so this could be wrong). If the soldiers want to do it, but it is not something Canadians want their soldiers to be doing, than i think it would be more appropriate if you were a private for profit organization hiring yourselves out to Afghanis who want you there. I personally dont think it is worth it. Im not insulted by it, just angered over it. I think are security is far worse because of it. I dont think Candians asked you to risk your life at all. You are a volunteer. I could personally care less if Canada had any armed forces at all. Andrew

Then maybe you should pay for it out of your own pocket, and stop displaying the Canadian flag. You could become a mercenary and do it for massive profits even. Andrew

Wrong on all counts 1) Song pre date Tony and Dawn by over 100 years 2) The symbol was first used 10 years earlier to help people remember that Iran was holding american hostages. http://www.loc.gov/folklife/ribbons/ribbons.html 3) Iraq was expelled from Kuwait. Thanks for coming..... Yeah and mothers day was invented in protest to collateral damage. Now its just a cheap marketing scam. Things often become cheap and meaningless, that once were powerful symbols. Andrew

Can you give me an example of one of Dawkins' premisies that are misguided? Andrew

The fact is if you pay taxes you support the troops, whether you want to or not. Andrew

The real issue is that some atheists have come to realize that there is complicity in the silence of religious moderates in regards to the suffering they cause. Too often religious moderates don't speak out loudly enough against the fundamentalists. There are many reasons atheists have gone on the offensive: 1) Militant islam is in the news, 9/11, Taliban, and so on. There is an obvious danger here that is connected directly to religious belief. Many western conservatives complain that moderate muslims are not voicing their opposition loudly enough agianst the islamic fundamentalists. Western conservatives are admitting here that quiet moderation is complicit in violent or cruel fundamentalism. 2) Two writers, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, have eloquently provided legions of atheists with well thought out and meaningful arguments that us atheists can now use and expand upon. I really enjoyed Dawkins expose on how people actually dont' get morals from religion, thereby destroying the notion that atheists are immoral. 3) The internet is a great place to speak openly about all issues, religion included. We now have a forum. 4) fundamentalist christianity has achieved political power in the US, Canada, and the UK. If you want to join politics, get used to being harangued, even if you are religious. Fuck off if you cant handle it. I think it is wrong to confuse the positivistic atheism with fundamentalism. At the core, all that we are doing is attaching the same logic and disposition we use in everyday life to notions of existence and meaning. That is it. There is no reason i can think of why religion should be shielded from the same open criticism that art, entertainment, or politics is normally subjected to in our everyday lives. There is no reason why religion should not be held to the same low standards as other human institutions. Andrew

so how is it, that any credible claim can be made of "freeing" these countries. How is it that any credible claim can be made that the unnecessary, unwarranted invasions made the lives of these people better? Despite all the money that has gone in to construct pipelines, and construct the oil infrastructure, where has the benefit been to the populace? We know big oil has benefitted greatly, and western corporations have also, but what of the people who live there? Worse off then ever. Who would have thought any differently, to be realistic? Mission Accomplished! Iraq is a non-existent state. Andrew

I wish the catholic church cared about the women who were victims of rape. Apparently the imaginary sould deserves more care and attention. Don't scratch your nose, you are killing hundreds of little potential souls.... The pope is an asshole. Andrew

Why did Hitler hate Jews? Why do whites hate blacks? Why does my friend hate cats? Why do i hate TV? Why do i hate all religions? Why do conservatives hate liberals? Why does the national post hate environmentalists? Why do islamicists hate the west? I think its because in all these cases the people doing the hating perceive very strongly that they are being cheated by the people that are hated. Hate usually leads to action. Andrew

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society? Why not? Andrew Because pluralistic societies work better when one side isn't trying to kill the other side because they think the other side are monkeys and pigs. But this is exactly why pluralistic societies developed, as a response to tribalism. By either side in this conflict insisting on preserving some religious or ethnic character for their state they are dooming themselves to constant violence. Andrew

Are you suggesting that Israel is only modern industrialized and educated nation in the world that cannot live in a pluralistic society? Why not? Andrew

The Israel/Palestine conflict is one of those sources from which traditions in international law have drawn from. Specifically, within the history of international law, the Israeli/Palestine conflict is treated as occupation. Sure it is disputed by Israel and others who support the occupation, but other bodies with just as much legitimacy to label and treat the situation as it is, treat it as occupation. Which is de facto, a foreign military and civilian occupation of a people who are subject to and displaced by said power. Suffering or benefiting from whatever consequences result from that. You seem to be denying that an occupation is what is in fact happening. You are attempting to justify it be appealing to an abstract notion of law (as you admit plainly above), thereby denying reality, both human and political. I suppose one could also deny that Britain, Spain, and France occupied the Americas. But in reality that is indeed what happened, (and continues to happen) ...denying it would be intellectually dishonest. You can call it layman if you want, i will call my criteria the fundamental basis of any law that could realistically deal with the actual problems of occupation. Yeah well, im not looking for Israel to be "pushed into the sea". No purpose? Surely it serves some sort of religious purpose. It satisfies the urge for manifest destiny. It serves a similar purpose to how the European settlers viewed North America. Im glad you at least concede that settlements are significantly bad news. Yes, i suppose politicians in all nations capitalize on religious fundamentalism in their societies. You speak in the past tense though - you are aware that settlement construction is still very active in the west bank? Not only are old settlements continously expanding, but brand new ones are being constructed! Wow, talk about a huge democratic deficit. What is the matter, not only with Israel, but the US, Canada, and much of Europe that our leaders constantly do the opposite of what the voters want? I know the majority of Israelis do not support the continued occupation, but i have come to realize over the last decade or so that governments rarely if ever act in the interests of their people, and very rarely follow the popular mandate. (usually when countries do follow the popular will of the people, some powerful democratic nation comes along and incites a coup or an insurgency, in order to protect business and trade interests. In other words, it seems increasingly irrelevent to me what 80-90% of Israelis want in polls, until they take to the streets and cause the government and economy to halt, there will be no change to the elite orthodox interests that are influential in Israel. That does not explain the ongoing settlement activity. The issue is more how to stop it from happening first and foremost, and only secondly how and when to remove the existing ones. I think the question is not will it be done, its who does it. I think you would agree with me that if Israel is ever weakened enough that the settlements are left unprotected, it wont be pretty. It has potential to be an outright bloodbath. But perhaps you don't agree with me that if Israel does not do it in good time, that is is only a matter of time before things begin to topple over the brink? Yes, anybody living within Israel as a citizen is able to vote freely in Israeli elections, that is true. My apologies for misstating that. But i was wondering if the muslim population, about as big as the jewish population with double the birth rate, be allowed to participate freely in Israeli elections, if Israel failed to ever withdraw and a one state solution was the only likely or possible outcome? Or would they be treated the same as Muslim citizens of East Jerusalem who are mostly barred or prevented from voting in Palestinian elections (remembering that Israel is the occupying force and as such has a responsibility to allow and facilitate, even encourage, voting in free national elections). In 2006 ~6000 residents of east jerusalem (of a total arab population in east jerusalem of ~220 000 residents) were allowed to vote locally in the Jan. 2006 Palestinian elections. The rest were told they had to travel to west bank polling stations if the wanted to vote, not an easy task with all the checkpoints and barriers they have to travel through. They are limited from voting in their own elections on land that is under Israeli occupation. Israel typically retaliates with a far more deadly form of terrorism. Israelis are also being exploited by their own 'evil' men and women of power who pursue ideology and conflict, as opposed to rationality and peace. But yes, palestinians will be caught in a cycle of terror, and so will Israelis. All for some abstract notion of religion and nationality, on both sides. I dont believe that. If that was true they would not have immediately annexed east jerusalem and called all of jerusalem their capital, and they certainly would not persist to this day in expanding and building brand new religious settlements in the west bank. If what you say is true Israel would not have engaged in their own brand of terror by peppering southern lebanon with massive amounts of cluster bomblets last summer, engaging in assasinations, air war, or the bulldozing of homes. Engaging in terror is surely a perverse way to prevent terror. Israel is as much in pursuit of an ideology as any nation, or would-be nation. And they have shown quite clearly they are willing to kill and die for it, at all costs. As have the palestinians, as have all nations. There is absolutely nothing from preventing Israel to begin withdrawing right away. Their security situation would remain unchanged in the short term, but it would change other things. It would immediately change the perception that Israel has no desire to expand into much of the west bank, it would also greatly reduce the influence and power of those armed groups who use occupation as a cause and recruitment tool for resistance. And ultimately it would restore international legitimacy for israel. It is unrealistic to ask the palestinians to disavow violence when even israel itself was created with violence and continues to rely on it, as have all nations. If we support the existence of Israel or any other nation, that means we support the idea that ends justify the means. We cant realistically take that away from the palestinians. We can't realistically expect nations like the US, Israel, or any nation to renounce violence as a means to their ends, its never going to work with the palestinians. What needs to happen is negotiations between whoever the legitimate leaders of the palestinian people happen to be, even in the midst of violence, and both sides have to make politically uncomfortable and painful compromises. That takes courage but it really is the only hope. As you have read already i don't agree with you on that, for good reasons. One could easily say that all Palestinians want is to be "left alone to live in piece" and it would be just as false. Everybody wants more than that, and nobody ever leaves anybody alone to live in piece. All of human civilization is the exact opposite of that. But one could easily quote Israelis who either refuse to recognize the existence of palestinian people or hold blatantly racist views towards them. Holding them as beasts or sub human. Im sure there are plenty of Israelis who just wish all the Palestinians would disappear, somehow. But more importantly, by the same token, on both sides of the conflict, i read some very human and caring statements that do urge peace and genuinely want reconciliation. Thing is other interests, often corrupt and ideological ones, are always calling the shots and really ruining it for everybody. Same old story. Andrew

Where in the definition of occupation does it state that the place being occupied has to be deemed a country or nation? Occupation simply requires a place to occupy, a people to be occupied, and a military to do the occupying. Thats it. Now, does Israel have legitimate security concerns? Sure. But for what purpose do they continue to freight in religious settlers to build brand new settlements in the west bank? What goal does that serve? Are they just human shields? Does Israel intend to take the entire west bank permanently and completely dash any hopes of a Palestinian state? And if they do, do they plan on continuing the program of not allowing Palestinians to participate politically in the jewish democracy? Where does that leave the Palestinian population? Do they remain as prisoners permanently inside a greater israel that finally realizes its dreams of controlling the entire region? These questions need answers. Nobody seems to know what the goal of israel is, at least with the Arabs we know what they want. Andrew

Man did create god, and then killed him. God is dead. (although looking at the world today that is hard to believe). Andrew

Because they were attacked from that land and those who attacked were defeated. You don't get to go back to square one and start over again until you win if you were defeated. Actually you do. Israel's occupation is illegal. But its worse than that, the west bank is where all the religious settlements are built and stocked with North American and Western European Jews who believe that the west bank is literally the land of milk and honey promised to them by a god. So not only is the occupation illegal by international law, it is also immoral and nothing less than an ancient form of religious colonialism. These settlers are as big a problem as any religious 'terrorist'... maybe bigger. Andrew

I could care less. Andrew

What exactly are they boycotting? I thought everything was made by poor people in Asia? Andrew

So you just go around inventing silly fantasies with no evidence and asking people to disprove them? First comes evidence and observation and then we attempt to either confirm or deny. That is how rational people proceed in these matters. I have moved no goal posts, i ask for evidence of the true existence of the god of the bible, or any other human created god, and i still have not received any. You have yet to provide evidence. You mentioned you may have some anecdotal evidence, but you did not provide any. (but don't bother, because that is not the type of evidence i seek). Perhaps MM was right. Andrew

Nor did they in the "great" democracies of North America until just a few decades ago. Andrew Few decades? How about nine? Well nine is still a blink of an eye in all of human history. (and we were considered an enlightened democracy 9 decades ago, which is the point). But its not true anyway. Quebec women were not granted the right to participate until 1940. Andrew They voted federally. The point is still that democracy was what we were considered to be and what we considered ourselves to be before women or slaves had the right to vote in North America. I believe we were even proud of ourselves. Andrew

No one is asking you to disprove anything. You can continue to firmly believe in non-existence of monkey god. However if someone else wants to believe in it - that reason should suffice, for me at least. Ahh, but when it comes to permeate politics, legislation, globalism, medicine, and education it is not a good enough reason at all. Otherwise I agree, if it was just some lunatic in his basement worshiping a monkey god big deal. I certainly don't think somebody else's belief in the anthropomorphic biblical god should keep me from enjoying the benefits of stem-cell research, do you? Not in the same way as religions, no. I want people to accept reason, logic, rationality, open-mindedness, tolerance, awe at the unbounded mystery of existence and so on. That is in no way like religions do. I don't want my point of view exactly and rigidly accepted by everybody, i want people to free themselves of religious dogma and tradition and develop their own points of view. I don't want them to follow the perverse ideas of the pope or their local ministers. I certainly don't want them to attend madrassas and chant the Koran all day. And i definitely don't think a person should be brought up to believe God promised them a certain corner of land in a certain desert somewhere in the ME..... I am not at all as rigid, archaic, irrational, and closed-minded as religions are. Andrew

To deter Saddam. That is obvious. What would you do if you were neighbors with your arch-enemy and you suspected them of building a nuclear program? The important thing is that the ativity is now known. The issue becomes whether Iran has lost its rights under the NPT because of it. That really does not prove anything. But to answer your question more directly, No, im not sure about what Iran is up to. Nor am i sure what the USA is up to. This is why we must demand real evidence for both parties. Andrew

Crime? Unilaterally invade? Fraud? I think you guys need to revisit your understanding of crime and punishment. This would be the crime, guys. Since the UN has no enforcement teeth, the coalition of the willing took matters into their own hands and clearly enforced 1441. Except Saddam fully complied with resolution 1441 after it was passed in the UNSC. Andrew

Most certianly, but some of "you" may choose to not limit their notion of reality strictly to what is dictated by a certain theory. Not to mention that no newtonian theory (or in fact, any scientific theory) can prove that Chinese monkey god does not exist somewhere in the multiverse. It can only state with certainty what can happen in its domain of application. So now we have come to Russel's famous celestial teapot. Of course science cannot prove there is no monkey god somewhere in all of existence.... but since when do we go around inventing fantasies and then asking others to disprove them? What reasons do we believe they exist for real in the first place? Ahh, but there is no evidence that a domain of spirits even exists. Why do you now appeal to notions of evidence? Andrew