gc1765

You helped in Afghanistan for two reasons: 1) NATO nations pitched in to help fight (when one is attacked, the alliance responds as though all were attacked); and, 2) it was a moral decision to help your neighbor and take down a renegade government that proved itself to be a lethal threat against the civilized world. #1) Agreed. But keep in mind that the U.S. was more than capable of invading afghanistan on their own, in fact they preferred to go it alone. It was only after the taliban had retreated & the insurgency was the only remaining defence that the U.S. welcomed NATO for the difficult task of rebuilding the country. #2) Exactly like you said "...to help your neighbor...". Bin laden was much more of a threat to the U.S. than to Canada. I believe it was only after Canada participated in the war in afghanistan that bin laden promised to attack Canada, and though Canadians did die in 9/11, they weren't specifically targeted. That was an attack against the U.S., and Canadians just happened to be there. I never once asked, or even suggested that the U.S. should pay Canada for it's military operations. All I said was that the least the U.S. could do to a friendly neighbor who helped them out in a time of crisis is abide by NAFTA, instead of hurting our economy. Is that too much to ask?

When would you assign innocence and why?If the question is when does a fetus become a child then my answer is: when the fetus can survive as an independent living being outside the mother's body. I would add the caveat that surviving means that the child only requires basic parental care that any other child would require (i.e. food, water, affection). A fetus that might be able to survive with the extraordinary medical intervention is not a child - it is simply a fetus kept viable in an artificial womb until it is mature (much like a frozen embroyo is keep viable by freezing). A fetus becomes a child when it can leave that artifical womb.This definition is also a statistical definition. So a child born after 9 months with severe medical problems is still a child because 99% of children delivered at 9 months survive without intervention. A fetus delivered after 6 months is not a child because it would never survive without the artificial womb. This definition means that there is a line between 6 and 9 months where a fetus could be reasonably be considered human because it could be delivered and given to someone other than the mother to take care of - that last statement is key to my definition. I am saying that the mother should have the absolute right to control her body as long as she is the only person that can keep that fetus viable. Once that duty could be transferred to another person then the mother no longer needs to have that absolute right since alternatives exist that would allow the mother to control her body and ensure that the biologically independent child/fetus can live too. I exclude heroic interventions with an artificial womb because we cannot have a definition of life that depends on the existance of an extremely expensive medical system that many women do not have access to (i.e. in third world countries). I think that's probably the best definition I've heard.

Which shows that either a) he's an idiot and completely ignorant of reality or the Liberals are a party that supports some forms of terrorism. Remember, which party was it that support the Tamil Tigers for many years... mostly because many of their ridings were made up of immigrant Tiger supporters. The Liberals are the voting buying party of Canada. Of course Hezbollah wouldn't be added to the list until the evidence was overwelmingly damning... many Hezbollah supporters would love to vote Liberal. This is why I can't vote for the Liberals, simply political prostitutes. I'd probably choose a) over . I don't think the liberals, or any party, actually support terrorism. I think Bill Graham thought that the charity wing of hezbollah and the military wing were separate, and when he realized that they were inseparable he made them a terrorist organization. Keep in mind I was repsonding to someone who said that the Liberals never said hezbollah is a terrorist organization, which is false. The Liberals did designate them as a terrorist group, even if it was belated. By the way, I think all political parties are guilty to some extent of vote buying. What do you think Harper is doing in Quebec by promising to address the fiscal imbalance...a promise which he has essentially broken by the way. Do you not think that is vote buying in order to get his majority?

I guess the distinction between the state exercising its power over the individual and the individual exercising its power over its own person is lost on you people. Oh well. No kidding. I thought conservatives were all about small government?

Huh? Who do you think made Hezbollah a terrorist group in Canada? Link

I'm a bit surprised that Bevilacqua put his support behind Rae. I thought Bevilacqua was supposed to be more on the right of the party, whereas Rae is very much to the left. I wouldn't want Rae as leader either, because I'd hate to see more deficits...but I suppose I could be naive enough to believe he might have changed?

I agree that afghanistan is a good cause, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't contradict the bible. Especially since the reason for the war was to capture bin laden (rather than turning the other cheek). Helping the opressed people was just a fortunate side-effect so to speak. Are you honestly suggesting that the ONLY reason they are getting married is to bully the church? That it's not about love, it's about distorting the words of Christ? Where did you get that idea? I support the war in afghanistan, but then again I don't take the bible literally. If I did take every word of the bible literally, there is no way I could support the war. I think the various passages that I have quoted (I could find more if you'd like) make that very clear.

I agree with your post, but I'd like to add one quote which shows that Einstein did have some sort of spiritual side, even though his views on religion/God are much different than most people's. Wikipedia article on Spinoza

Not quite. I don't think that Bush ever equated opposition to him to disloyalty or terror. Bush didn't say that, the original poster (Frances) said that.

Actually these posts bring up a good point. If the media hadn't made such a big deal about it, no one would have known what he had said and thus the comment wouldn't have been able to influence others.

I don't think that's quite an accurate translation. "You, on the other hand, are equal to the Talaban or Al’Quada terrorists..." "liberals...deport them" Sounds like what he/she is trying to say to me.

So if you disagree with George Bush, then you are a terrorist who deserves to be deported? So much for democracy...

And these gay priests were preaching homosexaulity in the pulpit? I still don't see the difference.

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". How is it that the priests are forcing their lifestyle upon the church, but not those who publicly support military action? In both cases they know full well it goes against the faith.

I didn't realize there was a large group of people lobbying to teach that Jews started WWII or that blacks are inferior to whites. Anyways, attempts to create equality through the civil rights movement is a fact that can not be disputed (well in my opinion evolution can not be disputed, but there are people out there who do dispute it). Are there people out there who don't think people like Marting Luther King existed? As for an alternative project, I think it would be great to see people try and dispute the theory of evolution on a scientific basis only, no references to religion. That would be interesting.

I think that to most scientists, trying to disprove evolution is much like trying to disprove the heliocentric model of the solar system. Both are considered as irrefutable to most scientists. Maybe in Alberta, but not in Ontario where I graduated high school. Actually, I never even learned about evolution in high school (though I never took OAC biology, but we didn't learn about it in gr 12 biology). Also, at least in Ontario, those biology classes are electives so you don't actually need to learn evolution to graduate high school, unless you want to become a biologist I think the solution that makes the most sense is to teach evolution in biology, but any student who wishes not to be exposed to the theory of evolution can sort of opt-out and do an alternative project instead. That might not work in provinces with standardized tests though. And teach ID or creationism in church only. That way nobody has to be exposed to any teachings that they do not want to be exposed to, but everyone has the option of learning about either.

There was an uproar about those Catholic priests who were exposed in the sex scandal. And I think the Catholic Church had spoken of some sort of rehabilitation or therapy. But I think priests are told to stop what they're doing. Most parishioners would want them taken out of the service. If it happened to the Catholic Church (these two priest who married from Church of England), I think they will be given the chance to denounce and repent for their sins. The likely scenario would most likely to transfer them to different far-off parishes. Ok so maybe they won't be taken out of the service, but you yourself said that "The Church of England...and all Christian churches under siege, should make a stand". Do you think the church should also make a stand against any priests, bishops etc. who supported military action in afghanistan instead of forgiveness as it clearly states many times in the bible? If not, why?

How do you know what is being preached in each and every pulpit of every church? So how can you say that the priests had not called for calm and forgiveness? How do you know that the gospel of some mass was not about loving thine enemy? From the Catholic Church, did the Pope not call for peace and restraint? Did the Pope not forgive the man who tried to assassinate him? If I remember correctly, the pope even personally visited this man. I'm sure there are some people in the church (including the pope) who advocated forgiveness, just as there are some people who are married to a person of the opposite sex. On the other hand, there are also some people in the church who advocated military action in afgahnistan, just as there are homosexual members of the church. Why do people want to kick the homosexuals out of the church, but not the people who ignore passages in the bible such as "turn the other cheek" etc... From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Link I believe it was you who said that the laws of the Old Testament were obsolete after I brought up the passages in the Old Testament about cruel punishment.

You still haven't showed me where Jesus himself said that it was unnatural. I told you why, it was reason #2. Most, if not all, of the priests in that time would be married to women so it make sense to call them wives.

No. He said he must have only one wife. Meaning he must not have more than one wife. A homosexual does not have more than one wife, he has zero wives, which is the same number of wives as an unmarried person. Then why didn't He say "he must have only one spouse?" There's at least two possibilities: 1. It's ok for a man to have more than one husband or more likely: 2. Being married to a woman is much more common than a man being married to a man. If a man tells you he's going to get married, dont' you automatically assume it's to a woman?

No. He said he must have only one wife. Meaning he must not have more than one wife. A homosexual does not have more than one wife, he has zero wives, which is the same number of wives as an unmarried person. Why? Where did you get that? From many places in the bible. Do you want the quotes? There are many passages where Jesus talks about turning the other cheek & not judging others. You accuse those two priests of preaching the bible when they don't believe every word of it....I don't see priests advocating forgiveness. After 9/11 how many priests stood up and said "let's turn the other cheek" or "let's love our enemies"? None that I can think of. And why do these priests deserve more condemnation than someone like pat robertson who advocates murder, which definately goes against the bible? This is what Jesus had said of homosexuality. "Because men do this, God had given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they themselves are punished as they deserve for their wrongdoing." Romans 1:26 Did Jesus himself say this?

No one is saying Hezbollah killed anyone on Sept. 11. All that I'm saying is there isn't any difference between the groups. They might as well all be named the same damn thing. Well I certainly don't agree with what hezbollah is doing, but giving them the same name as al-qaeda is implying that they were involved in the sept 11 attacks. This is along the lines of what bush did to try and justify the war in iraq. By trying to link saddam with al-qaeda he was trying to make people believe that saddam was responsible for 9/11. By that same logic we should call timothy mcveigh and ted kaczynski al-qaeda because they are all cold blooded murderers.

Where does it say anything about homosexuality here? Aside from saying he must have only one wife, not that he must have a wife, and if that's the case not being married is as much of a sin as homosexuality. A priest who does not preach turning the other cheek & not judging others is just as guilty as a priest who is a homosexual. In fact, if anything they are more guilty given how much emphasis Jesus put on these two things compared to homosexuality.

Just because two groups share similar ideology does not mean that hezbollah killed anyone on september 11. By that logic I could say that every murderer in the world is responsible for 9/11 since they all have the same killing ideology.

Do you really respect these barbarians' carving themselves up into largely meaningless separate "entities"? What are you talking about? I don't respect anything hezbollah or al qaeda does....but what does hezbollah have to do with 9/11?