Canuckistani

do do do do, do do do do.

Really? You've never heard Chrisitians preaching hatred against gays, say? When Falwell said 9/11 was God's punishment for all the gays in NYC, was that a loving statement? When Protestan Christians say Catholics aren't Christians, and only Christians go to heaven, everybody else is doome to hell, are those lovign statements? When that pastor burned the Koran, was that a loving thing to do? Here's what you said: The underlined statements are all inclusive, other wise you would have used the word "some". And you did not say Islamists, you said Islam is on a road to kill... Do you understand the logical fallacy to say "I've been to a few Christian churches" as being prood that no Christians preach hatred? Finally, yes, Christianity had the reformation, contributed to the enlightenment, and there are many Christians who don't preach hate or even that they are the only way to God. Unfortunately, some Christians, especially in the US, but we've got them in Canada too, have tried to reverse the advances Christianity has made. Preaching hate, moving to join church and state and teaching crap like new earth creationism. I do agree that Islam as a whole is going thru a crisis right now - hope they fight the light at the end of the tunnel. I agree that most terrorism is perpetrated by Muslims right now, but that has as much to do with politics as it does with religion. We've just had a report that our homegrown Islamic terrorsists are born in Canada, were not brought up to be religious, nor were they radicalized in mosques. The the report said they had more in common with the IRA and other groups that are about territory, not spreading the Koran. When you write posts like the one above, it's better to sprinkle in some qualifiers. You'll get much less of a reaction that way, unless that is what you were seeking.

How do you figure that?

Pretty broad statement and wrong on both counts. Some Christians do preach hate for their fellow man, some Muslims don't.

Sorry, Kalamazoo. Piping oil is as safe as you make it. Double wall the pipe and it's much safer. Your argument doesn't address the issues, just creates a strawman. Also, your argument contradicts itself. In order for the Northern Gateway to proceed, they need to ship that oil thru some very dangerous passagges by tanker, which you just said wasnt' very safe compared to the pipeline. No tankers, no pipeline. Currently there just isn't the infrastructure in place to deal with a major marine spill (nor one on land), and damages are limited to 40 million, a drop in the bucket. These are the sorts of concerns that need to be adressed. It's not ship oil at any cost, but at minimized risk if the cost/benefit is worth it.

Good luck with that. Come of with a plan that has reasonable assurances of safety, and makes the people profiting from the pipeline carry the total cost of any cleanup, and I'm all for it. But Enbridge is reisisting double walling the pipeline, which would hugely reduce the risk, and won't shift the terminus to Prince Rupert which would hugely reduce the risk to the marine environment. Also the Feds need to change the legislation so Enbridge is completely liable for any cleanup costs, which could be in the billions. Enbridge plans to use a limited liabitlity company to own the pipeline - because they don't want to hold the liability. They'd have to put up a 50 billion bond to give some assurance that the money is there in case of a spill. Costs for the Keystone spill are currently at 40 billion. Do all that, then we can talk.

I certainly played games as a kid that were way more sexual than these two - like doctor. And I doubt no kids have ever thought to play doggie before and who knows what else. Kids will see all sorts of things in their travels - way worse are the power games they see and copy between adults that have nothing to do with BDSM. Or consent. What's next, freaking out because you have to explain an interracial couple to children? Many people have trouble with that concept too. Or parents taking their kids ot pride parades and what they see there. Children aren't hothouse flowers, that need to be protected. They need to be nurtured and supported in growth. Again, the woman who wrote the complaint changed her ways and took a bottle of wine to the two women and got to know them and said they were very nice people. She managed to get over it, once she understood it better.

Yeah, but some evolutionists disagree with Dawkins, so what kind of acheivement is that? I mean if there's not total unanimity and all points, unlike in Christianity, then obviously they're all wrong. Except when they discover something that's mentioned in the bible.

In many areas still, a gay or lesbian couple kissing would be seen as scandalous and what do we tell the children. But it's slowly changing. Probably leash holding will follow the same path.

Can't agree here. Can't agree to education based on fundamentalist mormon values, literal interpretation of the bible values, traditional muslim values, etc etc. And then what about those poor wiccans - where do they get their education? This is why people fight to keep religion out of school altogether - you can't in a public school teach all the conflicting values of all the different parental povs out there. This should have been settled by now, and in Canada mostly seems to be.

Boy, there sure seem to be a lot of people making those poor choices. Wonder what's up with that? Actuall I believe it started with Calvin, where being rich was seen as favor from God - but you couldn't spend it just had to accumulate it. The Protestan work ethic. What the US seems to have added to the mix is conspcious display and consumption.

OK. I thought you meant teaching alternatives to evolution etc. What you're talking about is the philosophy of science. I l don't know how much time to spend on that, because the smart ones at some point will also realize the limitation of science and the whole idea that an objective observer is possible. If you follow Ken Wilber's journey from Chemistry grad student to "Einstein of the Transpersonal" say - his teachers didn't have any use for him wanting to discuss these ideas. I think it also undermines the spiritual to try to chase it with "objective" "facts" It can be fun, but only take you so far and get you really muddled.

No caveat, no mention of the supernatural belongs in a science class. But study of religions, in a non sectarian way, does belong in schools. Unfortunately the dogmatic religious would have more trouble with this than anybody else, since it would imply that other religions are equally valid to their own. It's by extremists on both sides of the discussion, who insist on co-mingling the spiritual and the mundane that the problem arises. One has "objective" "proof" (and the philosophers of science will tell you about the limits of that) the other one subjective experience. They are not talking about the same subject nor using the same language. The problem arose with American protestants reacting to mainstream Protestantism by insisting on biblical inerrancy. People who just couldn't handle the new ideas coming out of science that underminde their certainty. The problem was then compounded by materialists who tried to make science the only truth of human experience. Really they deserve each other, as we see on this forum.

Some atheists seem to have an interest in countering religious messages. Such as the "there's probably no God" campaign. So what I'm saying is that if one book of a religion is allowed to be disseminated in schools, then all should be, as well as books that refute religion. But yes, if atheists were to take up this offer, it would provided fodder to the atheists are a religion people. Since there seems to be a church of atheism in England, that also provides fodder. You'll just have to shrug it off, I guess. I would say that most atheists are the farthest thing from religious. But when they get to proselytizing, like Dawkins seems to, they start looking awfully like they have a belief they want to convert everybody else too. Like many religious people want. Ultimately this is all a storm in a teacup. I meant this post to point out the absurdity of it all. People who are clear on their beliefs don't try to convert others to them - I think this applies both to theists and atheists. Even non-theists, ie Buddhists, but you don't usually see them trying to convert anybody. It's only the two offshoots of Judaism that seem to be hellbent on this - guess they're insecure. So, I don't think atheism is a religion, but some atheists promote their beliefs with a zeal that's very religious. in the broader meaning of the term.

You can make a perfectly good argument for taxing them unless they fit the same guidelines as other registered charities. Expressing discomfort is not restricting religion. Trying to ban it is. Like the religious trying to ban the "God may not exist" ads on buses The religious are far more guilty of this sort of thing than the atheists. And of course there's the issue of say giving away bibles in schools - that should not be allowed unless any and all religions and atheists are allowed to give away texts as well.

Well, a lot of the scientific claims made by Dawkins are disputed by other scientists, and even Dawkins admits he's not 100% certain that he's right, so that just proves that science is just bs anyway and any accomplishments he has in that field are worthless. On the other hand, science has proven that many things referred to in the bible have or do actually occur. For instance the sun really does rise in the east and set in the west, there really was and is a land called Egypt and there have been calamitous floods all over the world in the past. So science proves that the bible is a factual document, so there.

No, you're being polite to the couple, and understanding of their pov. If you don't do it, they'll probably just refuse to talk to you or otherwise feel insulted. Or they may be more relaxed about the whole deal. My guess is that these two want to shock people to some degree, that's why they parade around in public. So they're likely to be difficult to deal with, and I wouldn't bother. But they may be real nice people, happy to explain what they're up to and willing to cut people who find them shocking some slack. Who knows.

When I first read about this in Savage Love I was shocked, and like the woman writing the letter felt it should be kept in private. Dan Savage put a more positive spin on it, and next week had a follow up where the woman complaining took a bottle of wine to the couple and made peace. Of course then Savage went on to explain the etiquette of dealing with dom/sub couples. Apparently you never address the sub directly, but ask permission first or only thru the dom. Made me roll my eyes all over again.

She's being led around by her girlfriend. 50 shades of grey shows the interest many women have in female submission. Most will probably just read about it, but a few will find someone who wants to dominate them and agree. I think it's sad, but if freely chosen what are we going to do about it? Actually if you look at who got busted for using whips etc, it was women selling their services to men - presumably lots of men are into being dominated as well.

Being led around by a leash isn't a sexual act. It's part of the dom/sub role play they engage in, that doubtless also involves sex. It's really no more sexual than an engagement and wedding ring that some women like to wear. Can also show a form of dominance and ownership.

Yep. Of course the assumption is that it's consensual. Dog collars and chains at Abu Ghraib is a whole different story. Punks wore dog collars. Nobody freaked out. I think people into dom/sub stuff are sick. I'd love to offer them help if they wanted it. But I sure wouldn't force them into anything. People are sick in all sorts of ways that we consider normal.

Actually the theists are often very big on free will. Look at Betsy. Meanwhile materialist, agnostic, science is showing us the limits for free will. Theists praying is part of the need to feel control over events outside of one's control, and a lot of atheists get tested in foxholes, as the saying goes.

I think those saggy pants the young guys wear are just as offensive as the collar and chain. And women wearing tights with camel toes can be pretty gross too. Or piercings. I don't like any of them, but I'd never ban any of them either. If you don't like it, just look away, live and let live.

It's not censored. Since atheism seems to include both a denial that God exists or just doubt about it, according to some on this board, we need a new term for how atheist is commonly used currently: the belief that God does not exist. I think agnostic atheist really sucks and nobody will know what you mean by it. Apparently positive atheist is the correct term, but I don't like that either. And since a positive atheist is positive about a negative (god does not exist) that sort of makes your head spin. I wanted to point out the silliness of it, as far as I'm concerned we're perfectly good to continue using agnostic for people who have no certainty for God's existence or not, and atheist for people who are sure there is no God. Unfortunately that latter position is at least as silly as people are are sure there is one.

Businesses depend on financing for day to day operations, even if they are running in the black. In Too Big to Fail, with actors portraying the real people involved, the CEO of GE calls up Bernake, Volker et al and says his business is about to come to a screeching halt because he can't get short term financing for his day to day operations - can't pay his people etc. He says "we make washing machines for God's sake, what's that got to do with the mortgage business?" But credit was drying up, and the economy runs on credit. This really brought it home to me that a bailout was needed. But the govt should have nationalized the banks, stopped all bonuses for management, fired and prosecuted the ones that were guilty of malfeasance, and restructured the banks so they are no longer too big to fail before privatizing them. Unfortunately in the US, nationalizing is just deemed too commie, so they went 3/4 of the way, but kept management in place and even let them get obscene bonuses after the bailouts.