carepov

Well first we would need the following policies: -do not buy stuff that we do not need -do not buy overpriced stuff -when shopping for expensive stuff, get some competitive quotes -do not buy broken stuff -do not buy "made in Canada" when we can get the same thing for less than half the cost from elsewhere You are right - it all starts with figuring out what our defence needs are, for Canada and as part of NATO. From what I've read and posted the F35 would cost double the Super Hornet both in purchase AND long-term operating costs. Perhaps the money saved can be better spent on taking care of injured troops. Also, additional spending would depend on what Canada'a and NATOs needs are.

They are human beings and they were tortured and have been living in brutal conditions. Are you not concerned? Do you think that they got what they deserved?

Oh OK, I'm glad I asked, I though you were saying something like "they deserved what they got".

BS. Why would the US or Australia buying new Hornets if they are going to be obsolete? IMO we should spend roughly what we spend now ($20 Billion, 1.15 % of GDP, 9% of budget). This should be gradually reduced to about 0.9-1.0 % of GDP - savings can be achieved through better procurement and less waste, fewer overlapping capabilities with NATO allies. These savings will also allow for investments in more useful things to our national defence and for expanding our capabilities that would be most useful to our NATO allies.

First: two people have been tortured and are living in brutal conditions. It does not matter what their beliefs are. It does not matter what their sexual orientation is. It does not matter what their travel plans were. It does not matter that they would have been treated better in Israel or worse under Hamas. Actually it should not even matter whether or not they committed a crime. We should be outraged that any humans are treated this way. Canadian diplomats should do everything in their power to have them treated humanely. Second: it sure looks like they are being held unjustly and did not break any laws. They should be charged and given due process or released immediately. http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1770&ea.campaign.id=22879 *** What do you mean by: "But they should bare the responsibility for getting themselves in that situation."

OK, even if you were right (and I do not think you are) do you think 65 F35s can "protect our sovereignty" and not 65 Hornets or other cheaper options? Do you think over-paying $100's of millions for 2-3 ships is acceptable? In your opinion how much should Canada spend on defense (in $$, % of budget or % of GDP)? Shopuld we "invest" in nuclear weapons - that would deter the "bad guys"? How about aircraft carriers, do we "need" some of those?

Why? Which beliefs? Harmful in what way? Humans are the source of ethics and religion. Why bother with religion? It is in our nature as humans to be religious. At no point in human history, from the first humans to the present can we separate religion from society. Even if we could, why would we want to do this. Many people seek out and draw great benefits from religion including worthy inspiration. Yes. In the end the dumb-ass republican leadership was soundly defeated and most of their dumb-ass misogynistic, discriminatory, creationist and homophobic ideas were properly exposed and ridiculed, whether or not they claimed to be religious-based or not. The Republicans of 2000-2013 are not a Christian-based movement, they are an ignorance-based movement. Thankfully their influence is declining! There is some truth to your claim that secular influence on organized religion has been beneficial. But I argue that overwhelmingly the positive influence has been from religious teachings to society. Many humanist ideas have been and continue to be inspired by religion and spread though religious groups. How are you defining "value"? Believing in god(s) and practicing a religion is clearly valuable to many people. Why do you insist on insulting all believers, including those that give up so many of their own comforts in order to help others?

I disagree but I don't know much about the Bible so won't engage on this point. Where are kids learning this now? No, I thought the consensous was that most religious beliefs (by definition, without scientific evidence) are benign. Harmful beliefs should be challenged and changed You are overstating both the size and influence of so-called "massive movements". You are also not mentioning the faith-based movements and countless smaller actions that promote social justice/humanitarianism.

You mis-read my post: my opinion is that practicing religious people are underrepresented in prisons. I did not at all mean to suggest that religion/morals be taught in school. I 100 % agree with you. However, earlier in this thread some people equated religious education (eg: Sunday school) to child abuse. A common theme with some posters is that religious teachings weakens the mind, especially critical thinking skills. Do you see these or other downsides associated with taking kids to religious services and some religious education (outside public schools)?

Thanks, very interesting. I wonder what percentage of prisoners know what "atheist" means? Sorry if I gave the impression of "moving goalposts" I did not mean to establish any goalposts. As I described in my previous post - I think that there needs to be a distinction between self-identified religious affiliations and those people that actually are active practitioners of a religion. Yes it is fair to say the self-identified non-religious and atheists are underrepresented in US federal prisons. So far I know nothing about whether or not practicing religious people (those people that were practicing their religion lets say 12 months before they committed their crimes) are over/under represented. My money is on under. Many people receive religious/moral/values teachings that goes in one ear and out the other. Is this any different than learning Canadian history or trigonometry? Would the fact that Canadians are largely ignorant of trigonometry and their own history dispute anyone's claim that public education is the best way of teaching these subjects? I think that there are so many upsides to a moderate amount of religious/moral teaching/practice for children (1-2 hours per week) and no downside.

Don't you think that there's a chance that the Aussies will sober up and cancel their plans for the F35 and stick with the Hornets that they are so fond of?

The article that segnosaur brought up seems to contract almost everything you say above. "... the Australian government revealed it is thinking about buying 24 more Boeing Super Hornets fighters, to add to the 24 it bought recently. The first two dozen were seen as a bridge between the Royal Australian Air Force’s existing fighters and the delayed arrival of the F-35s. But the RAAF is so happy with the Super Hornet, defence minister Stephen Smith says the plane is no longer a transitional aircraft. Australia intended to buy 100 F-35s and sell back the Super Hornets to the U.S. government. Now Mr. Smith says the plane, with its Growler electronics system that jams land-based radar, will play a central role in Australia’s air defences for the forseeable future. “We are now not just looking at Super Hornets as transition, but looking at the longer-term potential of Super Hornets and Growler and Joint Strike Fighters [F-35s] as a mixed fleet,” said Mr. Smith." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

My understanding is that the Australians originally planned on buying 24 Hornets as a stop-gap before getting their F35s. They are very impressed with the Hornets so are considering buying 24 more. I presume that they would reduce the number of F35s that they purchase. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/13/john-ivison-there-are-no-cheap-alternatives-to-the-f-35s-for-canada/

The US does not need to enforce or sovereignty. Our sovereignty has been and will continue to be protected thanks to our special relationship with the US - this has been and will continue to be the case whether or not we spend 1% or 5% of our GDP on defence.

Well, anyone like-minded to me is the last person that I would trust!

I could take either side of this debate. I liked both of these articles: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201103/do-we-need-religion-be-ethical http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion Yes, "atheists" are likely to be more educated than "non-atheists". One reason: Many uneducated people problably don't even know what the word atheistm means. Perhaps my opinion is more like this: 1. Atheists/agnostics are on average the most virtuous people in the West 2. Religious people (those that attend at least one religious function per month) are next 3. Others are, on average, less "virtuous". This would include people that check off a specific religion on a census but do not really practice any religion. What do you think?

Our greatest strength is our alliance with the USA. This strength overshadows our military strength whether on not we spend (or piss away) an extra billion or even tens of billions on our defence budget.

Why do you think you are Buddhists are more honest than Catholics? Strip clubs, seriously? Perhaps my hypotheticals are dumb, but thankfully the bar for intelligent discussion seems to be set pretty low... Anyways, I find it interesting to explore the way we judge people this way. It makes me uncomfortable because I am against racism/sexism/discrimination etc... IMO however these hypotheticals do not demonstrate discrimination because in real life we are able to use better judgement. For example, hypothetically let's say you want to but together a basketball team from a list of names knowing only the race of each person. Would it be racist to choose only black people? No, in real life you would have a tryout and select the best players.

This is my opinion. I have no evidence to support it but I am open to changing my opinion if I see evidence suggesting otherwise. I would be interested in the study that shows that "non-religious are under-represented in prisons". What are the typical criminals in Canada and the US like? Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time imagining them attending religious services.

Yes. Clergy, hockey coaches, boy scout leaders, wierd uncles, everyone...

Yes, I think that, in Canada, on average, religious people are slightly more virtuous than non-religious people. (there are of course still many atheists that are more virtuous religious people) I am very interested in stats on criminals and religion but have not come accross any useful ones. About ten percent of Canadian adults are criminals: http://www.thestar.com/sponsored_sections/2008/07/21/the_criminals_among_us.html IMO, this would be a lower number for "religious" Canadians, even after controlling for age, gender and income. What do you think, if you walked into a place of worship with 100 adults that reflected the age/sex/income distribution of Canada would there be 10 criminals in there?

I find the questions a little surprising, since I anticipate that you feel they are, or are almost, rhetorical. The honest and genuine answer is that I could not care less. No, the questions are not rhetorical. IMO, you would have a slightly higher probability of a positive outcome if you chose religious people in the above questions. Here's another: -You drop your wallet getting into your car and drive away with out noticing, including $300 cash. Would you rather have dropped it in/near a church parking lot or at a random place (eg: a strip mall)?

Can you name a few charities that spend 10-20 % of their revenues on their actual causes?

Yes indeed it is the crux of it. "I beleive in 42" - benign "Children should be taught in 42" - as benign as Santa "Everone else should revere 42 and ..." - this should be opposed and not tolerated. The trouble is that, here in the West, there is small (yes but vocal) minority of releigious people that do this and the vast majoirty of "normal religious poeple" are unfairly ridiculed and ostricized. "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises" how about: "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its negative influence arises"

I strongly reject the "half-sister" claim of "Atheists must not have any moral compass".