Michael Hardner

1. That wouldn't work. You can't vote away constitutional rights. 2. That's your point of view but you would have to deal with people who disagree with you to pass this through constitutional challenges/procedures. Pretty difficult and that's politics. 3. Hahahaha. Well that's not a serious suggestion, and has no precedence in modern Canadian law. If you just want something, you can't close your eyes and make a big wish like when you were a kid. There are other people to deal with. 4. Ahhhhh.... no. Countries in the ME largely offer no freedom of religion, so that sounds like more of a place for you. Not a good chat, but we had one... and you didn't insult me.

No I don't think so. I don't remember discussions with you from the top of my mind, but we did have discussions and I don't remember you being insulting. I vaguely recall getting mired in semantic discussions that stopped progress. "not engage earnestly" goes both ways. I would be more generous and say that we couldn't agree on the terms of the discussion. I respect that you wanted to continue but for me there are limits. I wouldn't have "run away".

I actually enjoy discussion with reasonable people with whom I disagree. I learn a lot and change my views too sometimes. But given the amount of effort you put into your response above, you don't seem to understand this: I'm not continuing until you retract.

No it's not. Yeah, even a small well-run survey provides more perspective than your singular experience sorry. I don't accept your story more than PEW.

Cite means you have to provide a link to the source. And by the way, I provided cites and people just don't accept them. I feel that some people don't accept information that challenges them. It's too bad, after all this is supposed to be a discussion board.

Simple? No. Politically tenable? No. Morally correct? No.

1. I counted attacks not "plots". We have the van killer in London, the Mosque shooting in Quebec and the Parliament Hill shooting. I have stated my facts as have you, then. 2. Not my job to figure out what you are claiming. I defend my own statements. Unfortunately I don't have time now to go through all of the rest of the points but to respond to a few: -You seem to be saying that I did not lie here but I am wrong. I can accept that. -I believe that I did admonish Trudeau for insulting the convoy people on Quebec media, although I also recall that I had to wade through pages of insults to find the source (in French) -To say Islamist terror is not a problem, or even not a thing isn't realistic. I don't say that. But a few people seem to think Muslims are inherently evil, ignoring all factors... even where they're from. You don't seem to be doing that. I have known liberal Muslims, and I know that condemning a people based on their religion... to the point that we dehumanize every member is incorrect and morally wrong. You have conducted a serious discussion with me, and for that I thank you.

Double response! No, I don't think I have called anyone here a chud. You said I enjoyed the killing of Innocents, go read it again. You need to be civil with me and not disparage my character if you want to discuss. Why would you discuss with someone who you disrespect? Back to ignore, sadly...

No, nothing about ignorance. I didn't read the rest of the post at all. Honestly. Not sure why you are so predisposed to thinking I would like about that. I'm not leftist I'm conservative. And Christian. I don't choose to be ignorant, I seek out information from objective sources which includes people with whom I respectfully disagree. That's not you though. You're on here for ego, to insult rather than discuss. It's too bad because our last exchange was civil. Oh well.

I just showed a survey that contradicts your belief. You don't want to believe it, fine. But your response is just to say that you don't believe it. I'm more convinced by research than your belief.

I for one don't guess at such things, I researched it and found that there's no difference. Not sure where you would get your knowledge from on this. I don't get it. You're saying that I only argue if I'm attacked? I have a lot of folks on ignore so I don't see those posts unless I unhide them.

1. Cite please.

No, but I have had plenty of religious friends. It's not hard to navigate such things. Not everyone hates you, and the vast majority understand that people get to decide how to live their own lives. Your charicature isn't applicable: have you even ever known a Muslim?

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/11/03/chapter-4-social-and-political-attitudes/ % who say homosexuality should be accepted by society: Muslims 45% Christians 36%. This speaks directly to claims above. 2. I never said that. 3. But the inference is that they're not assimilating (they are) and also that they can't, ie. They're unlike every other human subgroup. 4. I don't hate Christians, I am Christian. I am asking you to retract based on the basic framework for respectful discussion. I never said Christians hate gays. I'll give you another chance to retract based on your reading of this post. 5. There are fundamentalist values which are difficult in a pluralistic society, but with healthy politics they can be navigated. And there are liberal Muslims. 6. I'm not hurt, but I don't have to continue a discussion with someone who belittles me based on misunderstanding my position. Why would you even want to discuss with someone who you disrespect? I have been polite with you. Please retract.

So far we have Gato, CdnFox and WestCan who are unable to proceed with a discussion on the topic without attacking me personally. For the record.

1. As a Christian you can declare a poll to be false? Look I just showed you evidence. 2. I'm sure I could find one, but that also wouldn't say anything significant about Christianity. 3. Muslim nations and centres of power are the last to change to progressivity no doubt. That doesn't mean Muslims are inhuman. 4. I just showed evidence which you have ignored, and you call me ignorant? Please retract your insult, otherwise there's no point in us talking.

Yes absolutely. The question is whether they're redeemable and even human. People are saying that I enjoy innocent death and I am a LIAR because I dare suggest that. They're giving in to the pull of tribal war... That's not a question they're asked in the polls I am citing. It's more like "Who do you support?" "What are your opinions on...?"

We had a mosque shooting in Quebec. Now cite your 29. We're talking about people here, and whether Muslims are redeemable or even human. So, yes, the attitudes of PEOPLE are critical and yes devout Christians are LESS receptive to LGBTQ rights in several areas. But first things first: you called me a LIAR. Why would anyone continue a reasonable discussion with a liar? If you want to continue to discuss with me, start by taking that back, retracting it. That way we can be sure neither one of us is wasting our time.

I stopped reading there. You're incapable of engaging in a fact based discussion without insulting someone with false slurs.

This is just stuff you think. No cites Last PEW survey I found shows the opposite. More assimilation, 16% with few Muslim friends, 13% married to other faiths etc.

1. Of course they're not equivalent. But claims are made here that they're essentially inhuman. A thinking person needs to realize that such claims are false. 2. There's no doubting the tribal animosity between these groups, yes. The point is to not participate in it. If you look at the Pew polling US Muslims see Hamas negatively and do not, on the whole, side exclusively with the Palestinians. And? No one is taking about sanctions for Americans with Nazi views

1. Individual incidents and anecdotes don't figure. I have polling on specific questions about policies. 2. Evangelicals have similar attitudes towards the gay as Muslims do.

1. Evangelicals have more negative views of gay issues, and we don't talk about deporting them. Do we? Actually they have more influence. 2. Moot point. Assimilation happens. 3. False choice. 4. Converting to born-again Christian would make them, ostensibly, exactly what you don't want. It seems to me.

Maybe the ones who come here don't agree with that so much. No culture is the same as another. You picking out the worst things of their culture doesn't result in a principled rationale to ban a religion.

1. Islamic countries you mean. That Seems like you're saying it's a bad thing. So we shouldn't do that? 2. No idea. How many attacks against Muslims in Canada?