Electric Monk

I really wish they would stop opening this can of worms, I don't support any inequality being put into the Canadian constitution. I think it is a HUGE mistake for them to bring up this very delicate issue again.

How about all the scandals coming out of the Catholic church for years now involving their priests. Just as scandalous is the world council of churches. http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/world_...of_churches.htm Looks like you found some perverts, now the atheist part? Is the WCC made up of masquerading atheists? (Edited to add on-topic content) I think banning religion would be both wrong and ineffective, religion is something that took me a number of years to exit. Not all people want to, or can do the same, for them it serves a useful purpose. I don't think all the ills of the world are caused by religion, but surely some of the religious wars that humans have fought in the past, and are fighting now would at the very least be fought for other reasons. I bear no ill will to those who participate in religion, only when they infringe on the freedom of others does it bother me. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The Friends of Voltaire (1906)

Any examples of Atheist perverts infiltrating and masquerading B. Max?

Partisan: (noun) a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance. Merriam Webster I think one can have an opinion without being partisan.

According to John C. Green (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life), evangelicals voted 70% GOP in the 2006 midterms, looks like a base to me.

The Washington Post is one of the worst lefty offending rags of the bunch!!! But still - Agreed - it's a misperception that cuts a good cross section. Thanks for the correction, I was under the impression that the Post was right-leaning.

Newsweek , The Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor say the same thing. I think that's a pretty good cross-section of the North American main-stream media. I don't think you would accuse the Post , or CSM of being "lefty".

I think there are three types of scenario in the film. The first is the indirect scenario, where "Borat" interacts with others on screen, and presents them with difficult social situations to showcase their reactions. The second is the direct scenario, where "Borat" addresses the theatre audience directly, and the interesting reaction takes place in the theatre. The third is slapstick, some scenarios are just there for the humour. Most of the scenes don't fit the strict guidelines above, and can be a mixture. P.S. Many interesting reactions can also be observed inside oneself during the film, if one is given to introspection.

Jerry, you should go see the film. You might change your mind.

I raced to the theatre after work on Wednesday to see this film, other than having to sit in the front row (packed theatre) and getting whiplash from trying to read the subtitles fast enough, I loved it. There were some pure slapstick(?) moments like the naked fight, but most of the movie is "Borat" giving poeple some "rope" and them "hanging" themselves. I can't believe how he manages to stay in character, especially during the rodeo anthem scene. I laughed a lot, and cringed a lot too. One especially funny, but disturbing scene was the Pentecostal church service, I'd never seen what goes on at one of these churches before, and it freaked me out a bit. I guess if you grow up in the church it seems much more normal. All in all I give it two thumbs up, hooray for satire!!

I've been looking for stats online, but I can't find any with the correct demographic breakdown. The only data I've heard was Howard Dean on The Daily Show saying that the Democrats got one third of the white evangelical Christian vote in the midterm election, saying it was unheard of. Does this mean that two thirds voted Republican? Again though, I can't find the data online and would appreciate linkage.

Given any thought to non-partisan moderators?

Sounds like an automatic word filter does not a moderator make.

I don't think McKay's implication was all that big a deal, lying about it brings up another matter, trust. If he lies about such a small matter, can we trust him to tell the truth to parliament when the stakes are much higher? I guess it's not like he has an important job or anything. P.S. That last sentence was sarcasm.

After re-reading this thread, I found that most criticised extremists from both religions.

I agree with Mr Coyne in the OP, and I don't really care whether we install cow-mounted catalytic converters, we need to get this done eventually. If we, as one of the most privileged western nations can't do our part, how can we go to the "800lb gorillas" of greenhouse gas emission and credibly ask them to cut down their emissions?

This may not even be classified hate propaganda, due to section 319, 3b of the Canadian Criminal code, as I mentioned on another thread here. Now do you see why the language needs to be changed?

Jerry Seinfeld, rightly so, one is hate propaganda, the other is not.

I think the Criminal code would define it as "hate propaganda", without the "notwithstanding clause" I will quote from here. (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) A: if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; B: if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; Warwick, should business trump morality? I noticed the Canada Post spokesperson also gave the reason "we have a contract", to what extent should this defense hold? Leafless, if your last sentence above was directed at me, why do you feel the need to attack me? Black Dog, do you feel it is the right of others to metaphorically "crap" on a piece of paper and deliver it to you with your mail?

I heard an interesting story on the radio today, dealing with Vancouver postal workers protesting an allegedly anti-homosexual pamphlet being sent out. The story is here. Here is an excerpt from the story: "Canada Post spokeswoman Colleen Frick says the company has a contract to deliver the brochure and it will do just that. She notes that it was "deemed acceptable and appropriate for mailing under the Canada postal guide." "The criteria is very specific. And if something is not deemed obscene in nature, then the item will be acceptable for mailing. And this particular item was deemed appropriate. So it will be delivered." The following is an excerpt from the Canada Postal Guide, in the Criminal Code and other Offences section: "Any person using the mail for the delivery of any one of the following items commits an offense: a: articles that are obscene, indecent, immoral or scurrilous" (bolded for emphasis) Not having read the text of the pamphlet myself, (yet), I'm wondering why only obscenity was cited as a reason for rejection, when there are clearly three other criteria? A spokesman for the employees said that they protested because they consider it "hate mail." Now oddly enough, even after Bill C-250 amended the Criminal Code, there is a section that excuses anything that would otherwise be considered hate propaganda "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." (3b) What a bizarre idea, remember there are MANY religions out there, does this boil down to a free pass for anyone who can prove that they believe what they say, and can produce an old religious text to base it on?

Chalk up another vote for the purple finger idea, it's cheap, effective, and might encourage more people to become active citizens on election day.

Fair enough, I await your proof that it was not common practice in Canada 10-20 years ago.

I wasn't saying you are not smart, your theory was half-baked because you didn't do any research into Murphy's past political experience, took me less than a minute to find the wikipedia entry, I'm sure you could have done the same. (Although to be fair, you did question whether he had any campaign experience.) Then you proceed to make a statement that seems reasonable to you based on your stereotypes of Rex Murphy and the CBC, but has a questionable basis in reality. To be consistent, you should probably find out whether it was indeed common practice in Newfoundland at that time to not knock on doors from 2-5. Also, find out whether he lost because of this practice. (Practically impossible to find out though.) Then, if you find that it wasn't, and he did, Then you can say what you said without being guilty of the very thing you accuse him of.

I just performed a little experiment. If you will note, I could have truncated the quote from wikipedia after "and 1987 as a Liberal." That would have been sufficient to inform you about Murphy's political history, and rebut your half-baked theory. I decided to include the next two sentences, just to see what would happen. Predictably, instead of taking the reasonable path and admitting Rex is probably not lying about his experiences, you have taken your pet "theory" a step further, assuming that his losses were due to the "rule". In that light I find these statements highly ironic., "I think this explains his popularity on the CBC. His pronouncements seem reasonable and plays to the stereotypes of Canadians but have zero basis in reality." (Bolded for emphasis)

It's possible, but improbable.