jefferiah

Oh, you were at the planning committee meetings were you? He was looking for you, Figleaf!

Without faith you would not have a life. That's ludicrous. Not 'faith' of a religious kind. Scientists believe their methods will give correct information because science provides a method of generalizing from numerous specific cases and thereby determining probabilities. Science 'believes' it is probably right about things and is willing to be corrected. Religions believe they are right and are incapable of accepting correction. This is a fundamental qualitative difference. Hmmm....I think you probably dont realize how many things you yourself accept on faith without any real evidence.

Without faith you would not have a life. Science touts the scientific process. But some degree of faith is usally present in most scientific endeavours. Someone makes a theory. And then he tests to see if he is right. To take any possible scientific direction you most often have a reason for choosing it. You believe in some result. Its not eeny-meeny-miney-mo is it? Without faith everything could be a lie. All the people around you could be in a massive conspiracy to fool you. They could have made up all the history of the world. Everything could be an elaborate joke on you. Without faith nothing is worth a shot.

The real choice your question amounts to is between men or men claiming gods' authority. Since the latter must be liars, I'd choose the former. my 1st qeustion is to the true power behind a church or religous orginization, the people, so is the faiths trying to get EVERYONE into their church, and is 1 of their tactics to take a small amount (or large) of control in our government. I think the question is too broad to be answered. I consider myself a Christian. I know alot of Christians are not political period. But some Christians are political. And some have Christian Politcal agendas. Some may have agendas simply to protect what they see as religious rights. Some may be all out for control. I dont know. But is religion trying to take over the government. You make "religion" sound like an actual living person. People believe in the seperation of church and state. But does this mean that people who are religious should be barred from politics. I dont know. Is there some conspiratorial effort among Christians to take over the government? They never told me about it anyway. I think Canada is pretty fair overall. I think there may be some political Christians who encourage other Christians to vote and to vote their conscience on certain issues. I dont see anything so wrong with that. Christians have a vote, and people and groups have the right to encourage them to vote a certain way for whatever reason they want. Do the Conservatives not have ads promoting their parties and promoting their stance on certain issues? And dont the Liberals have the same? Idealogy is not limited to religion. Socialism, classical liberalism, etc etc. All these are idealogies. All people to some degree want their own idealogies to succeed in the political world. But I dont think all people are trying to control everything or every aspect. I think for most Christians being politically active is like anyone else being politically active. They want representation. They want to maintain freedom of belief. JBG pointed out in another thread that a CBC forum banned the word Jew. You know, I am afraid of a world where freedom of belief will be passively opposed by Political Correctness. I strongly believe in the Church's freedom to not perform a gay marriage since it is against its own beliefs. You know it may sound ridiculous. But given the trends in thinking, I dont think it is unreasonable to assume that one day the refusal of the church to perform this may considered discrimination.

How can you predict, when you vote, whether or not a person will change party, no matter how much attention you pay? Yes, thats right, when votes get stolen from people, its their own fault.

anti-cbc right wing sect? lol. Thats right Gerry, we here on the forum are part of a massive conspiracy to shut off the media.

I think it qualifies as a topic. CBC is funded by Canada. Thats pretty federal. I think this whole thing about rallying all Canadian actors and all Canadian talent and all Canadian directors is silly. That just sounds like you are trying to prove something.

Not singling out Belinda, since we already mentioned there are many cases of floor crossing. But I think there should be some sort of restriction made on this. It's fine to change ideas and have a change of conscience. But when you are in office and you cross the floor, even if you are doing it from a genuine motivation, you have just changed the conscience and the votes of many people without asking them.

We're playing Ottawa tonight Dancer. How we gonna do? Hopefully better than that game against the leafs. Abby did well though.

I prefer to do the cooking. I am not the best cook. I like simple foods. Rice and fish. Potatoes, turnips...whatever. But see when other people cook they make more complex foods. And there are usually more pots and pans used. And in the end their are more dishes. I hate doing the dishes, or maybe I cant eating while there is a big pile of dishes that needs to be done. For that reason I cook very plain.

Lol, M Dancer. She does like cute sometimes. Sometimes not. That comment of yours could be perceived as chauvinistic, you know.

I dont know much about Belinda really. I dont think sleeping with Tie Domi would really help her further her life in politics. I dont think it was right of her either, but no one always does whats right. I think though that she did go too far with the comment about "dog" being sexist and in saying this showed the conservatives true colors. I sometimes go too far in arguments myself. The other day I fought with my brother for half an hour over the rules in a card game. But yeah I think you have to remember "hussy" and "bitch" are sometimes words we use in anger and more liberally against public figures we dont know personally, without always meaning them. And some people are still angry because she crossed the floor. I know she is not the only one to ever do this. I know a BC Liberal went PC right after the federal election. But people do get peeved over this. And then there is the matter of Peter McKay indirectly saying "Belinda is a dog". She did some fancy artwork on that statement. She replaced the word "Belinda" with "all women". She demonized the word "dog" as terrible chauvinistic insult. And then she replaced "Peter Mckay", the man who made the indirect statement, with "the Conservative Party". So people get angry. They start poking at things she did you see. And when people are angry they will call people bad names.

o.......k then

Some people might like CBC or some shows on it. And some people might like George Strombalopolous. I like Hockey Night In Canada. But the thing is, there is not a real choice in the matter that is representative of the people when the publically funded CBC is airing shows that most people dont want to watch. I understand that some people dont like what sells big either. Neither do I always. I understand that some people dont want to watch the standard sitcoms. But when you start deciding what everyone has to watch because you fancy your choices are more intelligent, then, yes, that is elitism. I watch Corner Gas by the way. But just because it is on. Really I think it is not all that funny, and the acting is pretty stiff and awkward. "Hank" comes across as the only one who could possibly be a decent actor, because it seems as if he is really that character. Archie Bunker was an amazing show. I dont think you could compare Brent Butt to Archie Bunker. I know art on some level is a personal matter. But really. I would never compare any Canadian show to something like Seinfeld. The one thing about Canadian TV I will vouch for is that there is something in the common crappiness of our television that makes us who we are. "There's a voice that keeps on calling me. Down the road thats where I'll always be." Or Relic from the Beachcombers. You know what I mean.

Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli guards. Then they demanded the release of "politcal prisoners" (a la FLQ) who were actually imprisoned terrorists. Then they began firing Ketushah rockets at North Israel. Well, Israel has a duty to its citizens to protect them. So they fired at sites from where the rockets were being launched. Israeli fire power was greater no doubt. But if I man breaks into my house in the middle of the night and tries to attack my family with a sock stuffed with rocks, and I own a gun what do you suppose I will do. Will I stop for a moment while the man is assaulting my wife with his "rock sock" and think "Hmmm you know this really isnt a fair fight. I have this big gun here, and he is only armed with a sock. Hmmm....Rather than fire this gun to protect my wife whom is being beaten by this man. I will go into my room and get a sock from my drawer. Then I will proceed outside to find a good rock to put in my sock. And hopefully my wife is tough enough in the meantime to withstand it."

I propose that the government should use all our tax dollars to fund our Canadian hockey teams. The majority of this money should go the Montreal Canadiens. And the Leafs should be excluded from this funding. Go Habs Go!

What do you propose to do about the Muslims? Seeing as how it is the religion itself and the rules and laws which the followers are forced to abide by, which is the root and cause of all the violence and hate, there is really nothing you can do. ONLY MUSLIMS CAN SOLVE THE MUSLIM PROBLEM. They need to re-write their own religious texts to eliminate the violence and hate. Some of the stuff is so freaking retarded anyway, ol' Muhammad must have been going heavy on the Hashish when he created it. The penalty for leaving Islam is Death???? The penalty for infidelity is death?????? Basically the Muslim Male head of the household can kill anyone in his family with only minimum reason. This sh*t is whack! My neighbour works with an Iranian lady who went home to Iran with her mother for a vacation. While they were there a woman was being stoned to death in the street for supposedly sleeping with another man. But who really knows. Mabye she just laughed one night when he was too drunk to get it up. The sick part of the story is even though the lady's mother had been in Canada for many years, and seen freedom and womens equality and all the benifits of liberation, she actually picked up a stone and threw it at the accused woman. The daughter was quite shocked, but it just goes to show that you can take the person out of the bass-ackwards third-world country, but you can't take the bass-ackwards third-world country out of the person. Bottom line is, unless peacefull muslims rise up against radical muslims and put an end to the jihads, we, as in western society, are f**ked. Even if only 1 out of every 100,000 muslims is a radical, it still means there are more than enough in North America to cause massive terror. Hmm even though I think you have a good point about Muslims have to solve this problem. This is on an individual level, and it begins in the mentality of people. Still though I think that even though rewriting their own religious texts might solve the problem, I strongly disagree with this as a solution. I say leave the Koran as it is. What it says stands. I dont agree with it. I dont want people agreeing with Jihad. But I wont edit it. A Koran that is changed is no longer the Koran. And it shouldnt be hidden from people. Do I choose the Koran or not? Thats the choice that has to be made. I dont think we should be in the business of book revising. Pretty soon this could lead to book burning.

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. As time permits, I will download the CORAF and read it. I remember on this forum a topic about the French affirmative action issue was discussed. One of the posters was a civil servant from Ottawa. He described a language test which must be taken and passed before one can be hired for a job. In order to obtain a high enough grade in French is difficult for an English speaking person, he acknowledged. It was noted that most of the new hires were Frankophones into the federal (Canadian) system. Sometimes laws have long lasting nonintended results. It is as though someone is given the authority to experiment with people's lives. In the US, there is this concept of affirmative action with the intent to redress wrongs of slavery. It is basicly reversal discrimination, and open ended to boot. Racism is wrong in what ever the flavor. Good point, Niagara. You know one time though I was talking to someone about "reverse discrimination". And this fellow said to me "I hate that term." And I thought maybe he was denying it existed. But I was wrong. And when I asked him why he disliked this term, he made a really strong point. "It implies that there is a certain direction that discrimination flows from in the first place."

I think maybe Drea you dont give average people enough credit to understand this stuff. I dont think men want wives like June Cleaver. This is so cliche now. Do you think no one knows about all the "a good wife stays in the kitchen" stuff? Actually I think you are wrong in asserting what most women feel. Alot of people are happy to be housewives, or even househusbands. If you dont want to be housewife thats fine by me. Maybe you got a lot of flack from someone in your family over not getting married or something. I dunno. I think most people nowadays are well-acquainted with people who dont live in the regular 1950s Happy Days mode. People living common law. People doing whatever. So I think maybe you must have had a bad experience personally. But if there are women who like being home too, you cant grudge them that either. I think the financial pressures are no different. I am not saying a wife has to stay at home either. But I think having one parent at home can be a very good thing. I mean you only have one working parent, but also the children get to be children rather than kids raised by public institutions. There is something colder and less loving in public daycare environment than there is in a home. At home you can be loved and love can be expressed between parents and children. Kids like love and contact. When they fall they like to be held. But you cant expect a public daycare person to do this. Also all this daycare costs money. So what people earn from having two working parents, goes nowhere. Anyways, yeah I am not saying this is necessary either. And I know alot of people need these things, and their are single parents. Etc Etc. But yeah I think you dont give people enough credit to be understanding of women. When I read statistics about women and math, it just fleets through my brain and thats it. I mean you dont really think that the fact that overall according to some study women scored lower on math that this is going to affect a woman's ability as an engineer. You dont think that right? I know you dont. So what makes you think no one else was intelligent enough to see that. I think people trust women more than you think, and if they are qualified they will hire em. Nobody remembers "well Time magazine says women scored lower in left brain IQ tests". Its not a big deal.

gerry i think you are making a deliberate effort to be a pain here Lol

Al-Qaeda uttered the threat not Afghanistan. Why should we listen to Al-Qaeda? Do they represent the people of Afghanistan?

While our parents are dying and need care, we spend millions........we spend millions on excesses. Ridiculous ones at that. I wont offer my opinion on this specific case since I dont know much about co-joined twins....but as for the millions spent on health care we could afford much more if we did not fund so many special interest groups when they want to have a pride rally complete with expensive meals and etc. In the interest of expensive health care, before saying no to ailing people, we could say no to Adrienne Clarkson when she uses tax money to travel the world with her family. There are countless examples of money being wasted ridiculously. Do we want more money to help the living survive, or do we want more money to help the living conduct a study on "how buying 18th century art makes the buyer feel, what emotions it evokes". Yes, there was a large sum of money donated to the person who felt this research had to be conducted. Cut funding to the arts. I am not against art. Rather I think true art is an entrepreneurial enterprise. So I dont know about this specific case....whether it is cruel to allow them to live or not. But when it comes to the money aspect.......

Now you are getting to the real issue. Is the fetus alive? Is it human? Why not ask Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the original proponents of the abortion movement and subsequently an abortion doctor after Roe v Wade who promptly quit when he began to see things differently, or the millions of former abortion doctors who came to believe through personal experience with the procedure that a fetus is more than a clump of tissue.

So therefore my statement was correct. If you look above and read my statemen again, you will see I did not exclude women from the issue. I excluded women from the reason pro-lifers do not support abortion. For the pro-life stance it is not about a woman or man. Its about the unborn child.

Uh...since women are the one's who bear children, then the ability to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is going to be a womens' issue. You can't remove them from the equation. Look what I am saying is, is that if it were a man bearing children pro-lifers would still be pro-life. The reason pro-lifers are pro-life is not because its a woman involved. Pro-lifers are not anti-woman. They just believe that the fetus has a right to live. They arent doing this because its a woman bearing that fetus, or to try to keep women down.