BigAl

On some level I agree with you -- I think it's fashionable to criticize religion, which is why I try not to do that despite my atheistic beliefs. And there's a prevailing sentiment in this country that suggests it's not "okay" to criticize those identified as a minority group -- but I think to say that Christianity is specifically targeted, given the kind of power still wielded by the Christian element, would be a bit of a stretch. Perhaps among the purist left wing it's popular to bash Christianity, but generally speaking we give Christians a pretty long rope in this country. Example: there's still a dedicated Catholic school board despite the fact that no dedicated wing exists for other faiths. To me that speaks pretty clearly in the camp of favoritism.

I attended high school in Ontario around the time that all the strikes were going on (nearly ten years ago now, I guess), and my opinion is this: a good teacher, you can't pay enough, because they're doing something essentially priceless. However, all I got out of it was a bunch of teachers who used their classrooms as political platforms to forward their own agendas. I didn't learn a damn thing that whole time, thanks to these people, and the few teachers I had who wanted to be there and particularly who wanted to run extracurricular activities (I was a theater major) risked being black-balled by the Union if they tried to do it anyway. To me, there's nothing at all good about that.

Oh yes...nightmare substance. I understand the appeal of the effect, but it's just not worth it at the end of the day...I'm no prude, nor am I an anti-drug activist in any way, shape or form -- but seriously folks, there are better drugs to do. Far, far better.

Interesting points Molly. On some level I agree with you that the proclivity towards "reverence" as you put it seems to be hardwired into our psyches, but I wonder whether that is a nature-vs-nurture question -- are we inclined to be drawn to the notion that we are part of something greater because it's inherent to humanity, or because there's a ten thousand year tradition based in ancient superstition and lack of understanding of the scientific universe that supports it? On the same token, I believe there is certain empirical analysis that can be useful in understanding some of the lesser-known facets of human makeup (particularly as it involved bioenergy etc.) so I'm sort of sitting on a fence anyway. Thoughts?

Okay, fair play. But that's a natural progression, isn't it? 20 years ago there were far fewer immigrants from that part of the world coming to Canada...and our policy in this country is generalized freedom (of expression, of religion, etc.) It makes sense that when you're transferring barrels of apples from one place to another, a few bad apples will make it into those barrels. To be clear, I certainly don't agree with the idea of beating and raping the women of your culture, and on some level it's sorely tempting to pass judgment on these people for their admittedly backwards views on the subject, but that is also a slippery slope -- where does our interference end? When we homogenize everyone, when we decide that anybody who doesn't live "our" way is living the "wrong" way, and we set out to correct it? I hate to state the obvious, but that sounds suspiciously like a final solution to me. You dig what I'm saying?

Crystal methamphetamine is a nasty, nasty drug. Depending on use I've seen guys (and girls) go from merely amped up (like you would be on any amphetamine) to violent to...the only word I can think of is "broken". It's extremely addictive and it does terrible things to your nervous system. To say nothing of the fact that it's incredibly easy to cut with other chemicals that are harmful but cheaper...in some small Ontario towns it's common practice for dealers to cut a half-oz with dishwashing detergent or any other white crystalline substance to stretch their selling supply (when you consider that most meth addicts don't really realize the difference). I'm no prude, but I wouldn't recommend meth to anybody, for any reason. There are better drugs out there.

That's a slippery slope. Do I condone rape and assault? Clearly not. My point is I don't think it's fair to represent an entire faith based on the skewed opinions of one obviously unbalanced individual (or even a few). Hence why I don't judge all Christians based on YOUR views.

For clarity. You are rapidly becoming my favourite person on this board Kimmy. I've said it before and it becomes more and more true. I am consistently floored by Mr. Canada's archaic and potentially harmful opinions -- let us "pray" that someone like him doesn't manage to gain anything resembling real political power in this country.

You religious types spend all kinds of time picking and choosing what you want to take from your sacred books and what you want to ignore. You make a big deal out of Leviticus condemning homosexuality and using that as your basis for your bigotry against gays (to say nothing of the rest of Leviticus which encourages stoning women to death etc. -- but you ignore that part conveniently), but then you turn around and condemn some other religious wingnut for picking and choosing what THEY choose to believe from THEIR sacred books. Smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Agreed. We live in a hypocritical society that allows and in some cases promotes the ingestion of harmful chemicals (cigarettes, alcohol, McDonalds) and crucifies those who colour outside the lines and use a "drug" that's been growing naturally on our planet forever. I don't smoke weed myself, never liked the effect it had on me personally, but I have done some pretty serious chemicals in my life, I *do* drink and I *do* smoke cigarettes to this day, and therefore I figure I have no right whatsoever to start preaching from the mount about the evils of marijuana. We have more important matters at hand, I think. You know, like the fags who want to get married (I'm kidding of course; there *is* a war going on after all; maybe we'd best pay attention to THAT rather than some kid with a joint or a couple of guys who want to get hitched).

You know, I was just thinking about this now -- SUICIDE ATTACKS. That's got to say something for these people's commitment, if nothing else. There aren't too many official armed forces who go so far as to blow themselves up to achieve military goals. Good lord. Who needs bullets when you have Mohammed Achmed who's willing to be a human grenade, eh?

True, but as my grandfather is wont to say, after almost twenty years of depression, the situation in Germany was desperate enough that they would have elected the Devil himself -- and, he says, they sort of did. Besides, it's not as though Hitler got elected on the basis of the "let's kill all the minorities" bill. It wasn't exactly something he made a point of mentioning.

I'm a firm believer that the sins of the father should not be passed to the son. Hence, for example, why I'm willing to give the American people the benefit of the doubt despite the eight years' worth of war crimes perpetrated by their recent government. Contrary to popular belief, not *every* German was a Nazi. Not even a majority, in fact.

Israel is fighting for its right to exist -- as a result, they stockpile weapons and defend their borders. I don't see how this is different than what the Palestinians are trying to do -- defend their right to exist. Clearly the Israelis don't want to "wipe out" the Gazans...if they wanted to they certainly have the firepower to do it. But I *do* wonder whether Israel isn't interested in subversive assimilation -- annexation of a culture. Just a thought.

I absolutely couldn't agree more. My heritage is one-half German, and I find it distressing and frustrating that in a world full of genocidal maniacs we continue to harp on (and judge a people based on) only one specific example. My grandparents faced (and continue to face) considerable racism due to their involvement in the war, even though my grandfather was regular army (drafted) and my grandmother was a schoolgirl at the time. I recognize the horror of what went on, but finding another example might not be such a bad idea...the German people have been paying for their admittedly tremendous mistake for over sixty years...it's getting old.

Bahahaha. Dancer, you're fantastic.

Fair enough, but I was referring more to the specific endorsement of Christianity by our leadership IN our leadership -- it's not that common for our Prime Ministers to deal really closely with Christianity.

This is what I've been saying all along -- people got so caught up in the whole Obama-mania thing that they forgot he's still going to be President, and therefore he's going to be confined by the same powers-that-be as every other president in history. The dude is NOT a superhero, folks -- he's just a man, no different than Reagan or Bush or Clinton in that respect. You'd best get used to some of that lustre fading.

Agreed, but it's comparing apples and oranges. There is significant historical precedent in the United States that allows that sort of overt religious sentiment in their leadership. Contrarily, in Canada, we make a very big deal about being largely secular. Though I was a little surprised that Obama would choose that particular minister speak at his swearing-in...I've heard some not-so-good things about that guy.

Eh, if nothing else you might become an existential agnostic (which is a really snooty way of saying "I don't know WHAT the hell is going on")

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether he should be tried, I'd contend that his reasoning for showing up at a terrorist training camp is a nature-vs-nurture question. If you're raised in an environment where you are fed nothing but propaganda day in and day out, it's not surprising that you'll come to believe it. As is the case with most child crime, the blame falls on the parents and the culture in which the child is raised. At least, I think it does.

See, and herein lies the problem with a term like "terrorism" -- it's vague, general, not really defined (I *know* there is an existing U.N. definition, but that's not what I'm talking about). History is written retroactively, by the winners. I would contend that if Nazi Germany had somehow managed to win the war, the French Resistance would be remembered in their history books as a terrorist group. Since the Nazis didn't win, the French Resistance are remembered as heroes, "freedom fighters", etc. I'm not making a value judgment on the people involved, I'm just pointing out the flaw in the rhetoric -- or in the historical process, whichever you prefer.

Agreed Kimmy. It's a tough question to answer, why atheism is perceived as such a threat...I think it's partly because people of so-called "faith" aren't always as secure in that faith as they like to say they are, so when someone openly admits to believing the opposite of their beliefs, it makes them question themselves. On the other hand, it is true that some atheists (like some people of faith) tend to be critical of those who don't share their beliefs...except with atheism, it's ironically much easier to appear "holier-than-thou" because it's easy to perceive faith as childish or foolish. Frankly I think it's a bunch of hoopla over nothing -- you take the high road, and I'll take the low road, and we'll be in Scotland around the same time.

I don't know if you can be a stoner and an atheist at the same time...the few times in my life when I've questioned my atheism have all been brought on by drug use. Let me tell you what, you can't do a bunch of peyote and not at least wonder about spirituality.

Interesting question Monty...I guess you could make the case that, based on the logic you're suggesting, *anything* could be considered a religion (as long as you don't base the conception of religion on inherent faith, you could even call nihilism a religion of sorts)...but I don't know if this argument would hold water in a court of law, so to speak.