BigAl

First of all, I've seen church-related advertising all over the TTC (not on buses, per se, but definitely in subway stations etc...I think the last one I saw was for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to go atheist the other way. And as far as Covenant House or the Salvation Army -- okay, they're not discussing God in their advertising, but they're public about their Christian affiliations. Just because the word "God" isn't in the advertising doesn't mean it's not implicit.

That seems to be the biggest problem, Kimmy. With all the hype surrounding this election, combined with the excitement of finally hearing the end of George Bush and co., I don't blame Canadians for being excited...but on the same token (as I've mentioned on other threads) it seems that the celebrity surrounding Obama outdid his political platforms for a lot of over-enthusiastic Canadians and Americans alike. Guaranteed a lot of people are going to be pissed that Obama doesn't usher in a new Golden Age in the first ten minutes of his administration...but we have nobody to blame but ourselves if we were actually deluded enough to believe that could happen.

Being as I'm promoting neutral discussion of the facts as opposed to emotionally-charged biased rhetoric, I guess you could say I'm standing on a soap-box...but it sort of goes against the traditional definition, no?

I have a feeling this is going to be one of the most controversial trials in Canadian military history. I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of this debate...guess we'll have to wait and see what the tribunal decides upon.

How could it have cost nothing? Does the TTC not charge to put advertisements on their buses? If they don't I should look into putting my face all over this city!

Yeah, that's about the size of it. Discussion is great -- standing on a soapbox isn't so much.

Setting ANYBODY up as a political messiah is a bad idea -- but after eight years of the Bush administration, I can hardly blame people for being excited. Of course, after twenty years of economic depression, Germany was excited about Hitler too...don't know what that means, and clearly Obama is no Hitler, but the lesson remains -- don't get too excited too quickly, eh?

Agreed Kimmy. I think part of the reason the Obama campaign was so successful is exactly what you're saying here. The idea of "change" is vague and indirect; even though Obama was relatively clear on his party platform if you chose to look into it, most of his speeches were geared to the emotional impact of the idea of change as opposed to clearly set-out guidelines of what that change would entail. It's good marketing on his part, because it allowed the American public to project their own conception of "change" and relate it directly to Obama. If you look back in history, Obama's speeches bear a striking resemblance to the early speeches of John F. Kennedy where he discussed the "pioneer spirit" of the American people in indirect terms, engendering an emotional rather than an intellectual response. Kennedy was elected largely by virtue of his charisma...I really do think Obama has managed to do the same. Well, that, and let's face it -- it's not really hard to appear more liberal than the Bush administration; while that doesn't necessarily mean that there will be parties in the streets reminiscent of the Free Love movement, people are certainly free to imagine it as such. And as far as the whole decriminalization issue goes...at this point I'm fairly certain the Obama administration is going to have somewhat bigger fish to fry. Though I tend to agree with your earlier statement that the first year at least will be dedicated to the flowers and rainbows etc. you mentioned.

That is sort of what they mean when they talk about that wacky "separation of church and state" idea. I refuse to concede that Canada is or should be a Christian-run nation. It's just not in line with our national platform, you know? It's like saying "we're very accepting of other cultures -- there are lots and lots of ways to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior". That's a little tweaked, no?

See, that's the big problem, right? It's very easy for any or all of us to get up in arms about the situation in the Middle East, and clearly it's something that should be discussed and measured etc. because otherwise we'll never get to any kind of solution. But placing blame -- original blame -- is as tenuous as it is pointless. The fact of the matter is people on both sides are dying by the scores, both sides have serious crimes to answer to, and frankly I don't think there's a one among you -- myself included -- who can stand in judgment over anyone.

Well...I hate to sound pithy, but if you watch the news, the conflict in that part of the world is a pretty hot-button issue right now, and people tend to be very, very polarized with their opinions on who's "right" and who's "wrong". Being as this is a political message board populated by a lot of smart people who all have something to say on the issue, it's kind of unsurprising to find a lot of threads on this topic. Though I wasn't a member here eight years ago, I'll bet there were a lot of common-topic threads after 9/11 too.

You beat me to it, Canadien. The religion of freedom is Christianity? Come on -- I have yet to see proof that ANY religion breeds freedom. I don't have any more or any less problem with Christianity or Catholicism than I do with any other organized religion; maybe my opinion would change if I saw more Christians actually behaving like Christians (you know, the whole "forgiveness, Golden-Rule" rap) and not like mildly psychotic bigots. What would Jesus do? I bet you he wouldn't diddle kids, and I'll lay money on that claim.

Exactly. At the end of the day this kind of marketing -- especially when it comes to making a choice about faith -- has historically failed miserably. I don't think there's one among us -- Christian, Jew, atheist, whatever -- who would actually make a change in their choice of faith based on an ad on the side of the bus. I know as an atheist I'm hardly moved by the guys down at Yonge and Dundas screaming about how "Jesus saves" and trying to hand me pamphlets; I assume I would be no more moved by an atheist slogan on the side of the bus I take to work. This is pretty harmless stuff in the grand scheme of things, folks. Besides -- this is Canada. You're allowed to sell your faith (or lack of it) on the sides of buses all you like. Long as you have the money for it, of course.

I agree with you 100% Melanie; however, it's been my experience that when one decides to associate oneself with a political or social movement, it becomes very easy to blind oneself to the reality of the scenario in favour of one's own interpretation of dogma. Clearly, this woman is making a feminist statement -- in the true vein of feminism -- but I think a lot of intense young women would disagree with her premise simply because sex is involved. The minute you start making sex any kind of commodity, that seems to be when the really hard-core elements of feminism start getting edgy about the whole subject. What do you think?

Now if only we had our very own Jack Bauer...maybe we wouldn't be in this mess Kidding, obviously. Thanks for sticking around on this thread Army Guy. I think you're a great counterbalance. But we've strayed pretty far from the original topic -- has there been any more word on whether our good Captain will be tried for murder?

I shouldn't be laughing at that. Clearly Mr. Canada is a smart guy, or he wouldn't be able to keep up on a forum like this. But... It was still funny.

Clearly you're a feminist I can respect Melanie. The reason I made that comment is because I have known too many so-called "feminists" who could be labeled extreme, and I've had conversations with a few of them (in real life) about this very issue. The general consensus among them seems to be that this woman is setting women's liberation back a few decades because she's ostensibly saying it's okay to sell your body, and it's even something to be proud of...I think this is kind of a stretchy argument, what do you think?

Let's throw them in a ring with some tigers and whatnot. Come on, that's great entertainment!

I would argue that pedophiles in the classroom are just as harshly treated as pedophiles in the seminary...the fundamental difference, I think, is that the Catholic Church is an organization ostensibly based on a very black-and-white conception of Right and Wrong, and they're also ostensibly followers of Jesus Christ who was arguably one of the coolest cats of the last couple millennia -- and I seriously doubt if JC would have condoned the sorts of things some of these priests have been doing. When you make such a big deal of answering to a Higher Authority, clearly people are going to be even more upset when you're not only a dirty child raper but a total hypocrite on top of it.

Egad, much as I kind of hate to agree with you, I have to semi-concur on this one. I don't think that's true of every soccer mom or hockey dad, but I will say that money clearly makes a person more attractive, and (as I've said) everyone has a price. It's that whole "Indecent Proposal" theorem played out in reality.

I don't know if it's fair to qualify those statements by proscribing them to a particular political group -- I think some of the points you made could be attributed to most humans, no? Especially the bits about "loving the group"? Otherwise what's your explanation for organized religion? Isn't that a group mentality many find comforting and attractive?

It's a tough question Mr. Canada, but I tend to associate human life with intelligence. If you can provide me solid, irrefutable proof of when consciousness manifests itself, I might change my opinion, but for the moment I figure there needs to be neural activity for it to qualify as "life" in the sense that you're talking about, and as far as I know, fertilized embryos don't have that.

I don't know if it's so much to do with that, Mr. Canada, as it is that people tend to be leery about meeting with folks of extreme opinion in a "real-life" setting...I'm sure you're quite astute and calm in reality, but I try to make it a habit to keep life online separate from life in the world, just as a matter of safety. For the record, I think most of the people on this board (despite my limited experience here) are probably just as devoutly devoted to their opinions in their real lives as you are in yours. I hate to think there would be so many "liars" otherwise.

I'll give you credit for your tenacity...I guess everybody is entitled to their own opinions. This is pretty scathing.

Come on, you're telling me it was in any way possible for Nazi soldiers to come knocking on our doors in Toronto? Do you have any conception of logistics whatsoever? Man, your arguments are all over the place.