Machjo

Add to that that Bin Laden opposes the Saudi regime. So, since we're all arguing on false logic anyway, we might as well through in another illogical argument and say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Going by that false logic, Saudi Arabia ought to be considered one of the US' best friends.

Then intstead of wasting their time protesting the building of a mosque and the practicing of freedom of religion, could these protesters not put their energy to better use protesting US diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia? Would that not be wiser? After all, most of the congregants at that mosque are probably Americans who've never set foot on Saudi soil except maybe to on pilgrimage and that's it.

Oh, I see. So it's all about forming marriages of convenience. So if the Saudis were investing in some company in the US, great for jobs. But a mosque. Oh my.

Oh my. So protesters feel it a priority to take to the streets to challenge the building of a mosque rather than focus instead on a US alliance with a state designed to create extremist Muslims? Is the US military aware of this? And if so, what the heck is it doing in an alliance with such a country while fighting terrorism?Has it got its head screwed on straight? So looking at it that way, which ought to be the priority? Challenging the building of a mosque or a US military alliance with a terrorist state?

If that's the case, then Saudi Arabia being a US ally must be an even bigger slap in the face, no? By the same logic, if an American should commit a crime in Canada, we must therefore consider all US investment in Canada as a slap in the face and Canada ought to break all diplomatic ties with the US no? So when will you stand up to the US-Saudi alliance by the same logic?

What about the scouts and guides?

So remove their tax exempt status and let them be. Bingo.

What does Is;am have to do with that? I was referring to Christian churches here. AW was suggesting they should not be free to refuse gay marriage.

Just try making it an obligation on Christian churches to marry same-sex couples and see how far you get with that.

Then just remove the tax exempt status and leave it be.

If they have tax breaks other charities don't get, then I can certainly agree with it.

Why not treat them like any other charitable organization?

Actually, they are taxed indirectly. Each cent you give to any charity, religious or otherwise, has been taxed already. It's called income tax. And each cent they then spend will be taxed again. It's called a consumption tax. So why should religious charities be treated differently from any other charity. Every cent they get has been taxed already.

And the fish bit.

So let me get this straight. You'd actually want to make it law that a local church would be required to marry same-sex couples? And what about the few churches that require women to cover their heads during mass? And what about requiring the Catholic Church to ordain priests? Heck, in Canada we could even force the church to provide services in French and English. For cryin' out loud, we can make it into a government institution with Charter rights applying all the way.

Bingo. Same with Muslims. No one is forcing them to be Muslim, or at least should not be anyway as per US laws.

So we agree. And I also agree that seeing that some have made this a contentious issue, maybe it's not so wise to build there anymore. The local Muslim, Jewish, and other communities that had given their blessings to the project had obviously miscalculated the general population.

Now if the city should decide to make it into a heritage building and say no one is to build there, or according to certain specifications, then I'd say sure. But if you say that particular congregation should not be allowed to buy that property but others could, then you'd have to explain why, especially when you consider that congregation lost family and friends to 9/11 too. So certainly they ought to get priority over some impersonal investment company.

Agreed. Seeing that that congregation itself lost members to 9/11, why should it have less of a right to buy that building than some impersonal international investment company?

Actually, they did. That congregation had lost members to 9/11, and at least one recent convert was a family member of a 9/11 victim too. So if anything, this congregation is intimately associated with 9/11.

Seeing that I don't profess Is;am, I therefore cannot really be a Muslim. So I don't really get to choose side in that sense. I am what I am. So I suppose that if our side did descend into Barbary, all I could do would be to try to pull it out of Barbary. I guess a good example is that of Haseawa Teru. She fought on the Chinese side though she herself was Japanese. She did not do it for profit of any kind but rather because she knew her side, Japan, was in the wrong, and as a patriot, owing to her love for her country, she felt she had to fight against that injustice. Today, though many Chinese hate Japan and the Japanese people, many of those Chinese who know her story are more inclined to not lump the Japanese together. Thus, by having chosen to fight for justice rather than any particular country, she has helped to elevate her country today in the minds of some Chinese. I guess another way of looking at it is that we are more critical of those we love or identify with. Since I do love Canada, naturally I'm more likely to expect Canada to live up to the highest standards.

I should hope so. If not, then what difference does it make which side I'm on?

My meaning was simply that I do have a tendency to be more critical of my group or the group I most identify with. That's not to say I'm not critical of others' actions, but merely that I tend to be even more critical of the groups I more closely identify with since their actions are more likely to reflect on myself.

Then we become the enemy we so despise.

Closer to my side seeing that the US and Canada are NATO allies, whereas Iraq isn't.