The Terrible Sweal

But that's one of the very reasons I want them to stay! Modern Quebec is a bastion of social sanity to counterbalance the pockets of self-deluded, mean-minded theocrats hiding in the woodpile of the ROC. Cripes, without Quebec we might have Canadian soldiers right now dying on behalf of Bushista oil profiteering and Wolfowitzian geo-political follies.

We see you equating ideas or words with actions. Unfortunately that equation is both faulty and harmful. Indeed, what even is a "violent idea" or a "violent speech" in the absense of a violent deed? Violence by its very nature is comprised of deeds, not words, not thoughts.

That depends on what doctrine you think that is. In any event, the religious character of whatever that doctrine is is certainly not useful in the social discourse or formulating public policy. Placing or claiming to place an idea beyond the reach of reasoned analysis or criticism is an inately detrimental approach.

Certainly not in 2000. MAYBE this time, depending on the view one takes of the fairness of campaigning from a position of encumbency gained illegitimately. And assuming that the election wasn't rigged in some undetectable fashion. After all, we know that Repugs were willing to steal one election. Who's to say they wouldn't do it the next time, only with improved methods?

If you are going to make comments like this, you run the risk of retalialation. I am not condoning violence however when you play with fire........ What is the objection here? The term 'goatfucker'? The fact that it was on TV? Or that it was directed at a Muslim? Now you've said you don't condone violence, but what seems to be an open question is whether you condone censorship in the service of those who may engage in violence. If so, it seems to take you down the road of incentivising violence. If someone doesn't want certain ideas expressed, all they have to do is be ready and willing to gun someone down in the streets, and Lo! Maplesyrup will forestall it with a prohibition.

You believe whatever you're comfortable with, Sweal. The fact that you can't mount any kind of defence speaks volumes. Hugo, my 'nope' has every bit as much validity as your nonsensical repetitive recitations. Plus it had the advantage of brevity. I have already spoken volumes to you, but they might as well have been addressed to a bale of straw. For example, youi've become attached to the idea of a circular argument and you resort to that comment each time a direct line is cut through your convolutions. There is nothing whatsoever circular about my position, except the path you are walking around it.

That's false. I had no need to 'defend' anything. I was attempting to discuss an issue with you, but your habit of distorting my positions and ignoring my comments made that a pointless exercise.

In this regard, I believe I indicated that the words and deeds of Christ as described in the four gospels embodied the ethics attributable to him. The elaborations of 'Saint' Paul and later church 'fathers' are not directly attributable to Christ.

Nope.

I stand by my comments. I am uninterested in discussion characterized by the tactics you put on display.

Good. That settles that then. Jeez, Hugo. Are you literally incapable of grasping what another person writes? What August and I have said is that in societies you are free to depart from, remaining constitutes consent to the terms of the social contract therein. Back to this 'ownership' nonsense! "Ownership" is not the point. Participation in the social contract is.

You did not. You are either mistaken or lying.

It's you who is not addressing what I said, despite your obviously false claim on the other thread to have done so. What about answering my questions instead of engaging in these pathetic evasions?

That's where I looked. You have not responded to these comments there at all, and it is thus you who is being "inaccurate".

I haven't twisted what you said at all. Be careful with your accusations. I'm asking you what you believe. Do you support the Rushdie fatwa? Do you really believe that van Gogh brought murder on himself by exercising free speech? How about witnesses who testify against organized crime? Do they 'bring it on themselves' when they are gunned down in the streets? Do homosexuals who march in gay pride parades bring gay-bashing on themselves? For the record, here is your comment on the other thread which makes me wonder these things: [italicization added.]

I've double checked -- it's funny. I can see no reference whatsoever over there of any response at all to my questions here. I can't imagine how you could be so mistaken in this regard.

I don't believe that you have addressed this point there.

You don't support free expression, I guess. You prefer censorship, it seems. Do you support that Salman-Rushdie-must-die fatwa?

Can you give me an example of this? Yes, I'm talking about the left not being happy with a civil union. They have to steal the word "marriage" which is a word religions hold sacred. To me it doesn't seem to be about a homosexual's rights. It seems to be more about shoving it in religious believers faces and saying "your beliefs are wrong". But there is still no 'imposition'. Do you need me to give you a definition of 'impose'? BTW, the fact that religious people use a word in a certain way does not give them any exclusive right to use the word to the exclusion of others. If your apparent position had any merit, presumably western Christians could object to eastern Christians using 'Christmas' as the name for their holiday in January. Your position holds no water.

I read: I am challenging: The deficiency in reading is thine, not mine, it would seem. Do you intend to respond substantively or not?

Ignore.

Then you'll have no problem with what the Liberal government is planning. It seems to me that religious opponents of same-sex marriage have begun from a fallacious understanding of the law. Religious institutions do not control or define marriage in society. They may define marriage only WITHIN themselves. So, as long as the state requires no change in their activities, the state is not imposing anything on religions. The contrary is true when religions falsely claim to hold some defining power over the institutions of society as a whole, like civil marriage. That's an attempt to undermine religious freedom and impose theocratic rules.

Can you give me an example of this?

This comment portrays such a profound ignorance of the issue it is almost beyond belief. Heads up, Ticker ... the government clearly intends to ensure that no church will be required to marry anyone it doesn't want to. The Charter of Rights protects religious freedom. The courts have given no reason to think they would or could impose any obligation on churches to marry people they don't want to marry. Also, there ARE churches right now who wish to and do marry same-sex couples. If you want to have your comments taken seriously, you'd do better to have some clue about the facts surrounding the issues, rather than to interject verbiage which is, in context, ill-informed nonsense.

Matthew Engel is full of shite, and very easy to refute. First, opinions about George Criminal Bush, no matter how negative, do not equate to being anti-American. Plenty of Americans don't like Bush either. A commentator who ignores this basic point of logic isn't worthy of any serious consideration. Second, his claim that 69% of Canadians to say that the US is "partly to blame for 9/11" is a dishonest distortion of the actual poll, which actually asked a different question. And anyway, holding the view that 9/11 didn't happen in isolation from historical US foreign policy also hardly equates with disliking America. It is possible to believe that people have made mistakes without hating them for it. (DUH.)