The Terrible Sweal

Why limit our fun? Lets go with all of the above. Okay. Then just ONE more question. Does the policy succeed? I.e. in this hypothetical does religion disappear or do people take religious beliefs underground?

Source?

Incompatible objectives.

Can you add some content to that analysis? In particular, how can someone who: -has created a truly monstrous fiscal hole, -presided over the worst terrorist attack in US history, -launched a war of aggression on false premises, -undermined international law and order, -alienated allies, -weakened the constitution, -deepened plutocracy, -curried favor with and supported dictatorial regimes, -explored and displayed the limits of US military power, -caged people without due process, and -allowed/encouraged the US armed forces to descend into depravity be better than someone (e.g. Kerry) who has not done any of these things?

Thanks for your opinions ... no need to apologize for participating. BUT .... I still have no idea what the alleged harm is supposed to be, according to those alleging it.

I think further clarification of the hypothetical would be helpful. Dismantle religion ... okay that means a number of possible things, so please say yea or nay to the various items on this list: -remove and deny legal/tax/corporate status for organizations with religious purposes; -eliminate the civil status of clergy (e.g. wedding and funeral certification) -disaccredit academic programs provided by religious- affiliated institutions -fund and pursue a policy of specifically challenging and disproving religious doctrines -prohibit association for religious purposes -prohibit religious expression -prohibit religious belief. Do you mean all of these or just some?

If I left Canada, would I get my taxed income back? What about my EI payments towards a pension I'll never claim? I'm having real difficulty understanding this little tour around the mulberry bush. Why would you get your taxes BACK? You got the benefit of living here while you paid them, so there is no basis on which you should get them back. (Also, you have incorrectly conflated EI and pensions. EI payments purchase a current benefit of coverage if you become unemployed. While you pay them, if you become unemployed you get the coverage. When you stop paying them the coverage stops. Do you get car insurance premiums back when you sell your car? No. Same thing. Pension payments do purchase a future benefit and after vesting your benefit stays with you at that level even if further contributions cease.) The government can exercise its will over me without my consent. No. You have consented. You can withdraw your consent by departing. That is not 'fact'. And whether it is not 'sad' is purely a matter of opinion. Your argument has become threadbare.

I'd really like someone to explain ... how is same-sex marriage supposed to be harmful to other marriages or 'traditional' families?

What about stopping Fox News from selling its product here? I thought you said that didn't happen??

Visit JESUSLAND

A LEADER Bush may be, but is he a good leader? Two examples from the animal world: Goats and Mares. Mules will follow a mare whereever she goes, and sheep will follow a goat. However, a mare leading mules can be observed to take their welfare into account, selecting safe paths and ensuring they all stick together. A goat leading sheep pays no mind to the capabilities or needs of the sheep, leading them into things the goat may survive but that the sheep will not. The oddity is that so many Americans fail to see Bush's numerous mistakes and deficiencies, or to give them proper weight. Bush's mistakes and deficiencies are dire, and go well beyond anything you can pin on Kerry.

I hadn't thought about a sharp definition when I used the term, so let's go with that one, subject to the qualification 'unanswerable at this time'. It seems to me that people only abandon something (voluntarily) when it's benefits are outweighed by its costs. If there are vital functions of religion for which there is no substitute, religion will not be abandoned. I guess I'm saying that your hypothetical as constructed seems impossible (unless you are positing coercion somewhere).

Then your next-door neighbour can steal your property, because if you don't like it, you can move. You're not making sense. If your property has been stolen your moving is not a remedy as it won't restore your property. I don't see the analogy to the situation we are discussing. Who makes the law? We do, through our institutions. Again, I don't see the connection to our subject, and don't see the merit in the assertion. Attempts to 'regulate government' have a history of success stretching back to Magna Carta at least. Again, I don't see the connection to our subject, and don't see the merit in the assertion. The mere fact that government is bigger does not make it more coercive. Within these timeframes, both the US and Canada have added a constitutional protections which constrain government action. I also think your assertion that government is more 'intrusive' is highly suspect as well.

You need to distinguish power from particular exercises of power. The fact that a holder of power exercises their power against the law does not make the power arbitrary. It makes the exercise of that power illegal. The very fact that you can discuss that exercise being 'illegal' disqualifies the power from being arbitrary.

Why do they need to leave? What special claim does the government, or even the majority of Canadians, have over Canada? I have a stake in this country too, I own property here, I work here, my kids are raised here so why can others tell me to get out? Why can't I tell them to get out? The question was whether you are coercively subjected by government. You are not. You CAN leave. If you don't leave that is your choice. The argument you offer is beside the point. Like the laws that permit tobacco smoking but forbid baby walkers or owning pit-bulls? That certainly isn't reasonable or based upon any principle. By choosing that definition of 'arbitrary' you fallen away from the question of 'arbitrary power' and wandered into the question of 'arbitrary policy'. The folly of particular policies does not of itself render the power backing them arbitrary. Take this definition: "not limited by law; absolute; despotic". Clearly Government power is not arbitrary in Canada in that sense.

Emanuel Kant developed and defended a system of ethics. He also tested the apparent ethics articulated by Christ through his words and deed recorded in the four gospel according to these principles and found (as I do) that Christ's ethics holds up pretty well. But (without needed to assess whether Christ was divinely inspired) examining the principles shows no reason to think that it was necessary to have divine inspiration for them to have been articulated. Unfortunately for Christianity it contains a whole lot more than simply the ethical foundations attributable directly to Christ. It is in these other elements that it fails to be valid.

Your hypothetical seems a bit vague: 'scrap religion' needs clarification of both words since it could range from: 'outlaw spiritual beliefs' to 'encourage withering of heirarchically maintained dogma systems'. Let's consider two modified questions: 1. Without religion, how would we answer questions of metaphysics? 2. Without religion, where can the dying or bereaved find comfort? As for the first, my opinion is that any attempt to answer metaphysical questions IS essentially a religious exercise, until and unless actual data effectively removes the 'meta' part. If organized and unorganized religions confined themselves to questions of pure metaphysics it would be neither possible nor pertinent to 'scrap' them. However, where they purport to tender non-existent data or apply metaphysical ruminations in preference to data, they generate the motive to scrap them. As for the second, atheists and agnostics and secret skeptics somehow deal with these events already. Presumably their method(s) could be generally adopted.

That doesn't tie in well with the fact that 77% of the Canadian electorate is governed by those they didn't choose but who still exercise arbitrary power over them. Everyone in Canada is free to leave if they don't like the way our constitution provides for selection of the government. And, just an aside, the goverment in Canada does not exercise 'arbitrary' power.

Analogous to government in coercive states, but not in free states, like Canada, for example.

Nonsense. She's as entitled to her opinions as you are to yours.

I would make a different characterization. Bush has done terrible things deliberately (not by mistake) which he was specifically warned against and which he nevertheless persisted in. He has also done things which he should have known better than to do ... so, not merely 'human', but a stupid or foolish human. Finally, Bush has done things which are not stupid, but are execrably self-interested. The stupidity in this regard is in the electorate standing for it. Well, you're onto something there, I think. Bush voters look at people like Clinton, or Kerry, or Michael Moore and they hate them BECAUSE they are intelligent and perceptive, and therefor threatening to the self-esteem of voters who cannot tolerate the idea that they might not measure up. Bush is comforting to them. "Look", they can think, "He's no smarter than me and HE'S PRESIDENT." I don't understand why defenders of Bush think this is a credible statement. Anger at someone, like Bush, who acts illegitimatel and harms your interests is perfectly justified and sensible. You have no evidence of a liberal bias pervading the major media. The US public in fact seemed to either ignore or find acceptable the strong evidence that Bush is dishonest and harmful.

If Bush has an IQ of 125+, then he is a truly brilliant actor.

Pure irrational hatred. I rest my case. Where is the "irrational" part?

I actually looked for a link to the rules before posting my query, but couldn't find it. Anyway, thank you for your reply. It contained the information I was seeking.

Exactly. The ideological disdain for government exhibited by some people is often internally inconsistent ... police yes, regulators no; yes to armies, no to diplomats. For some it seems to boil down to mere whimsy as to what is proper government and what is too much. Why protection against pickpockets is seen to be more valid than protection against financial misrepresentation or poisoning a watershed is unclear.