CANADIEN

As someone else pointed out, we have had civil litigation handled by Jewish Orthodox tribunals for years. With no complaints from most of the people who cried foul the moment some Muslims decided they want the same.

A posting that makes sense... how dare you posting it?

I know it's accidental, but you got something right for once. There is nothing special about being born and raised here, or anywhere else on the planet. Commitment to this country is what makes a Canadian, even when keeping some traditions and habits from elsewhere. I don;t know about him, but I know I wouldn't. I much prefer pasta bolognese, chili con carne, moussaka and chicken tandoori and bangers and mash. I must be such a traitor. Then, on the other end, tourtière and fèves au lard... Seriously, our diversity is one more reason I am proud to sing our national anthems (I think it should not be sung at sports events though, it debases the anthemn) and when I ssee our flag.

The original text is the French one . Talks about carrying the sword and military feats :lol:

Hear hear

I f you look at the original text, there is a very evident military reference: Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux, Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux. Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, Il sait porter la croix; Ton histoire est une épopée Des plus brillants exploits Et ta valeur de foi trempée, Protégera nos foyers et nos droits, Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

You have the statistics that support your statements, right?

Hear hear

The anti-Semetism and Holocaust denial of "bishop" Williamson is only part of the problem with him. He is not willing to accept the work of the Spirit, as it is present in VII, and he is most likely twilling to accept the authrority of the Church as long as he can find a sympathetic ear to some of his less reactionary ideas in Rome. His excommunication has been lifted. Good for him. Now, the Vatican should remind him of his vow of obedience and order him to shut up. If he can't, or won't, he should be suspended from all ecclesial and priestly function unil he does.

VII is the work of the Spirit. As for the SSPX, as far as I am concerned they should be welcomed back to the Church when they recognize the full authority of the Church and the validity of VII has part of its teachings.

There is no place in Canada for religion-based tribunals arbitrating or deciding on matter of civil law. No matter the religion. More than 45% of Muslims in Canada don't want Sharia law in this country. Great. That number will grow up as more Muslims realize there is nothing incompatible between being a Muslim and being Canadian. I would be curious to see a break down of those numbers by lenght of stay in this country: I would be curious to see if long-time resident are more opposed to the sharia. It would also be interesting to see if those who support sharia support the whole of it, or parts. Sharia touches a lot more than women's rights (or lack thereof), and includes economic issues, property rights, banking, contractual disputes.

Iceland has a new Premier... and she is openly gay: Interesting that, while the outgoing government does not think she can't do the job, they don't say it's because of her sexual orientation. They may have figured out one essential fact - her capacity to do her job has nothing to do with who she lives with.

Obviously you can't read, since I do it all the time !, I am the type of typo, and 2 my keyboad ii just too sensitive to the touch

I put a few citations from the Red Cross a few days ago, that tells a story totally different than those bogus sites. I was not able to find a single one there that support the "less than one million dead in the camps" lie.

Vatican II was inspired by the Spirit. If anybody needs to make amends, it is those who rejected the Spirit and the Church when they rejected VII.

That includes those who put up websites with bogus "Red Cross" statistics "ahowing" than less than 1 million Jews died in Nazi camps.

The Catholic Church (or any Church for that matter) has the absolute right, and an obligation, to express its opinion on issues with a moral dimension. The environmental crises is a potential threat to the well-being of God's creation and the human race. There are those who will oppose Church officials commenting on any issue, no matter what it is. At lllleast they are consistent. There are also those who want church officials to enter the public debates only when they denounce abortion ooor oppose gay marriage, but remind the Church it should be preaching and stay out of politics everytime it talks about social justice, just working conditions, better social programs, immigratio, peace, and now the environment. I suppose they want the Church to speak only when they like the message.

There is no teaching saying that people supporting gay marriage will be excommunicated either, which didn't prevent you from saying thatthose holding that position should be excommunicated. The teaching of the Church regarding the death penalty is clear. You are of course free not to follow it.

You make me sick. ignored.

Let me check here. Opposition leaders forced into exile, emergency decree suspending civil liberties, party thugs "monitoring" the vote, oppostion candidates intimated or assualted. That was indeed a very democratic election.

Or it is true that his friend was sick and send his brother instead. The O'Connor Commission was fully aware of the story when it concluded there was no evidence that Arar was a terrorist.

My problem? It's with people who spend their time saying that one must follow to the letter all the teachings of the Church to be deemed to be a Catholic, while they themselves depart from it whenever it suits their prejudice. BTW, you don't know what my position is regarding scum like Bernardo and Olsen (it's "them rot in prison", in case you wondered). And no, I am not perfect.

You don't know my position on how we should treat criminals. Apparently, your knowledge of Catholic teaching on the death penalty seem to be a bit lacking. Let me refresh your memory. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: Care to comment?

I would the last one to claim that sorting through historical records to get to the facts will be an easy task, or that all of the Six Nations land claims are founded. This should not be an obstacle to attemptiig to resolve the claims. You, on the other end, seem bent on using this as an excuse to deny any claim, period. Btw, Some allegations maybe easier to very than others. For example. government regulations regarding surrenders of lands by First Nations were very clear that certain steps were to be followed by the Government , including, among others, that an Order-in-Council had to be issued by the Crown stating the conditions of the surrender, and that the O.-C. had to include a map, or sketch, first submitted to the First Nation, showing the extent f the surrender. If an O.C. was issued according to the rules, the Government should be able to produce it. Same with the claims that money held in trust by the Crown for the First nations. As the Trustee, the Crown should be able to provide an account of all that money was managed. BTW,

I'll be nice, I won't quote your own postings againt. Nice little story, isn't it? Too bad there are historical documents, such as correspondence between Joseph Brant and the Upper Canada authorities, which lead to a theory that is a bit more believable. It starts with a known fact: the Six Nations, through Brant, were claiming the right that they had the right to sell or lease their land to white settlers, that same thing that white settlers could do with land granted to them by the Crown; while the Crown contended that only it coould by or lease land from the Six nations. When that is taken into account, the idea that the Six nations were quite willing to submit documentation of their sales of land to settlers by the the Crown was rejecting it makes a lot of sense. I apparently fail to understand the full situation. You clearly fail to understand it. The Sxi nations claims compensation for: - money held and managed in trust by the Crown for the Six nations, for which it has allegedly failed to provide proper management and/or accounting -- surely, the Corwn has an obligation to properly account for moneys it holds in trust - land that according to the Six nations, eas taken illegally from them -- NOT, as you falsely claim, ALL the land they surrendered.