CANADIEN

I don't recall Martin saying that people should note vote Conservative because they were lead by somebody from Alberta. I do recall the Reform party running ads during the 1997 campaign, telling people not to vote for certain other political parties because they wre lead by Quebecers.

It is not a theft. Feel free to debate as much as you want as to whether or not events that fill the cities coffers should receive funding, but to call it a theft is non-sense. Unless you can prove that money is being taken illegally.

Thanks. Now, back to teaching about religion in schools. The notion that learning that there are various religions is undermining the teaching of one particular religion (by the parents) does not make sense. Unless, of course, the teaching of a particular religion needs to ignore the fact that there are people who believe differently or have no religious beliefs. Parents are entirely free to teach their kids, for example, that Hindus are going straight to Hell because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and their Saviour. Their right to do so is not undermined when the kids are told in a classroom that Hindus are different from Christians. By the same token, I doubt very much that the rights of parents to teach their children that there is no God is undermined when children are exposed to the fact (in school, or simply walking down the street) that there are people who believe there is a God. I find it interesting that there are no atheist parents in Quebec (as far as I know) who wants their children exempted from the new curriculum.

By that account. the teaching of science would undermine the right of the parents to teach their children pseudo-science such as intelligent design. Perhaps biology, chemistry, physics, natural sciences should be optional too? There is NOTHING in learning about other religions that undermines the growth of one's faith or the right of parents to direct that growth.

Along with people of faith who have an understanding of what science is. It is not science.

No surprise here, you do not see the difference between a debate on God, faith, religion, and a debate about science with people (creationists) who have no understanding of what science actually is.

Didn't say it would be easy.

Considering that the idea of a state religion is an anachorism in Western democracies...

Of course, banning Catholics from the throne is an archaic non-sense. we are in 2011.

Whether or not a person was born a citizen of their country has nothing to do with their commitment to it. If a person is good enough to become a citizen, he/she is good enough to run for the highest position.

Looks to me that these parents sees anything other than religious indoctrination as moral relativism.

You'll notice, of course, that ther's nothing said in the US Constitution about the president's spouse. As for the prohibition on US citizens who are not born so becoming President, the word bigotry does not crosses my mind one second. The word archaic does, so.

This is not political correctness. This about what is relevant and what is not. And the relevancy of the citizenship status of a would-be PM's spouse ranks between which shoe he puts on first and how many times a day he flosses. That is... it is not relevant one bit.

You do not want religion to be taught in school. That includes, I suppose, religion masquarading as science, aka creationism, right? The course in question is not a religion course, it is a course about religion. Different. Which defeats the argument put foraward by its opponents.

The foolishness is the notion that the citizenship of a candidate`s spouse matters.

The problem with the notion that Ignatieff was equating bickering with democracy, is that he did not make that argument. If anything, it was Harper who equated the normal functioning of our democratic institutions - that is a party in power proposing laws and polocies, and other parties opposing or supporting those laws and policies - to bickering. Sorry, but he is in the wrong. Harper likes to be in control, with nobody being allowed to interfere, whether it is students who hav dare to be on a picture or Ignatieff, journalisists asking too many questions, or well-respected NGO`s. The problem... for him that is, is that this is not how it works. Whether he likes it or not, opinions contrary to his are and will be expressed. And if (or should I say when) he fails in his quest for a majority, he'll have to deal with it. Not that I expect him to be around very long after that.

It does not. Unless you can quote the exact wording in the Constitution that says so.

Which is why I laughed at the caricature of Harper... And I have no intention of voting for the guy.

Actually, to be fair, the comments have been about a politician's wife citizenship status, not her origin or skin color. Which still makes for a quite ridiculous position, but that's not the same thing.

People who understand science know deep down that a public debate with creationist "scientists" is a waste of time except for the entertainment value. Nothing cowardless or fearful in that, just common sense. The same way it is a waste of time to expect rational debate with Holocaust deniers or truthers.

The WIFE of the man who is running to become PM is not a citizen yet. Big deal. Her name is not appearing on the ballot in any riding.

LOL Pure genius

Nobody would dream of considering Karla Homolka for a job as a teacher or working with youth. Yet, she has paid her debt to society. Letting a fraudster into mthe inner circles of pwoer falls in the same category.

One only needs to look at the claim that public sector unions push against the interests of taxpayers. I guess the public has no interest in its schools, public institutions, police, fire departments staffed with people who are working in fair and agreed upon working conditions? And YOU are calling other people liars and charlatans? And on top of that, using the term "bllod libel". No wonder you are a fan of Sarah Palin. Disgusting is a feeble word to describe your misuse of the term.

That's right. Which is why, while it can be argued that, well, you should not buy a house that is worth 8 or 9 times your annual salary, the bulk of the blame lies with the banks. They knew full well (or should have known) that billions of dollars in bad mortgages was, quite simply, bad.