Neal.F.

Several months ago, Lost In Manitoba , with whose socially liberal politics I strongly disagree, posted a thread wherein he wanted to discuss environmental issues. I wanted to respond to that back then, but got sidetracked. Here are some thoughts on this highly important, but often forgotten subject from my perspective. Unfortunately the left wing green party has hijacked the issue, and the far better, balanced policy represented by the Christian Heritage Party is rarely heard. I also think it would be folly on the part of the new Conservative party to ignore it either. I believe that we have a responsibility to exercise stewardship over the earth and its resources, that we are not free to consume and destroy leaving scraps for future generations. As individuals we must do what we can to keep the world clean, and not denude it of resources, and government has a responsibility to enforce penalties, preferably of a restoratory nature on those who do abuse the environment, via pollution or wanton rape of land and resources. I also think that the government has the right to use tax dollars to help repair damage done by others when their resources are insufficient to repair damage. I do not support artificial birth control of any kind as a means of population control. Properly used and distributed, we could feed the world many times over. What prevents equitable food and resource distribution at the moment? Corporate greed, for the most part. An article in a recent national geographic concludes that there is enough water UNDER the Sahara and Sahel, that if it could be brought to the surface a,and the land irrigated, that area would teem with vegetation, and would become the best farmland in the world. It would not even have to fertilized for several generations, as it is that rich in nutrients. The cost of bringing this water to the service is estimated at 50 Billion US dollars. The only reason I can see why this is not being done, is that corporate interests in North America and Europe do NOT want this land to be farmed. Their bottom line is more important than saving human lives. They are very happy with keeping food prices high. This is an obscenity, especially when US Congress is capable of voting larger sums than that for space exploration, Arms manufacturing, and other things. Under Trudeau, Canada ran Budget DEFICITS close to $50 Billion. But the corporate interests that pay for politicians re-election bids will have none of it. Another obscenity is how much food is THROWN AWAY every year! We have people starving in our own streets, and in other parts of the world, yet I heard that enough food is thrown away in the United States ALONE every year to sufficiently feed every man, woman and child on the planet...and then some. Why does this happen? Once again corporate greed. The corporations generally would prefer to throw away food, than to give it away. Here's how it was put to me once. "If you start to give it away, they won't ever want to pay for it!" sometimes farmers are even paid NOT to produce! land goes to waste while people go hungry. All so some damned executives can drive a BMW. Why not offer massive tax credits for companies who will give the surpluses to homeless shelters, soup kitchens or put the goods in containers and ship them overseas? This is a worldwide situation that will ultimately affect everyone, so it needs to be addressed globally, by individuals, corporations and governments. I think this is best addressed at the local and international levels by a wide variety of parties, and sovereign countries, not through a one world government, or the United Nations.

I voted for Howard Phillips and the Constitution Party (Formerly US Taxpayers party) It is the only party that is stuanchly and unapologetically pro-life. The Libertarian Party was once good in the Ron Paul days (Ron Paul is a staunch pro-lifer, who now sits as a Republican Congressman from Texas) but has now become a party of complete moral degenerates. They say "We are pro-choice on everything". They think that a woman should have a right to have an abortion, but would place only one restriction on it: That abortion should not be paid for with tax dollars, but then ahgian, NO medical procedure should be tax funded. This is philosophical contradiction of epic proportions. How can the LP cklaim to support the right to life, when they reserve the right for some people to decide the fate of others, in the case of abortion? You are either pro-life, or you are not. They clearly are not. The Greens: While I can understand that many people are concerned about Environmental issues (see linked thread), and i am too, the Green Party has ventured way to far out into left field on social issues. They favour abortion as a means of birth control, gay marriage, the repeal of all public decency laws, the repeal of all drug laws. I can never support them on those grounds, nor can I support their solutioins to environmental issues. Finally, about wasted votes, the only wasted vote is a vote cast for a prty or candidate that you don't believe in. Voting for a smaller party may not bring immediate results, but you will have voted your conscience, and the party may live to fight another day, and possibly elect someone.

Well, no surprise here. Scott Brison has defected to the Liberals. I wonder what kind of plum Martin offered the little weasel to go over. I have more respect for Joe Clark and the others who opted to sit as independents. Now the Liberals have their own little Svend Robinson..albeit a fiscally conservative one. Ever since he came out of the closet, he's been nothing but a troublemaker for Tories. One week ago, he's considering a run for the leadership of the new party, the next he's crossing the floor. Interesting he does this even after so-called "moderate" Jim Prentice decalres his leadership bid. Pure opportunism, and the voters of Kings-Hants will tell him they see it that way too, when he faces them at the polls later in 2004. Atlantic Canada is the one place in Canada where tarditional Liberal voters vote Liberal, and traditional Tories Vote Conservative. Another one whose riding voted to support the merger too. I hope he likes working with Dan McTeague, Tom appell, David Kilgour and others who see HIS issue no diffwerently than Elsie Wayne did. Good riddance.

Churches administer sacraments, not states. A church can decide not to administer marriage to gays if it wants to. The state, though, can't discriminate. Not special, equal. It sounds like you want to legislate politeness. Angry white guys? I can tell you that most new immigrants want nothing to do with special rights for sexual deviants, or anyone else. But yes I am angry with what this Liberal government has done to the social fabric of the country. May Trudeau and his ilk burn in hell for what they've done to destroy the character of a once-great nation, and the way they shit on the memorory and values of those who fought for Canada in the two world wars. They did not fight so men could marry men, several people or even their dog, of perhaps one day, their own child.

On the two in Alberta, for one thing, the nickname REDmonton didn't just pop out of nowhere... and secondly, both are expected to have cabinet posts, McLellan to get the biggie, Finance. If they electe even two, it will be those two. I wonder how Kilgour and his new caucus colleague Brison will get along.

Gays are human beings, and as such have the same inalienable RIGHTS as any other person. Marriage, is not a right. it is a sacrament, and it is not something that can ever be for homosexuals. Period. The most disturbing apsect of the whole "gay rights" movement is that they are asking for special treatment because of a behaviour. And it is a dangerous behaviour. to themselves and to others. It should never have been given sanction by the state. Elsie Wayne put it so well: They should just go live together and shut up about it. We don't need them flashing their lifestyle in our faces, and holding parades in the town square celebrating a sexual behaviour, and a deviant one at that. These things should be kept behind closed doors. They always say the State should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation.... The corrolary to that is, the nation should keep its bedroom doors closed!

I nearly choke every time I see the blatant misuse of the adjective "progressive". When used by those who incline to the left on social issues, it is assumed to mean that those who apply it to themselves represent abortion rights, gay rights and relaxation of drug laws, among other positions. This contradiction inherent in the misuse of "progressive" reminds me of the slogans of "The Party" , from George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty Four" "War is peace" "Freedom is Slavery" ""Ignorance is Strength" . If anything the term that should be used to describe so-called "progressive" social policy, is the exact polar opposite" REGRESSIVE What is so "progressive" about promoting the butchery of the unborn as a means to avoid the consequences of ones actions? Isn't the wonton taking of innocent life a form of neanderthal barbarism? What about the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle? Isn't promoting a dangerous behaviour which cuts lifespans in half, and urges primitive animalisticic unrestrained sexuality, ie: promiscuity? The Liberal government under Chretien has been aggressively attacking traditional judeo-Christian values at every chance it gets. I don't tjink the Martin regime will be any different... a controversial issue comes up? Easy... toss it to our liberal courts. I hope that a Conservative party government would try to undo the damage that the Liberals have done, but at the very least they must be counted on to stop the assualts on tradiotion and family and keep us in a holding pattern until people come to their senses. I hope men and women of integrity like Jason Kenney , maurice Vellacott, Elsie Wayne etc. can hold the regressives at bay. If they fail the result will be Liberal Lite.

Unfortunately, I think the CPC will take the coward's way out and go neutral on social issues, which is tantamount to permitting the advance of the culture of death. I think they will nevertheless keep in check better than the Liberals, but this could be the opportunity for the CHP to make some gains, and elect even a hanful of members in a few isolated pockets. Just enough to say, possibly hold the balance of power one day. So-cons who will not compromise may want to lookn in their direction.

Michael, I don't agree with you often, but I think you are right when you say it'll be the PC party all over again at the end of the day, albeit Brian Mulroney's PC party, not Jolly Joe's. IT will be fiscally conservative, and will play down any activism obn the social issues. It wont be socially liberal like under the Grand Marshal of the Calgary gay pride parade, but alot of good people who formed the backbone of Reform, under the impression they'd stand for life issues will be disappointed. Nevertheless, For the health of the system, we need ton end one-party-rule. If the pro-lifers find that the Conservative party is not really much of a home for them, the Christian Heritage Party will welcome them. While the CHP has no chance of winning an election at this point, they may eventually elect some MPs, who just MIGHT , one day hold the balance of power in a minority CPC situatioin. And why not? The New Dumbocruds have propped up Liberal governments, and exacted a price for it. The CHP may end up being the best vehicle through which social conservatives can achieve their ends.

Please read what I said about the Quebec factor not being taken into account, and my attemptv to build it in.

While these numbers are encouraging, they must be tempered with the lack of Quebec participation in an English media outlet's online polling (Ironically, CNews is owned by Quebecor). I think if you included a Quebc snapshot, the results would be more like this: LPC: 42% CPC: 34% NDP: 12% Bloc: 8% oth: 4% That is probably closer to how things really look out there. In terms of seats, that would translate roughly as follows: BC: CPC:26 LPC:8 NDP:4 --- AB: CPC: 26 LPC:2 --- SK: CPC:6 LPC:2 NDP:6 --- MB: LPC:5 CPC:5 NDP:4 --- Ont: LPC:62 CPC:40 NDP:5 --- QC: LPC: 55 BQ: 18 CPC: 2 --- NB: LPC: 5 CPC:5 --- NS: CPC:6 LPC:4 NDP:1 --- PEI: LPC:3 CPC:1 --- NF: CPC:5 LPC:2 --- Ter: LPC:2 CPC:1 --- Totals: LPC:152 CPC: 123 NDP: 20 BQ:18 Now there are rumours of the iminent unravelling of the Bloc, and given the social Democratic inclinations of many, if Jack Layton is astute, he is probably courting some right now. If he could score a few of them, it would establish an NDP beachhead in Quebec, and possibly alter the results . Note the NDP has always favoured the right to self determination for Quebec, so for some it would be a good fit. Some came from Tory ranks, so these might go to the CPC. There already a rumour that Pierrette venne may go CPC. Many though, beingv oppoirtunistic will jump to Team martin. Quebec is the big wild card. How well Martin does there will determine whether it will be a majority for him or not. The CPC does NOT have the organization on the ground in Quebec to generate significant numbers of seats . Their best hope is to get Bloc defectors, or the votes of anti-liberal Bloc supporters.

Name me ONE contemporary Canadian politician who has tried to foist their religion on Canadian society..... Actually I CAN think of two, off the top my head: Jean Chretien and Svend Robinson, who have tried to make miltitant secularism the official state religion. Seriously, abortion is not a religious issue. It is one of basic respect for the right to life. By allowing abortion, right to life is now non-existent. You are allowed to live by privelege now, and soon they will be making decisions on behalf of the weak, disabled and infirm... what's next? Homosexuality is not an issue of religion, but of public health. The state, very simply should not be placing its stamp of approval on such unions. Tolerate them, that's one thing. promoting them is quite another, and it's as wrong as promoting smoking.

You and I are on the same wavelength. I will give you a warning or two about prentice. He supports gay marriage, beleives pot should be a matter between a parent and their child, and also in abortion rights. I don't know where he stands on euthanasia. When I posted about him posing a real threat to Harper for the leadership, I was in no way endorsing him. If he does win, and then refuses to allow free votes on the life issues, then the CPC will have been founded for nothing.

Ther eis not a single party on the Canadian political scene that disagrees with the separation of church and state.... The disagreement is over what separation of church and state MEANS. Conservatives, including the Christian Heritage Party do not seek to establish a state reloigion, let alone a theocracy. This is a liberal scare tactic, and it is used by those who wish to establish their religion" Miliutant secularism. Separation of Church and state means simply, that the state shall establish no official church. That's it, that's all. The CHP, and other conservatives who are tarred and feathered as zealots by the left-wing press, for the record, believe in behaving ,in government, as those who observe Christian principles should be expected to behave. I will also take this time to echo the concerns of Alliance fanatic over the new CPC. There is a real possibility that the social liberals will try to duplicate the Liberals on social policy. Should this indeed come to pass, then i ask, What was the point of the whole exercise of uniting the two parties? If a voter wants a liberal , they'll vote for a real liberal, not liberal-lite.

Let's make sure its a RACE , and not a coronation. And remember, it is not a one member one vote scenario, so it may not be the cakewalk for Harper that many expect. Watch Prentice. he's an up & comer....and popular in Quebec. Klein seems to think that Neither Harper nor MacKay should have the job, so he might well through his considerable political weight behind Prentice, who has been a longtime merger advocate with friends in both parties.

Boydfish, That's just the problem. we need one law, and one only applied equally, and objectively, without prejudice, to ALL. I too, agree that stonings in the public square is not a likely scenario for the immediate future, but find it very disturbing that Canadian courts intend to use the power of our government to enforce the laws of one special interest group, on its own members. Don't kid yourself, if a Muslim refuses to voluntarily submit to a sharia court under canadian jurisdiction, he/she will face ostracism at best, perhaps even vigilante justice at worst. The real problem is that every little group , of course, vying to establish its tyranny/fiefdom over its own members, is going to demand that Canadian law enforces their traditional law from back home as well! Not only does it threaten the very foundations of common law, but the Canadian Government and judiciary will actually lend legitimacy to the aspiring petty tyrants who seek to control theior countrymen through organizations, thus actually robbing these new Canadians of the PROTECTION they would otherwise have for their liberties under our system! I once had a question put to me about support for state sponsorred multiculturalism ,and in my answer I made clear my concern that publicly funded multiculturalism actually poses a threat to the liberties of the minorities it is supposed to be promoting and protecting. You know as well as I do that money goes to groups whose leaders are loyal to the party in power, and will deliver the votes. Basically these are training grounds for new Liberals. What we need to do is encourage people to break OUT of cultural ghettoes and find their way into society at large, where they will be free to live their lives to their fullest potential, limited of course by the guidelines (common law, based on Judeo-Chirstian tradition) that allowed western civilization to become what it did at its historical pinnacle.

You speak about Christian values that "scare the hell out most Canadians". I submit that if people properly understood Christian values, they'd realize, whether they choose to accept Jesus Christ as personal saviour or not, the actual values expresses are the cornerstone of what made the west the place in the world where one's rights and dignity have the best chance of survival. It is the leftist media that seeks to undo those values, and have set about doing it by taking statements from uneducated wackos who pose as pastors who have a fundamentalist view of things. Fundamentalists of any religion or world view are what is frightening, and militant secularists are even more fundamentalist about their view than most religious ones, which play right into the hands of the militant secularists. Anyone who would trouble themselves to read and understand the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II or some of the works of Ravi Zacharias, CS Lewis, Malcolm Muggeridge or GK Chesterton would get a fair and balanced view of what Christianity really is all about, and will gain a great respect for its intellectual roots, a view which is distorted by the rantings of uneducated fundies.

I wouild agree with your assesment of MacKay's chances... he doomed himself with that piece of Orchardite paper. I hope he stays with the party, and he should be rewarded for the sacrifice he made, but think of what kind of field day Kinsella and the smear squad would have..... Harper would be a good choice, but I think a coronation would be a disaster. What is needed is a exciting, hotly contested leadership race, which will for 5 weeks or so, rip the attention away from Paulie Waulie who has dominated the media which hangs on every word his spokespeople utter on his behalf. If there's a race, Harper will have an ooportunity to show himself in good stead, or make a horse's ass of himself. If he does the former, the spring election could be a real contest, or even be postponed, which will be to Martin's disadvantage. However, if it appears to be a coronation, the old , prejudiced view of Harper will prevail, and be used constantly against him by Warren's Warriors.

Craig, If people will be stupid enough to fall for the Kinsellaesque hyperbolic smear tactics once again, then this country for which many quality individuals gave their lives, will not be worth a damn, nothing more thana whining, sneering socialist nanny-state that as far as I'm concerned will have lost its moral right to exist as a country. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" I don't yet consiider Martin a done-deal, he has set expections so high he can't possibly satisfy anyone, let alone everyone. Unless he goes to the polls early, he stands a good chance of being defeated. I also do not consider Harper as a shoo-in for the CP leadership. Prentice is a force to be reckoned with. He has strength in Quebec, and under the voting suystem, as I understand it, small quebec associations will have the same clout as big Alberta ones. Prentice is also popular in Alberta and BC. Then there's Chuck Strahl. I don't think he'll be too popular among PCs, but he does ahve a strong and forceful no-nonsense style presence, and may be what is needed to go up against martin. IT's just beginning, and hopefully it will be a real contest and not a coronation. That's the last thing the new party needs.

Paulie Waulie has nowhere to go but down. He has been put so high on a pedestal that when he falls, he will fall hard. Expectations are through the roof since he has promised to be everything to everyone. That is why he will call his election early. before people see its just a new driver in the getaway car. Organizationally Team Martin (not the Libeeral party. Martin has been running a party within a party for years.) is rock solid all the way through to sask and Alberta, where it is weakest, and in BC where he has made gains for the party. For the conservatives, the CA has a powerful machine on the ground from BC to the Ontario border, while the Progressive Conservatives are still capable of waging effective war in the 4 eastern provinces. Onatrio is where consolidation will have to be effected most quickly. The newly merged Riding associations need to elect their new executive in december, and immediately open nominations, so that an esprit de corps, and the creation of something both groups can call their own that they created together can be ready to seriously contest at least 85 of the 103-108 seats there will be. In Quebec, both parties are a shambles. They will have to get their respective associations together quickly too, though in many cases they could merge and still have trouble filling a public lavatory. This is where the crumbling Bloc comes in. One Bloquiste jumped ship and joined Martin's gang last week (Jacques Lanctot - Chateauguay) while it is rumoured that former Tory Pierrette Venne (St. Hubert) may be joining the Conservatives. The Bloc has lost seven MPs over the last year, and it may crumble further. What this means is that the hardcore separatists will likely stay at home should it appear the Bloc is destined for oblivion, while others who voted for them so they would not have to vote Liberal may potentially be interested in having a look at the new Conservative party. Some more MPs, looking to save their electoral skin may jump in any of three directions (yes even the NDP) so the potential for a few seats is there. If André Bachand sticks it out (He has been quiet lately) he could well retain his seat. For some reason I can't fathom, Pierrette Venne seems to be able to win her seat no matter what banner she flies, and there are some ridings where it could be a real horserace, subject to strong candidates being found by the CP. AT this time Martin is believed by some to be conducting a purge of anyone in the party who has shown even the slightest hesitation in terms of obsequiousness, and it is said that some MPs such as Raymonde Folco (Laval Ouest), Clifford Lincoln (Lac St Louis), Carole-Marie Allard (Laval-est), and Yolande Thibault (St. Lambert) may well be on their way out. Two of those ridings are winnable (St Lambert & LAval-est) as both only won by a handful of votes. Laval Ouest is a longshot, but doable with the right candidate. Lac St Louis, they'll vote Liberal UNLESS the candidate, was parachuted in from Vancouver and never made ana appearance in the riding as in 1984. IN that election Bob Layton (yes, the father of Jacko) won handily, and held on in 1988 by less than 700 votes. But apart from that It has been Liberal territory from time immemorial, and the new borders make it even more so. So, I think that all going well, the conservatives can elect 25 in BC, 26 in Alberta, 6 in Sask., 5 in MB, 35-40 in Ontario, 2-7 in Quebec, and 15-18 downeast. this means, 112-127 seats, a more than healthy opposition, and possibly a hung parliament, should the Bloc hold 25, and the NDP win that many themselves.

SOM is a Quebec based company that does not have much of a base or feel for the rest of the country. There's no way in hell that the United Conservatives can only get 12.5%. Hogwash. The NDP could be up at 17 % or whatever it was, , because the potheads may not be too lazy to answer the phone, but certainly won't get out of bed to go vote, even if y could find the polling station.....man. And all the bluster you hear from some MPs who say they won't come along oif Harper wins, is just that. Even the Pinkies Brison and Borotsik know , being relatively young men, that if they want a career of any duration, the place to do it will be the CP. No little PC party under the pre-cambrian (forget Jurassic!) Joe Clark will get anywhere, heck, even the riding associations for Clark and borotsik voted overwhelmingly for the merger! Trust will be a fundamental issue. All Martin is doing is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Nothing has really changed. He's just exchanging one gang of lickspittle sycophantic backbencers for another. It's still essentially the same bunch that came to Ottawa with Chretien in 1993. I am of the opinion that Paul Martin has nowhere to go but down, so basically I expect a May election. He does NOT want to have to face a combined opposition for any length of time, so that he can argue that these guys are untested as to whether they can actually work together, and that for stability the only choice is Liberal. Therefore, Conservatives need to stop airing their dirty laundry in public, conduct a leadership campaign that avoids mudslinging, and focusses on issues, and most importantly , rallies around the winner. There won't be time for getting in a snit, since the writ will be dropped days after the new leader is named. ON Sat. Dec 6th, the merger will be a done deal, and no more attention should be paid to the David orchards, Joe Clarks, Sinclair Stevens and Marjaleena Repos of the world. And as for Brian Peckford, isn't he the main reason Newfoundland suffered for nearly 15 years under Liberal governments?

Pierrefonds-Dollard in Quebec voted yesterday.....YES!

No other country on earth would consider allowing one group of people to have their own set of laws, and enforce them through its system of courts. Canada has become the joke of the world. We have ONE law that applies to all. If the Muslims or whoever, want to apply a form of religious arbitrarion, they can do it intramurally in their own religious environment, however, any actions would have to be within the limits of existing canadian law. This must be opposed . If ever there was a reason to put an end to the bleeding-heart liberal failed experiment of government-sponsorred multiculturalism, this is it. All canadians must be subject to the same law, In addition to the inherent unfairness and lack of objectivity, this type of system encourages ghettoization, rather than integration with the broad community at large. It will also certainly result in every other religious or ethnic group to demand that their laws are recognized and enforced under canadian law. This will lead to complete anarchy, and total breakdown in common law Liberals have made a mockery of what was once a great country. No matter what the social engineers say, 2+2 does not equal 5.

Political correctness, tolerance and inclusiveness has gone overboard in Canada, to the point where now our system of common law is threatened, perhaps mortally. The first steps have been taken for Islamic law, or Sharia to be recognized in canada, and enforced by canadian judges. while it is supposed to be strictly for use in disputes between Muslims, I think we can all see where it is all headed. Next the Sikhs will demand their own system be recognized, and then tamils... and on and on it goes. It must be ONE law for all. This must be opposed, and overturned. It is an outrage to have one set of laws for some people and another set of laws for another group. although I welcome immigration, and believe it enriches the country, the flipside is that those who come here must agree to live by Canadian law, and leave the old country behind. If things were so good over there, why leave in the first place? Here are some articles that have appeared on this disturbing turn of events. This has far reaching implications, even more than the gay marriage issue, which generated record amounts of mail to MPs, and MPPs all across the country. Our legislators must here from Every canadian that this kind of arrangemet is NOT acceptable, and unless it is stopped, they will lose their seats. From the Ottawa Citizen From the Law TimesFrom Worldnet daily

how can you possibly know what these people said or did 2000 years ago? the actually events are so muddled and lost to history that its seems most likely that the creation of religions thousands of years ago were similiar to the many other popular beliefs that swept the primative societies of man. wild erratic surges of prevailing politics, which the masses accepted or rejected based on fleeting moods of the world. look at what the church has made people believe and altered ancient society and you see there was no sense of predictability to what people believed back then. humans were a primative and rodent like culture, the vast majority barely eeking out an existance by whatever way they could. no knowledge whatsoever besides what the church said. no rational argument can be made that we know from ancient accounts that jesus existed, or that miracles occured, or that the creation of religion was as has been written through history. these people were still centuries away from accepting the world was round, that evil spirits didnt cause common colds and knowing even the obvious about how babies were made. maybe jesus did live, but there is no reasonable body of evidence that shows more likely then not that he resembled the churchs account of existance. personally my faith in all things beyond me is self contained and in no need of absolute confirmation. because it cant be proven. that is why its called faith. Sirriff Liberal elitist. Even though many Northern Europeans were still running around in bearskins at that time, the Mediterreanian and Asia Minor were home to very advanced cultures at the time. These were not hunters and gatherers, but rather an urban and agricultural mix. People who became Christians at the time were from every walk of life from soldiers, to farmers to academics, tradespeople and businesspeople. They did so at great risk. Christians did not rule the roost, in fact by becoming Christian, your very life was placed in jeopardy. Hedonists & pagans back then hated moral absolutes even as they do now. One Muslim scholar said "I have read your New Testament, and nowhere do I see anything that teaches Christians to be a majority religion. In the Koran, I find nothing that teaches Msulims to be a minority religion." Suffice it to say, that in the first four centuries of Christianity, one did not join in order to attain social standing. One accepted the teachings as the truth, and the ostracism that went with it. In fact at the Council of Nicea, circa 330 AD, of the 320 odd delegates that attended, only about a dozen or so were not scarred, diabled, disfigured, or missing limbs from tortures suffered on account of their faith. They stood for truth. One does not persevere for a patent lie. We accept the Biblical accounts, backed up by historians of the time as fact, on the same basis that we accept Socrates, who lived about 400 years BC as a historical personage. We know also that Nebuchadnezzar was really the King of babylon. And nobody disputes the existance of the Egyptian Pharoahs of 3000 or more years ago. We know where Rachel & Joseph were buried, so their lives are also historical fact. So in one sense we do accept on faith that which has gone before us. but isn't it amazing how this faith keeps on being confirmed by archaeology and science? The dead sea scrolls , for example, laid waste to many claims made by skeptics that the scriptures we have today do not likely conform to the originals. The scroll of Isaiah, which was found conformed EXACTLY to the oldest manuscripts that were theretofore known. The list goes on.... Western civilization was built on te the teachings of Christ, and became more restrained and less barbaric as a result. Christians built hospitals, universities etc. British Common law traced back to @ 700 AD was based on the law given to the Hebrews in Exodus. Whether you wish to believe in God as He is revealed in scripture is up to you, however, you should by no means wish that His legacy is removed from the public square, for it is the foundation on which all your precious "rights" are founded on. To remove Judeo-Christian values will result in a narcissitic, nihilistic society which will dehumanize everyone. People's value will be dtermined solely on what they are able to produce, and after their productive days are done, their right to continue to live wil be dependent on their ability to pay for goods and services, ie: consume. You will cease to be a person, and become a "consumer". The weak and disabled will be considered a burden, and done away with. In fact it may well come to the point in such a utilitarian society, that people will be massed produced to suit the interests of the elites, for whom everyone else will exist. Physically strong but mentally inept people will be produced for manual labour, and done awy with when they are no longer useful, and others will serve in other capicities for which they will be produced, and will be kept complacent by means of drugs, freelove, and entertainment. The "throwaway society" run amuck. Is this the kind of world you want? If so, then continue your fight to eradicate Christianty and Judeo-Christian culture. One day they will come for you too.