Melanie_

I'd like a cite for the claim that the US government gives people making minimum wage $30/day to spend how they please on childcare. Are there any supporters of that here on MLW? Not me, not for Canada. Although I'm not sure how you support the idea of $30/day, then later state that the government should not be in the business of providing subsidies. A bit of a contradiction there. As for regulations - these are children we are talking about. Basic regulations are that the child care provider pass a Criminal Records check, not be listed on the Child Abuse Registry, and have at minimum First Aid and CPR training. Ideally, some understanding of child development would also be neccessary, as well as child guidance - how you work with a group of 6 2 year olds is very different from being at home with one 2 year old. What is objectionable about that? In case you missed my earlier post, the government is not expected to run the programs. They would simply transfer the money to the provinces, who would invest it in the existing infrastructure for child care. The programs themselves are independent, just like a restaurant is independent even though it gets inspected by the Health Department on a regular basis.

MikeDavid, read the thread. Where is a centralized daycare system being advocated? Guess what - the guy from Australia, with his "naturalized" Canadian citizenship, is an IMMIGRANT! Go get him!!! There is not going to be some "centralized daycare system" in any proposal I have ever read. Ottawa isn't about to set up some national registry. The goal of most child care advocates is simply to have a regulated system, meaning the government insures there are standards in place and these standards are monitored. Government dollars would go to provide subsidies on a sliding scale for families who can't afford the full costs, and grants would be available to non-profit organizations for start up costs and minimal ongoing expenses - most expenses are covered by parent fees (Quebec's system of $7/day child care is becoming recognized more and more as being unrealistic). Grants may also be available to cover additional costs required to provide care for children with special needs. Each non-profit centre is independent, and is run by a parent elected Board of Directors, not some government bureaucracy. The government will not be running daycare! Edited, to remove a pretty snarky comment, with apologies to MikeDavid.

Here's an update on the private care model of child care. The Toronto Star

Of course you can discuss your faith whenever and wherever you want, and I can disagree with it and point out the flaws in logic. I have no issue with you talking about YOUR faith, as long as you recognize that it is yours, not everyone else's. Believe what you want, but don't try to impose it on people who believe differently than you.

Well, since the whole scenario is fictional, I have no problem with adding my own twist. But Betsy, I don't think you are paying attention. Nowhere have I stated that I support the Muslim students' demands. As a matter of fact, I have stated several times that I think they are wrong. Just as I think the Christian doctor is wrong. This isn't an either/or choice here - they can both be wrong, independent of each other. You are arguing in terms of degree, stating the Christian doctor's wrongness is not as bad as the Muslim students' wrongness. No matter what, though, they are both wrong.

Oops - Freudian slip? Or perhaps you've just seen the error of your ways, and recognize that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Using Christianity, or any religion, to tell others how to live their lives is the real problem. The Magic Sky Pixie might be important to you, but to others it is just a silly superstition that is irrelevent in the real world. You can feel free to do what the voices tell you, but don't expect the rest of us to follow along.

I'd find a midwife - and I was once pregnant and unmarried, at age 18. Betsy, remember that I already have said that the Muslim medical students shouldn't be able to graduate if they don't meet the curriculum requirements. But their objections are based on their religion, just as the Christian doctor's objections are based on his religion. When it comes to other people's medical care, I believe the doctor's religion is irrelevent, and the patient's needs are all that matters. No doctor should be able to impose his/her religious beliefs on someone who doesn't share them.

Moxie - calling an individual a "sneaky bugger" is not racism, particularly if their actions warrent the label. Calling everyone who belongs to a particular group - say, Islam - a "sneaky bugger" is meant as an insult to the group, which is clearly against the forum rules. I don't really want to see Scott's words, or anyone else's, controlled, though, as long as they can be civil and contribute to respectful debate. We each need to have the freedom to express ourselves, simply because it gives everyone else a clear picture of how we think and what we believe in. I rarely agree with anything Scott has to say (although it has happened, from time to time), but part of the beauty of a forum like this is it makes us rub up against thought processes that are diametrically opposed to our own, and makes us really think about what we hold to be true. I can't think of a single person who has been banned since I started here 2 years ago who I was glad to see go, even when I thought they were wrong in every way.

From your link. I see nothing wrong with this - actually, I applaud Arnie for removing any opportunity for schools to display a discriminatory bias against gender or sexual orientation. Why would anyone argue in favour of discrimination?

I've read through several different sites for FSM, and I have to say I've been tempted to convert to Pastafarianism, just so I can say, "All hail His Noodly Appendage!"

This is rather brief. Can you elaborate?

What is your reason for keeping it? Can you rebutt my argument regarding freedom of religion?

Thanks, Betsy, that's interesting reading! Of course, I'm an athiest, so I'm not a believer in any "scripture" being the revelation of Allah/God/Jahweh/Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's all one big scam, to tie it back to the title of the thread!

Someone here used to have a signature that said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner." The state still has to have some jurisdiction in ensuring that minority rights are protected from the majority. I'd like to think that the majority understands the value of equal rights for all, but on the off-chance that they don't, the state needs the power to ensure that they represent the interests of all of their constituents, not just the majority.

I've never heard of any debate before. Do you have any background regarding this debate? Everything I've ever read says that Muhammad was the founder of Islam and wrote the Qu'ran, although certainly anything historically pre-Abraham is common to Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Didn't Muhammad found the Muslim religion? And write the Qu'ran? Minnesota State University Museum

My rationale for ending the monarchy in Canada is discussed in this thread.

Mr. Layton, Your party is in support of an international effort to aid the peace process in Darfur. Alexa McDonough, quoted below, has stated that Canada must be committed to halting the violence - what do you see as Canada's role in this process? Since there is no peace to keep at this point, are you in favour of an active military role for Canadian soldiers in Darfur? NDP Website

The curriculum is the curriculum - if someone doesn't pass, for whatever reason, they aren't entitled to the degree. Refusing to study something means that area of the curriculum can't be mastered, which means that person can't make the grade. Its interesting that there was a long thread previously, debating whether or not doctors should be allowed to refuse the morning after pill. It seems that some people here think it is OK for Christian doctors to refuse a woman treatment because of their beliefs, but are up in arms about Muslim medical students making similar choices. For the record, I think any time someone puts their own irrational superstitions ahead of someone else's medical needs, they should lose the right to call themselves a doctor.

I'll echo Capricorn's thanks to the farmers who grew the food I will cook, serve, and eat this weekend. I grew up on a farm, and even though I'm a city dweller now I still try to honour the harvest by using fresh, seasonal foods and following the old recipes (my pumpkin pies start with a fresh pumpkin, and I think my kids would walk away from the table before eating a store bought perogy). I hope everyone at MLW enjoys the long weekend, and spends it with people who are special to them.

Most women do still dream of being mothers, but they also want it to be when they are ready. Choosing to abort an unwanted pregnancy doesn't mean choosing never to have children, it just means choosing not to have children now. Becoming a mother changes everything about your life, and the only person who can decide if she wants her life changed like that is the woman involved. Your "convenience" argument is petty - it makes it seem as if it is just a minor detail to have a baby.

Any pregnancy, whether carried to term or not, changes a woman. This is about much more than "convenience". Having your period is inconvenient - pregnancy, childbirth and parenting are life altering events. Dancer, you make it sound like it would just be a minor blip in a woman's life to carry an unexpected, unplanned, and unwanted pregnancy to term, or that it would be an equally minor blip in her life to just skip down to the clinic and get an abortion. You are trivializing a choice that most women live in dread of.

Please change your name from "Leafless" to "Clueless".

I agree, free national daycare would be a disaster, and totally unnecessary. There are plenty of parents willing and able to pay for good care for their children. Free child care was Layton's proposal, not Chretien/Martin/Dryden's. The bilateral agreements simply provided money for provinces to expand their current systems in whatever way they felt best, as long as they were meeting the QUAD principles: Quality (there had to be some measure of the quality of the programs); Universality (available to whoever needs it); Accessibility (inclusive of children with special needs; available even in remote areas); and Developmental (providing developmentally appropriate programming). I think the confusion stems from the use of the word "Universal". This was never meant to mean that all children should go, or that it would be free, but rather that it would be universally available for those who need it. Manitoba's system, which I've outlined in this thread, works quite well, but there just aren't enough spaces out there to meet the needs of families. If the bilateral agreements hadn't been cancelled, we would be that much closer to meeting those needs. Instead, the Conservatives now are "consulting" with the provinces, and will eventually find out that they should just have left well enough alone.