DND Spending

[eyeball]

2 points. How does Canada support those counties? I think you are blowing here

Canada is with America. We provide them with the raw materials they need to build weapons that they give to dictators along with finacial aid and intelligence. These dictators use these things to subjugate and terrorize their people and destabilize their region. The US is a state sponser of terrorism and chaos and we're part of the network that enables them - by the very same criterion the US uses to define its enemies. By far the worse thing we supply the US with is our moral support. You should be deeply troubled by that and we should be deeply ashamed of ourselves.

2) As already shown you are not a concientious objector, you merely object politically. You are free to suggest what ever you want just as the legal government ios free to listen to you or ignore you. I suggest they ignore you.

I object to leaving responsibilty for deciding when it is appropriate to go to war or with whom to politicians. I objected to the Liberal decision to join America's invasion of Afghanistan and I object to the Conservatives decision to extend that mission. In addition to requiring that war-bonds be the way to raise funds for offshore military deployments the government should also be required to put the question of when to go to war in the first place to a national referendum. You hawks are always telling us that the majority of Canadians also support you and that your primary interest is spreading democracy and I suggest your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. War-bonds put the onus on you hawks to not just pitch your line but actually sell it. If you can't...I guess that blows.

In a world where invasions and pre-emptive strikes based on murky unfounded reasons and a deliberate absence of any historical context are the norm I'm not only a conscientious objector I'm a terrified one.

[jbg]

Canada is with America. We provide them with the raw materials they need to build weapons that they give to dictators along with finacial aid and intelligence. These dictators use these things to subjugate and terrorize their people and destabilize their region. The US is a state sponser of terrorism and chaos and we're part of the network that enables them - by the very same criterion the US uses to define its enemies. By far the worse thing we supply the US with is our moral support. You should be deeply troubled by that and we should be deeply ashamed of ourselves.

Eyeball, I am getting tired of this repetitive, boring US bashing. The fact is that the US has to choose imperfect allies from time to time; that is the nature of reality. The altneratives are almost always worse. A few examples:

1. Lon Nol v. Pol Pot - Lon Nol was unquestionably a tinpot dictator and a lackey of the US. Yet he didn't slaughter millions of his own people as his Communist successor, Pol Pol did;
   
2. Batista v. Castro - Again, Batista was in the pocket of US organized crime, in particular US (Jewish) mobster Meyer Lansky, who profited mightily off the casinos. Yet Batista didn't turn Cuba into a huge island prison. It took Castro to do that. People weren't risking their lives on a 150 K boat trip to the Florida Keys, across shark-infested waters, to escape;
   
3. Czar Nicholas v. Lenin/Stalin - Obviously the czars were tyrants. Their atrocities were quite mild next to those of Stalin, where millions of "kulaks" were slaughtered for no good reason and the country went from being a food exporter to one that can barely feed itself;
   
4. Chang Kai Shek v. Mao - Chang was no angel, and he was a US lackey. But where were his "Great Leap Forwards" and "Cultural Revolutions" that killed millions?
   

My point here is that the US cannot directly administer the world. To avoid horrific atrocities it must utilize unsavory locals from time to time. If this be an effort "to subjugate and terrorize their people and destabilize their region" I'll live with that any day.

[runningdog]

The USA is not a bully, not an Empire. They are a force for good in this world, they are the people who have fought and freed billions around this world. They are a superpower, and with that they have responsibilities in the world that we and other nations do not do not. We are supposed to have International Law, who the hell enforces that?? Where would we be if the USA was not a superpower, or withdrew from the world. Then what??

LOL whatever...have some more kool aid, buddy.

Military Industrial Complex.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

To a certain degree I have to side with JBG here. The US has extensive interests around the world and therefore it has responsibility around the world. Yes it has and yes it does support some unsavory characters, there seems to be no shortage of these folks in leadership positions.

On the other hand, US foreign policy is visibly supporting its own interests. This provides much political cannon fodder for the detractors of the US superpower status. For many people around the world it is a case of penis envy. The US has a rather large organ.

[White Doors]

The USA is not a bully, not an Empire. They are a force for good in this world, they are the people who have fought and freed billions around this world. They are a superpower, and with that they have responsibilities in the world that we and other nations do not do not. We are supposed to have International Law, who the hell enforces that?? Where would we be if the USA was not a superpower, or withdrew from the world. Then what??

LOL whatever...have some more kool aid, buddy.

Military Industrial Complex.

Pamela Anderson

[M.Dancer]

Canada is with America. We provide them with the raw materials they need to build weapons that they give to dictators along with finacial aid and intelligence. These dictators use these things to subjugate and terrorize their people and destabilize their region.

Again, which military dictactaors are subjugating their people and destabilizing regions with US weapons....think carefully and take your time

[M.Dancer]

On the other hand, US foreign policy is visibly supporting its own interests.

Which makes them no different than any nation. All nations who have a foreign policy work that policy to the benefit of themselves. In many cases, what benefits the US benefits everyone. In somecases of course, when the US blunders we all pay. And this to is true for all countries which is why amateurs make poor diplomats.

[weaponeer]

The USA is not a bully, not an Empire. They are a force for good in this world, they are the people who have fought and freed billions around this world. They are a superpower, and with that they have responsibilities in the world that we and other nations do not do not. We are supposed to have International Law, who the hell enforces that?? Where would we be if the USA was not a superpower, or withdrew from the world. Then what??

LOL whatever...have some more kool aid, buddy.

Military Industrial Complex.

The USA is only a bully and Empire in the eyes of Leftards!! They have never forgiven the USA for winning the cold war and defeating socialism. I can think of billions of people who live in freedom today because of what the Americans have done for them. They are a force for good. You don't see anyone lined up to immagrate out of the USA, they want in by the millions!!!

If the USA withdrew from the world there would be no one to stand up to the N Koreas & Irags of the world. Good job USA, and I hope they put Iran in it's place soon!!!

[Army Guy]

So what do you base your decision on becoming a CO on,

Star Trek. The Prime Directive. Letting nature take its course.

The fu**ing prime directive !!!! are you serious !!!! So your whole decision making process is based on a script of some SF writer....

Canada is with America. We provide them with the raw materials they need to build weapons that they give to dictators along with finacial aid and intelligence. These dictators use these things to subjugate and terrorize their people and destabilize their region. The US is a state sponser of terrorism and chaos and we're part of the network that enables them - by the very same criterion the US uses to define its enemies. By far the worse thing we supply the US with is our moral support. You should be deeply troubled by that and we should be deeply ashamed of ourselves.

Considering we export approx 90 % of all our exports to the US, our whole economy is based on that fact....

We also import more than 70 % of all our goods from the US. Even if we wanted to take the high moral ground here we could not, as our economies are linked to the piont that we could not survive with our exports to the US....

So the real question is how much are you willing to sacrafice for some moral belief "you think" you have...

I object to leaving responsibilty for deciding when it is appropriate to go to war or with whom to politicians. I objected to the Liberal decision to join America's invasion of Afghanistan and I object to the Conservatives decision to extend that mission

So who is going to make those decisions....maybe the next time you check off a name on a ballot you should ask your self that very question...do i trust this person to make those very kind of decisions....You make it sound like we do this on a regular basis...go to war...this is Canada we are talking about is it not...

In addition to requiring that war-bonds be the way to raise funds for offshore military deployments the government should also be required to put the question of when to go to war in the first place to a national referendum.

Let me get this right...first of you want the "what did you call them "oh yes" the Hawks" to pay with war bonds for any off shore military operation....so by rights they are going to spend thier own money to send our troops overseas, and then your requiring a national referendum to see if they can go in the first place....So you want a say if they go or not, but you don't want to pay for it....WOW....maybe thats why we as indiv don't get to chose where our tax dollars are spent....

You hawks are always telling us that the majority of Canadians also support you and that your primary interest is spreading democracy and I suggest your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. War-bonds put the onus on you hawks to not just pitch your line but actually sell it. If you can't...I guess that blows.

I don't get it, what is it that you have again'st our nation trying to help another out...your like that spoiled little kid with an entire pie in your hands, surrounding you is six starving kids and your refusing to give any of your pie away....and your talking about moral high ground...

We are so lucky here in Canada to be blessed by so many freedoms and rights, or a full pie....and for some damn reason you don't like to share, to give that gift of some of those freedoms to someone else....And to top it all off you don't even have to get out of your damn chair....volunteers in our nations military/diplomatic corps, and RCMP are willing to do all the work, all you really have to do is spend 2 cents of every tax dollar you send in... but still you got this 6x6 stuck up your ass and it's goes again'st your grain, all your beliefs to help out...

It must be nice to have that type of character that you can turn your back on a nation in need, when it will cost you so little, with no effort on your part, we won't interupt the hockey game, we will ensure your pogy check gets delivered on time.

[jbg]

To a certain degree I have to side with JBG here. The US has extensive interests around the world and therefore it has responsibility around the world. Yes it has and yes it does support some unsavory characters, there seems to be no shortage of these folks in leadership positions.

Perfectly put. The US can't be everywhere, all of the time. That much is clear.

When it comes to the kinds of countries we support unsavory characters in, these are not well-established, stable democracies such as Canada or Great Britain. These are countries that one way or another will be ruled by thugs. Perfect examples are Iran (Mossadegh, the Shah, Khomeni), Nicaragua (Somoza, Ortega) etc. The people picked by the US are bound to be less murderous than the Stalins, Pol Pots or Maos of the world.

On the other hand, US foreign policy is visibly supporting its own interests. This provides much political cannon fodder for the detractors of the US superpower status.

We're certainly not going to pick enemies to empower, at least not willfully.

For many people around the world it is a case of penis envy. The US has a rather large organ.

The leading power, whether, in history, Britain or the US is always a target for criticism. What does one expect?

The US was unwillingly thrust into this role by the implosion of the British Empire.

[jbg]

You don't see anyone lined up to immagrate out of the USA, they want in by the millions!!!

Actually, one sees long lines of kayaks braving the Pacific fleeing from Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California to North Korea, as well as a similar flight, using rowboats, from Florida towards Cuba.

[Shakeyhands]

Again, which military dictactaors are subjugating their people and destabilizing regions with US weapons....think carefully and take your time

Really? There's some dispute around this fact? Are you talking currently or say within the last 50-60 years? is the "and" just a connector or must they be doing both?

I'm pretty sure it would be a simple thing to determine.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perfectly put. The US can't be everywhere, all of the time. That much is clear.

When it comes to the kinds of countries we support unsavory characters in, these are not well-established, stable democracies such as Canada or Great Britain. These are countries that one way or another will be ruled by thugs. Perfect examples are Iran (Mossadegh, the Shah, Khomeni), Nicaragua (Somoza, Ortega) etc. The people picked by the US are bound to be less murderous than the Stalins, Pol Pots or Maos of the world.

We're certainly not going to pick enemies to empower, at least not willfully.

The leading power, whether, in history, Britain or the US is always a target for criticism. What does one expect?

The US was unwillingly thrust into this role by the implosion of the British Empire.

I will go along with everything you said right up to the point about the implosion of the British Empire. In my view it didn't implode at all, it went bankrupt. Two world wars and an empire that the sun never set upon was simply too expensive to retain after expending billions of dollars on war. The United States jumped to the podium to replace Britain as the superpower of the world, but they had to fight to get it. The Cold War was the first and most likely last war ever fought with dollar bills. The Soviets lost, America won. These things take great effort and much expense to undertake, and are not done lightly or with considerable planning. Considering this very real point, I must contest that the US was unwillingly thrust into the position they now find themselves in.

America is a superpower by design and intent. America wanted the title, fought for it and achieved their desired goal. Now there is a very real American empire. It is an empire the like of which has never been seen before. It is based on a military industrial complex and the capitalistic model of free markets. The reality is that America has been made great in this political, economic, military tripod. The rest of the world needs to prepare for the eventuality that such achievement has its detractors.

For all of these things and more, God bless America. For all the problems associated with her, at home and abroad the most important factor is the freedom of her citizens. That is one country, as flawed as it is in so many respects, that actually stands up for not only itself but others as well.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Perfectly put. The US can't be everywhere, all of the time. That much is clear.

When it comes to the kinds of countries we support unsavory characters in, these are not well-established, stable democracies such as Canada or Great Britain. These are countries that one way or another will be ruled by thugs. Perfect examples are Iran (Mossadegh, the Shah, Khomeni), Nicaragua (Somoza, Ortega) etc. The people picked by the US are bound to be less murderous than the Stalins, Pol Pots or Maos of the world.

We're certainly not going to pick enemies to empower, at least not willfully.

The leading power, whether, in history, Britain or the US is always a target for criticism. What does one expect?

The US was unwillingly thrust into this role by the implosion of the British Empire.

I will go along with everything you said right up to the point about the implosion of the British Empire. In my view it didn't implode at all, it went bankrupt. Two world wars and an empire that the sun never set upon was simply too expensive to retain after expending billions of dollars on war. The United States jumped to the podium to replace Britain as the superpower of the world, but they had to fight to get it. The Cold War was the first and most likely last war ever fought with dollar bills. The Soviets lost, America won. These things take great effort and much expense to undertake, and are not done lightly or with considerable planning. Considering this very real point, I must contest that the US was unwillingly thrust into the position they now find themselves in.

America is a superpower by design and intent. America wanted the title, fought for it and achieved their desired goal. Now there is a very real American empire. It is an empire the like of which has never been seen before. It is based on a military industrial complex and the capitalistic model of free markets. The reality is that America has been made great in this political, economic, military tripod. The rest of the world needs to prepare for the eventuality that such achievement has its detractors.

For all of these things and more, God bless America. For all the problems associated with her, at home and abroad the most important factor is the freedom of her citizens. That is one country, as flawed as it is in so many respects, that actually stands up for not only itself but others as well.

[M.Dancer]

Really? There's some dispute around this fact? Are you talking currently or say within the last 50-60 years? is the "and" just a connector or must they be doing both?

I'm pretty sure it would be a simple thing to determine.

Given the topic is current we can safely omit ancient history. And for the sake of simplicity, either or, subjugating their people and or destabilising the region

[eyeball]

If militarists are queasy about war bonds the Peace Tax Fund the United Church of Canada has endorsed should really make them puke.

Conscientious Objection to War and Tax Redirection

WHEREAS the Charter of the United Nations declares that, "…everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion…" (article 18);

WHEREAS the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the UN Charter obliges states "…take the necessary steps to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant…" (article 2.2);

WHEREAS the right to conscientious objection to war is a component of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in order that people who are conscientious objectors to war on religious or humanist grounds may be able to practise their beliefs;

WHEREAS the development of nuclear first-strike capability eliminate the distinction between "war" and "preparation for war";

WHEREAS the government of Canada has ratified the Charter and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, thus committing itself to be bound by them under international law;

WHEREAS the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms declares that, "…Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion;…" (Section 2);

WHEREAS Canada's involvement in international security arrangements, resting on the nuclear strategies of the United States, requires the use of public funds for purposes inconsistent with Canada's declared foreign policy objectives;

WHEREAS the taxation system within Canada requires the majority of citizens to help fund this security system, regardless of their personal conscience;

WHEREAS the current taxation regulations require employers to deny the right of freedom of conscience to those employees are who conscientious objectors to war:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 31st General Council:

1. AFFIRM the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religions including the right of conscientious objection to war; and

2. REQUEST the Secretary of the Division of Finance, in consultation with the Division of Mission in Canada, to:

a. Press the federal government to adopt legislation that will give effect to the expression of the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion to all Canadian citizens through establishment of a legal Peace Tax Fund to which citizens would have the legal option of redirecting the portion of their taxes that would go into the production of and trade in offensive military goods and repression technology; and

b. Press the federal government for a change in tax legislation to allow employers to extend to their employees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion through tax redirection at point of payment; and

3. FORWARD notice of this action to the appropriate bodies of other churches which would appreciate this encouragement for their struggle to implement the right to conscientious objection to war in their own countries.

General Council: 31st General Council, 1986

Record of Proceedings Page Ref. 1986 ROP, pp. 142, 579–582.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link

The government of Canada is still to this day in violation of Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. It saw fit to ratify it but it ignores it nonetheless. Isn't this is the very same sort of fickle ambivalence towards official responsibility that pisses so many ordinary Canadians off? Of all the reasons Canada's military families should have for being wary about getting involved in Afghanistan, our governments propensity for making committments but failing to live up to them should tower above all else.

This is why war bonds should appeal to military people. They would know exactly how much public support they really have before they put their lives on the line. By the same token a Peace Tax Fund would also provide them a reality check. As it stands right now all soldiers really have to go on is the ever-shifting policy of a few politicians and a false sense of hopeful camaraderie that's mostly based on ideology and the self-serving propaganda of the military-industrial-complex.

By the way, did any of you folk's watch Why We Fight on CBC the other night? Whoa, I can hear the hisses already!

I don't know of any churches taking up the cause of redirecting people's taxes away from the CBC but I can probably suggest a political party or two that might.

[M.Dancer]

The government of Canada is still to this day in violation of Article 18 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Nonsense.

Article 18

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Try hard to figure our what it is we are in violation of.

[eyeball]

Eyeball, I am getting tired of this repetitive, boring US bashing. The fact is that the US has to choose imperfect allies from time to time; that is the nature of reality. The altneratives are almost always worse. A few examples:

1. Lon Nol v. Pol Pot - Lon Nol was unquestionably a tinpot dictator and a lackey of the US. Yet he didn't slaughter millions of his own people as his Communist successor, Pol Pol did;
   
2. Batista v. Castro - Again, Batista was in the pocket of US organized crime, in particular US (Jewish) mobster Meyer Lansky, who profited mightily off the casinos. Yet Batista didn't turn Cuba into a huge island prison. It took Castro to do that. People weren't risking their lives on a 150 K boat trip to the Florida Keys, across shark-infested waters, to escape;
   
3. Czar Nicholas v. Lenin/Stalin - Obviously the czars were tyrants. Their atrocities were quite mild next to those of Stalin, where millions of "kulaks" were slaughtered for no good reason and the country went from being a food exporter to one that can barely feed itself;
   
4. Chang Kai Shek v. Mao - Chang was no angel, and he was a US lackey. But where were his "Great Leap Forwards" and "Cultural Revolutions" that killed millions?
   

My point here is that the US cannot directly administer the world. To avoid horrific atrocities it must utilize unsavory locals from time to time. If this be an effort "to subjugate and terrorize their people and destabilize their region" I'll live with that any day.

I'm tired of bashing my head against the intransigency of these forums too. I'd rather see the justifications you've cited being put forward by our so-called leaders so they can be weighed by the entire world, publicly and transparently, in something like the global Truth and Reconciliation process I proposed earlier.

[eyeball]

Nonsense.

Try hard to figure our what it is we are in violation of.

Freedom of conscience.

WHEREAS the current taxation regulations require employers to deny the right of freedom of conscience to those employees are who conscientious objectors to war:

This is coming from a church Morris. You've voiced the opinion before that the basis for most of our laws flow from the moral teachings of the church. Why not in this case? This is certainly a moral issue.

[eyeball]

We are so lucky here in Canada to be blessed by so many freedoms and rights, or a full pie....and for some damn reason you don't like to share, to give that gift of some of those freedoms to someone else....And to top it all off you don't even have to get out of your damn chair....volunteers in our nations military/diplomatic corps, and RCMP are willing to do all the work, all you really have to do is spend 2 cents of every tax dollar you send in... but still you got this 6x6 stuck up your ass and it's goes again'st your grain, all your beliefs to help out...

It must be nice to have that type of character that you can turn your back on a nation in need, when it will cost you so little, with no effort on your part, we won't interupt the hockey game, we will ensure your pogy check gets delivered on time.

You know dick about the amount of volunteer time I've put in as a fireman, or as a committee member on local governance boards, or just generally helping out around my community.

Just for the record I can't stand watching hockey and if you'd been paying attention you'd know I opted out of EI years ago. If you're any indication it looks like there are even worse things a person could have up their ass.

[jbg]

We agree at the beginning and end, but differ on many details.

I will go along with everything you said right up to the point about the implosion of the British Empire. In my view it didn't implode at all, it went bankrupt. Two world wars and an empire that the sun never set upon was simply too expensive to retain after expending billions of dollars on war.

So far we totally agree. The agent of the implosion was bankruptcy.

The United States jumped to the podium to replace Britain as the superpower of the world, but they had to fight to get it. The Cold War was the first and most likely last war ever fought with dollar bills. The Soviets lost, America won. These things take great effort and much expense to undertake, and are not done lightly or with considerable planning. Considering this very real point, I must contest that the US was unwillingly thrust into the position they now find themselves in.

The US had no choice inasmuch as its' troops, together with (as you acknowledge) rapidly abdicating British troops found itself in control of Western Europe and Japan. After the results of the malign neglect by the alreaady fiscally stressed Brits after WW I, the US had no option but to fill the void.

America is a superpower by design and intent. America wanted the title, fought for it and achieved their desired goal. Now there is a very real American empire.

It is an empire the like of which has never been seen before. It is based on a military industrial complex and the capitalistic model of free markets. The reality is that America has been made great in this political, economic, military tripod. The rest of the world needs to prepare for the eventuality that such achievement has its detractors.

Not even close. One would have had to be deaf, dumb and blind to political views during the Korean and Viet Nam wars to believe that. America wanted its children home and not overseas in the worst way. That was in large part why the US decamped from Viet Nam, and didn't take over British Middle East bases as they evacuated. It's also how Africa was left largely to its own inadequate devices after "independence" and how that Continent descended into the night of dictatorship and bloodshed.

For all of these things and more, God bless America. For all the problems associated with her, at home and abroad the most important factor is the freedom of her citizens. That is one country, as flawed as it is in so many respects, that actually stands up for not only itself but others as well.

Thank you for acknowledging this vital role, which especially shields Canada.

[jbg]

You know dick about the amount of volunteer time I've put in as a fireman, or as a committee member on local governance boards, or just generally helping out around my community.

Why the need for obscenity? Does that help your argument?

[M.Dancer]

Freedom of conscience.

This is coming from a church Morris. You've voiced the opinion before that the basis for most of our laws flow from the moral teachings of the church. Why not in this case? This is certainly a moral issue.

As i said, your not understanding the article is not evidence.

and further more, shirking your legal obligations is not a moral teaching of any church, maybe a left wing commitee in the church, but not the church.

[M.Dancer]

WHEREAS the current taxation regulations require employers to deny the right of freedom of conscience to those employees are who conscientious objectors to war:

This isn't part of article 18

...but this is...

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Game set and match.

As well, as been ably pointed out to you already, you are not a concientious objector, you are a political objector. What you want is to pick and choose where you tax dollars go, but I suspect you don't want to extend that priveledge to others. Many do have a deep religious objection to abortion, yet their tax dollars go to pay for them . Perhaps there should be abortion bonds.

As well, concientious objectors in the past have not been allowed to shirk their national duty when the time came. They were simply given non combat roles, or if they had courage along with conviction, they became combat medics. Instead you would deny soldiers the basic needs to keep themsleves safe for what amount to a political conviction. Tis in my mind is loathsome and reprehensible. You would make a political point on the blood of canadian soldiers.

[M.Dancer]

Freedom of conscience.

This is coming from a church Morris. You've voiced the opinion before that the basis for most of our laws flow from the moral teachings of the church. Why not in this case? This is certainly a moral issue.

For the record I have never said that the basis for most of our laws came from the church and certainly none from the United Church.