Groundwork Guides

[Adelle]

<Christians murdered Jesus on the cross >

Actually, traditionally, it is the Jews who "murdered" Jesus - the leader of a non-orthodox Jewish sect who was, himself and his disciples, Jewish. Historically, he was tried, found guilty and punished by Romans under Roman law. I think the actual offence was something like "inciting civil unrest" or "being an enemy combatant".

<or...the ritualized cannibalism or eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood.>

Funny, that's exactly what the Romans said about Christian, about 100 CE, when they began their crack down "for reasons of national security" (loose translation).

<Are you saying that the witch burnings, the dark ages and pedophilia never happened?>

Oh, boy, did they! Though I'm not sure you could blame the Christian's for the dark ages, per se. I think it had something to do with the fall of Western Rome, which was Christian by that time, and really only affected Europe. Eastern Rome (Byzantium) and the Muslim world continued on quite well. Actually, at the time, the Muslims were the height of tolerance and higher education - the continued cradle of civilization. If you look at the theory of Islam, it is quite a nice religion, however the present reality leaves much to be desired. To put it mildly they are experiencing their own "dark ages" and much of the hate and violence of Christianity of about 1500-1700 (protest, reformation, counter-reformation, Thirty Years War, etc). The pedophilia thing is rather recent, historically, speaking giving the changes and differences in AoC over time and in various countries.

<Your training to kill, tends to bias your outlook on things.>

Say what? Hey, someone's got to stand on the wall. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to have discussions like this.

Edited September 13, 2008 by Adelle

[charter.rights]

Actually, traditionally, it is the Jews who "murdered" Jesus - the leader of a non-orthodox Jewish sect who was, himself and his disciples, Jewish. Historically, he was tried, found guilty and punished by Romans under Roman law. I think the actual offence was something like "inciting civil unrest" or "being an enemy combatant".

And where is the head of the Church founded by Christians toady? Wot? Romans are Christians today?

Funny, that's exactly what the Romans said about Christian, about 100 CE, when they began their crack down "for reasons of national security" (loose translation).

Nevertheless it is still ritualized Cannibalism:

Matthew 26:26-28

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Oh, boy, did they! Though I'm not sure you could blame the Christian's for the dark ages, per se. I think it had something to do with the fall of Western Rome, which was Christian by that time, and really only affected Europe. Eastern Rome (Byzantium) and the Muslim world continued on quite well. Actually, at the time, the Muslims were the height of tolerance and higher education - the continued cradle of civilization. If you look at the theory of Islam, it is quite a nice religion, however the present reality leaves much to be desired. To put it mildly they are experiencing their own "dark ages" and much of the hate and violence of Christianity of about 1500-1700 (protest, reformation, counter-reformation, Thirty Years War, etc). The pedophilia thing is rather recent, historically, speaking giving the changes and differences in AoC over time and in various countries.

Nice try at spinning. It was the Christians that murdered, tortured and condemned people they identified as witches to death. And the fact is that abhorrent behaviors such as pedophilia, alcoholism and homosexuality is not only prevalent in the Church but it is protected by the Vatican in this day and age. There are still many priests who were known to have these problems still working in some capacity in North America.

Say what? Hey, someone's got to stand on the wall. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to have discussions like this.

Murder and mutilation by armed conflicts does not account for our free speech today. Nor does it protect our peace. The only things wars succeed at doing is to lower the populations and make rich arms suppliers richer. However, the point is not lost on your red herring, being that when one is conditioned to kill, conditioned to identify the enemy and conditioned to react, then their entire outlook in the future will be influenced by that conditioning. The only way to get rid of that type of murderous conditioning is to be deprogrammed. And of course the armed forces doesn't waste their time or money on that preferring to release programmed killers into society.

[CANADIEN]

Where's the document. In fact, where's any document written by any member of the Iroquois prior to the arrival of Europeans.

it's easy to make up stories and "facts" when there is no written evidence to work with.

True, the Iroquois didn't have a writing system. But the transmission of tradition and knowledge that takes place in oral societies is a pretty good way of ensuring that the core of the message is preserved (this we who we are, this is how we govern ourselves), even under the layers of myths and legends.

It is interesting that a lot of what the Iroquois say about how they were governing themselves is confirmed in the writings of the first European visitors, and through archeological research. Also, knowledge of the stories that tell of the past is shared by all in an oral society. Even when only a few people are in charge of telling the story, all have heard it times and times again; someone deviates from the story, and people know.

In contrast, until public education appeared, that type of knowledge was limited to a priviledged few in societies relying on the written word. When the law is written and 99% of the population doesn't know how to read and is even forbidden to learn, the ones who write can say the law and history is whatever they say it is. I would argue that was a lot easier to make up facts in these conditions.

[Adelle]

And where is the head of the Church founded by Christians toady?

If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, the present Pope was in Paris as of 13 Sept. Otherwise, there are many Christian Church's (Roman, Greek, Russian, Anglican, etc) and no single leader.

Wot? Romans are Christians today?

The short answer is: Romans were Christians but Romans no longer exist. Christianity became the state religion of Rome under Constantine, in 312 CE until the "Roman Empire" ceases to exist around 440 CE. During this time Roman Christianity is defined as Catholic (universal). The Eastern Roman, or "Byzantine", Empire continued to exist until 1453, when it fell to the Turks.

Nevertheless it is still ritualized Cannibalism

Never said it wasn't.

Nice try at spinning.

When did accepted historical fact become "spin"? Sure the Christians did for those who disagreed, so did the Pagans before them and the Muslim's after them. Thus is human nature, we love to impose our will, and our beliefs, on others. As for the rest, it has existed, does exist and will probably exist in the future. Just proof that people, and priests are people, can screw-up anything. The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and just about every other Church, Christian or not, have all apologized and have attempted to deal with the situation.

Murder and mutilation by armed conflicts does not account for our free speech today. Nor does it protect our peace.

Really? Have you seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan", just as an example? Or are you only referring to the present situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan? Afghanistan was certainly the bastion of freedom and tolerance under the Taliban and I am sure the Kurd's would say the same about Iraq under Hussein.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Adelle

[charter.rights]

Really? Have you seen the movie "Saving Private Ryan", just as an example? Or are you only referring to the present situation in the Middle East and Afghanistan? Afghanistan was certainly the bastion of freedom and tolerance under the Taliban and I am sure the Kurd's would say the same about Iraq under Hussein.

You've LOST the argument WHEN..... you try to use fiction to make your point. No war has created freedom, peace and security - ever. It is only through negotiation that freedom, peace and security can be maintained. At the end of a barrel we all become the enemy and peace cannot exist when one is being subjected by the other.

What is happening in the Middle-East is not about US freedom, security or peace. It is about advancing western imperialism on a region that rejects the acculturation of their societies. It is about opening Middle-East markets to the over-expanding US greed. And of course it is about oil - not about Iraq's oil per se, but a reminder to the OPAC countries how not dealing with the US can turn out. The US calls it "stabilization" but it is just a bunch of enemies at the end of the barrel of a US M16.

You do remember from what country the 9/11 hijackers were from, don't you? I'll give you a hint. It WASN'T Iraq or Afghanistan.

[AngusThermopyle]

You've LOST the argument WHEN..... you try to use fiction to make your point.

You should know.

Armed conflict has produced peace many times throughout history. For you to deny that is to be either ignorant, uninformed or willfully blind.

In your case I believe its a combination of all three.

[charter.rights]

You should know.

Armed conflict has produced peace many times throughout history. For you to deny that is to be either ignorant, uninformed or willfully blind.

In your case I believe its a combination of all three.

This from a troll who is trained to kill and can't see anything else.

[AngusThermopyle]

This from a troll who is trained to kill and can't see anything else.

Thats your opinion and as such its worth about the same thing as usual, nothing.

Besides, I'd rather be a killer troll than a bald faced liar.

[Ontario Loyalist]

This from a troll who is trained to kill and can't see anything else.

This is the umpteenth time that I've seen you accuse people of being a troll and NOTHING is done about it. What the f*ck is wrong with the moderators here??!?!?!?!?!?

[charter.rights]

This is the umpteenth time that I've seen you accuse people of being a troll and NOTHING is done about it. What the f*ck is wrong with the moderators here??!?!?!?!?!?

A poster who follows another around the discussion board and does not but try to interfere with reasonable discussion IS a troll. Certainly I don't think the moderators will ban anyone for telling the truth and trying to steer discussion back on topic....

BTW. You are quickly becoming a nuisance as well. Perhaps if you can't stay on subject you should just hit the ignore button as well. There is nothing to gain by falling into troll status either.

[Wild Bill]

This is the umpteenth time that I've seen you accuse people of being a troll and NOTHING is done about it. What the f*ck is wrong with the moderators here??!?!?!?!?!?

Try sending a PM complaint to Charles Anthony. Although I too have been wondering how CR can get away with being as rude as the worst of Babble.ca. He's entitled to his wacky opinions but not his total lack of manners.

Perhaps CR IS Charles Anthony!

[Ontario Loyalist]

Try sending a PM complaint to Charles Anthony. Although I too have been wondering how CR can get away with being as rude as the worst of Babble.ca. He's entitled to his wacky opinions but not his total lack of manners.

Perhaps CR IS Charles Anthony!

No, because CA is currently being a schmuck over something harmless that I wrote a few days ago and clearly doesn't care what I think and say. The sad thing is that I've been banned from babble.ca for making innocuous comments and arguments, and I thought that this place is better for discussing issues; but if a moderator is going to have a meltdown over calling a stupid comment what it is, but won't deal with the people who are real problems here (M.Dancer, charter.rights) then I don't give a flying f*ck if I get banned from here either. Hanging out in a forum filled with Harper-lovers kind of gives me the creeps, anyway.

[Adelle]

Hanging out in a forum filled with Harper-lovers kind of gives me the creeps, anyway.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with Steve that a majority government won't fix. Of course, the same can be said about any of the other leaders as well. Just ask them.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with Steve that a majority government won't fix. Of course, the same can be said about any of the other leaders as well. Just ask them.

~~ bad joke deleted ~~

If Harper gets a majority, I will become and Ontario Seperatist...

Edited September 16, 2008 by Ontario Loyalist

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop the insults and inflammatory language. Do not call anybody a troll. If you encounter somebody who seems to be violating the rules, report it and ignore them. Leave the rest to the moderators to address the infraction with the member in question.

Ch. A.

[White Doors]

~~ bad joke deleted ~~

If Harper gets a majority, I will become and Ontario Seperatist...

Well I guess you are not much of a Canadian then.

[kengs333]

Well I guess you are not much of a Canadian then.

Ontario is Canada.

[White Doors]

Ontario is Canada.

No, Ontario is a have-not province in the nation of Canada.

[kengs333]

No, Ontario is a have-not province in the nation of Canada.

In Ontario goes down, so does what is now Canada; Canada breaks up into region if Ontario is not there to hold it together. As far as I'm concerned, Ontario can go it alone, while some of the other provinces never could.

Also, I think much of what is wrong with Canada can be directly attributed to Harris/Eves, and should serve as a warning to Canadians what is in store with a Harper majority. Conservative governments always talk the talk, but rarely manage to walk the walk.

[White Doors]

In Ontario goes down, so does what is now Canada; Canada breaks up into region if Ontario is not there to hold it together. As far as I'm concerned, Ontario can go it alone, while some of the other provinces never could.

Also, I think much of what is wrong with Canada can be directly attributed to Harris/Eves, and should serve as a warning to Canadians what is in store with a Harper majority. Conservative governments always talk the talk, but rarely manage to walk the walk.

How will Ontario cope without huge transfers of money from Alberta under the equalization formula that Canada uses?

[kengs333]

How will Ontario cope without huge transfers of money from Alberta under the equalization formula that Canada uses?

Just fine, thank you.

Ontario simply doesn't need the help of other provinces; that has always been the case historically, and it is always been Ontario's lot to carry the burden of other provinces. Coming from New Brunswick, I'm sure this is a perspective that you can't fully appreciate.

Edited September 16, 2008 by kengs333

[charter.rights]

Just fine, thank you.

Ontario simply doesn't need the help of other provinces; that has always been the case historically, and it is always been Ontario's lot to carry the burden of other provinces. Coming from New Brunswick, I'm sure this is a perspective that you can't fully appreciate.

Damn! Now you are sounding like a politician trying to get elected!

Can you make up you mind please? Are you a Martin Luther King Jr. wannabe, a defrocked minister or a failing politician? I certainly wish you would make up your mind!

Ontario NEEDS the west. Where else are we going to send our unemployed bums or kick the Newfoundlanders straight on through?

[White Doors]

Just fine, thank you.

Ontario simply doesn't need the help of other provinces; that has always been the case historically, and it is always been Ontario's lot to carry the burden of other provinces. Coming from New Brunswick, I'm sure this is a perspective that you can't fully appreciate.

Having lived in Alberta for 12 years I can appreciate it.

However, I do not define myself individually by which province I come from.

Each province's success's and failures are largely outside of my, personal, control.

Hence, I take no shame being from and living in a have-not province.

I can only make sure that I am doing the best I can as an individual to be a net contributor to society, which I am.

Perhaps those that are net economic drains on society have to look to larger entities to salvage some sort of personal pride, but I am not one of those.

[WIP]

In Ontario goes down, so does what is now Canada; Canada breaks up into region if Ontario is not there to hold it together. As far as I'm concerned, Ontario can go it alone, while some of the other provinces never could.

Also, I think much of what is wrong with Canada can be directly attributed to Harris/Eves, and should serve as a warning to Canadians what is in store with a Harper majority. Conservative governments always talk the talk, but rarely manage to walk the walk.

Bullcrap! The problem is Stephen Harper is no Harris!

Everybody who works for the schoolboards or was on social assistance when the Harris government cut benefits can bitch about it now, but the fact is that the Bob Rae - N.D.P. government and the previous two Liberal governments almost bankrupted Ontario. Harris had to do the dirty work to make the cuts needed to balance the budget, along with cutting the excessive tax burden of Ontarians to stimulate economic growth needed to restart the economy. And let's not forget that Paul Martin was being called a financial genius for balancing the Federal Budget merely by cutting transfer payments to Ontario and the other provinces, without offering any tax relief! Martin would not have been able to balance the federal books if Ontario hadn't made the turnaround.

I'm not going to laud everything Mike Harris did as Premier, but a lot of the problems in various depts. from transportation and education to consumer affairs came from the limited talent pool that Harris had to draw from to make up his Cabinet (same excuse Rae made for N.D.P. incompetence); the Tories weren't expected to win the 95 election, and the Big Blue Machine from the old days, were already retired.

Now, as for Harper; this is a different type of conservative altogether! Harris stuck to bread and butter economic issues and did not want his government getting bogged down in controversial social issues; whereas Harper is following the Republican strategy of pulling all the emotional levers of patriotism, nationalism, fear of crime (last year, the crime rate dropped for the third year in a row, but you wouldn't know it based on Harper's alarmist campaign commercials), fear of terrorism, fear of homosexuals (I'm betting that some vote on definition of marriage will resurface after the election to throw a bone to all of the evangelical M.P.'s and the religious right groups like REAL WOMEN, Canadian Family Action Coalition etc.).

But, maybe Harper wants to focus on crime and flag waving because he's frittered away a 13.5 billion dollar budget surplus during his brief stint as Prime Minister. The kind of conservative governing philosophy Harper follows is on parade south of the border, as eight years of Bush Republicans may have done so much damage mainly through fighting expensive foreign wars on the governments' line of credit, that at the moment, it's looking like the entire financial system is going to collapse. Give Harper a majority government, and a few more years, and Canada will be in the same mess as the Americans.

[kengs333]

Perhaps those that are net economic drains on society have to look to larger entities to salvage some sort of personal pride, but I am not one of those.

That's a pretty sad comment, actually, especially coming from someone from NB. All I'm saying is that Ontario can easily go on it's own; that means our money stays in the province (country) and doesn't get doled out to provinces that can't develop their economy. As I'm sure you well know, NB is the second highest recipient per capita of our money, money that could be better spent on social services and infrastructure here.