CBC partners with Islam Extremists?

Oleg Bach · December 13, 2008

The Communists were secular. The bolsheviks killed 100 million Christians during the Oktober Revolution through which the USSR was born. The Communists in Russia tore down many of the Russian Orthadox Churches in the USSR during this time.
The US is not secular. "In God We Trust" in right on their money.

Not everyone here is a Socialist. Go to rabble for that. Here at MLW everyone opinion is valued and welcome unlike Rabble.ca where only socialist ideas are tolerated.

Christianity was corporate socialism - and money was not a taboo - nor was freedom of thought. Communists kill only intelligent people...it will take Russia a long time to restore their genetic pool...it's not smart to kill the smart.

stignasty · December 13, 2008

The bolsheviks killed 100 million Christians during the Oktober Revolution through which the USSR was born.

Yeah, whatever you say... :blink:

Michael Hardner · December 13, 2008

lol...............how much evidence do you need well how is this?

Hey Wulf,

Sorry but this isn't evidence. I understand now what kind of argument you want to make.

Let me explain:

Posting a list of crimes done by Muslims doesn't prove that Islam causes people to be criminals any more than me posting a list of crimes by British people proves that Englishness causes crime. You've already pre-judged that the religion is the cause of the problem.

Before we continue, we'll have to discuss what 'evidence' means.

Oleg Bach · December 13, 2008

Yeah, whatever you say...

My grand father was shot by them...and my father later served at the Kremlin - He just couldn't wait to double cross his commie masters...the primary question that the Red would ask is "Do you believe in God" - you were pretty much screwed if you said yes or even no.. They knew that a believer would never submit fully to the power of the state - so they destroyed as many as they could...funny - the Red attempted to do things legally...it took them a full six years to convict my grandfather. They would charge him with this and then with that - finally they overlooked formality and just popped him in the head.....all those who have lost family members to communist lunitics do not forget - when we see one coming we smell the bastard days in advance - thank God they are stupid - but in a group - dangerous.

Mr.Canada · December 13, 2008

Yeah, whatever you say...

Sheesh whats wrong with everyone? Because you didn't learn it in grade 9 history that means it's not true? LOL, weak.

Sorry the Russian Communists only killed 20 million Christians. More than three times the amount of the Holocaust.

This is an amazing short Article on the "Greatest KIller" through out history, the secular governments around the world. Secular = Communist.... people, don't be fooled.

Edited December 13, 2008 by Mr.Canada

Oleg Bach · December 13, 2008

People forget...........my dear old mum would crawl though piles of bodies looking for food...Stalin starved her family to death - and my dad's family became non-existant...do you know what it's like to have no familiar history - It took me 40 years to figure out who I am - They talk about Afro-Candians having no roots...to destroy a culture you have to remove their history - I will never forgive the communists for what they did to my fathers family - I had to suffer and watch the poor guy all my life....a broken and damaged man - damaged by war and revolution...because they made him suffer- it was passed to me as a child and I suffered also - thanks a lot jerks!

wulf42 · December 13, 2008

Hey Wulf,
Sorry but this isn't evidence. I understand now what kind of argument you want to make.

Let me explain:

Posting a list of crimes done by Muslims doesn't prove that Islam causes people to be criminals any more than me posting a list of crimes by British people proves that Englishness causes crime. You've already pre-judged that the religion is the cause of the problem.

Before we continue, we'll have to discuss what 'evidence' means.

lol........i don t know what to tell you......i give you proof and of course you shoot it down, this more than proves what Islam is ...this isn't just a few "incidents" as you call them but global organized attacks on the West by many religious factions with all of them having one thing in common....ISLAM!

Edited December 13, 2008 by wulf42

Mr.Canada · December 14, 2008

The FSM is a joke, so yes, I'm really an atheist. But the question wasn't about tax exemptions (although I think those are unfair as well), but rather about a poster complaining about fancy new mosques paid for by the Saudis and Christian churches falling down. It's clear the poster wants the government to keep churches in good condition, so if the taxpayer is paying for that, should I get my temple to the FSM?

Someone beat you to it.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Wild Bill · December 14, 2008

Hey Wulf,
Sorry but this isn't evidence. I understand now what kind of argument you want to make.

Let me explain:

Posting a list of crimes done by Muslims doesn't prove that Islam causes people to be criminals any more than me posting a list of crimes by British people proves that Englishness causes crime. You've already pre-judged that the religion is the cause of the problem.

Before we continue, we'll have to discuss what 'evidence' means.

You seem to be offering apples for oranges. Wulf's list is of crimes with the common factor of having Islam as their motivating factor. A list of British crimes is highly unlikely to offer a religious commonality of Anglicanism!

It's not hard to find evidence of radical Islamists being behind such crimes. They themselves trumpet it!

It's true that other religions did similar bloody deeds in the past, such as Christianity during the Crusades or the Inquisition. The difference is that those religions evolved from those days and today condemn such actions. Yet there is a large population of radical Islamists who are causing trouble TODAY! The other religions have not been such a threat for a very long time. We have to deal with what are real threats today. Some folks try to be apologists for negative actions by suggesting that two wrongs make a right.

Hardly much protection from terrorism or comfort to its victims.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Wild Bill

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

Secularism comes from USSR style communism, nothing more. The term communism is unpopular so the left changes it to secularism. Same thing.

Are you seriously ready to back this up...?

Read some John Locke please

ToadBrother · December 14, 2008

People forget...........my dear old mum would crawl though piles of bodies looking for food...Stalin starved her family to death - and my dad's family became non-existant...do you know what it's like to have no familiar history - It took me 40 years to figure out who I am - They talk about Afro-Candians having no roots...to destroy a culture you have to remove their history - I will never forgive the communists for what they did to my fathers family - I had to suffer and watch the poor guy all my life....a broken and damaged man - damaged by war and revolution...because they made him suffer- it was passed to me as a child and I suffered also - thanks a lot jerks!

Which, as tragic as it is, has nothing to do with secularism. The Communists were not secularists. Quite the opposite, they had an official dogma and generally didn't like competition. Secularism welcomes competing ideas and faiths, providing the state isn't complicit in selecting one over the other.

Besides, when you look at the Communist tyrants like Mao and Stalin, and in this latter days Kim Jong Il, you're seeing all the trappings of a religious cult of personality. Look at your average poster of Stalin in the 1930s or of Mao in the 1950s; kindly, benevolent nearly god-like figures, wiser, smarter, Atlanteans among a lesser people. These guys basically set up their own state cults as replacements for the religions. In Soviet Russia and the other Slavic soviet republics, however, the Russian Orthodox Church may have been persecuted during the 1930s, but when it became necessary to invoke Old Russia during WWII, there was a significant revival, and the Church became a rather willing partner to the Kremlin.

ToadBrother · December 14, 2008

The Communists were secular. The bolsheviks killed 100 million Christians during the Oktober Revolution through which the USSR was born. The Communists in Russia tore down many of the Russian Orthadox Churches in the USSR during this time.

And then spent the 1950s to the USSR's end using the Church, which was quite happy to be used. But at any rate, a secular system does not advocate the destruction of religious institutions, but simply putting up a wall preventing undue influence in *both* directions, and was advocated a loooong time before Marx even put pen to paper, so I don't know, short of intense ignorance, how you can claim that secularism is either Communistic or socialistic.

The US is not secular. "In God We Trust" in right on their money.

The US has a constitution and a bill of rights that specifically forbids religious discrimination in the seeking of office, and essentially bans the state from placing one religion above another. Jefferson himself explained the First Amendment as setting up a "wall of separation". The Founding Fathers very clearly intended to create a secular state, which was the ideal of most Enlightenment figures.

Not everyone here is a Socialist. Go to rabble for that. Here at MLW everyone opinion is valued and welcome unlike Rabble.ca where only socialist ideas are tolerated.

Socialism is not secularism. One can be a socialist and be a Christian. Tommy Douglas was a preacher, and I've known my fair share of NDPers who were church-goers.

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

And then spent the 1950s to the USSR's end using the Church, which was quite happy to be used. But at any rate, a secular system does not advocate the destruction of religious institutions, but simply putting up a wall preventing undue influence in *both* directions, and was advocated a loooong time before Marx even put pen to paper, so I don't know, short of intense ignorance, how you can claim that secularism is either Communistic or socialistic.
The US has a constitution and a bill of rights that specifically forbids religious discrimination in the seeking of office, and essentially bans the state from placing one religion above another. Jefferson himself explained the First Amendment as setting up a "wall of separation". The Founding Fathers very clearly intended to create a secular state, which was the ideal of most Enlightenment figures.

Socialism is not secularism. One can be a socialist and be a Christian. Tommy Douglas was a preacher, and I've known my fair share of NDPers who were church-goers.

Don't waste your breath.. You would have to be a complete moron to say that "Socialism = Secularism"

Also, who cares what is written on the bills... IN LAW, we are entirely secular..

In Canada:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

In the United States:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

'Nuff said..

We are at most an agnostic country

ToadBrother · December 14, 2008

Don't waste your breath.. You would have to be a complete moron to say that "Socialism = Secularism"
Also, who cares what is written on the bills... IN LAW, we are entirely secular..

In Canada:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

In the United States:

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

'Nuff said..

We are at most an agnostic country

One has to remember that a good many of the people in the original 13 colonies were descended from Non-Comformists, particular in New England. These peoples' not-so-distant ancestors had fled the persecution of England, the religious tests, the demands of conformity, if only of the Elizabethan kind (that is, whether your Catholic or Puritan, you have to make-believe that you're a good Church of Englander). The whole intent of the First Amendment was to prevent the United States from slipping into the same unholy brew that was the established church in England.

They had every intention right from the start of preventing religious tests (very common in England, and still in one office at least; the reigning monarch), no established church, complete freedom of worship without fear of interference from the state. I mean, that's the textbook definition of a secular government.

bush_cheney2004 · December 14, 2008

...They had every intention right from the start of preventing religious tests (very common in England, and still in one office at least; the reigning monarch), no established church, complete freedom of worship without fear of interference from the state. I mean, that's the textbook definition of a secular government.

Let's not get carried away here.....there was plenty of domination by religious factions in the young United States, including state sponsorship, fears that were exemplified by the Danbury Baptists that prompted Jefferson's idea of separation being implied (but not enumerated) by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

ToadBrother · December 14, 2008

Let's not get carried away here.....there was plenty of domination by religious factions in the young United States, including state sponsorship, fears that were exemplified by the Danbury Baptists that prompted Jefferson's idea of separation being implied (but not enumerated) by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

And Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists laid out very clearly that the Founding Fathers were intent on keeping church and state separated. Even constitutional literalists have a hard time evading that, though they do try to put forward the most awkward arguments.

Mr.Canada · December 14, 2008

And Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists laid out very clearly that the Founding Fathers were intent on keeping church and state separated. Even constitutional literalists have a hard time evading that, though they do try to put forward the most awkward arguments.

Are we better for it? I don't think so. If we were all on the same side we could crush our enemies without fighting ourselves.

Michael Hardner · December 14, 2008

Are we better for it? I don't think so. If we were all on the same side we could crush our enemies without fighting ourselves.

Wow. We need to all be on the same side. That means forced conversions. Now THAT is quite conservative !

Which Christian sect should all Canadians be baptized into before we start the next crusades ? Do you think that Harper should suspend elections before suspending the constitution or not ?

It seems to me, "Mister" Canada that you don't really like anything about Canada.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Michael Hardner

Smallc · December 14, 2008

He already admited that he thinks other countries are better. He picked a terrible handle....the again so did I.

bush_cheney2004 · December 14, 2008

And Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists laid out very clearly that the Founding Fathers were intent on keeping church and state separated. Even constitutional literalists have a hard time evading that, though they do try to put forward the most awkward arguments.

True, but Connecticut continued to have a state religion (Congregational Church) until adopting the Constitution in 1818. Realizing true separation of state and church (as understood today) was very slow in coming, and remnants persist in Canada and the United States.

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

Are we better for it? I don't think so. If we were all on the same side we could crush our enemies without fighting ourselves.

Try Iran.. I think you will like it there.

"Crush our enemies"?? What in the world are you talking about?

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

It seems to me, "Mister" Canada that you don't really like anything about Canada.

Something that I have come to notice very recently..

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

True, but Connecticut continued to have a state religion (Congregational Church) until adopting the Constitution in 1818. Realizing true separation of state and church (as understood today) was very slow in coming, and remnants persist in Canada and the United States.

Interesting, I believe that it was Connecticut who broke off from Massachusetts because they were cast out by the Puritans and wanted to form their own sect

Mr.Canada · December 14, 2008

True, but Connecticut continued to have a state religion (Congregational Church) until adopting the Constitution in 1818. Realizing true separation of state and church (as understood today) was very slow in coming, and remnants persist in Canada and the United States.

It would be faster if not as many conservatives stood up to fight against it. If the secularists/Trostskyites has their way all religion, well only all Christian religion that is, would be abolished and our enemies would rule over us. Socialists don't want a free society they want an unarmed, neutered one. Unarmed people cannot rebel against an unjust government, a bloodless coup is the aim of the socialist.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Mr.Canada

LesterDC · December 14, 2008

It would be faster if not as many conservatives stood up to fight against it. If the secularists/Trostskyites has their way all religion, well only all Christian religion that is, would be abolished and our enemies would rule over us. Socialists don't want a free society they want an unarmed, neutered one. Unarmed people cannot rebel against an unjust government, a bloodless coup is the aim of the socialist.

Sorry, I could not understand the jist of your argument.. What is this that you are talking about? An armed rebellion? Also, what the hell is up with you labeling others as "enemies"? What are you, a violent Jihad? Slay the infidels!!