CANADIEN Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 For all of your condemnations of the Christian Rigtht, you sure don't mind leafing through their propaganda when it suits your purpose! You think any atheist hasn't heard this claptrap about Stalin etc. before? This one gets trotted out like an ace played from the bottom of the deck, every time the believers are confronted with yet another religious despot or demagogue claiming god is on his side. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the "crimes have been committed in the name of religion, so followers of religions share in the guilt" argument. As for your endless repetition of "oh, but the Russian Orthodox Church did this, it did that"... In case you had not figured it out yet (and yes, my bad for not having expressed myself clearly), I was not talking about the organization, I was talking about its followers who were murdered, exiled, persecuted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Then why are there thousands of different sects of Christianity if there is such a clear guide to follow? WIP, I think you can find your answer by looking at what they have in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Lol, no not me. I'm probably one of the most hated around here. To love Mr.Canada is to hate him. I blow a lot of smoke for effect and to get peoples attention. I may make some valid points but I often blow them out of proportion or make gratuitous and provocative titles. Most other Christians I'm sure though are well respected and trusted. Christians are no different than anyone else. Some are good, some are bad. I trust a Christian no more and no less than I trust a Hindu or a Muslim.` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrGreenthumb Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I don't see how making it legal would improve working conditions at all, considering they are still on the street and at the mercy of their customers and their "bosses". legal and REGULATED, just like drugs should be. Rules set for the legal sale and distribution. If prostitution were legal prostitutes would be in brothels where they have some protection from the willie pictons and mysogenists like Mr Canada of this world. If this "proffession" were in the open instead of underground, the girls could be tested regularly and have better access to drug treatment. The street level prostitution would practically dry up overnight because the "johns" would feel safer using the legal facilities. The pimps would be out of work. The girls would have the protection of their peers and of being in the open where somebody will notice if anything happens to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 It did however make law abiding girls think twice before entering that line of work. Do you have any evidence that making prostitution illegal reduced the number of women becoming prostitutes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 And I'm still thinking that the real (the far greater ) problem is not prostitutes, but Johns. Someone who would engage the services of a _child_ prostitute is a pedophile, pure and simple. And anyone who would engage the services of an adult prostitute is (IMO) a still pretty sick puppy. If a 'drug addicted whore' is scum, what of the people who would prey on that desperation? Is a John any more upstanding than the drug supplier? Than the pimp? All are taking what they want, and to Hell with the person in the middle who provides for them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 And anyone who would engage the services of an adult prostitute is (IMO) a still pretty sick puppy. Well you are entitled to your opinion but I don't think that someone who wants uncomplicated sex and can afford it is necessarily sick. I think they are just lazy and impatient... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whowhere Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Well you are entitled to your opinion but I don't think that someone who wants uncomplicated sex and can afford it is necessarily sick. I think they are just lazy and impatient... There was a documentary on the National Geographic Channel on animals; it was called wild sex. It illustrasted the effects of hormones on the male animal as he matured. The longer the male went without sex the more sex crazed he bacame. I would have to say sex is man's scourage. Some Men need an outlet to get these hormones out of their system. Leave it to Christianity to prey upon the man in this area. A man or woman should always go into a decision without the mind being clouded. Denying some men sex is like denying some men food. Sex is a mental and physical health issue. However studies have indicated the abstainance from sex is in itself an anti-depressant. Feel depressed toss the hoes aside and become happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 legal and REGULATED, just like drugs should be. Rules set for the legal sale and distribution. If prostitution were legal prostitutes would be in brothels where they have some protection from the willie pictons and mysogenists like Mr Canada of this world. If this "proffession" were in the open instead of underground, the girls could be tested regularly and have better access to drug treatment. The street level prostitution would practically dry up overnight because the "johns" would feel safer using the legal facilities. The pimps would be out of work. The girls would have the protection of their peers and of being in the open where somebody will notice if anything happens to them. We have brothels, they are called "massage parlors". There would still be girls out on the street because that would be the most efficient way to make money. It's more efficient being on the street than in a building. The low income prostitutes can't afford a building or anything to work in. They still work the streets. The only thing that would change would be "massage parlors" name being changed to cat house. The law was created so it would disuade some potential prostitutes out of this line of work by making it illegal. Do you have any evidence that making prostitution illegal reduced the number of women becoming prostitutes? I'm saying it would have disuaded some because, some people don't feel like going to jail. Some people respond to the stick instead of the carrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigAl Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Jesus taught us to follow his teachings, all of them. Clearly. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I'd be careful of the structural integrity of your glass house there, Mr. Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 We have brothels, they are called "massage parlors". There would still be girls out on the street because that would be the most efficient way to make money. It's more efficient being on the street than in a building. The low income prostitutes can't afford a building or anything to work in. They still work the streets. The only thing that would change would be "massage parlors" name being changed to cat house. Brothels are illegal too. The law was created so it would disuade some potential prostitutes out of this line of work by making it illegal.I'm saying it would have disuaded some because, some people don't feel like going to jail. Some people respond to the stick instead of the carrot. So you don't have any evidence. You could have just said so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 WIP,I think you can find your answer by looking at what they have in common. And that can be good, or it can be bad. The mostly liberal churches in the ecumenical movements avoid doctrinal disputes and concentrate on shared goals of solving social problems regarding poverty, the environment and human rights issues. On the other hand, the Religious Right only finds unity in fighting common enemies, both foreign and domestic. And that's why I consider the Religious Right to be the most dangerous social movement in the Free World today. They show little respect for human rights, freedom of expression, tolerance for different opinions; and they have a very high regard for nationalism, militarism and authoritarian appeals to loyalty to the "godly" leaders. The problem I have with the Left is that they invariably back away from criticizing the religious institutions who play footsy with fascists and fascist-leaning political movements as if they are untouchable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I was merely pointing out the absurdity of the "crimes have been committed in the name of religion, so followers of religions share in the guilt" argument. And I was pointing out that they share at least some of the blame if they won't use whatever limited influence they have to challenge harmful actions and policies of that church leadership. As for your endless repetition of "oh, but the Russian Orthodox Church did this, it did that"... In case you had not figured it out yet (and yes, my bad for not having expressed myself clearly), I was not talking about the organization, I was talking about its followers who were murdered, exiled, persecuted. You did include the church hierarchy among the victims though. And right now that same church is being re-established as the state church, and the Russian government has awarded the Church leaders' loyalty to Putin with new laws restricting other religions and missionaries working inside the country. The century-long experiment with Marxism is starting to look like a hickup that briefly interrupted the theocratic fascism that had previously governed the country: This morning's Washington Post reports on the growing influence of the Orthodox Church in Russia. Followers of other religions, especially Muslims, are concerned about the increasingly close relationship between the Orthodox church and government. Some public entities are adopting Orthodox symbols, and the teaching of Orthodox culture has been mandated in some schools this year. (See prior posting.) Critics say this is turning Orthodoxy into a state religion. The Church is increasingly being identified with a patriotism that favors a strong centralized state, and the military is using Orthodoxy to build esprit de corps. The Church has canonized Fyodor Ushakov, an 18th-century naval commander, and the Navy has adopted him as a patron saint. http://www.uslaw.com/bulletin/russian-orth...nment.php?p=706 and Friday, November 17, 2006Bill To Mandate Teaching About Religion Introduced In Russia's Duma and "Russian Orthodox Church calls for teaching of morals in school, deplores 'ideology of science'"(AP, August 8, 2007) and Russian Orthodox Church Officials meddling in the Semenov Trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 This morning's Washington Post reports on the growing influence of the Orthodox Church in Russia. Followers of other religions, especially Muslims, are concerned about the increasingly close relationship between the Orthodox church and government. Some public entities are adopting Orthodox symbols, and the teaching of Orthodox culture has been mandated in some schools this year. (See prior posting.) Critics say this is turning Orthodoxy into a state religion. The Church is increasingly being identified with a patriotism that favors a strong centralized state, and the military is using Orthodoxy to build esprit de corps. The Church has canonized Fyodor Ushakov, an 18th-century naval commander, and the Navy has adopted him as a patron saint. In other words, Russia is becoming what many religious conservatives in Canada and the US wish they could turn our countries into, regimes that tolerate (barely) other faiths but make it very clear that Christianity is the top of the heap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 In other words, Russia is becoming what many religious conservatives in Canada and the US wish they could turn our countries into, regimes that tolerate (barely) other faiths but make it very clear that Christianity is the top of the heap. I heard a radio interview with some Mormons and other missionaries working in Russia, and they commented on how difficult the State is making it for foreign missionaries to live and do their evangelizing in Russia. They are even bringing in restrictive laws against Russian converts to foreign religions. Mormons and pentacostal followers are being dismissed from government jobs and the courts have refused to take action on their behalf with local governments. So, it seems likely that they are going to try to make the Russian Orthodox Church the only religion in the country eventually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 But yes the Russian Orthodox is becoming the template for theocratic fascism for other churches lusting for political power to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) You did include the church hierarchy among the victims though. And last time I checked, they met the definition of human beings. And right now that same church is being re-established as the state church, and the Russian government has awarded the Church leaders' loyalty to Putin with new laws restricting other religions and missionaries working inside the country. The century-long experiment with Marxism is starting to look like a hickup that briefly interrupted the theocratic fascism that had previously governed the country Off topic, but I cannot shake the feeling that the Putin regime is co-opting the Russian Orthdox Church as a symbol and rewarding it by eliminating the competition on the "religious market". The second the Church will challenge Putin's power, I'll treat the same as he has treated any other opponents. Edited January 13, 2009 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 And last time I checked, they met the definition of human beings.Off topic, but I cannot shake the feeling that the Putin regime is co-opting the Russian Orthdox Church as a symbol and rewarding it by eliminating the competition on the "religious market". The second the Church will challenge Putin's power, I'll treat the same as he has treated any other opponents. I agree with others, what we're seeing now is the restoration, at least as much as is possible, of the pre-1917 Russia. Under the Czars, the church in many ways operated as an arm of the state (inherited from the old Byzantine Caesaropapism). Whatever Putin's roots, he's very clearly styling himself a nationalist leader, and the Russian Orthodox Church is only too happy to regain the position it had before the fall of Nicholas II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I agree with others, what we're seeing now is the restoration, at least as much as is possible, of the pre-1917 Russia. Under the Czars, the church in many ways operated as an arm of the state (inherited from the old Byzantine Caesaropapism). Whatever Putin's roots, he's very clearly styling himself a nationalist leader, and the Russian Orthodox Church is only too happy to regain the position it had before the fall of Nicholas II. The Russians have finally shaken free from the secular clutches of Karl Marx and the Bolshevics and a returning to God as a guiding force once again. Nationalism and national pride is a great thing, too bad socialists want Canadians to feel bad about themselves and to deny who and what we are. The strong nationalist right wing is returning across Europe. Since N.A is about 6 years behind from Europe. Soon here to there will be a return of Nationalistic Pride and strong right wing governments united under a national religion blessed by God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Brothels are illegal too.So you don't have any evidence. You could have just said so. But massage parlors aren't. Scalping tickets is illegal, but selling pins and giving tickets along with them isn't. You can provide evidence that I'm wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 (edited) But massage parlors aren't. Scalping tickets is illegal, but selling pins and giving tickets along with them isn't.You can provide evidence that I'm wrong... Massage parlors aren't illegal, but if they're operating as common bawdy houses they are, thus even prostitution of that nature is illegal. I have no idea where you're even trying to go with argument. And it's not my job to provide evidence that you're wrong, it's your job to provide evidence that you're right. Is there any particular reason you're trying to escape the burden of proof here, other than the fact that you just basically made it up? Edited January 13, 2009 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted January 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 But massage parlors aren't. Scalping tickets is illegal, but selling pins and giving tickets along with them isn't.You can provide evidence that I'm wrong... Even Obama has chosen an Evangelical Pro Life Minister to speak at his inauguration. Obama and Harper are two peas in a po and will get along famously. Harpers stock will rise dramatically after Obama praises Harper for his policies in the coming months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 Even Obama has chosen an Evangelical Pro Life Minister to speak at his inauguration. Obama and Harper are two peas in a po and will get along famously. Harpers stock will rise dramatically after Obama praises Harper for his policies in the coming months. Yes, Obama has chosen a pro life minister, but if you think in your poisoned little mind that that means that Obam is pro life, or that he's going to be supporting pro life policies, then you're even dumber and more pitiable than I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Massage parlors aren't illegal, but if they're operating as common bawdy houses they are, thus even prostitution of that nature is illegal. I have no idea where you're even trying to go with argument.And it's not my job to provide evidence that you're wrong, it's your job to provide evidence that you're right. Is there any particular reason you're trying to escape the burden of proof here, other than the fact that you just basically made it up? My point is that there are ways around the prostitution laws. Operating a massage parlor is legal. And it would be very very hard to take one of those to court and have a case out of it. Paying for a massage is legal, and having sex is legal. Same goes with tickets, scalping tickets is illegal, however giving them away is not, selling pins is not illegal, and neither is charging 500 dollars for them. As for saying making something illegal deters things. If speeding weren't illegal, I'd be driving 160 klicks as much as I can providing weather. Some people however don't care about speed limits and drive 160 clicks anyway. So yes, making things illegal does deter some people. Edited January 14, 2009 by blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted January 14, 2009 Report Share Posted January 14, 2009 My point is that there are ways around the prostitution laws. Operating a massage parlor is legal. And it would be very very hard to take one of those to court and have a case out of it. Paying for a massage is legal, and having sex is legal. Same goes with tickets, scalping tickets is illegal, however giving them away is not, selling pins is not illegal, and neither is charging 500 dollars for them. Paying for sex is illegal. If you go and have a massage, you're not breaking the law. If you hand the girl a few hundred bucks for the "extra service" you and her (and probably the massage parlor, which gets a cut somehow) are breaking the law. And massage parlors have been nailed for running common bawdy houses before, so you're not even right on that count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.