Religious Right in Canada

[Mr.Canada]

The previous point is exact on. God has no place in politics. Remember, reason over passion anyday. Most Canadians, except racists, would prefer to keep religious worship to the private individuals rather than enforced by the government. That is the problem with Christian conservatives. John A. MacDonald said something along the line that no decision in government should be made when its most powerful explanation is a religious one. Trudeau even said that religious fundamentalists need a dose of reality because the most advances (in a specific time) man has made was in the last century, and it was also the most "un-religious." Although Paul Martin felt strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman due to his own religion, he knew that one of the government's role is not to promote one religion's rules over another but to advance the rights of individual so as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

Ok , so all religious people are racists?

[SSD]

Ok , so all religious people are racists?

Did I say religious people are racist. I am religious but I ain't racist. I said and I meant that people who want to enforce their religious rules into government and thus, onto others are, for the most part, racist or at least prejudice. If I were Christian and I wanted to impose my beliefs into government I sure as hell wouldn't want some Hindu getting in the way even though in reality they are just as equal as me in every sense of the word.

[Mr.Canada]

Did I say religious people are racist. I am religious but I ain't racist. I said and I meant that people who want to enforce their religious rules into government and thus, onto others are, for the most part, racist or at least prejudice. If I were Christian and I wanted to impose my beliefs into government I sure as hell wouldn't want some Hindu getting in the way even though in reality they are just as equal as me in every sense of the word.

However we cannot help the fact that some people of all political stripes are religious. Religious beliefs and life experiences help to shape who we are and the views we have. For you to say that people who have religious beliefs mustn't be allowed to have any opinion on politics or input on policy doesn't seem very fair at all.

How do you intend to ensure we have only fully sanitary atheist MP's?

[SSD]

However we cannot help the fact that some people of all political stripes are religious. Religious beliefs and life experiences help to shape who we are and the views we have. For you to say that people who have religious beliefs mustn't be allowed to have any opinion on politics or input on policy doesn't seem very fair at all.

How do you intend to ensure we have only fully sanitary atheist MP's?

When I referred to that, I meant that MPs shouldn't be for/against an issue just because Jesus said so--or at least shouldn't explain their stance that way. Look, people's religion influences them--its just that Canada has gotten to the point where we have so many religions that if our MPs make a decision based on their religion (and explain to the public that its because of their religion) we are going to piss people off since not everyone is Christian, Muslim, etc.

[Mr.Canada]

When I referred to that, I meant that MPs shouldn't be for/against an issue just because Jesus said so--or at least shouldn't explain their stance that way. Look, people's religion influences them--its just that Canada has gotten to the point where we have so many religions that if our MPs make a decision based on their religion (and explain to the public that its because of their religion) we are going to piss people off since not everyone is Christian, Muslim, etc.

At that same time if an MP happens to have an opinion that coincidentally coincides with a religious belief it doesn't make that MP having made the decision based on a religion.

[SSD]

There are two important (controversial) social issues in Canada: gay marriage and abortion. Christians care about both issues (mostly Catholics and evangelicals). Immigrant could care less about abortion--they actually support abortion even though their religion say differently. The bigger issue for them is gay marriage and that is dying down in recent years because the Supreme Court poses a problem that would prevent the issue being opened up again. However, for South Asian and Muslim voters, that is the main reason they would vote for the Conservatives. These said voters are very anti-gay and some are very racist. I should know since I belong to the South Asian community.

Remember, the Conservatives (PC and Reform) have continually attacked the South Asian community. Joe Clark, as foreign affairs minister, called the Punjabi Separatist in India terrorists even though India at that time banned foreign media due to the treatment of the Sikh community (remember, I am talking about the Sikh separatists in India and not the group that organized the Air India bombing which was a year later). One Reform MP called the immigration boom as an Asian Invasion. A former Heritage Minister in the Harper administration said some sad stuff about coloured candidates. Every major national political leader (including May) attended South Asian celebrations in Downtown Toronto (almost 100000 people were there) the past two years, except Harper.

[WIP]

Don't be scared folks, Mr.Canada will be there to defend everyday Canadians from the socialist guilt stick wielders.

Ref. Post #684

Maybe you could start defending with real evidence, instead of just making up whatever crap sounds good at the time! If you make an erroneous statement. For example:

QUOTE(Mr.Canada @ Jan 16 2009, 08:35 AM) *

This was a purely political move. His own feelings are very apparent being a member of Wrights right wing, pro black, anti-gay racist ministry for 20 years says it all.

and receive contrary information here: http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/t...m?blog_id=17266

then you either provide your rebuttal, or admit that you were mistaken or just made it up. If you just move on to the next falsehood without acknowledging your previous errors, you're only fooling yourself!

Since you posted 65 comments yesterday, and you've posted over 2000 comments in your three months here (more than twice what I've posted in 10 months), I might assume that you don't put a whole lot of thought into what you write down before you hit the reply tab.

[MontyBurns]

God has no place in politics.

But atheism does.

[Smallc]

But atheism does.

No, secularism does.

[BigAl]

No, secularism does.

That is sort of what they mean when they talk about that wacky "separation of church and state" idea. I refuse to concede that Canada is or should be a Christian-run nation. It's just not in line with our national platform, you know? It's like saying "we're very accepting of other cultures -- there are lots and lots of ways to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior". That's a little tweaked, no?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

That is sort of what they mean when they talk about that wacky "separation of church and state" idea. I refuse to concede that Canada is or should be a Christian-run nation. It's just not in line with our national platform, you know? It's like saying "we're very accepting of other cultures -- there are lots and lots of ways to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior". That's a little tweaked, no?

It certainly is.

[MontyBurns]

No, secularism does.

Like in North Korea.

[Smallc]

No, like in the majority of (if not all) of the industrialized countries.

[MontyBurns]

No, like in the majority of (if not all) of the industrialized countries.

Isn't secularism a belief itself? Could we not call secularism a "religion" of sorts?

[Smallc]

No.

[BigAl]

Isn't secularism a belief itself? Could we not call secularism a "religion" of sorts?

Interesting question Monty...I guess you could make the case that, based on the logic you're suggesting, *anything* could be considered a religion (as long as you don't base the conception of religion on inherent faith, you could even call nihilism a religion of sorts)...but I don't know if this argument would hold water in a court of law, so to speak.

[ToadBrother]

Isn't secularism a belief itself? Could we not call secularism a "religion" of sorts?

What are doing here, just moving everything that ties you into knot into a category sufficiently broad that you can simply take swipes at the entire, nearly meaningless category?

Look, WTF is your problem with a secular government? Do you think it's a government's job to teach religious dogma, to create official official doctrines? I mean, what precisely is your complaint?

The whole point is to make sure that the government is blind to religion, that laws fairly apply to all people, and not, as so often in the past, to those who take part in the right communion.

You seem to spend most of your time here fallaciously linking secularism and atheism, insinuating that somehow Christianity is under some sort of attack because some group of Christian's religious beliefs aren't instantly conflated with law.

So what is it that you want? Be clear, be specific and point by point state what kind of government you would like to see.

[whowhere]

Did I say religious people are racist. I am religious but I ain't racist. I said and I meant that people who want to enforce their religious rules into government and thus, onto others are, for the most part, racist or at least prejudice. If I were Christian and I wanted to impose my beliefs into government I sure as hell wouldn't want some Hindu getting in the way even though in reality they are just as equal as me in every sense of the word.

What do you call the 1982 constitution and the fact we have a christian queen as the sovereign of Canada who is represented by the Governor General. What can be said about all the statutory holidays Canada as. They are mostly religious based. Live in Denial Canada was a Christian Country and the Legal structures still support that foundation.

What you have is denial. The people Can deny all you want that is not going to get the Christian Queen removed from the Constitution. Something will have to happen for that to materialize. What exactly??

[whowhere]

However we cannot help the fact that some people of all political stripes are religious. Religious beliefs and life experiences help to shape who we are and the views we have. For you to say that people who have religious beliefs mustn't be allowed to have any opinion on politics or input on policy doesn't seem very fair at all.

How do you intend to ensure we have only fully sanitary atheist MP's?

Religion is a failure of main stream society. In corrupt societies such as Canada and the United States people are kicked through the cracks and have to seek refuge from religion to pick themselves back up. Churches are not to be trusted as they are out to eek out a living at your expense.

Your best source is the King James Version. The book says alot but those who are prepared to be honest with themselves will know that the God of Old Testament has provided guidance in dealing with a Corrupt Society.

Ultimatlely those who are corrupt will be thrown into the Furnace of fire where they will be obliterated out of existence (as jesus describes).

The bottom line, it is about right and wrong. It is one thing to be dishonest at the personal level. But when a country is corrupt at the media, bureacratic, and political level that is a problem houston.

Greed and corruption pure and simple.

[ToadBrother]

What do you call the 1982 constitution and the fact we have a christian queen as the sovereign of Canada who is represented by the Governor General.

The Queen is Christian, but there is no established church in Canada. Maybe *you* should read the Constitution.

What can be said about all the statutory holidays Canada as. They are mostly religious based. Live in Denial Canada was a Christian Country and the Legal structures still support that foundation.

So the fact that we get Christmas off means the government is Christian?

What you have is denial. The people Can deny all you want that is not going to get the Christian Queen removed from the Constitution. Something will have to happen for that to materialize. What exactly??

There's no established church, thus no need to get rid of the Queen. The Queen is the Queen of all sorts of people; Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics and so forth (despite the fact that none of these people are even legally allowed to be Queen in the UK).

[Smallc]

The Queen is Christian, but there is no established church in Canada. Maybe *you* should read the Constitution.

Correct. Even though the Queen bears the title of defender of the faith in Canada, it doesn't mean the same thing as it does in England. In Canada, her title of defender of the faith applies to the defense and freedom of all faiths.

[ToadBrother]

This is top news. More and more Canadians turning to a more honest and conservative branch of Christianity.

Aren't you a Catholic? You're praising Evangelicals, a group not exactly known for their pro-Catholic sentiments.

[ToadBrother]

Correct. Even though the Queen bears the title of defender of the faith in Canada, it doesn't mean the same thing as it does in England. In Canada, her title of defender of the faith applies to the defense and freedom of all faiths.

It will mean much the same in the UK when Charles takes the throne. He has said openly that he plans on changing the oath and title to "Defender of the Faiths".

As it is, despite the established church in England (let's remember that Scotland has a different church, things are not so simple as some folks think), the UK itself is one of the most secular societies in the world.

[MontyBurns]

Look, WTF is your problem with a secular government? Do you think it's a government's job to teach religious dogma, to create official official doctrines? I mean, what precisely is your complaint?

I'll make things simple:

Say person "A" follows "doctrine A" and person "B" follows "doctrine B". Say I am "A" and you are "B". What you are telling me is that you can bring "doctrine B" into government policy but "doctrine A" is not allowed any place in government policy.

Convenient for person "B" don't you think?

[Smallc]

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere here...