Religious Right in Canada

[chipper]

SOURCE/FULL STORY

Well as we can Christians are waking up to the secularism that is destroying Canada. Not only that but Christians are starting to vote as the Bible says. For a party that best identifies with Christians, has the best party policies that are in line with Church teachings. That party is the Conservative party or Tories and they are led by Stephan Harper, an evangelical Christian, a family man, a Joe everyman, just like you and me friends.

Read the article in its entirety it explains things far better than I could.

It is really scary to think religious myths, all of which have been exposed as totally false are a belief and concern to any grown person.

[ToadBrother]

Yes, and those evil, tambourine-playing Pentacostals, Catholics and Mormons who comprise the Religious Right.

Historically, Catholics have been among the most liberal of voters. The Catholic vote was once one of the more reliable strengths of the modern Democratic party in the US and Liberal Party in Canada. Up until recently, there was a veiled (or sometimes unveiled) dislike by the traditional religious groups that made up Religious Conservatism of Catholics, mainly because the various churches most predominant had a long history of anti-Catholic beliefs. These guys went to churches where it was regularly taught that Rome was the Whore of Babylon and that Catholics were Mary-worshiping pagans, following a debunked and discredited form of pseudo-Christianity that made them little more than heathens.

This recent love-in has been precipitated largely by the ultra-conservative reigns of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. On any normal day, the Catholics and the hard-right Evangelicals wouldn't be seen on the same side of the street, but now, because of the Vatican's new interest in using the flock as an instrument of political interference, suddenly they're the bestest of friends.

[Mr.Canada]

Seeing where we agree on moral issues, where we can stand together doesn't a hypocrite make. The socilaists are just worried because they cannot drive as big a wedge between us as they once could. Not to worry folks, hold fast with your faith and don't let anyone make you feel guilty for standing up for Jesus Christ. He gave up everything for us, we know he died for us. So we, like Christ must also suffer as he did by standing up to the socialists when it's not popular to do so. Our time will come if we stand fast with our Lord. Jesus is our shield and the Bible our sword, stand fast friends, stand fast...

[ToadBrother]

Seeing where we agree on moral issues, where we can stand together doesn't a hypocrite make.

You agree on *some* moral issues, you mean.

The socilaists are just worried because they cannot drive as big a wedge between us as they once could.

WTF does socialism have to do with this? Socialism didn't even exist when Protestants and Catholics first started slaughtering each other? Socialism didn't exist when Guy Fox tried to blow up Parliament, or the Test Acts were implemented, making Catholics second-class citizens, and to some degree making their faith secret. Just because the Evangelicals have dissembled themselves to bring over some conservative Catholics doesn't mean that Evangelicals are pro-Catholic. It's a marriage of convenience.

Not to worry folks, hold fast with your faith and don't let anyone make you feel guilty for standing up for Jesus Christ. He gave up

everything for us, we know he died for us.

Are you planning on making that state proclamation? Shall we have official days where the government declares "Christ died for our sins"?

So we, like Christ must also suffer as he did by standing up to the socialists

When did Jesus ever stand up to Socialists. By what we can read in the Gospel, Christ resembled socialists a great deal. In fact, he might even have been a proto-secularist; throwing the money lenders out of the Temple and declaring "render Caesar's things unto Caesar and God's things unto God".

when it's not popular to do so. Our time will come if we stand fast with our Lord. Jesus is our shield and the Bible our sword, stand fast friends, stand fast...

What does any of this have to do with government?

Tell me, Mr. Canada, what would like the government do to an atheist like me? Is there anything special? I'd like to feel out the full extent of your hatred for a government that isn't under the thumb of a specific or general religious creed. Don't be shy now.

Edited January 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[WIP]

Historically, Catholics have been among the most liberal of voters. The Catholic vote was once one of the more reliable strengths of the modern Democratic party in the US and Liberal Party in Canada.

Don't forget that the Catholic vote was also an immigrant vote, mainly Italian, Portuguese, Polish etc. -- people who saw themselves as outside the mainstream and needing protection from the political establishment. Once 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation Catholic immigrants started seeing themselves as part of the white majority, they started moving to the right, and with the election of John Paul II as Pope, the Vatican started demanding that Catholic voters put more emphasis on their pet social issues, like abortion, at a time when mega church evangelists like Jerry Falwell were trying to forge alliances between Baptists, Pentacostals and Catholics -- so it was inevitable that the most fundamentalist Catholics would move to the Republican Party, just as Orthodox Jews have done.

Up until recently, there was a veiled (or sometimes unveiled) dislike by the traditional religious groups that made up Religious Conservatism of Catholics, mainly because the various churches most predominant had a long history of anti-Catholic beliefs. These guys went to churches where it was regularly taught that Rome was the Whore of Babylon and that Catholics were Mary-worshiping pagans, following a debunked and discredited form of pseudo-Christianity that made them little more than heathens.

This recent love-in has been precipitated largely by the ultra-conservative reigns of John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. On any normal day, the Catholics and the hard-right Evangelicals wouldn't be seen on the same side of the street, but now, because of the Vatican's new interest in using the flock as an instrument of political interference, suddenly they're the bestest of friends.

For all of their railing about doctrinal purity, the televangelists have become surprisingly ecumenical in the cause of advancing the Republican political objectives. Before Falwell, they refused to work together politically because of deep doctrinal divisions. After all, until Vatican II, the Catholic Church taught that Protestants go to hell...now they can get to heaven, after an extended stay over in purgatory -- and on the flipside, Protestants were teaching that true Christians had to escape from the idol worshipping mother church. That's why they taught that Revelation's 'great whore of Babylon' was the Catholic Church. But now they are all united in the cause of advancing theocracy.....except for the Mormons!

The past election highlighted the fact that the Religious Right will let almost every church into their big tent as long as they are loosely defined as Christian; but there was a serious split over what to do with the Mormons, since they deny the Trinity. Many leading social conservatives jumped on the Mitt Romney bandwagon, but a lot of the evangelists declared that supporting a Mormon for president was stretching the tent too far.

[WIP]

Are you planning on making that state proclamation? Shall we have official days where the government declares "Christ died for our sins"?

When did Jesus ever stand up to Socialists. By what we can read in the Gospel, Christ resembled socialists a great deal. In fact, he might even have been a proto-secularist; throwing the money lenders out of the Temple and declaring "render Caesar's things unto Caesar and God's things unto God".

It's a futile cause trying to have a dialogue with Mr. Broken Record! He's a sophist, just like his hero George Bush -- people who decide what they believe in just by the shear power of their convictions before looking at any evidence. So presenting contrary evidence is only seen as a test of their faith. The harder they work to ignore the facts and believe what they want to believe in, the better they feel about how strong their faith is!

[Mr.Canada]

Tell me, Mr. Canada, what would like the government do to an atheist like me? Is there anything special? I'd like to feel out the full extent of your hatred for a government that isn't under the thumb of a specific or general religious creed. Don't be shy now.

I wouldn't like the government to do anything to an "atheist like you" at all. Nope, nothing special. I don't have any hatred towards a government that chooses to no longer identify with a specific religion. TB, I'd like to be clear, I wouldn't want Canada to be controlled by Christianity, not at all. I just think it would benefit society if Christian ideals were given fair thought in the form of policy and law.

I think Christianity should be included in our everyday lives, especially in schools when children are forming their own self identity. I don't doubt that some atheist parents are good parents, I'm sure many are but for some parents of any religion or no religion school is the only form of discipline the kids get and perhaps to have it more regimented in teaching kids good manners, respect for elders, taught to share and to be kind to your fellow man. These lessons are obviously missing from today's curriculum gauging from much of today's youth.

If the funding for religious schools would have went through then we could all have our own schools to instill the morals we wished to instill in them. Whether they be Jewish, Hindu, Punjabi, Muslim, Christian or Atheist. We would all have been free to bring God bak into public schools as a particular religion saw fit. It could have went a long way to reversing the trend of 'gangtaism is cool' because they have no other role models at home or at school. Where Jesus could fill that role for Christian children. If a child is raised an atheist and doesn't get a chance to find out about God, what choice are you giving them to believe or not believe?

You should know by now that I'm not shy, far from it. I've made the offer to meet in person for lunch or something many times to my detractors but they've always declined. I always say it's because they're afraid of me seeing them as a fraud.

When I said suffer as Christ suffered and stand up to the socialists. I guess there should have been a break there, sorry for my grammar. Christ suffered on the cross. So we in effort to be Christ like, which is impossible but he is our role model, one must also suffer in one way or another. Speaking up for Christianity when it isn't popular to do so and being publicly ridiculed for ones belief set is a form of suffering in His name. I hope this cleared the issue up for you TB.

We're dealing with today's present political and religious situation in Canada. To my knowledge Catholics and Protestants have never 'slaughtered' each other as you've claimed in Canada.

Nope, no state proclamations, no official days, it's known fact for those who choose to believe and worship the Lord. It has everything to do with government and as you know some people who are involved in politics have religious beliefs, I don't want them to be ashamed for their beliefs or for them to think they shouldn't speak up when a particular issue strikes at the very heart of those beliefs. To stop being afraid to speak up, even if they're in a room full of secular Atheists and will get beaten up. Still speak in the face of their wrath is to suffer.

It's a futile cause trying to have a dialogue with Mr. Broken Record! He's a sophist, just like his hero George Bush -- people who decide what they believe in just by the shear power of their convictions before looking at any evidence. So presenting contrary evidence is only seen as a test of their faith. The harder they work to ignore the facts and believe what they want to believe in, the better they feel about how strong their faith is!

I dislike George Bush as much as anyone else does. I have looked at the facts and I continue to do so WIP. I completely agree with your above post before this one I'm replying to as it's non partisan and factually correct, pretty much. However it's true that the facts cannot account for every possible scenario. That's when one must have faith in what they learn to be true.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[M.Dancer]

I wouldn't want Canada to be controlled by Christianity, not at all.

I think Christianity should be included in our everyday lives, especially in schools when children are forming their own self identity.

I am in awe of someone who at the same time can have two contradicting thoughts and still type...

[Mr.Canada]

I am in awe of someone who at the same time can have two contradicting thoughts and still type...

Having some good Christian influence in some aspects of society is not the same as having the country controlled by Christianity. They do it the USA just fine.

[M.Dancer]

Having some good Christian influence in some aspects of society is not the same as having the country controlled by Christianity. They do it the USA just fine.

You will have to link me to the public schools that include Christianity...on second thought, I would rather not waste my time on such a moronic endeavour.

[Mr.Canada]

You will have to link me to the public schools that include Christianity...on second thought, I would rather not waste my time on such a moronic endeavour.

Now, you're just being silly. I never said they do. I knew I shouldn't have responded to you as you just twist peoples words. Some Christianity in the schools was just my idea of what they could do I DIDN'T SAY THEY DID OR DIDN'T HAVE CHRISTIANITY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE USA. I said that they include Christianity in much of their daily public life as seen at Obama's inauguration.

[ToadBrother]

I wouldn't like the government to do anything to an "atheist like you" at all. Nope, nothing special. I don't have any hatred towards a government that chooses to no longer identify with a specific religion. TB, I'd like to be clear, I wouldn't want Canada to be controlled by Christianity, not at all. I just think it would benefit society if Christian ideals were given fair thought in the form of policy and law.

And which ideals are those? Some Christians don't oppose abortion, some Christians oppose the death penalty? In fact, other than "Thou shalt not steal" and a few other major precepts, Christianity is not some monolithic entity. Heck, major branches of Christianity can't even agree on the nature of salvation.

I think Christianity should be included in our everyday lives, especially in schools when children are forming their own self identity. I don't doubt that some atheist parents are good parents, I'm sure many are but for some parents of any religion or no religion school is the only form of discipline the kids get and perhaps to have it more regimented in teaching kids good manners, respect for elders, taught to share and to be kind to your fellow man. These lessons are obviously missing from today's curriculum gauging from much of today's youth.

If you're talking about socializing kids, well, that's hardly unique to Christians, and the very idea that you seem to think that Christians have some special capacity for this that other humans have not shows the extremes of your ignorance and bigotry.

But what I can gleam from this is that you're not against schools as indoctrination centres, you just want your beliefs on the roster.

If the funding for religious schools would have went through then we could all have our own schools to instill the morals we wished to instill in them. Whether they be Jewish, Hindu, Punjabi, Muslim, Christian or Atheist. We would all have been free to bring God bak into public schools as a particular religion saw fit.

This has been tried in Britain and has been a disaster. If you're trying to make a cohesive society, you don't do it by letting everyone play in their own playground.

It could have went a long way to reversing the trend of 'gangtaism is cool' because they have no other role models at home or at school. Where Jesus could fill that role for Christian children. If a child is raised an atheist and doesn't get a chance to find out about God, what choice are you giving them to believe or not believe?

So, by this token, *you're* children should be exposed to the notion that God doesn't exist, right? What precise business is it of yours whether my children get exposed to that idea or not? I'm not demanding that atheism be forced on your kids, so why do you want you religion forced on mine?

You should know by now that I'm not shy, far from it. I've made the offer to meet in person for lunch or something many times to my detractors but they've always declined. I always say it's because they're afraid of me seeing them as a fraud.

You are aware that this forum has people from all over the place. At any rate, this is irrelevant. If you can't defend your views adequately on this forum, is there some reason you could do it better over a hamburger?

When I said suffer as Christ suffered and stand up to the socialists.

And again with the socialism? WTF does socialism have to do with any of this. I'm not a socialist, so quit prattling on. It's a moronic and evasive red herring.

I guess there should have been a break there, sorry for my grammar. Christ suffered on the cross. So we in effort to be Christ like, which is impossible but he is our role model, one must also suffer in one way or another. Speaking up for Christianity when it isn't popular to do so and being publicly ridiculed for ones belief set is a form of suffering in His name. I hope this cleared the issue up for you TB.

None of this is relevant.

We're dealing with today's present political and religious situation in Canada. To my knowledge Catholics and Protestants have never 'slaughtered' each other as you've claimed in Canada.

I'm trying to give you some historical background. Not all Protestants are anti-CAtholic, but I can tell you that in the circles Catholics are currently trying to cozy up to, anti-Papism is not too far below the surface.

Nope, no state proclamations, no official days, it's known fact for those who choose to believe and worship the Lord. It has everything to do with government and as you know some people who are involved in politics have religious beliefs, I don't want them to be ashamed for their beliefs or for them to think they shouldn't speak up when a particular issue strikes at the very heart of those beliefs.

No one should be ashamed of their beliefs.

To stop being afraid to speak up, even if they're in a room full of secular Atheists and will get beaten up. Still speak in the face of their wrath is to suffer.

Do you actually think we sit around planning to beat guys like you up?

I dislike George Bush as much as anyone else does. I have looked at the facts and I continue to do so WIP. I completely agree with your above post before this one I'm replying to as it's non partisan and factually correct, pretty much. However it's true that the facts cannot account for every possible scenario. That's when one must have faith in what they learn to be true.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Secularism is not socialism, it is not atheism. In fact, the basic concept grew out of the understanding that laws that specifically targeted certain sects or churches were wrong. YOu'd think a CAtholic would be appreciative, seeing as how CAtholicism was for so long the brunt of such legal inequities.

[whowhere]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

sec·u·lar (sěk'yə-lər) Pronunciation Key

adj.

Worldly rather than spiritual.

Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Relating to or advocating secularism.

Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

Occurring or observed once in an age or century.

Lasting from century to century.

n.

A member of the secular clergy.

A layperson.

Secular has come up so often had to see what the definition actually is. Ok, if Canada is supposedly a secular society than why Canada so Corrupt?

All we have is pretend politicians and pretend bureacrats. The only thing that is not pretend about them is they are sucking tax dollars to feather their own vanity. Some call this form of Government - Communism.

Communism is where you serve the government and the politicians. You have no say in the laws, the laws are there to shackle and subordinate you to the Communist Regime. It is quite obvious we have communist forces at work here in Canada and they need to be expunged from the Government and Political Parties alike.

[M.Dancer]

Ok, if Canada is supposedly a secular society than why Canada so Corrupt?

That's like saying "if Canada is such a rich country then why is Canada so BIG?

[ToadBrother]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

Secular has come up so often had to see what the definition actually is. Ok, if Canada is supposedly a secular society than why Canada so Corrupt?

Do I have your permission to submit this to the logical fallacies collection as one of the most profoundly moronic non sequiturs ever uttered?

[M.Dancer]

Do I have your permission to submit this to the logical fallacies collection as one of the most profoundly moronic non sequiturs ever uttered?

You have my permission...

[M.Dancer]

If you have my permission, then why are we not doing our chores?

[WIP]

I dislike George Bush as much as anyone else does. I have looked at the facts and I continue to do so WIP. I completely agree with your above post before this one I'm replying to as it's non partisan and factually correct, pretty much. However it's true that the facts cannot account for every possible scenario. That's when one must have faith in what they learn to be true.

My comment wasn't regarding whether or not you like George Bush, but on your pattern of plowing ahead and not acknowledging contrary evidence to your claims. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, has very little to say on the subject of economics. What the Bible does say is not very flattering to those who have worked hard and become wealthy (except for a scant few OT patriarchs). In the OT, the books of the prophets keep hammering away endlessly about the rich who have accumulated their wealth at the expense of the poor. And in the New Testament, followers of Jesus are supposed to shun materialism entirely, since success in Satan's World, means that they may have not been giving enough attention to supporting the church and evangelizing work......it's a pretty socialistic book, if you don't cherrypick your way through like Pat Robertson does.

Every U.S. Thanksgiving, rightwing preachers and talk show hosts, do special theme shows about what a failure the first Puritan colonies were because they began with a socialist system of holding all the land in common and sharing the food. As a result there was famine and starvation until the Puritans discovered the principles of free market economics and allowed each farmer to own his own land and sell his own crops. The problem with this conservative fairlytale is that the Puritans were following the only economic principles they could find in the New Testament - primarily in the Book of Acts, where the disciples shared their possessions and food...so if it was a failure, it was because of adherence to bible principles...but Michael Medved and Pat Robertson never tell that part of the story!

[ToadBrother]

My comment wasn't regarding whether or not you like George Bush, but on your pattern of plowing ahead and not acknowledging contrary evidence to your claims. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, has very little to say on the subject of economics. What the Bible does say is not very flattering to those who have worked hard and become wealthy (except for a scant few OT patriarchs). In the OT, the books of the prophets keep hammering away endlessly about the rich who have accumulated their wealth at the expense of the poor. And in the New Testament, followers of Jesus are supposed to shun materialism entirely, since success in Satan's World, means that they may have not been giving enough attention to supporting the church and evangelizing work......it's a pretty socialistic book, if you don't cherrypick your way through like Pat Robertson does.

Every U.S. Thanksgiving, rightwing preachers and talk show hosts, do special theme shows about what a failure the first Puritan colonies were because they began with a socialist system of holding all the land in common and sharing the food. As a result there was famine and starvation until the Puritans discovered the principles of free market economics and allowed each farmer to own his own land and sell his own crops. The problem with this conservative fairlytale is that the Puritans were following the only economic principles they could find in the New Testament - primarily in the Book of Acts, where the disciples shared their possessions and food...so if it was a failure, it was because of adherence to bible principles...but Michael Medved and Pat Robertson never tell that part of the story!

I always thought the first colonies failed, or at least Roanoke Colony failed, because it was founded during what was a serious drought in the region. To be honest with you, how the f*** could you possibly develop a self-sufficient colony starting with any sort of free-enterprise principals? You're talking about what, maybe 20 to 50 families having to pretty much, within one six to nine months from the point of landing to build a fort or stockade and houses and clear and till sufficient ground to get a crop in. Let's face it, the English, Dutch and French colonists didn't have the benefit of basically invading heavily agrarian *and* urban cultures like the Inca and Aztecs and enslaving those that weren't either killed in battle or dropping dead from smallpox. Simply put, a free enterprise/mercantilist economy couldn't possibly exist with those small numbers, there wasn't the resources for specialists to basically leave the agricultural and militia activities that would keep a colony alive. Everyone had to share and share alike or they'd be dead. It was only when the colonies got larger through further immigration and birthrates that the colonies could begin to reproduce the post-feudal mercantile/proto-capitalist system that had evolved in England.

The Puritans in England certain had no problem with private property, and, in fact, some historians seem to believe that the rise in power of the non-comformists that ultimately lead to Cromwell, the Roundheads, the New Model Army and a king getting a haircut at the shoulder was because of the collapse of English Feudalism and the rise of a thrifty, economically mobile working class (a sort of proto-middle class). The Puritans, I don't think, were particularly bound by any Biblical interpretation (though maybe that was a rationalization when they were basically fleeing England during the height of anti-non-comformist persecution), but rather by the harsh realities of settling a land that was either untamed or occupied by people who weren't exactly thrilled to see funny-looking pale-skinned people declaring some distant king as the land's new owner.

But your central point is right. The Bible is not an economics textbook. The Old Testament deals in large part with a tribal people in, at their very height, a sort of proto-kingdom. You don't find capitalism and consumerism in Bronze Age tribes. You barely find it in the Roman Republic (and even there, only among the nobility and wealthier classes, everyone else was either a farmer, slave or unemployed), for goodness sakes. And Christ himself certainly seems to have been a major opponent of the accumulation of wealth, tossing money lenders out of the temple, dining with the most disreputable members Greco-Roman Jewish society, and telling his disciples that God would take care of their needs and that money was an obstacle, not a boon, to salvation. All of this God leaving the least among his children sounds more akin to Tommy Douglas than Warren Buffett.

Edited January 22, 2009 by ToadBrother

[whowhere]

Do I have your permission to submit this to the logical fallacies collection as one of the most profoundly moronic non sequiturs ever uttered?

It appears the so called "seculars" want their cake and eat it to. You want a society separate and not influenced by religion while at the same time you want to hold people hostage to a corrupt society. Society in itself has become God. When I say corrupt, North America is suppose to be a free and democratic society. In a democracy the people elect representives who in turn forms parliament who then creates the rules of engagement. These representatives also form the Cabinet who oversees the daily operations of the Bureacrats to ensure the rules of engagement are being upheld.

This is not happening because a communist mentality has gripped Canada. We have asshole politicians and we have asshold government bureacrats in the ranks. The people of Canada need to WAKE UP and vote these assholes out and elect representatives who will represent you and then show the asshole bureacrats the door.

I know your type you advocate a class based society and those who do are actually communists. Communists don't support freedom and democracy. They support heirarchies and subordination to their vanity.

Often these communists are self proclaimed atheists. However, amazingly I have come across some that have clothed themselves in Christianity. They operate this will way because they think they are "better" than everyone else. Like all demented Christians they think they can do anything they want, all will be forgiven, and they will pass go to heaven. It's not hard to see where Christians get this superiority complex. In the days of the Aristocrats of Europe a King or Queen often granted people titles that gave them status and priveledge over the common folk. However, it appears the aristocratic attitude is alive and well in the media and in this forum thread alike. That said, those who view themselves in this fashion would have to had descended from Royalty. If you are not royalty and you parade around the world elevating yourself as a higher class than everyone else then you people are in fact just a "proud" lot.

You have zero basis for your "proud" position other than the fact that you think you are so much better than everyone. The reality is how wrong you are

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proud

proud

2. having, proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority

I could support and would support a free and secular society but I will not support a corrupt and secular society. A corrupt secular society is a communist society. A communist society, is a society of Class, heirarchy, and subordination. This mentality is not the precepts of Freedom and Demoracy and is an insult to those who have fought and died in establishing an Independent United States and the World Wars that followed.

Because the United States, Canada, and the World have engaged in the politics of Corruption the economies have been buckled and been brought to its knees.

Canada and The United States is rooted in Judeo - Christian Theology.

In dealing with the Proud, God had this to say:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...0&version=9

JOB

11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.

12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.

13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.

Those who advertise their superiority over you and others and have no basis for this pride are at risk of be taken out of Life permanently by who they are victimizing. At which time you will then be met a death's door by Satan and escorted to Hell to be tortured and obliterated out of life.

What people don't realize God has smiled on Man and has given a book to inspire you. To get you on the road of knowledge and you. Christianity is a fraud. Greek Society had the Septuagint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

For 300 years Before Christ. Jesus, his Family and others had access to this book. What Jesus said and did was a contradiction to Moses in many ways. However, Jesus said some things and his words and actions have resonated for more than 2000 years. What Jesus said was not all bad or good. The problem really lyes with those who have used Christianity to fuel their own vanity. Their is a legitimate message in Christianity that could be devine or a snare. Christianity was embraced by Rome 300 After Death. The Greek philosophers had 600 years to hammer out thier opposing religion to the God of Jacob. Good on them

[M.Dancer]

Steps backwards, walking away slowly, trying not to make eye contact...

[whowhere]

Steps backwards, walking away slowly, trying not to make eye contact...

Oh, So you are too proud to make eye contact. Let me get out my handy butcher knife.

I'M JOKING!

[WIP]

I always thought the first colonies failed, or at least Roanoke Colony failed, because it was founded during what was a serious drought in the region. To be honest with you, how the f*** could you possibly develop a self-sufficient colony starting with any sort of free-enterprise principals? You're talking about what, maybe 20 to 50 families having to pretty much, within one six to nine months from the point of landing to build a fort or stockade and houses and clear and till sufficient ground to get a crop in.

Yes, but I was talking about the modern mythology that's been created and propagated by right wing evangelicals and talk radio; the story they are telling is that the Puritan's early failure was due to socialism. A reading of the history of the Roanoke Colony finds that they settled in a salt marsh that was prone to seasonal flooding...which is why the land was empty, since the local Indians knew it wasn't a suitable place for farming....but they didn't bother asking the Indians for advice.

The Puritans, I don't think, were particularly bound by any Biblical interpretation (though maybe that was a rationalization when they were basically fleeing England during the height of anti-non-comformist persecution), but rather by the harsh realities of settling a land that was either untamed or occupied by people who weren't exactly thrilled to see funny-looking pale-skinned people declaring some distant king as the land's new owner.

I don't know about that. The Puritans were the template for modern fundamentalists, and they probably seen starting new colonies in a new land as the opportunity to do everything biblically. And it was from the New Testament Book of Acts where they got the idea for holding land in common and dividing up the produce equally. They didn't get this idea because they were Marxists, they got it from the Bible, so the Christian Right has to blame their own holy book for bad economic advice!

Another feature to set them apart from England was that they replaced English common law with biblical law from the Old Testament. They were the first practitioners of a system called Theonomy. Most of the modern proponents of biblical law have figured out that the present system is not likely to change to accept public stonings as punishments for adultery and breaking the sabbath, and that is why many of them are anarchists, hoping for a breakdown in society, so that they can establish their little theocracies on the model of those Puritan colonies.

[SocDem]

I could support and would support a free and secular society but I will not support a corrupt and secular society. A corrupt secular society is a communist society. A communist society, is a society of Class, heirarchy, and subordination. This mentality is not the precepts of Freedom and Demoracy and is an insult to those who have fought and died in establishing an Independent United States and the World Wars that followed.

Because the United States, Canada, and the World have engaged in the politics of Corruption the economies have been buckled and been brought to its knees.

Canada and The United States is rooted in Judeo - Christian Theology.

You do understand in theory that communism is suppose to be a classless society right? Subordination, ok yeah your right, hierarchy, within a single party state, yeah I'll give you that one. But generally the class system is most prevalent in a free market capitalist society.

And you are missing the point of a secular society, its not to protect the state from the church, its to protect the church from the state. Its to make sure that those wishing to abolish religious institutions can not do so from a political stand point.

We have tried theocracies in the world, and like a communist or socialist state, they simply haven't worked. Lets look to the middle east right now, the true theocracies of the world, you can see that and think that they have it right? No, its modern secular societies that allow for growth of the populace, will of the people and true freedom to reign.

[whowhere]

You do understand in theory that communism is suppose to be a classless society right? Subordination, ok yeah your right, hierarchy, within a single party state, yeah I'll give you that one.

Communism a classless society??? Really?? Why don't you tell that to the chinese, the cubans, and those of Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Anyone affilitated with government held status and priveledge in the Country. Some could argue that is exactly how canada has been operating. You obviously don't look at the real world communists structures and Real World history. You are looking at the academic model of Communism. Stop being a dreamer and come back to Reality. Get your head out of ficticious books. Look at China You have 70 million members of the Red Party who make the laws and run the Government of China. It is difficult to get into the red party and alot of hoops have to be jumped for that to happen. Those in the Red party influence and direct the actions of over a billion people. Those in the Red Party enjoy a standard of Living well above that of the non members. It is common knowledge as to what will happen to you if you say the wrong thing in China.

In a communist structure you are ruled by a "Ruling Class" and your freedom of Expression is not guaranteed.

But generally the class system is most prevalent in a free market capitalist society.

Is that Freedom and demoracy to be ruled by the Proud?? Capitalistic Societies is the pursuit of wealth. Wealth is accumulated in many ways. There is no fixed way to accomplish this. Wealth in a truly capitalistic society is merely a decoration of your success. Those who talk of class are losers. They have no talent or skills to earn or create real wealth. Those who talk class are nothing but vain and proud people who believe they are entitled; in turn they are corrupt and they are the corporate garbage that has buckled the world economies. As for the United States: They are a democracy founded by a war of Independence. The founding fathers constructed a constitution to establish a balance of power and to protect the individual from the government. In the US democracy, congressman and senators are elected to creat laws. In the US democracy they elect a President to Form the Government Administration and to decide what laws make it into society. After the Laws are in force the United States has countless Lawyers that will pursue injustice. What does this have to do with Class? This process is faceless. You want justice it takes money, energy, and enabling laws! Not some demented class structure.

As for Capital markets in the US, you are free to pursue wealth creation. However, if your product makes someone sick be prepared to be taken down by a law firm. What does that have to do with Class? Class is certainly used by people and the media. When class is used it is usually a move to create a group or heirarchy to look down on another class of people.

Class does indeed exist but it is a slippery slope and is not easily defined to blanket the masses of people into camps of low, middle, and upper. By looking at someone it is hard to know how much money they have unless they tell you. Money is faceless and could not care less how it is made. You either are in the low income, middle income, or high income bracket or not. So if you are in the Middle Income Bracket does that make you middle Class? That depends on who you ask.

Let's face it, the Capitalistic market of North America is a fraud. The corporations only pursuit is to drive down their input costs and transfer their profits to the shareholders. If class is used in the corporate environment it is nothing more than a tactical ploy to marginalize and demean you into not asking for more compensation. Class is a tool of intimidation to exploit and abuse the people who do the actual work of the company. The problem is, corporate America went to far and now look at the world's economy .

The people of the western world have to wake up and realize they have a voice to get representatives that will act as stewards to the country.

3 Steps to Solving the North American Economy.

=> The United States implements a Federal Sales Tax and Canada increases its GST to offset the current projected deficits. After the deficits are gone they can be rolled back.

=> The United States and Canada Implements Tax cuts to the Low income bracket. The Middle Income Bracket is split into two and the lower Middle Income tax is also cut. Income Taxes are increased on the Upper Middle Income and Upper Income Brackets. It is their fault the North American Economies have buckled and they should pay.

=> All Government Projects are frozen and Government Spending is systematically cut until Canada is operating in the Black.

Class is nothing more than a modern illusion created by the academia and the media in a move to marginalize people. The people have to realize they are in a democracy plain and simple. You are free and don't let anyone tell you different. However, there is a caveat. Just because you believe in your vanity and feel you want to impose your vanity on those around you Know that the God of Moses has established a book of Guidance to reflect on.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_...0&version=9

JOB 40

11 Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: and behold every one that is proud, and abase him.

12 Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; and tread down the wicked in their place.

13 Hide them in the dust together; and bind their faces in secret.

I suggest those who cloth themselves in class tread carefully. The Fact is, North American Society is not a secular society. We are a society based on Judeo Christian precepts. The media and the academia screaming and dictating at people otherwise will not change this fact.

And you are missing the point of a secular society, its not to protect the state from the church, its to protect the church from the state. Its to make sure that those wishing to abolish religious institutions can not do so from a political stand point.

That is not the definition of a secular society. A secular society is one that operates without religious consideration. Religion and churches are irrelevant to a secular society.

We have tried theocracies in the world, and like a communist or socialist state, they simply haven't worked. Lets look to the middle east right now, the true theocracies of the world, you can see that and think that they have it right?

I would hardly call the Middle East a theocracy rather than a form of crowd control while the minority benefits from the money generated by Oil Revenues. Machievelli at work. Why police the people when God will do it for you.

No, its modern secular societies that allow for growth of the populace, will of the people and true freedom to reign.

What secular societies are you talking about?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/secular

sec·u·lar (sěk'yə-lər) Pronunciation Key

adj.

Worldly rather than spiritual.

Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.

Relating to or advocating secularism.

Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

Occurring or observed once in an age or century.

Lasting from century to century.

n.

A member of the secular clergy.

A layperson.

The only pure secular society out there is maybe Cuba. There are very few countries that don't have their origins in religious doctrine so therefore they can't really be considered secular. Religion is a personal matter. Religion is a sign of a failed and corrupt society. Good Societies have no need for religion, only the bad ones do.