lukin Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I agree completely. Too bad in this country you are not allowed to state your views without being labelled a xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, racist, anti-bull-shit-a-phobe..etc. Therefore it is only acceptable, according to the real haters, to agree and be politically correct, or be labelled one of those nasty phobe thingys by the hypocrites. Easier to call someone a name then argue on content. Similar to Jack, I believe in traditional marriage. I have no problem at all with gays. I have a problem with militant gay activists trying to tell me how I need to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well,specifically you're right about Gay Rights.The reason is that we already have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that protects the individual from discrimination.We do NOT require a set of laws that supercede that Charter to protect approximately 3% of the population. As it relates to the Gay Marriage issue,obviously I'm firmly in the traditional marriage camp.However,I can see a case for some sort of civil union being necessary to decide property and personal belongings if such a living arrangment came to an end... I'm not gay and not an expert on the subject but I think that a civil union is all that the gay community is asking for. I don't think they want to force churches to perform ceremonies, they just want the same rights provided by the government that traditional marriages receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I have a problem with militant gay activists trying to tell me how I need to think. Perhaps you could provide an example? I've never had any gay activists trying to tell me how I need to think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I appreciate your candor as a "believer" and am very pleased that you didn't take offence to my question. Other than the abortion issue can you think of any other reasons Christians line up on the side of the political right. I'm no expert but I believe this really goes back to a few very popular pastors in the US, namely Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I'm no expert but I believe this really goes back to a few very popular pastors in the US, namely Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. OK but can this have something to do with Christians in Canada? I don't know, do they watch those guys up here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK but can this have something to do with Christians in Canada? I don't know, do they watch those guys up here? Why not...Canadians watch everything else American. But no, it didn't start with Robertson or Falwell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Perhaps you could provide an example? I've never had any gay activists trying to tell me how I need to think. I think it means he's a bottom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 I'm not gay and not an expert on the subject but I think that a civil union is all that the gay community is asking for. I don't think they want to force churches to perform ceremonies, they just want the same rights provided by the government that traditional marriages receive. Tell that to the Rev.Brent Hawkes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 OK but can this have something to do with Christians in Canada? I don't know, do they watch those guys up here? Sadly,I know people who gave money...ALOT of money to Jimmy Swaggert... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Why not...Canadians watch everything else American. But no, it didn't start with Robertson or Falwell. It depends what is meant by "start with". There were predecessors of course, but Robertson had developed a huge religious following and demonstrated how to use his flock for political ambitions. He did not succeed but showed that a potential large voter base was there, mainly in the southern bible-belt where people were highly conservative and opposed to northern hippie/liberal culture. Falwell took it to the next level with his 'moral majority'. I agree that it came to Canada through US media. People living in western and central Canada are similarly conservative christians, and no doubt were tuned in to Robertsons TV and radio broadcasts. The '700 club' was shown on Canadian TV. Soon Canadian copy-cat evangelists appeared with strong affiliation to the US leaders. '100 Huntley Street' is one example. Preston Manning is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Canada's bible thumpers succeeded where Robertson failed. Edited September 28, 2011 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Further to this is the role of leftism and its association with atheism. Leftism is associated with rejection of Monarchy and the church, and promotion of atheism. For example, the philosophy of Marxism contends that religion is a negative human development that must be eliminated: In the Marxist-Leninist interpretation of Marxist theory, religion is seen as negative to human development, and socialist states that follow a Marxist-Leninist variant are atheistic and explicitly antireligious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_and_religion Therefore Communist countries were atheist states, with an active agenda to completely eliminate religion in countries where communism took hold. And that invokes all the imagery associated with fear and loathing of the left, during a time when the Soviet union represented a threat to the freedom of all mankind. (See Communist International) Historically "right wing" has meant adherence to traditional power structures while leftism is seen as a departure from tradition. Politicians have used these perceptions throughout history to manipulate the masses in order to obtain power. The return of the right wing is a backlash against cultural degeneracy and shortsightedness on the part of centrists and liberal movements that ignored/ underestimated the power and influence of conservatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 It depends what is meant by "start with". There were predecessors of course, but Robertson had developed a huge religious following and demonstrated how to use his flock for political ambitions. No, you are discounting the very foundation of religion in US politics going back to the nation's beginning. Television evangelists had an audience that already existed for several reasons. I agree that it came to Canada through US media. Again, there had to be an organic base in Canada to start with. Blaming latter day American TV evangelists is just intellectually lazy. Canada also has a very long history with religion that you don't need me to point out. The battle is still enshrined in your Constitution Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Hello Jack Weber and or any one that feels like responding. I was thinking last night about our discussion, and something came to me. All though I am agnostic I have a great deal of respect for the philosophy of Jesus. Spirituality and philosophy is a personal thing, and by personal I mean for him/her to develope. I don't agree with organized religions and dogmas, just like I don't believe in political parties and Ideologies. These things close minds and allow people to separate themselves from the rest of humanity, and are the source of some of the greatest evils in the world. Anyways back to my thoughts. I see a great deal of similarities between what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught. The difference is the rewards of following those teachings. The reward that Jesus talked about was the kingdom of heaven. The reward Buddha talked about was the diminishment of suffering, and greater happiness in the life you are currently living. My question to you is wouldn't Christianity be better off if it focused on the benefits of living your life as was taught by Jesus in this life? Or does it? P.S. another similarity Jesus and Buddha shared from my understanding is that they both had to battle what I would describe as the ego. Jesus took on Satan, and Buddha took on Māra. Any thoughts on this? Edited September 28, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 ....narrow minded hypocritical right wing Christians on this forum ( no offence American Woman, and lukin) Ummmm. First of all, I've said nothing narrow minded or hypocritical - that would be you. If Christians aren't Christ-like in their beliefs and actions, according to you they aren't Christians. You claim not to believe in God, yet you judge Christians for not believing what you claim they should believe, that would make you the candidate for hypocrisy. Last but not least, I'm not right wing. Again, your ascribing me as such makes you the narrow minded one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Calling this a free society is hypocritial. People who do not generate real mateiral wealth and comfort for all rule the roost - and those that are bright and independant and hard working are persecuted...our taxing system is a total waste of money and it grinds down our best and most diligent to powder. This is a slave system where the stupid have taken power and now have the law on their side so they can suck the life out of good hard working and socially committed Canadians. They might as well try to be honest and say that Canada functions at a 20% level of what it should function at - FREE ENTERPRISE MUST BE ENCOURAGED...When things were more free - there was more money to be had - there was more hope - there was more beauty - there was more fun - there was more life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Blaming latter day American TV evangelists is just intellectually lazy. Not trying to 'blame' anyone. Just pointing to certain facts, as the discussion turned to the origins of the christian right wing. As I said, these issues do go back throughout history. But it is the resurgence of the religious right that is of interest now, and televangelism played an important role in organizing large numbers of people. Maybe you can educate us further with a more detailed post, instead of your habit of flitting around pointing out the specs in other people's eyes. Not that it bothers me, but I know you've got more than this addled pate' of yours. We'd all like to learn... Edited September 28, 2011 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Maybe you can educate us further with a more detailed post, instead of your habit of flitting around pointing out the specs in other people's eyes. Not that it bothers me, but I know you've got more than this addled pate' of yours. We'd all like to learn... He's here for a post count, it's all about quantity not quality for him. Edited September 28, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) Looks like the answers to my questions have been limited to Canadian content.Come on, open your minds/perspectives. Israel vs. Arab world... United States vs. Rest of the world. Republicans vs. Democrats. Feminists vs. normal people. Atheists vs. people of faith. Etc. etc.... Hypocritical? I would say David Suzuki is a hypocrite. He has two homes (one in Vancouver and another on an island because he needs to get away from Vancouver congestion) and he travels frequently around the world. Yet, he tells everyone else to consume less.In the grand scheme of things though, his hypocrisy is minor. ---- On a grander scale, I find it hypocritical for the Syrian/Egyptian/Libyan/Tunisian regimes to criticize Israel for denying Palestinian rights while they order their armies to kill their own people. Or, I find it hypocritical for leftists to say that corporations only care about profits/money/bottom line since "people matter more" and there are other things more important than money in life. But then, when it comes time to make decisions, the same leftists suddenly want more money for their pet project, and the unions want more money for their members. Edited September 28, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Al Gore and his enormous xenon, err, I mean carbon footprint makes him King Hypocrite. He wants the middle class and poor to pay a carbon tax to fund his money- scheming green projects. No big deal to him as he is a millionaire. A big deal to me and maybe even some of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 Well I've just got one word..WOW. Although we disagree on the issues of pro life/pro choice and gay rights I find your attitude and philosophy a breath of fresh air on this forum. I run into a lot of narrow minded hypocritical right wing Christians on this forum ( no offence American Woman, and lukin) CitizenX, I'm still waiting for you to give examples of things i've said that, in your narrow view, make me a "narrow minded hypocritical right wing Christian." What gives? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 One might say that... and that would be an insult... but you didn't say that... but one might... right ? It isn't an insult when it is an actual Lie Michael. What else do you want me to call someone who is lying? A thruther? A birther? I mean that is what people in the states do but I thought we still called people who told lies in Canada Liars. Maybe I missed something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 ....I mean that is what people in the states do but I thought we still called people who told lies in Canada Liars. Maybe I missed something Interesting...what do people in China do....or how about Bolivia....or say New Zealand? People who tell lies in Canada are called "Lieberals"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted September 28, 2011 Report Share Posted September 28, 2011 It isn't an insult when it is an actual Lie Michael. What else do you want me to call someone who is lying? A thruther? A birther? I mean that is what people in the states do but I thought we still called people who told lies in Canada Liars. Maybe I missed something From time to time Layton has been criticized for saying one thing and doing another, including being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when his and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year. Sorry punked, I deal in facts. You deal in partisan ideology. Too bad you're often wrong. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/ndp-leader-jack-layton-lived-in-subsidized-housing-with-120000-income/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) From time to time Layton has been criticized for saying one thing and doing another, including being caught red-handed in 1985 living in subsidized housing in Toronto when his and Olivia Chow, then a Toronto trustee, were raking in a combined $120,000 year. Sorry punked, I deal in facts. You deal in partisan ideology. Too bad you're often wrong. http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/ndp-leader-jack-layton-lived-in-subsidized-housing-with-120000-income/ Yah but that is a lie you see. They actually lived in something called co-op housing where some who can afford will pay a higher price then market value and some who has pay less will pay less then can pay less and still live in a mixed income neighborhood. They actually paid more then market value so those who earn less could pay less. The lie you spread was a rumor started by Tom Jakobek a political enemy and bought into by people who hate facts. Check it out, maybe next time you wont listen to the lies of a blog. OR maybe you knew the truth and chose to lie because you are a lair. Edited September 29, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.