Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Apparently its a thing you have. Being an atheist does not mean that you should automatically stick your head in the sand as to the reality that not everybody is.

God isn't a sensible belief. There's zero evdidence, and I have trouble with things that don't have evdidence. Apparently you don't.

Posted

God isn't a sensible belief. There's zero evdidence, and I have trouble with things that don't have evdidence. Apparently you don't.

Apparently you dont read well, and, you seem to keep missing the point. I have already stated I dont subscribe to any religion. But I recognize other people do, and have a right to do so. We have a charter which says so and a SC which backs it up.

Posted

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is designed to protect our rights and freedoms. That includes religious rights and freedoms.

Well it's nice of the charter to protect actions that the vast majority of us don't agree with, so I suppose we really do exist to serve the charter, thank goodness for those of you who defend the charters right to put the rest of us in our place.

Posted

Well it's nice of the charter to protect actions that the vast majority of us don't agree with, so I suppose we really do exist to serve the charter, thank goodness for those of you who defend the charters right to put the rest of us in our place.

You'd prefer none of us have any rights?

“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find your way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
― Bruce Lee

Posted

Apparently you dont read well, and, you seem to keep missing the point. I have already stated I dont subscribe to any religion. But I recognize other people do, and have a right to do so. We have a charter which says so and a SC which backs it up.

Yea, and if their religion demanded they perform acts that are against the values of the vast majority of us we wouldn't allow it, regardless of their supposed rights, so it's neither here nor there.

Posted

You'd prefer none of us have any rights?

Why is it so difficult fore some of you to understand that there are no such thing as rights beyond those that we wish to give ourselves. There is no higher power, the charter is not our god, nor was it handed down to us by one, it was written by people, and can be and is fallible. Those failings include protecting the supposed rights of someone to behave in a way that is opposed to the way that we allegedly want to live, free and equal. Im not against the charter, but some seem to be arguing from the pov that, 'well, the charter says so', which is an incredibly limited way of looking at things. The charter shouldn't exist to tell us how we should think, it should be a reflection of how we do think, good or bad, the country does not belong solely to those who look at every situation through a distorted progressive lens. It is simply not reasonable to think that it is always the correct path to walk.

Posted

Yea, and if their religion demanded they perform acts that are against the values of the vast majority of us we wouldn't allow it, regardless of their supposed rights, so it's neither here nor there.

Is there a way to make heads or tales out of that comment I wonder. The charter applies across the board is I guess the best way I could try and set you straight.

Posted

Why is it so difficult fore some of you to understand that there are no such thing as rights beyond those that we wish to give ourselves. There is no higher power, the charter is not our god, nor was it handed down to us by one, it was written by people, and can be and is fallible. Those failings include protecting the supposed rights of someone to behave in a way that is opposed to the way that we allegedly want to live, free and equal. Im not against the charter, but some seem to be arguing from the pov that, 'well, the charter says so', which is an incredibly limited way of looking at things. The charter shouldn't exist to tell us how we should think, it should be a reflection of how we do think, good or bad, the country does not belong solely to those who look at every situation through a distorted progressive lens. It is simply not reasonable to think that it is always the correct path to walk.

But your path is the correct path to walk?

“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find your way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves. Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it into a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
― Bruce Lee

Posted

Apparently you dont read well, and, you seem to keep missing the point. I have already stated I dont subscribe to any religion. But I recognize other people do, and have a right to do so. We have a charter which says so and a SC which backs it up.

Of course we have a right to our beliefs. I haven't said otherwise. I have in fact said that the head covering shouldn't be banned because of it. I still have a right to ridicule and make fun of all of it.

Posted

Yea, and if their religion demanded they perform acts that are against the values of the vast majority of us we wouldn't allow it, regardless of their supposed rights, so it's neither here nor there.

People are free to practice religion within the law. What other people's values are, even the majority, is irrelevant.

The Charter protects the rights of individuals from 'the tyranny of the majority'.

.

Posted

Why is it so difficult fore some of you to understand that there are no such thing as rights beyond those that we wish to give ourselves. There is no higher power, the charter is not our god, nor was it handed down to us by one, it was written by people, and can be and is fallible. Those failings include protecting the supposed rights of someone to behave in a way that is opposed to the way that we allegedly want to live, free and equal. Im not against the charter, but some seem to be arguing from the pov that, 'well, the charter says so', which is an incredibly limited way of looking at things. The charter shouldn't exist to tell us how we should think, it should be a reflection of how we do think, good or bad, the country does not belong solely to those who look at every situation through a distorted progressive lens. It is simply not reasonable to think that it is always the correct path to walk.

Youre getting it. The charter exists because of how we do think. Otherwise we wouldnt have it.

Posted

Im not against the charter, but some seem to be arguing from the pov that, 'well, the charter says so', which is an incredibly limited way of looking at things.

That statement shows the irony of your view as it is your view that seeks to needlessly and unfairly limit the way of looking at things.

Posted

People are free to practice religion within the law. What other people's values are, even the majority, is irrelevant.

The Charter protects the rights of individuals from 'the tyranny of the majority'.

.

Actually, not quite. As I posted before - the rights in the Charter are not "absolute". With Freedom of Religion, the Charter shows its wisdom by including "reasonable accommodation" which protects Canadians from "the tyranny of the minority". Although Quebec has gone some way in its public discourse of Reasonable Accommodation, we have not yet had that discussion at the Federal level. It appears that this niqab "issue" may well be the start of that discussion - because "it's in the Charter".

Back to Basics

Posted

Came across this article which seems to have been written with several people on this topic in mind.

Apologists like Aslan will often go to unreasonable lengths to protect inhuman ideas at the expense of real-life human beings. They will also label criticisms of ideas, books, and beliefs “bigotry” or “racism” in the absence of any substantive counter-argument.

***

This is the consequence of conflating criticism of ideas with bigotry against a people.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/the-inner-workings-of-the-apologist-mindset/

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

Agreed. Criticism of ideas is valid, but criticism of peoples, their faiths and ways of life are ignorant and misplaced expressions of pride.

You didn't read the cite, did you. Else you'd not have clearly parroted what the writer was complaining about.

To quote again

Aslan says that these “prejudices and preconceived notions” can be “cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political” — but never religious. Really?

You are saying you can criticize ideas but not if they're religious ideas, which is absurd.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

.....if you are referring to my second reference...then I reject that "we" do.

I might submit that the constitution represents a codified list of values that we believe in, enough to base our laws upon them. But now, since people don't believe in freedom of religion in all cases, I'm not so sure.

Posted

.....if you are referring to my second reference...then I reject that "we" do.

So Canadians don't believe in democratic rule? They don't believe in concepts of compromise and working together? They don't believe violence is not merely illegal but morally and ethically wrong to solve disputes? Canadians don't believe in a whole host of similar notions?

Note that I'm not suggesting every single member of society holds a belief, merely that they are a general framework of beliefs held by the great majority within that society. Ie, most Canadians believe in self-determination and that people have a personal responsibility for their actions. Most Canadians belief in an inherent sense of justice and fairness in terms of punishing lawbreakers. Most Canadians belief women have the same rights as men, etc.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

You didn't read the cite, did you.

No, just your excerpt.

Aslan says that these “prejudices and preconceived notions” can be “cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political” — but never religious. Really?

You are saying you can criticize ideas but not if they're religious ideas, which is absurd.

No. You can criticize religious ideas, but not a religion or an entire people. It's just Chauvinism and vanity to do so.

Posted (edited)

No, just your excerpt.

You should have. The man was basically talking about you.

No. You can criticize religious ideas, but not a religion or an entire people. It's just Chauvinism and vanity to do so.

So you can criticize religious 'ideas' but not the religion? Do you realize how absurd that is?

Edited by Argus

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

I might submit that the constitution represents a codified list of values that we believe in, enough to base our laws upon them. But now, since people don't believe in freedom of religion in all cases, I'm not so sure.

People NEVER believed in freedom of religion in all cases.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,899
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Shemul Ray
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Scott75 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Political Smash went up a rank
      Rising Star
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Politics1990 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...