More Religion Needed in Canada

[GostHacked]

Religion also teaches people to accept the things they cannot change.

No it doesn't.

This response alone backs up everything I have stated. And you should really revisit the origional post on what started this topic again.

[willy]

This response alone backs up everything I have stated. And you should really revisit the origional post on what started this topic again.

I don't agree with the original post. The context of applying religious legalism to social institutions is not appropriate.

Your original statements of being self taught are also insightful.

The word “accept” is a problem.

Religious and non religious people should not accept murder, and rape. We may personally be unable to change it but why would we accept it.

I would like us to engage in what is most important in life. Religion and Politics are foundations for how we live. The notion that you should never talk religion or politics with friends and relatives leaves us with a superficial society.

We don’t need to agree to get along.

[The Terrible Sweal]

How about family rights and the rights of children?

What on earth are 'family rights'?

[GostHacked]

Religious and non religious people should not accept murder, and rape. We may personally be unable to change it but why would we accept it.

Notice I said accepting things you cannot change, like being gay and whatnot. Murder is not acceptable in any case. That is why the judicial system will throw you in the klink. That has consequences. There are things you just cannot change no matter how much you try. But you don't get thrown in jail for being gay! /

The notion that you should never talk religion or politics with friends and relatives leaves us with a superficial society.

That notion never came up in my arguments. You SHOULD talk about these things with friends and relatives. But as a whole, again from the topic thread, the way I see it, there is no use for religion in government.

We don’t need to agree to get along.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[willy]

What on earth are 'family rights'?

Parents, childern, grandparents you know families.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What on earth are 'family rights'?

Parents, childern, grandparents you know families.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please don't play stupid. I didn't ask what are families, I asked what are 'family rights'. Sounds like an unworkably moronic proposition to me.

[Hawk]

If you are going to create a religion-free environment in the government and public institutes do the following:

1) Eliminate the theory of Evolution from our science books, it isn't right to shove theories and beliefs on others (as you enjoy to say)

2) Ban anything pro-atheistic/pro-agnostic/pro-humanistic from the public spectrum, same reason as above its just a belief that is being imposed on others

3) Fire the Liberal party, considering they have been consistently elected even though their leader's are predominantly Catholic

4) Eliminate pro-Gay ads, commercials, anything. More pressuring people to believe differently.

5) Heck with it, ban EVERYTHING because lets be serious using the extremely broad filter of the left-wing ANYTHING could be construed as intolerant if they so desire... yet another reason socialism is a waste of time.

This is retarded, either ban everything or call yourselves intolerant and continue to ban only Christian values, texts, and symbols.

[willy]

I asked what are 'family rights'. Sounds like an unworkably moronic proposition to me.

If you feel like a moron don't blame me. I was only taking about the rights families should enjoy, i.e. parents rights of decisions regarding their children. Far from a new concept, we have family laws and family courts. What do you think they deal with if not family rights?

[Technocrat]

If you are going to create a religion-free environment in the government and public institutes do the following:

1) Eliminate the theory of Evolution from our science books, it isn't right to shove theories and beliefs on others (as you enjoy to say)

2) Ban anything pro-atheistic/pro-agnostic/pro-humanistic from the public spectrum, same reason as above its just a belief that is being imposed on others

3) Fire the Liberal party, considering they have been consistently elected even though their leader's are predominantly Catholic

4) Eliminate pro-Gay ads, commercials, anything. More pressuring people to believe differently.

5) Heck with it, ban EVERYTHING because lets be serious using the extremely broad filter of the left-wing ANYTHING could be construed as intolerant if they so desire... yet another reason socialism is a waste of time.

This is retarded, either ban everything or call yourselves intolerant and continue to ban only Christian values, texts, and symbols.

1. Theory of Evolution is based on SCIENCE... non-theocratic dribble. Sure its a theory it hasn't been 100% proven... but go ask geneticist or biologists how much creationism helpt them with their work.

2. WTF is pro-atheistic/pro-agnostic/pro-humanistic? And why should it be banned? I have to deal with christian crazies every day when i drive past the hospital.

3. The Liberal party was democratically elected. Their leader may be catholic but he understands that religion and politics DO NOT MIX AND SHOULD NOT MIX. There is a separation of church and state, and it will stay that way.

4. Eliminating pro-gay commercials? What commercials are pro-gay? I see tonnes of commercials that are pro-hetero. *Cough* Beer Commercials *Cough* Weather you like it or not gay people happen to be a productive part of our society and are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. No more, no less.

5. YES YES Lets bring up the LEFT WING BIAS again... *Cough* Bullshit *Cough* However study after study has shown that this 'left media bias' is utterly false. However the 'right' seems to have a particular distain for academic work... because after all time and time again it proves them wrong. However you can go sing your merry little slogan of liberal bias, just remember this... repeating a lie enough will never make it come true.

[willy]

Technocrat, read Hawks posting again with the thought of how ridiculous it would be to ban any of this. That was his point. (I think) As it is ridiculous to ban the metaphysics provided by religion. A full discussion of all possibilities. One might say a good scientific method.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I was only taking about the rights families should enjoy, i.e. parents rights of decisions regarding their children.

So you mean 'parents's rights', not "family rights". Why confuse the issues with a misleading term?

[Knightman]

Hello everyone from Knightman out here in Saskatoon, Sask.

(I did not see an introductions thread)

You folks are into one of the hot topic areas that pop up around the forum boards quite often and an interesting converation it is.

After reading the posts so far it looks like it comes down to basic freedoms and the attempts by some to impose their beliefs on others. Regardless of what the realities are at the current time we should be all free to persue any lifestyle choice we wish without fear of retaliation so long as our activities do not affect others that do not wish to be involved. Freedoms work in two directons.

For instance if some in the gay community wish be married and some religious groups do not believe in such a thing then we have a conflict. What is happening now is our federal government is attempting to regulate this through the use of legislation and the possibility of the churches loosing thier tax exempt status is at risk over this human rights issue. In actual fact if the gay community wish to have their rights respected they should also respect the rights of the churches and its members and not expect that they can be married in any church of their choosing thus attempting to force some to go against their beliefs and the chruches should not rail against gays becasue of their lifestyle choice.

This two way thinking works in many cases freedoms are just that freedoms. To attempt to impose our paticular version is wrong.

If some wish to extend the various religions throughout Canada that is fine but do not expect that it is the only way. There are an infinate number of lifestyle choices and many do not include any gods or religious activity...................

[I miss Reagan]

YES YES Lets bring up the LEFT WING BIAS again... *Cough* Bullshit *Cough* However study after study has shown that this 'left media bias' is utterly false. However the 'right' seems to have a particular distain for academic work

Please post the "study after study" that show how unbiased the press is in Canada.

And as for our distain for academic work on this please see study after academic study proving leftist media bias:

Accuracy in media

Media Research

Fraser

CBC watch

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Fraser Institute are not academics. They are paid rightist polemicists. That "report" has already been thoroughly discredited HERE

For instance if some in the gay community wish be married and some religious groups do not believe in such a thing then we have a conflict. What is happening now is our federal government is attempting to regulate this through the use of legislation and the possibility of the churches loosing thier tax exempt status is at risk over this human rights issue.

Fortunately, that is not happening. In fact, even though the Supreme Court has already said churches can't be forced to marry anyone, the present legislation is going even further to ensure protection of this right.

[I miss Reagan]

The Fraser Institute are not academics. They are paid rightist polemicists. That "report" has already been thoroughly discredited HERE

nice try Sweal. Your little quibbles hardly count as "thoroughly discrediting".

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Fraser Institute are not academics. They are paid rightist polemicists. That "report" has already been thoroughly discredited HERE

nice try Sweal. Your little quibbles hardly count as "thoroughly discrediting".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A retarded flea could see that the methodology of that study was a joke. It scarcely needed me to point that out!

[Knightman]

The Fraser Institute are not academics.  They are paid rightist polemicists.  That "report" has already been thoroughly discredited HERE

For instance if some in the gay community wish be married and some religious groups do not believe in such a thing then we have a conflict. What is happening now is our federal government is attempting to regulate this through the use of legislation and the possibility of the churches loosing thier tax exempt status is at risk over this human rights issue.

Fortunately, that is not happening. In fact, even though the Supreme Court has already said churches can't be forced to marry anyone, the present legislation is going even further to ensure protection of this right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that is a good thing however it is disturbing that some group may even consider it has the right to demand such a thing in the first place. That type of attitude seems a bit arrogant...........

[The Terrible Sweal]

Yes, that is a good thing however it is disturbing that some group may even consider it has the right to demand such a thing in the first place. That type of attitude seems a bit arrogant...........

It sure would be. But I don't think there's anyone out there who demanded that.

[Guest eureka]

There have been such studies, IMR: many of them. I am not going to search for one to show you and I would certainly not select a few whose principles and principals have obviously been exposed to rabid rabbits as you do.

The most convincing of the studies are those that have related the extreme swing to support of "rightist" ideology and economics to corporate ownership and to corporate advertising revenues.

There is no doubt about the sympathies of the media in general and the forced compliance of the staff of various media entities to the Right Wing bias. That, too, has found its way into the public arena through a few brave editors who have refused to comply with the demands of the owners.

[mona]

I think there is nothing wrong with being religious. My problem with religion is that a lot of them are fundementalist, conservative and sexist. The Catholic church, the Mormon Church along with many others encourge young women to play the traditional role of child bearer, cook, maid and to "Go through with your obligations to your husband"

Many religions have strayed from the original documents of their faith and have contorted them to fit their own wants. For example, when the bible was first constructed, Emperor Constantine selected the documents that were to go in. The Gospel of Mary Magdeline was completely scraped because some ego-maniac sexist guy said so. also people take it too seriously, the bible was meant to tell a story and only a story, a bigger version of Aesop's fables. face it people, evolution exists, the earth most likely wasn't created in seven days and humans aren't the center of the universe. However, you can point out that if god exists then why couldn't he come up with something so complex as evolution. I think that people say that being gay is bad, but then they say that god loves everyone. Then why wouldn't he love gay people. Why would he create them if he hated them?? This is why i don't worship. I have Faith, but i don't have a religion.

[PocketRocket]

When you consider such wonderful historical events as......

the Crusades,

Spanish Inquisition,

destruction of the Aztecs,

likewise the Incas,

the Line of Demarcation,

various Jihads,

the Witch Hunts (both in Salem and Europe),

.....the argument for a Religion-run-State becomes pretty unattractive.

For those who would say this is all ancient history, look to the atrocities in the Middle East, committed in the name of Allah.

Consider also that Christianity has historically fought virtually every scientific advance in its history....

Galileo was a heretic for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Columbus was persecuted for saying the world is NOT flat.

Paleotology is still doubted by many of the "faithful". After all, if God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, then all those dinosaur bones must not really exist.

Darwinism???? Don't get me started.

Even today, Catholicism, and a few other religions, fight the idea of birth control.

So many others I can't think of right now.

No, I'll take a secular state, thank you very much.

[mona]

When you consider such wonderful historical events as......

the Crusades,

Spanish Inquisition,

destruction of the Aztecs,

likewise the Incas,

the Line of Demarcation,

various Jihads,

the Witch Hunts (both in Salem and Europe),

.....the argument for a Religion-run-State becomes pretty unattractive.

For those who would say this is all ancient history, look to the atrocities in the Middle East, committed in the name of Allah.

Consider also that Christianity has historically fought virtually every scientific advance in its history....

Galileo was a heretic for saying the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Columbus was persecuted for saying the world is NOT flat.

Paleotology is still doubted by many of the "faithful". After all, if God created the Earth 6,000 years ago, then all those dinosaur bones must not really exist.

Darwinism???? Don't get me started.

Even today, Catholicism, and a few other religions, fight the idea of birth control.

So many others I can't think of right now.

No, I'll take a secular state, thank you very much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HERE HERE Pocketrocket!

[Left for life]

Ugh where to start?

Perhaps it might be time to get back to our religious roots and involve more religion in government and in schools.  It seems that the antireligion people have contributed to the ills our Canadian society now faces.  The big problem is that the atheist do not see that their beliefs are religion too and they are forcing them upon people.  They do not see themselves as hateful, but they do spread hate.  They use science to prove their points.  But according to science, religious belief contributes to less costs to the government and better society.

First off, there is no factual proof that non religious societies have higher rates off crime, infact the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, while several european countries that are very secular have low rates of crime.

Second, religion is defined as

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

athiesm, or agnosticism doesn't fit the first or second definitions of what a religion is so you should not refer to either as a religion. It is a belief system sure but not a religion.

Third, how do they spread hate? It has been the left of society that has worked for peoples right and freedoms, for black people to vote in the US, for gays not to be descriminated against. They have done nothing but spread the idea of equality in society. It is the religious people who have spread hate throughout history. Religion was used to justify slavery in the US, it was used to ban gays from being themselves, and numerous other horrible events such as the crusades, witch burnings, etc...

Religion is the definition of intolerance, because you have a viewpoint that allows for only one right way and people who differ from that are wrong and shouldn't be allowed to practice their belief system. There is nothing wrong with being gay, there is something wrong with saying people can't live their lives a certain way when it harms no one. A gay couple doesn't harm anything or anyone, it only goes against christian and muslim morals, but who are they to tell others how they should live their lives when it harms no one else?

As for using science to prove their points. Which points exactly? If you mean the fact that the earth is billion of years old and we evolved from monkey vs the earth is 6000 years old and the dinosaurs never existed and the earth was just created old, I choose the facts over some made up book and a bunch of people who are undable to think for themselves.

Publishings by Harold Koenig, Michael McCullough, and David Larson in 2001 prove that religious people have lower rates of suicide, drug abuse, juvenille crime, divorce, and longer healthy lives.  They survive longer after heart surgery than non-relious.  They have less stress and there illnesses like stroke and cancer.  Outher study says that faithful people are happier, have less disabilities, and contribute more volunteer time to society. 

Just think if we taught our children more about religion how much money society would save in crime, health, and other costs. 

antireligious people cost much to society.  For instance those people who worship the earth and animals more than people.  Like the people who forced the world to ban DDT.  This kills 2 million people a year.  Far more than terrorists or other religious fights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a well known fact that religious people tend to live longer happier lives, that is because they believe in magical beings with super powers who created everything and watch over them. They think once they die they will become immortal and live with God in heaven, it's a nice little story but the truth is in front of our eyes. I could point out religious societies like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc... which are all religious societies and people are not happier, healthier and they don't live longer. Canada, and much of Europe define themselves as secular societies and they all live longer healthier and happier lives than these religious societies. We had our religious society back in the 1700's and 1800's and life is much better now than it was back then, for everyone. I think your entire argument is wrong and baseless.

[Left for life]

If you are going to create a religion-free environment in the government and public institutes do the following:

1) Eliminate the theory of Evolution from our science books, it isn't right to shove theories and beliefs on others (as you enjoy to say)

2) Ban anything pro-atheistic/pro-agnostic/pro-humanistic from the public spectrum, same reason as above its just a belief that is being imposed on others

3) Fire the Liberal party, considering they have been consistently elected even though their leader's are predominantly Catholic

4) Eliminate pro-Gay ads, commercials, anything. More pressuring people to believe differently.

5) Heck with it, ban EVERYTHING because lets be serious using the extremely broad filter of the left-wing ANYTHING could be construed as intolerant if they so desire... yet another reason socialism is a waste of time.

This is retarded, either ban everything or call yourselves intolerant and continue to ban only Christian values, texts, and symbols.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) Everything in science is a theory, because something in the future could change the facts as we know it. The whole evolution is just a theory so it shouldn't be taught as fact just shows your ignorance of what science means by theory.

3) No all of those beliefs allow others to practice their own beliefs without forcing theirs on others. In other words they allow for gay marriage, and allow for abortion, etc... they don't ban you or anyone else from practicing your religion as long as it doesn't try to stop others from practicing their belief system. You can even teach creationism in religious class which is where it belongs. Science and religion should not mix.

4) Banning advertistments would be against freedom of speech, people have a right to say what they believe and if a tv station is willing to accept money for a private organization to put a advertisment on tv then why should they be stopped?

5) You really don't know what you are talking about, you dont' even know the difference between tolerance and intolerance, and the idea of allowing others to express their opinions freely on both sides.

[JerrySeinfeld]

To preface my comments: I am a small c conservative.

Now: WHAT??!!!

Religion is the cause of more deaths in this world than all other factors combined. Religion is causing people to drive planes into buildings and cling to ridiculous dogma about who should and shouldn't be married.

Religion should be OUTLAWED!~!