Trudeau hires some lefty loon to combat "Islamophobia" (whatever that means)

[I am Groot]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. TNC is not a valid source.  I used Wikipedia.

Which had 68 instead of 71. Big whoop. 

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. There's nothing wrong with that.

Would you similarly approve of Christian groups demanding prayer rooms in public schools?

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. He's not someone who I care about.

4. Maybe but it's an important thing to ensure Canadians live in peace.

And this is going to do that, how? 

[I am Groot]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Why what?

Why were you surprised. If anyone knows anything about Indian history (other than them) it ought to be brits.

Edited February 6, 2023 by I am Groot

[Guest]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

Why were you surprised. If anyone knows anything about Indian history (other than them) it ought to be brits.

I was thinking more about Leicester history.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

1. Would you similarly approve of Christian groups demanding prayer rooms in public schools?

2. And this is going to do that, how? 

1. In principle, of course.  The reality of the requirements of Islam make the demands different but there's zero wrong with Christian clubs, Christian prayer rooms etc.  They happen today.  The idea that Christianity is under threat is not real, at all.

2. Sending a signal to Canadians of all faiths that Muslims are welcome.  The ability to criticize a religion should not be used as a shield to engage in tonally inflammatory baiting.  And, yes, this does happen under the excuse of 'freedom of religion'.

Freedom of expression goes hand in hand with responsibility of expression.  

Edited February 6, 2023 by Michael Hardner

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. In principle, of course.  The reality of the requirements of Islam make the demands different but there's zero wrong with Christian clubs, Christian prayer rooms etc.  They happen today.  The idea that Christianity is under threat is not real, at all.

2. Sending a signal to Canadians of all faiths that Muslims are welcome.  The ability to criticize a religion should not be used as a shield to engage in tonally inflammatory baiting.  And, yes, this does happen under the excuse of 'freedom of religion'.

Freedom of expression goes hand in hand with responsibility of expression.  

The ability to criticize a religion should be the same as the ability to criticize a politician or a sports team.  In a free society, that means without restriction and without consideration of the giving of offence, or the potential actions of others.

 

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. The ability to criticize a religion should be the same as the ability to criticize a politician or a sports team. 

2. In a free society, that means without restriction and without consideration of the giving of offence, or the potential actions of others.

 

1. Ability?  Sure.  They aren't the same thing though, nor should they be treated the same.

2. Who cares ?  It's not a problem that people can't criticize Islam.  They can even lie about it - even institutions can do it if they want to, like the press.  The problem is the abuse of speech today, not freedom.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ability?  Sure.  They aren't the same thing though, nor should they be treated the same.

2. Who cares ?  It's not a problem that people can't criticize Islam.  They can even lie about it - even institutions can do it if they want to, like the press.  The problem is the abuse of speech today, not freedom.

1) They are when it comes to one being able to express one's views on them.

2) I think a lot of people care.  I think there are those who think that freedom of expression should be restricted if they suspect that such can influence the actions of lunatics.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

1) They are when it comes to one being able to express one's views on them.

2) I think a lot of people care.  I think there are those who think that freedom of expression should be restricted if they suspect that such can influence the actions of lunatics.

1) I mean... to open your mouth and say the words ?  Sure.  But do you think it's the same thing to utter any opinion at all ?  Not sure what the point is, other than what is covered in point 2.
2) Well, direct calls to violence are criminalized.  Discriminatory speech can also be actioned.  We're talking about the overall atmosphere of public discussion here.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I mean... to open your mouth and say the words ?  Sure.  But do you think it's the same thing to utter any opinion at all ?  Not sure what the point is, other than what is covered in point 2.
2) Well, direct calls to violence are criminalized.  Discriminatory speech can also be actioned.  We're talking about the overall atmosphere of public discussion here.

Sure, no-one is advocating for the right to incite violence.  But when it comes to criticizing a religion, Islam is in a world all of its own. 

The evangelical right in Alabama trying to get doctors who provide abortions sentenced to long jail terms is pretty barbaric, and that's just a religious influence on the lawmakers.

What limits can you put on criticism when the religion actually provides the law in many countries, and the law provides for extreme sentences, even unto death in some cases, for homosexual love, adulterous love, blasphemy, apostasy, and the showing of some hair sticking out from under a forced veil.

To my mind, I don't think it's possible to criticize that enough.  I never could understand people who think it is, when the group those people typically belong to is normally the one advocating the most for gay and women's rights.

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. Sure, no-one is advocating for the right to incite violence.  But when it comes to criticizing a religion, Islam is in a world all of its own. 

 

1. There's a giant Gulf between those points that needs to be discussed. For example, saying that Islam must be stopped. Is that criticism? Saying that they're trying to change our culture? Saying there's no such thing as a moderate, and they all should be feared... Of course they're free to say that, just as we are free to tell them m to shut up

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. There's a giant Gulf between those points that needs to be discussed. For example, saying that Islam must be stopped. Is that criticism? Saying that they're trying to change our culture? Saying there's no such thing as a moderate, and they all should be feared... Of course they're free to say that, just as we are free to tell them m to shut up

Absolutely. 

Must be stopped is an incitement to action.  No freedom of speech covers that.

Personally I think the world would benefit greatly if all religions were "stopped", but it would have to happen without a bloodbath, so there's not much chance of that.

If anyone says they are trying to change our culture, it would be nice if they were able to prove it, but if they weren't, it's still just an opinion that they should be allowed to express..  They can still say it, and you can still call them an id!ot.  Actually, you can call them an id!ot even if they can prove it.  What's good for the goose...

That there is no such thing as a moderate in any religion is ridiculous.  I know or have known moderate Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews.  In fact, of all the religious people I know or have known, the vast majority were moderate, and of those who weren't, their extremism was limited to looking down on some people and trying to avoid dealing with them.  Nothing to write home about.

The expression of the opinion that there isn't is still within the limits of freedom of expression though.  Same with feared.  I don't know at what point slander laws could be applied in such cases.

Everybody is free to tell everyone else to shut up.  There should just be no government sanction.

Do you think it should be incumbent on Muslims to proactively say "hey, I'm not like that, and I don't agree with people who are"?

I don't, and I don't want to have to do that either.

Edited February 7, 2023 by bcsapper

[SpankyMcFarland]

23 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Absolutely.  Anyone who says "death to Muslims" is very likely Islamophobic.

The thing is a person in Quebec went a long way beyond mere speech about Muslims. I’m reluctant to restrict speech but when murderous violence takes place we’re dealing with a different ball game. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The thing is a person in Quebec went a long way beyond mere speech about Muslims. I’m reluctant to restrict speech but when murderous violence takes place we’re dealing with a different ball game. 

No argument here.  I'm very much opposed to murderous violence.

[blackbird]

46 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No argument here.  I'm very much opposed to murderous violence.

I am too.  But I doubt that special appointments to talk about islamophobia will stop insanity and criminals.  Maybe they could appoint a commissioner to plead with drugs addicts and repeat offenders to stop their assaults and crimes.

Armed guards and capital punishment would do more ...  and locking up insane persons in institutions for life.

Edited February 7, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am too.  But I doubt that special appointments to talk about islamophobia will stop insanity and criminals.  Maybe they could appoint a commissioner to plead with drugs addicts and repeat offenders to stop their assaults and crimes.

Armed guards and capital punishment would do more ...  and locking up insane persons in institutions for life.

Legalizing the drugs and controlling production and distribution would help a lot.

Capital punishment seems rather un-Christian.  Wasn't there a whole commandment about that?

[blackbird]

27 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Legalizing the drugs and controlling production and distribution would help a lot.

Capital punishment seems rather un-Christian.  Wasn't there a whole commandment about that?

No.  God ordained capital punishment for murderers back in Genesis when human government was ordained.  See Genesis 9:6 KJV.  I have yet to hear an explanation as to why that is no longer valid.

The liberal idea of rehabilitating someone who murdered an innocent person is bizarre.  Where is the justice in that?  What is un-Christian is liberal theology that perverts justice and constantly lets dangerous criminals out on bail or parole or gives a very lenient sentence for serious crimes.  Canadians are sick of it.  Nobody feels safe in the cities.

Edited February 7, 2023 by blackbird

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No.  God ordained capital punishment for murderers back in Genesis when human government was ordained.  See Genesis 9:6 KJV.  I have yet to hear an explanation as to why that is no longer valid.

The liberal idea of rehabilitating someone who murdered an innocent person is bizarre.  Where is the justice in that?  What is un-Christian is liberal theology that perverts justice and constantly lets dangerous criminals out on bail or parole or gives a very lenient sentence for serious crimes.  Canadians are sick of it.  Nobody feels safe in the cities.

I always thought forgiveness was a Christian thing too. 

So, thou shalt kill, when thou thinks it's a good idea, and thou shalt not forgive?

It's been a long time since Sister Faustina taught me the commandments, but I'm fairly sure they weren't among them.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I always thought forgiveness was a Christian thing too. 

So, thou shalt kill, when thou thinks it's a good idea, and thou shalt not forgive?

It's been a long time since Sister Faustina taught me the commandments, but I'm fairly sure they weren't among them.

There is a time for forgiveness.  But that doesn't mean criminals should not receive justice for their crimes.  I suppose the liberal ideology is forgive them and let them off.  What a hopeless view of the world.  No wonder it is in such a mess.  Let the criminals do what they want eh?

Maybe do some research as to what Genesis 9:6 KJV means and why God ordered capital punishment for murderers.  Should not be too hard to figure out.  Try Googling it and find some commentaries. 

The real answer is to read the Bible, particularly the New Testament and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior and start studying his word, pray, and resist the Devil.

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1. Personally I think the world would benefit greatly if all religions were "stopped", but it would have to happen without a bloodbath, so there's not much chance of that.

2. If anyone says they are trying to change our culture, it would be nice if they were able to prove it, but if they weren't, it's still just an opinion that they should be allowed to express..  They can still say it, and you can still call them an id!ot.  Actually, you can call them an id!ot even if they can prove it.  What's good for the goose...

3. The expression of the opinion that there isn't is still within the limits of freedom of expression though.  Same with feared.  I don't know at what point slander laws could be applied in such cases.

 

 

1. Religion stops slowly, glacially... and it IS stopping.
2.Express how ?  And is there a flavour of such things that we need to address as a public, as a community ?  The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fake document used to whip up conspiracy theories of Jews.  How do we expect bad information to be processed by a "public" ?
3. I don't think the concept of 'Freedom of Expression' helps us in discussing what to do about bad information.  By "us" I do not mean government laws, I mean the public and its responsibilities.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

There is a time for forgiveness.  But that doesn't mean criminals should not receive justice for their crimes.  I suppose the liberal ideology is forgive them and let them off.  What a hopeless view of the world.  No wonder it is in such a mess.  Let the criminals do what they want eh?

Maybe do some research as to what Genesis 9:6 KJV means and why God ordered capital punishment for murderers.  Should not be too hard to figure out.  Try Googling it and find some commentaries. 

The real answer is to read the Bible, particularly the New Testament and believe in Jesus Christ as your Savior and start studying his word, pray, and resist the Devil.

I don't know so much. I sure hear a lot about forgiveness, and judge not lest, etc, whenever that Jesus fellow part of the conversation.  I think seventy times seven was mentioned, at one point.  That's a lot of forgiving.

I don't believe in a God myself, so my own view is that public safety is paramount when it comes to the issue of whether or not a criminal should be paroled.  I'm not a Liberal when it comes to crime and punishment.

I think Jesus would have been though.

[I am Groot]

21 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know so much. I sure hear a lot about forgiveness, and judge not lest, etc, whenever that Jesus fellow part of the conversation.  I think seventy times seven was mentioned, at one point.  That's a lot of forgiving.

I don't believe in a God myself, so my own view is that public safety is paramount when it comes to the issue of whether or not a criminal should be paroled.  I'm not a Liberal when it comes to crime and punishment.

I think Jesus would have been though.

Jesus, assuming He existed, would have seen the way people act in life as a progressive learning experience. Life is but a minute aspect of the eternity of a soul's existence. And if you act up you go to hell for eternity. You will be judged at the pearly gates so not much need to punish criminals here on Earth.

Oddly, those who are the most fanatically religious seem to be the most determined to severely punish people here on Earth anyway. And those who are the least religious, in general, are the least interested in earthly punishment.

Edited February 7, 2023 by I am Groot

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Religion stops slowly, glacially... and it IS stopping.
2.Express how ?  And is there a flavour of such things that we need to address as a public, as a community ?  The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fake document used to whip up conspiracy theories of Jews.  How do we expect bad information to be processed by a "public" ?
3. I don't think the concept of 'Freedom of Expression' helps us in discussing what to do about bad information.  By "us" I do not mean government laws, I mean the public and its responsibilities.

 1) I wonder.  Is there any empirical data on that?  It seems to me that numbers might be changing, diminishing even, but the percentage of wingnuts is getting greater.  Or is it just that I hear about them more?

2) Express any way you want.  And you only need to address it if you want to.  I have a copy of Mein Kampf somewhere.  So does David Duke, I suppose.  We process that information differently.  The information is going to be there, like it or not.  Unless it is restricted, which I oppose, but even if you do restrict it, what do you restrict?  No more publishing or sales of Mein Kampf?  What about reporting of J.K Rowling's views on transexuality?

3)I don't see why the concept of freedom of expression should have any bearing on how we process information.  It's an overarching principle that holds that people have the right to think their thoughts and express them without restrictions based on another's views of those thoughts.  There are laws around incitement, slander, libel, assault, etc, that one can agree with or not, but in a free society the principle should remain as unrestricted as possible.  So the public and its responsibilities depends on the public.  Every day I see the public exercising its responsibility in a way that I oppose, but they can still do that.  That's their right too. 

Generally speaking, I think the best thing to do with bad information is to shine a spotlight on it and expose it to the ridicule it deserves.  Of course, that's not going to make everyone happy, because one person's bad information is anothers accepted dogma.  Social media is more of a curse than a blessing.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Religion stops slowly, glacially... and it IS stopping.

Religion is stopping here because we're free to stop it if we want. We don't have the death penalty for apostasy last time I checked.

Is religion fading away in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc, or is it getting worse? 

Genocide is constant there. When it's not overt & physical on a military scale, it's cultural with widespread violence and discrimination plus government-regulated discrimination and punishments. 

If you don't believe me, take the wife on a trip to a small town in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, etc and see what happens when she lets her locks flow freely on the breeze. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Jesus, assuming He existed, would have seen the way people act in life as a progressive learning experience. Life is but a minute aspect of the eternity of a soul's existence. And if you act up you go to hell for eternity. You will be judged at the pearly gates so not much need to punish criminals here on Earth.

Oddly, those who are the most fanatically religious seem to be the most determined to severely punish people here on Earth anyway. And those who are the least religious, in general, are the least interested in earthly punishment.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a broken record on this point, but one would think that, given that time on Earth is so infinitely short compared to the expected eternity at the right hand of God, that religious people would be nicer.

[blackbird]

49 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know so much. I sure hear a lot about forgiveness, and judge not lest, etc, whenever that Jesus fellow part of the conversation.  I think seventy times seven was mentioned, at one point.  That's a lot of forgiving.

I don't believe in a God myself, so my own view is that public safety is paramount when it comes to the issue of whether or not a criminal should be paroled.  I'm not a Liberal when it comes to crime and punishment.

I think Jesus would have been though.

If you think Jesus would have been a liberal, you are dead wrong.  However, we must get past the hurdle of you saying you don't believe in God.  The belief is a guaranteed ticket to hell unless changed.  All the more reason for you to study the Bible, its origin, message, and meaning.  Google "is the Bible from God and why"?

Edited February 7, 2023 by blackbird