Pope scolds Canada on gay marriage, abortion

[Renegade]

The ironic thing here is being homosexual isnt aginst catholic doctrine, only homosexual acts are. So for a Catholic school to ban a gay partner, they would have to assume that the intent is to commit homosexual acts.

Premarital hetroxexual acts are also against Catholic doctrine, however there doesn't seem to be the same presumption that a sin would occur in the case of hetrosexual prom dates.

It's possible but it's up to the church to interpret its own doctrines. If a Catholic feels they may have been misinterpreted in some cases, there should be (I assume) avenues to appeal. My point is that there's absolutely no reason to impose religious doctrines on the secular society.

The one time I heard of this incident occuring, it was in Ontario. In Ontario Catholic schools are publicly funded. If they are to accept public funding, they should be subject to public norms of what is and isn't allowable forms of discrimmination.

If the Catholic church felt that inter-racial marriages were a sin, should Catholic schools (as a publicly funded institution) be allowed to prohibit inter-racial courtships at the prom?

[Charles Anthony]

If the Catholic church felt that inter-racial marriages were a sin, should Catholic schools (as a publicly funded institution) be allowed to prohibit inter-racial courtships at the prom?

I would say: no.

CAVEAT: Truthfully, I would say that your example illustrates why schools should not be publicly funded. Period.

I would take that even further and say that it illustrates why publicly funding anything is wrong but enough of that for now.... I am sure many people are tired of hearing it...

[betsy]

I have no problem with private funding of Catholic Schools! Let Catholics fund our own!

Actually, if it's one good way to keep interference with the way we practice our belief......I'm all for it!

Those who cannot abide with the Catholic doctrines and respect our religious beliefs should stay out of the Catholic schools!

....AND CHURCH!

That goes for perverted priests (whether they be sodomists and/or pedophiles...or both).....including those women fighting to be ordained as priests....who are challenging and wanting to change the Church and its teachings.

They are always free to establish their own religion...free to do with whatever distortion, contortion and interpretation to their hearts' content!

[Remiel]

If Bob the protestant pays $50 in taxes for schooling and sends his kids to public school, and Bob the catholic pays $50 in taxes for schooling and sends his kids to catholic school, then who is paying for Bob the protestants kids to go to public school, and Bob the catholics kids to go to catholic school?

[Charles Anthony]

who is paying for Bob the protestants kids to go to public school,

Bob-the-non-parent is paying.

It costs more than $50 per kid to fund our schools and they make up the difference by pinching it from other Bob's who do not have kids.

Furthermore, if the government monopolizes the issuing of currency and or spends by issuing debt, Bob-everybody pays -- albeit in a roundabout and indirect manner.

[jbg]

There had been clashes between parents and school boards in Hamilton and BC regarding the curriculum. It's been in some news not too long ago.

*snip*

There are controversies happening that somehow don't get played prominently on mainstream media....and if they ever make it to the news, they seemed to be "down-played" considerably. They don't get the same massive exposure like say...Dawson shooting, when special interest groups like the anti-gun lobby groups or pro-gun registry liberal thinkers have something to gain.

Recently, I spoke by phone with an Ontario couple who told me that the school refuses to divulge when they will teach about homosexuality in the school. This prevents the parents from exerecising any control over their childrens' reading materials.

[Remiel]

If one of the primary functions of a country is to continue existing peacefully, without economic collapse, then why the hell should we give a rats ass about whether Bob the non-parent having part of his taxes go to paying for education? The projected fortunes of the future affect the the stability of the present, thus by investing in the future Bob the non-parent is still investing in his own present anyway.

[Charles Anthony]

If one of the primary functions of a country is to continue existing peacefully, without economic collapse,

Primary functions of a country? You are kidding... Countries do not have functions -- much like icebergs. Your premise is silly.

Nevertheless,

then why the hell should we give a rats ass about whether Bob the non-parent having part of his taxes go to paying for education?

You should not give a rat's ass at all because you have the power to take Bob-the-non-parent's money against his will and he has no power to get it back. You have the power to spend his money as you want (and pocket the change) without accountability.

The projected fortunes of the future

Enough.

[geoffrey]

If one of the primary functions of a country is to continue existing peacefully, without economic collapse,

Primary functions of a country? You are kidding... Countries do not have functions -- much like icebergs. Your premise is silly.

Semantics. Government institutions, which is clearly what Remiel is refering to, do have functions. That being said, I end up disagreeing with Remiels view that one in society can be forced to contribute in any way to a "common good."

Who decides what is commonly good? What if they are wrong 40 years from now, do I get a refund?

[Charles Anthony]

Semantics. Government institutions, which is clearly what Remiel is refering to, do have functions.

No. It is worse than semantics. It is delusion.

Governments just "exist" in the same way as a bunch of kids thrown into a gymnasium with a ball will eventually play dodgeball. There are rules to the game that are somewhat consensual but attributing a "function" to dodgeball (apart from its existence or something to do) makes no sense. The only sense it makes is in the context of fooling people.

That being said, I end up disagreeing with Remiels view that one in society can be forced to contribute in any way to a "common good."

Actually, I believe you are wrong there. We are always forced to "contribute" to common illusions.

Who decides what is commonly good? What if they are wrong 40 years from now, do I get a refund?

The bullies in the gymnasium.

No, you do not get a refund but rather, you get coerced as the game evolves.

[betsy]

If one of the primary functions of a country is to continue existing peacefully, without economic collapse, then why the hell should we give a rats ass about whether Bob the non-parent having part of his taxes go to paying for education? The projected fortunes of the future affect the the stability of the present, thus by investing in the future Bob the non-parent is still investing in his own present anyway.

Personally, providing education should be one of the responsibilities of parents.

If we're talking of investment towards the future, as a non-parent I find it makes more sense for my tax to be invested in an adult who is already on the threshold of being productive.

Children are raw materials....still got a long process to go. And some can turn out to be duds.

[myata]

It should be only a logistical problem to let people "opt out" of certain programs - however how do we ensure they won't try to get back in if / when personal situation changes?

[Renegade]

It should be only a logistical problem to let people "opt out" of certain programs

It is not a huge logistical problem. We run "opt out" systems all the time. Witness a toll-road. People who "opt out" don't travel the road, and don't pay the toll. Essentially all systems which are completely funded as user-pay systems are "opt-out"

- however how do we ensure they won't try to get back in if / when personal situation changes?

Why is it an issue to opt back in at any time? Of course in some cases the price for opting back in, may not be the same as when the decision to opt out was taken.

[Renegade]

Recently, I spoke by phone with an Ontario couple who told me that the school refuses to divulge when they will teach about homosexuality in the school. This prevents the parents from exerecising any control over their childrens' reading materials.

It is an interesting question on if parents should have control over the chidren's reading material and how much control they should have. For example if the parent is bigoted aginst blacks, should they be allowed to prevent their kids about learning about the history of opression against blacks?

There are a lot of areas where the parent is subject to society's determination on what is "right" for the child. For example, the parent has no choice on whether to educate the child. The parent, has no choice on the content of the education fundamentals (eg reading, writing, math, etc). The only choice the parent has is on the delivery on that education (public school, private school, home school, etc).

If you want to argue that the parents should have the right to exercise control over their child's reading materials, you also have to demonstrate why this situation is different than any of the other subjects the children are requred to learn about.

[Renegade]

If one of the primary functions of a country is to continue existing peacefully, without economic collapse, then why the hell should we give a rats ass about whether Bob the non-parent having part of his taxes go to paying for education?

Maybe the continued peaceful existance and the prevention of economic collapse depends upon us giving a rat's ass about Bob. Supposed Bob get fed-up of haivng his taxes go somewhere without his choice, and he gets together with his friends and revolts. Can't happen you say? Happened in 1776 in the US.

The projected fortunes of the future affect the the stability of the present, thus by investing in the future Bob the non-parent is still investing in his own present anyway.

Why not just give Bob the choice on where he invests? If you think you have a strong case that Bob should invest in the education system, make it to Bob, and then let him freely make that decision instead of forcing it on him.

[myata]

Why is it an issue to opt back in at any time? Of course in some cases the price for opting back in, may not be the same as when the decision to opt out was taken.

Example: I opt out of the pension scheme. I keep my CPP contributions and invest them wisely (or spend them if it matters). Come 65, I see my investments busted and I have to live on something. How can I opt back in?

[geoffrey]

Semantics. Government institutions, which is clearly what Remiel is refering to, do have functions.

No. It is worse than semantics. It is delusion.

Governments just "exist" in the same way as a bunch of kids thrown into a gymnasium with a ball will eventually play dodgeball. There are rules to the game that are somewhat consensual but attributing a "function" to dodgeball (apart from its existence or something to do) makes no sense. The only sense it makes is in the context of fooling people.

I'm so confused.

That being said, I end up disagreeing with Remiels view that one in society can be forced to contribute in any way to a "common good."

Actually, I believe you are wrong there. We are always forced to "contribute" to common illusions.

Oh we do, but I'm saying it's not always morally justified, though I admit sometimes practically so.

Who decides what is commonly good? What if they are wrong 40 years from now, do I get a refund?

The bullies in the gymnasium.

No, you do not get a refund but rather, you get coerced as the game evolves.

And this illustrates the immorality of the welfare state, its built upon coercion of the masses for the benefit of a few... socialism is a very oppressive form of government, maybe not like the Islamist theocracies, but in it's own way.

[Renegade]

Why is it an issue to opt back in at any time? Of course in some cases the price for opting back in, may not be the same as when the decision to opt out was taken.

Example: I opt out of the pension scheme. I keep my CPP contributions and invest them wisely (or spend them if it matters). Come 65, I see my investments busted and I have to live on something. How can I opt back in?

Go back to work and contribute to CPP for 40 years. Basically you get to start at the same position as eveyone else.

[geoffrey]

CPP is one of the few I do support. The last thing we need is a bunch of seniors clogging up our streets and homeless shelters. CPP at least gives them a chance, if they've worked for it. I do see common good there. Plus everyone receives equitable payment from CPP, it's very reasonable.

[Renegade]

CPP is one of the few I do support. The last thing we need is a bunch of seniors clogging up our streets and homeless shelters. CPP at least gives them a chance, if they've worked for it. I do see common good there. Plus everyone receives equitable payment from CPP, it's very reasonable.

The question is not that CPP is good or not. I agree that it is for the most part good. The question is do you give people a choice. First do you give them the choice to contribute. Second, presuming they have contributed, do you give them the choice on how it is invested.

I can tell if you are for forced contributions, but if you are, maybe you can explain why your position on society's coercion is different in this case.

[geoffrey]

CPP is one of the few I do support. The last thing we need is a bunch of seniors clogging up our streets and homeless shelters. CPP at least gives them a chance, if they've worked for it. I do see common good there. Plus everyone receives equitable payment from CPP, it's very reasonable.

The question is not that CPP is good or not. I agree that it is for the most part good. The question is do you give people a choice. First do you give them the choice to contribute. Second, presuming they have contributed, do you give them the choice on how it is invested.

I can tell if you are for forced contributions, but if you are, maybe you can explain why your position on society's coercion is different in this case.

Well, firstly, I'd have CPP structured a little different. Forced contributions of the deduction amount into a locked in RRSP of investments of your choosing would be preferable.

Why is my opinion different on this than say... supporting EGALE through tax dollars? Equitable payouts, if your straight, gay, white, black, man or woman, CPP doesn't discriminate, you get x out from y paid in.

It's still coercion, but it's not for income redistribution or otherwise thievery, it's simply a required investment. Everyone is benefited to some extent by contribution, and it's something a rational person woudl do anyways. The OAS aspect I have problems with, because it is income redistribution, which I don't agree with. But the CPP aspect? Go for it.

There is a way out of CPP too... don't work. Or be self-employed in some situations. I do support mandatory taxation, I'm not a way out there economic libertarian. There are some requirements, and CPP is a reasonable one for the reasons I've mentioned.

[Renegade]

Well, firstly, I'd have CPP structured a little different. Forced contributions of the deduction amount into a locked in RRSP of investments of your choosing would be preferable.

Why is my opinion different on this than say... supporting EGALE through tax dollars? Equitable payouts, if your straight, gay, white, black, man or woman, CPP doesn't discriminate, you get x out from y paid in.

It's still coercion, but it's not for income redistribution or otherwise thievery, it's simply a required investment. Everyone is benefited to some extent by contribution, and it's something a rational person woudl do anyways. The OAS aspect I have problems with, because it is income redistribution, which I don't agree with. But the CPP aspect? Go for it.

There is a way out of CPP too... don't work. Or be self-employed in some situations. I do support mandatory taxation, I'm not a way out there economic libertarian. There are some requirements, and CPP is a reasonable one for the reasons I've mentioned.

I know we are way off topic, but the temptation to respond is too strong.

Let's say CPP is modified into a forced locked-RRSP contribution scheme as you suggest. Why wouldn't we apply this coercion to other aspects we deem are "good"? Why don't we force people to take life-insurance? Why not force people to save a portion of their income (I mean besides retirement)? Why not force them to abstain from alcohol? I fail to see why the CPP argument you make is different from any of these.

BTW, CPP is income redistribution. It essentially redistributes from the workers to the retired. When the scheme was set up, the retired population got way more than they contributed including investment gains, and those now retired still do. The scheme depended upon constantly increasing populations for funding.

Recent changes in the funding and investment of CPP have addressed some of those issues.

I'm happy to discuss this further in a different thread.

[M.Dancer]

"National compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from cradle to grave."

Winston Churchill, 1943

[Frankie]

It funny how some of you are getting upset at the popes views. I mean, I don't like the catholic church, and you might disagree with what he says, but he has the say those things, he's the freakin pope! If he didn't have the views he did, he probably wouldn't be the pope, and he probably wouln't be catholic. You can't be Christain if hate or disagree with what your own Bible says. Infact, you can't be any religion if you disagree with the books of that religion. He's obviously catholic, so he's obviously going to say those things, that's his opinion.

By the way, he's not anti-tolerant, he didn't say he was against it. He's saying the country is using the word tolerance for their own purposes. Obviously he thinks what people are doing has nothing to do with tolerance.

[cybercoma]

It funny how some of you are getting upset at the popes views. I mean, I don't like the catholic church, and you might disagree with what he says, but he has the say those things, he's the freakin pope! If he didn't have the views he did, he probably wouldn't be the pope, and he probably wouln't be catholic. You can't be Christain if hate or disagree with what your own Bible says. Infact, you can't be any religion if you disagree with the books of that religion. He's obviously catholic, so he's obviously going to say those things, that's his opinion.

By the way, he's not anti-tolerant, he didn't say he was against it. He's saying the country is using the word tolerance for their own purposes. Obviously he thinks what people are doing has nothing to do with tolerance.

Religious figures should stay out of politics and lawmaking, especially considering the variety of beliefs people in our country hold. This is not a catholic nation, this nation is not defined by any religion, so he can kindly keep his opinions to himself.