Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons

[Alexandra]

"More on david brown's theo-con ideology, and he believes his religous beliefs should factor in and trump others freedom of conscience and self determination."

Out of all of the judges appointed to the Ontario Superior Court (there are over 200 judges in all categories) I wonder how much 'so-con' influence David Brown, Esq. will have among the other more Liberal appointees sitting on the bench?

? Zero to None ?

[scribblet]

Out of all of the judges appointed to the Ontario Superior Court (there are over 200 judges in all categories) I wonder how much 'so-con' influence David Brown, Esq. will have among the other more Liberal appointees sitting on the bench?

? Zero to None ?

I'm assuming that David Brown will apply the same legal opinions and judgements based on law, as do the Liberal judge appointees.... or are we to assume that the reason the Liberals are so anxious to get back in power is so they can stack the courts even more with their ideologues who will of course base their decisions strictly on law.

Course we all know that Paul Martin's Supreme Court "Quota Queen" (Abella) is not radical and ever so even handed. Personally I think all judges should be put to a vote in parliament prior to a vetting similar to the U.S.

[Catchme]

Appointed judges who were determined by law societies and lawyers, do/did not seek to erode other people's rights because of personal beliefs in myths.

[Canadian Blue]

Appointed judges who were determined by law societies and lawyers, do/did not seek to erode other people's rights because of personal beliefs in myths.

So, all Buddhist's, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim's, Christian's, Jews, Confucianists, and Pagan's, are not fit to be lawyers or judges.

Really, this doesn't sound like it's about the seperation between church and state, it sound's more like a government policy supporting atheism is the norm.

As for gay marriage if that is brought up, during the debate it was around 50-50, so then by that reasoning 50% of Canadian's can't sit as a judge. With relation to the Kempling debate, if anything Kempling's right's were violated.

[Catchme]

Appointed judges who were determined by law societies and lawyers, do/did not seek to erode other people's rights because of personal beliefs in myths.

So, all Buddhist's, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim's, Christian's, Jews, Confucianists, and Pagan's, are not fit to be lawyers or judges.

Really, this doesn't sound like it's about the seperation between church and state, it sound's more like a government policy supporting atheism is the norm.

As for gay marriage if that is brought up, during the debate it was around 50-50, so then by that reasoning 50% of Canadian's can't sit as a judge. With relation to the Kempling debate, if anything Kempling's right's were violated.

You do just love to put words in people's mouth's, that are not there, to deflect away, eh?!

It is about people controlling the judiciary, who are focused on using their mythological beliefs to erode/take away other Canadians rights. Mr Brown spoke it himself. Hopefully you are not going to call him a liar?

Lawyers and law socities choosing a mushy grey middle, to have the judicary based upon, is actually appropriate for a democracy. It matters not what their personal mythologial religion is based upon, as long as they do not have a personal belief agenda. An agenda that is geared to erode the rights of others, because they do not believe others have the right to freedom of conscience, and action, or to in someother way harm Canadians, should NOT be part of a democracy.

If Harper did not have an agenda in stacking the judiciary with evangelicals, he would have appointed other types of peoples with differing religions. I mean after all, if Harper wants grass roots to have a say in picking the judiciary, as he said, then the appointments should have actually met Canadian religious demographics.

Do not know why you brought up Kempling and SSM?

And when was it a 50/50 split?

[Canadian Blue]

It is about people controlling the judiciary, who are focused on using their mythological beliefs to erode/take away other Canadians rights. Mr Brown spoke it himself. Hopefully you are not going to call him a liar?

So he said he was a christian, and.......

What specific mythological belief is he going to use to erode our rights???

Honestly, by that reasoning nobody with religious beliefs can hold office because we'll fear their "mythological" beliefs will erode our rights. In which way is he going to erode our rights?

Lawyers and law socities choosing a mushy grey middle, to have the judicary based upon, is actually appropriate for a democracy.

Didn't the Liberal's stack the judiciary with people who fit their beliefs though, and who actually had direct ties to the Liberal party.

It matters not what their personal mythologial religion is based upon, as long as they do not have a personal belief agenda. An agenda that is geared to erode the rights of others, because they do not believe others have the right to freedom of conscience, and action, or to in someother way harm Canadians, should NOT be part of a democracy.

What personal belief agenda? Yes I read what he said, and I saw no reason to be worried, he didn't say a thing about bringing in a dominionist state. As well how are these people who have high credential's attempting to harm Canadian's. Your basically saying people should not be part of a democracy because you don't like their religion.

If Harper did not have an agenda in stacking the judiciary with evangelicals, he would have appointed other types of peoples with differing religions. I mean after all, if Harper wants grass roots to have a say in picking the judiciary, as he said, then the appointments should have actually met Canadian religious demographics.

Well most of the people you named as evangelical's, it's been shown that it was flawed to begin with. As for meeting religious demographics, wouldn't we then be primarily putting in people of the Roman Catholic and Protestant religion as that is what the religious demographic is.

Do not know why you brought up Kempling and SSM?

I didn't, you did.

Brown is a member of the Christian Legal Fellowship, which opposes SSM and the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, which supported the homophobic high school teacher and Christian Heritage Party supporter Chris Kempling when he got into trouble with the BC College of Teachers for his public homophobic rants.

And when was it a 50/50 split?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

The poll's also showed that many would favour civil union's instead of changing the definition of marriage. But in either case, you must not have been paying too much attention.

By the way when I say around 50/50, I mean divided by roughly the same number.

[Catchme]

No, I did not bring up Kempling and SSM, good try though. I was discussing Mr Brown's personal agenda to and it was part of the quote.

Regarding your 50/50 poll, I could put up others that would show a different public opinion.

SSM is an issue of Human Rights and NOT a morality issue based upon myths.

Seeing as how you insist on putting words in my mouth that weren't there. I will let this go.

[scribblet]

More on david brown's theo-con ideology, and he believes his religous beliefs should factor in and trump others freedom of conscience and self determination.

Brown is a member of the Christian Legal Fellowship, which opposes SSM and the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, which supported the homophobic high school teacher and Christian Heritage Party supporter Chris Kempling when he got into trouble with the BC College of Teachers for his public homophobic rants.

Actually you did bring up Kempling...

So by your lights only atheists or maybe the cult of Secular humanism should be able to sit on a bench, that would severely limit if totally obliterate all qualified people. It appears that the aim of this new age religion is to stack the courts with their believers who would ultimately strip people of their freedoms, at least we now undertstand what your agenda really 8is.

What I don't get is why its okay for the Liberals to stack the courts with their ideological supporters, most of whom are not atheists btw.

[Figleaf]

Appointed judges who were determined by law societies and lawyers, do/did not seek to erode other people's rights because of personal beliefs in myths.

So, all Buddhist's, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim's, Christian's, Jews, Confucianists, and Pagan's, are not fit to be lawyers or judges.

CB, you need to expand your repertoire. You've become predictable -- leaping in with a hyperbolically exaggerated strawman fallacy only works the first 1000 times. You should try an ad hominem from time to time to keep things interesting.

[Canadian Blue]

No, I did not bring up Kempling and SSM, good try though. I was discussing Mr Brown's personal agenda to and it was part of the quote.

Standing up for freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, as is the case with Mr. Kempling.

It was part of the quote. As well it's telling that you can't point to how Mr. Brown will bring about a dominionist state based of "mythological beliefs", which is really only meant as an insult towards people who have religious beliefs. Really, what do you have other than religious beliefs.

Seeing as how you insist on putting words in my mouth that weren't there. I will let this go.

You mean, getting words from your own posts, and the putting those words in your mouth.

As for SSM, it was around 50/50, or close to that. Thus I can conclude that at the very least 40% of Canadian's aren't allowed to sit on the bench for their position on whether or not to change the definition of one word.

[southerncomfort]

Well, catchme's posts have sure made it clear about the radical left wing agenda, it is quite clear that they wish to silence all voices other than their own. Fortunately these posts show what democracy is up against these days.

[Canadian Blue]

"In a culture where choice stands as a new god," he warned, they must not be tempted by appeals to set aside faith when practising law.

"As a Christian lawyer, you are called to practise your trade and conduct your life in accordance with your faith," he maintained, "recalling, all the time, that your dignity consists in one's membership in the community founded and sustained by God, and that your freedom lies in the resulting moral responsibility, and not in some free-standing notion of freedom or autonomy."

So he want's lawyers to act with moral conviction...

As well where is the entire text?

More on david brown's theo-con ideology, and he believes his religous beliefs should factor in and trump others freedom of conscience and self determination.

So, when he defended people who were getting sued based on religious beliefs he was trumping freedom of conscience and self determination.