Harper hails opening of grand Hindu temple

[xul]

Is it the job of the PM to attend these events and provide funding to religious churches? Is that what a PM is supposed to do? No. That is what the PM has become to benefit his party votes which he does not have the right to do.

Attending these events is partially his job, just as he attend a launching ceremony of a warship. This doesn't mean that he is fond of this ship but neglect others. When those ship was launched, the former PMs have also attended their launching ceremonies.

But there is really not any evidence that he or other party's politicians funded the temple using government money. The newsletter said "The temple's construction cost $40-million, donated by 'worshippers or well-wishers' of the BAPS religion." It is believable. If there are 100,000 worshippers donating it, each of them only needs to afford $400. This is not a large number. This just means they will not go to theaters or something one year, in stead of going to this temple and worship their god.

Edited July 25, 2007 by xul

[Leafless]

Mocking ? Nah, just showing the folly of your arguement.

If you do not have anything significant to ad this thread then don't post.

You are not in the position to attack or criticize another poster based only on only what you think is right.

This equates to an attack on FREE SPEECH, something you must consider foreign and not in line from whatever country you come from. But here in Canada free speech is the norm and if you don't like it, to bad.

Actually I did read through the thread.

Whats become apparent is that your inability to make sense of your "outrage", mostly because it is unwarranted and without merit.

No outrage at all, we simply have different cultural views considering what is permissible and honourable pertaining to the actions of our Canadian prime minister.

This is what happens when different cultures are allowed to retain their culture in a modern civilized society.

Majority White English speaking Canadians have to contend with the backward views and actions of incompatible cultures who have their own code relating to what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable what is normal what isn't normal, etc. etc.

Oh yeah as if you believe that. Nice try. What bothers you is the PM being in a Hindu Temple, but your outrage would not be voiced if he were in a Synagogue or Mosque and you know it.

I have never heard of any Canadian prime minister officiating the opening of any 'place of worship' in Canada. Outside of what this this thread is addressing, Mr. Harper officiating the opening of a Hindu temple.

I will ask you to make up a list to prove me wrong, all or any other Canadian prime ministers who have behaved in a similar manner since 1867, officiating the opening of a 'place of worship'.

Afterall Leafless , they did spend $40M and the spin off from that is enormous and benefits our tax base. If anyone short of a terrorist has $40M to spend , you can bet the PM will try to be there.

I would not be to sure about that.

Anyone going to these great lengths to accumulate this type of money from donations for a place of worship, signifies that this group takes their religion ultra seriously. And I will also include these expensive Mosques.

This in turn could very well signify, these establishments along with their teachings could represent a serious threat to existing Canadian values, lifestyles and culture.

This is why I do not support 'official multiculturalism' as eventually it could become a cultural Pandora's Box.

Not at all Leafless. I goad no one . Some just get tripped up. So......

Oh thanks, how arrogant of you!

[guyser]

If you do not have anything significant to ad this thread then don't post.

You are not in the position to attack or criticize another poster based only on only what you think is right.

Au contraire monsieur. If I think you are wrong, and can back it up, I will freely do so.

This equates to an attack on FREE SPEECH, something you must consider foreign and not in line from whatever country you come from. But here in Canada free speech is the norm and if you don't like it, to bad.

Now that is a "Just for Laughs " headliner quip.

You are posting now are you not? Why yes you are. So where in the blazes did I stop you from speaking freely?

Hey , if you want post about insignificant things like Harper going to a Temple, go right ahead.

By the way, born and bred right here in good old Toronto. Spent one year living in BC. Is that in this country too?

No outrage at all, we simply have different cultural views considering what is permissible and honourable pertaining to the actions of our Canadian prime minister.

The PM 's job is to foster unity among other things. He is a minority leader reaching out to gain votes, the same way Martin did when he was pictured wearing an orange headdress at a Sikh Temple many years back, or the same way Chretien did at various business/social functions/openings.

And you would have a strong case IF Harper was there to preach to Canada that we should all change to Hindu. But, as you very well know, he did not , but that doesnt stop some from making that leap of logic.

This is what happens when different cultures are allowed to retain their culture in a modern civilized society.

And this is what gets you labeled as a bigot, and is pretty insulting to many Canadians. They are allowed to retain their culture "as long as it does not contravene the laws of Canada".

Since culture can be defined to some extent with food , lets assume you grew up in the Ottawa Valley ok? So , if you did, then you ate Perogies since Polish immigrants settled up near Barry's Bay . They were good werent they? I had some last summer, yummy let me tell you. You can substitute any ethnic dish you want , the point still stands.Ever eat spaghetti..?...ordered in Chinese food..? Well shame on you sir !

Majority White English speaking Canadians have to contend with the backward views and actions of incompatible cultures who have their own code relating to what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable what is normal what isn't normal, etc. etc.

Wow.....you sink further and further into your little redneck enclave with every post.

Oh and by the way, you are in NO position to dictate what is acceptable or not.

From Leave it Beaver ..."Gee Wally, you sure do step in it everyday."

I have never heard of any Canadian prime minister officiating the opening of any 'place of worship' in Canada. Outside of what this this thread is addressing, Mr. Harper officiating the opening of a Hindu temple.

Well I must concede I agree with that statement. So what ?

I will say it again. He (Harper) was not there advocating anything, just a presence to gain votes and offer congrats. Ask M Bluth what he was doing there. He is a member of the CPC so maybe he can shed some light, if nothing else since you wont believe what you read in the papers.

I will ask you to make up a list to prove me wrong, all or any other Canadian prime ministers who have behaved in a similar manner since 1867, officiating the opening of a 'place of worship'.

No can do. I could find PM's at churches, synagogues, but none stated Official Opening.

But I did find that the PM was at the opening of ONE diamond mine , and while reprehensible because what the H is he doing there, I could not find, since 1867, a PM being at any OTHER diamond mine.

Afterall Leafless , they did spend $40M and the spin off from that is enormous and benefits our tax base. If anyone short of a terrorist has $40M to spend , you can bet the PM will try to be there.

I would not be to sure about that.

Anyone going to these great lengths to accumulate this type of money from donations for a place of worship, signifies that this group takes their religion ultra seriously. And I will also include these expensive Mosques.

This in turn could very well signify, these establishments along with their teachings could represent a serious threat to existing Canadian values, lifestyles and culture.

Tell it to the Jew community then. They take their religious ultra serious too

Oh thanks, how arrogant of you!

No problem, you are welcome.

Edited July 26, 2007 by guyser

[ScottSA]

If you do not have anything significant to ad this thread then don't post.

You are not in the position to attack or criticize another poster based only on only what you think is right.

Au contraire monsieur. If I think you are wrong, and can back it up, I will freely do so.

You do your leftie compatriots a disservice by being such a prolific and lightweight poster. Your posts are for the most part yappy thread jammings with no substance.

[guyser]

You do your leftie compatriots a disservice by being such a prolific and lightweight poster. Your posts are for the most part yappy thread jammings with no substance.

How trite. One trying his best, but failing miserably, to insult me with the very words that are not contributing a thing to this thread.

Hypocrisy....go look it up.

Edited July 26, 2007 by guyser

[ScottSA]

You do your leftie compatriots a disservice by being such a prolific and lightweight poster. Your posts are for the most part yappy thread jammings with no substance.

How trite. One trying his best, but failing miserably, to insult me with the very words that are not contributing a thing to this thread.

Hypocrisy....go look it up.

All I'm saying is that your posts are indicative of an intellectual lightweight. You have all the annoying traits of one too, including going into full retreat claiming victory over your shoulder, or worse yet, actually believing that you won victories. I guess it's good for comic opera.

[guyser]

All I'm saying is that your posts are indicative of an intellectual lightweight. You have all the annoying traits of one too, including going into full retreat claiming victory over your shoulder, or worse yet, actually believing that you won victories. I guess it's good for comic opera.

Oh Come on now scottsa, that is not the truth.

You invariably insult, demean, and obfuscate when you have clearly been shown to be wrong. Your words dont lie, and it is what gets you in trouble.

If I am a lightweight , and I also showed you without doubt the error in your thinking, then really, what does that make you?

I am sorry, no one ever likes to be shown wrong when their convictions are so absolute. So I understand your attempts to denigrate.

Victory comes when one can show that anothers statement is categorically false. One can tell by the tenor of your posts when you are cornered.

This and some of your recent posts show this about you.

Sad I know. Maybe you could make a bumper sticker or something.

[guyser]

[

All I'm saying is that your posts are indicative of an intellectual lightweight. You have all the annoying traits of one too, including going into full retreat claiming victory over your shoulder, or worse yet, actually believing that you won victories. I guess it's good for comic opera.

Oh Come on now scottsa, that is not the truth.

You invariably insult, demean, and obfuscate when you have clearly been shown to be wrong. Your words dont lie, and it is what gets you in trouble.

If I am a lightweight , and I also showed you without doubt the error in your thinking, then really, what does that make you?

I am sorry, no one ever likes to be shown wrong when their convictions are so absolute. So I understand your attempts to denigrate.

You tried it before with the internet tough guy act. It didnt work then and now this tact? Sorry, wont work here either.

Victory comes when one can show that anothers statement is categorically false. One can tell by the tenor of your posts when you are cornered.

This and some of your recent posts show this about you.

Sad I know. Maybe you could make a bumper sticker or something.

Edited July 26, 2007 by guyser

[Leafless]

Au contraire monsieur. If I think you are wrong, and can back it up, I will freely do so.

But you can't back it up.

Now that is a "Just for Laughs " headliner quip.

You are posting now are you not? Why yes you are. So where in the blazes did I stop you from speaking freely?

The point is you are attacking another poster for the simple reason, you don't like what you read and you cannot respond to it in an intelligent manner.

That makes it an attack on free speech as well as the poster.

If you have any credibility, you would explain why no other prime minister in the history of Canada has done what Mr. Harper has done, pander for votes in a Hindu holy temple or any other place of worship in Canada.

Most Canadians have morals and ethics and expect their PM'S to also harbour those values.

By the way, born and bred right here in good old Toronto. Spent one year living in BC. Is that in this country too?

Well if your not White, that clearly explains your actions for not condemning Mr. Harpers actions. If you are White then you are simply a low bred fool.

And this is what gets you labeled as a bigot, and is pretty insulting to many Canadians. They are allowed to retain their culture "as long as it does not contravene the laws of Canada".

I think I am being reasonable intolerant since no other country has 'official multiculturalism' entrenched in their constitution and if you think about, you must ask yourself, WHY?

For instance, simply look at the great strides Quebec made in Canada, at the expense of Canadians simply by manipulating politicians. Think of what all the other cultural groups will do in Canada following the footsteps of Quebec and already a tiny ethnic minority has already tried implementing Sharia Law in Ontario.

Other countries in the world know what Canada is doing with 'official multiculturalism' is bound to fail and failure is inevitable, segregation is inevitable, especially with a volatile mix of ethnics and their powerful religions.

Tell it to the Jew community then. They take their religious ultra serious too

Jews play by the rules and they don't fly airliners into the 'World Trade Center' and have contributed much to Western culture.

BTW- I don't have an ignore list but I am making this an exception in your case and will not be replying to anymore of your disruptive arrogant, unsubstantial, child like, immature postings, not only in this thread but notice the same type of attacks relating to many other posters as well.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

smarten up and stop the personal attacks.

[Renegade]

I have never heard of any Canadian prime minister officiating the opening of any 'place of worship' in Canada. Outside of what this this thread is addressing, Mr. Harper officiating the opening of a Hindu temple.

I will ask you to make up a list to prove me wrong, all or any other Canadian prime ministers who have behaved in a similar manner since 1867, officiating the opening of a 'place of worship'.

You mean something like this:

In 1877 Prime Minister Alexander MacKenzie laid the cornerstone of this Heritage Church, founded in 1857. It is affiliated with the Canadian Baptist Federation and is the Canadian Armed Forces garrison church. Standing amidst offices, businesses, the University of Ottawa, the Regional Headquarters and the Court House, the Church is trying to build bridges with this community

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

or this:

August 23, 1985 - Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Brian Mulroney opened Ismaili Jamat Khana and Centre in Burnaby, B.C. in presence of Mowlana Hazar Imam, Begum Salimah and Prince Amyn Mohammad.

link

Edited July 26, 2007 by Renegade

[Renegade]

duplicate post.

Edited July 26, 2007 by Renegade

[Keepitsimple]

I have to chuckle sometimes......as I sit back and realize that almost all posters are partisan to one degree or another - including me of course. If we didn't have opinions, we wouldn't have this board to express them. But with regards to the many comments about Harper being a "Liberal", let's understand something. When you become Prime Minister, you have a duty to represent all Canadians - even those who did not vote for you. That means that the partisan policies that got you elected have to be broadened and in some cases modified or even discarded. For those who say there is little difference between the Liberals and Conservatives, I somewhat agree but with an important distinction. A ruling government must work at the "big tent" philosophy - and both parties do. The difference is that with regard to the long-term direction of the Government, Liberals tend to make incremental moves towards big government whereas Conservatives tend to move towards a little less government and more personal responsibility. It's really a subtle distinction in the course of day-to-day and month-to-month events but over 10-15 years or so, it can make a difference - as we have found out with the recent long reign of the Liberals.

[Leafless]

I have never heard of any Canadian prime minister officiating the opening of any 'place of worship' in Canada. Outside of what this this thread is addressing, Mr. Harper officiating the opening of a Hindu temple.

I will ask you to make up a list to prove me wrong, all or any other Canadian prime ministers who have behaved in a similar manner since 1867, officiating the opening of a 'place of worship'.

You mean something like this:

In 1877 Prime Minister Alexander MacKenzie laid the cornerstone of this Heritage Church, founded in 1857. It is affiliated with the Canadian Baptist Federation and is the Canadian Armed Forces garrison church. Standing amidst offices, businesses, the University of Ottawa, the Regional Headquarters and the Court House, the Church is trying to build bridges with this community

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

or this:

August 23, 1985 - Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Brian Mulroney opened Ismaili Jamat Khana and Centre in Burnaby, B.C. in presence of Mowlana Hazar Imam, Begum Salimah and Prince Amyn Mohammad.

link

Laying a corner stone in 1877 pertaining to a domestic religion at that time goes to show you government acknowledged the efforts of Christianity to work hand in hand with government to create the successful society we had up until 1982.

This is the time the Liberals stole the show, undoing all the previous work accomplished by our federal government and Christianity, with the emphasis now forced on CULTURE including of course foreign religion.

Mulroney with his involvement opening Ismaili Jamat Khana and Centre in Burnaby, B.C. is just as much an error in judgement as Mr. Harper.

Both were pandering for votes but at the same time could be participating in a much more serious way by acknowledging and setting the stage for the takeover of Canada by powerful religions following the footsteps of Quebec and not discounting the fact the takeover of Canada could be by Quebec.

The Liberals imposed Charter helped Quebec enormously in many ways and the spread of their minority language in the same fashion the Charter will set the path for a ethnic takeover of Canada.

You don't have to be a rocket genius to see how harmful official multiculturalism is and how destructive it is relating prior to 1982, the destruction of the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the ones that pay all the bills to allow all this to happen.

Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE, but yet it is happening while Whitey sits backs and allows it to happen.

[guyser]

That makes it an attack on free speech as well as the poster.

Free speech is your right. There is no attack on your right to free speech. I will be happy to retract that should I be shown were free speech was quelched by me.

If you have any credibility, you would explain why no other prime minister in the history of Canada has done what Mr. Harper has done, pander for votes in a Hindu holy temple or any other place of worship in Canada.

I think , at this juncture, we can put this thought to bed. You have been shown it has happened. I honestly do not get how someone cannot see the validity of pandering for votes , virtually anytime anywhere.

Most Canadians have morals and ethics and expect their PM'S to also harbour those values.

And this is what the problem is. Harper has neither morally nor ethically violated any tenet. None what so ever. If he has, point it out. You couching it as a moral or ethic "crime " is not supported by anyone in any of the editorials I looked at. It was, nor has it been on any major news stations since the day of the visit, and even then it was a passing story, not a headline. So no, the sky did not fall.

Well if your not White, that clearly explains your actions for not condemning Mr. Harpers actions. If you are White then you are simply a low bred fool.

And here the slags continue. I am a low bred fool because I dont ascribe to your slanted statements concerning immigrants, nor do I ascribe to their being freeloaders to this country. Whitey does NOT pay all the bills, and you know that. But persist in this foolery all you want.

For instance, simply look at the great strides Quebec made in Canada, at the expense of Canadians simply by manipulating politicians. Think of what all the other cultural groups will do in Canada following the footsteps of Quebec and already a tiny ethnic minority has already tried implementing Sharia Law in Ontario.

And how did that go over? Do we have sharia law in Ontario or not?

Tell it to the Jew community then. They take their religious ultra serious too

Jews play by the rules and they don't fly airliners into the 'World Trade Center' and have contributed much to Western culture.

Neither did Hindus, Sikhs, Bahai's, Wiccans nor any other religious groups.Um so what?

If you want a white homeland for whites, then say so. All this can then be stopped.

You make post after post saying..

1) Whitey pays for everything

2) immigrants are not very smart

3) immigrants are low class

BTW- I don't have an ignore list but I am making this an exception in your case and will not be replying to anymore of your disruptive arrogant, unsubstantial, child like, immature postings, not only in this thread but notice the same type of attacks relating to many other posters as well.

I take it you are upset and lacking in a substantial comeback.

[Renegade]

Laying a corner stone in 1877 pertaining to a domestic religion at that time goes to show you government acknowledged the efforts of Christianity to work hand in hand with government to create the successful society we had up until 1982.

Wait a min now. Didn't you state this:

I have never heard of any Canadian prime minister officiating the opening of any 'place of worship' in Canada. Outside of what this this thread is addressing, Mr. Harper officiating the opening of a Hindu temple.

I will ask you to make up a list to prove me wrong, all or any other Canadian prime ministers who have behaved in a similar manner since 1867, officiating the opening of a 'place of worship'.

And I have indeed proved you wrong!

and then you said this:

no other prime minister in the history of Canada has done what Mr. Harper has done, pander for votes in a Hindu holy temple or any other place of worship in Canada.

and yet again you have been shown wrong.

So now you justify MacKenzie action because it was a Christian church????? Wasn't your original premis that Harper shoudl be condemned for "mixed signals are being sent to Canadians relating to the 'separation of church and state'.???

You don't find it a bit hypocritical and racist that you now laud MacKenzie for that same behaviour when the only differentiation is the denomination of the church?

Even if we accept your response at face value, why then is it wrong for Harper to acknowledge the efforts of Hindus "to work hand in hand with government to create the successful society" just as Mckenzie did? I'm going to guess that you don't believe that Hindus have played any part in creating a successful society.

Mulroney with his involvement opening Ismaili Jamat Khana and Centre in Burnaby, B.C. is just as much an error in judgement as Mr. Harper.

Both were pandering for votes but at the same time could be participating in a much more serious way by acknowledging and setting the stage for the takeover of Canada by powerful religions following the footsteps of Quebec and not discounting the fact the takeover of Canada could be by Quebec.

Ah so first, no other prime minister had done so, and when you've been proved wrong, those prime ministers too had an "error in judgment". Gosh they weren't even Liberal.

the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the ones that pay all the bills to allow all this to happen.

So the "majority White English speaking Christian Canadians" are the ones that pay "all the bills, right??? I can prove you wrong on this too if you'd like to be further embarrassed.

[Leafless]

So now you justify MacKenzie action because it was a Christian church?????

YES! OUR country was FOUNDED on Christianity.

Wasn't your original premis that Harper shoudl be condemned for "mixed signals are being sent to Canadians relating to the 'separation of church and state'.???

Yes, pertaining to horrific dangers of ethnic sabotaging national interest via foreign religion/politics.

You don't find it a bit hypocritical and racist that you now laud MacKenzie for that same behaviour when the only differentiation is the denomination of the church?

It is a lot more than the denomination of a church.

It is Canada being characterized by foreign ideologies and cultures STEALING the 'White English speaking Christian Canadians' culture and worst of all, condoned by national federal parties who are forced to idolize the worst racially discriminatory Charter ever imposed on Canadians.

Even if we accept your response at face value, why then is it wrong for Harper to acknowledge the efforts of Hindus "to work hand in hand with government to create the successful society" just as Mckenzie did?

First of all, who is we? Do you speak for Canada?

I doubt very much if Hindu's will work for all Canadians. These people come from societies with few diversities and their religion/politics is the name of the game.

It is human nature to take as much as possible for your own benefit and own self interest

Example and proof: Quebec and Ontario's Islamic Muslims that despite their small numbers tried to impose Sharia Law in Ontario. Multiculturalism is only really starting in Canada since Quebec got what it wanted and now the focus is on immigration and foreign culture to further destabilize Canada.

Even Jews who have contributed to Western society still remain segregated and mostly mingle among their own kind.

Ah so first, no other prime minister had done so, and when you've been proved wrong, those prime ministers too had an "error in judgment". Gosh they weren't even Liberal.

They weren't Liberal but continue to play by the screwed up rules of our totalitarian society, rules set by the Liberals racially discriminatory and bordering traitorism 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'.

So the "majority White English speaking Christian Canadians" are the ones that pay "all the bills, right??? I can prove you wrong on this too if you'd like to be further embarrassed.

Go ahead and embarrass me. The main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are primarily, White, English speaking, Christian Canadians.

My information relating to ethnicity is that Canada is 66% White, 59.3% English speaking and 66% Christian.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107386.html

[guyser]

It is a lot more than the denomination of a church.

It is Canada being characterized by foreign ideologies and cultures STEALING the 'White English speaking Christian Canadians' culture and worst of all, condoned by national federal parties who are forced to idolize the worst racially discriminatory Charter ever imposed on Canadians.

To Steal: To take what is not ones own : Websters Dictionary

I would love to know how and why immigrants are stealing our culture. I also wonder what they do with it when they steal it? Do they throw it out? Bury it?

By his own admission this country is 66% white. I can only suppose that he and others of that ilk are concerned that 66% is not enough. Wow....just wow.

They weren't Liberal but continue to play by the screwed up rules of our totalitarian society, rules set by the Liberals racially discriminatory and bordering traitorism 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'.

There is that old saw again, Charter ......even though in he is using this repsonse to an occurence from 1877 , and in 1985.

So the "majority White English speaking Christian Canadians" are the ones that pay "all the bills, right??? I can prove you wrong on this too if you'd like to be further embarrassed.

Go ahead and embarrass me. The main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are primarily, White, English speaking, Christian Canadians.

And he says he does not move the goalposts.First it was whites paid all the bills. Now they are the main "generators" according to his cite. I wonder where the next goalpost will be planted.

This is getting pretty silly.

What is sad is that immigration foes cannot see that many industries would simply stop overnight , prices would have to increase, values would drop , and this country would be a mess. I have asked , and certainly never been given an answer to the simple question....." What alternative is there to immigration ?"

[mikedavid00]

My information relating to ethnicity is that Canada is 66% White, 59.3% English speaking and 66% Christian.

CIA World Fact book says:

Languages:

English (official) 59.3%, French (official) 23.2%, other 17.5%

That means, 59% of people in Canada speak english. Factor in illegal immigrants, and it could be around 52-55% that speak English.

This country is in a messed up state and is getting worse.

[Renegade]

YES! OUR country was FOUNDED on Christianity.

How so? Did the Pope set up Canada as a religious state? Did the founders forget to mention to the citizens of Canada that they did not have freedom of religion but in fact were part of a Christian religious state? And what of those natives who happened to be here first but were not Christian?

Yes, pertaining to horrific dangers of ethnic sabotaging national interest via foreign religion/politics.

Ah yes, the double-standard shows up again. If it is a foreign religion, it is " sabotaging national interest" but if it is a Christian religion, well that is in the national interest, right? Leafless, I cannot illustrate you bigotry and intolerance any better than your own words do.

It is a lot more than the denomination of a church.

It is Canada being characterized by foreign ideologies and cultures STEALING the 'White English speaking Christian Canadians' culture and worst of all, condoned by national federal parties who are forced to idolize the worst racially discriminatory Charter ever imposed on Canadians.

Yes I can see clearly now how those Hindus stole the white culture. I'm sure that temple was designed by white Christian archtects and the Hindus stole the plans and built it and called it theirs. Your insistance at dragging the Charter into the discussion is getting tiresome. This really has nothing to do with the Charter, even though according to your thought process the Charter is the instigator of all evil in the world today.

First of all, who is we? Do you speak for Canada?

We is any reader of your post trying to make any sense of what you are saying. If "we" offends you, substitue "I" for "we".

I doubt very much if Hindu's will work for all Canadians. These people come from societies with few diversities and their religion/politics is the name of the game.

When anyone contributes to society they contribute to the betterment of all Canadians. If you do some research you will find that they have in fact been both participants and contributors to society. As far as them coming from "societies with few diversities", you clealy have never been to India and know virtually nothing of it. The diverse culture there predates Canadian culture by many many generations.

It is human nature to take as much as possible for your own benefit and own self interest

While it is true that white Christians did conquer the native and basically stole the land, there is no need to characterize all of them as selfish and acting in there own self interest.

Go ahead and embarrass me. The main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are primarily, White, English speaking, Christian Canadians.

My information relating to ethnicity is that Canada is 66% White, 59.3% English speaking and 66% Christian.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107386.html

Just so I'm clear on your claim, these "main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are primarily, White, English speaking, Christian Canadians" and they are paying ALL of the costs in Canada. That's what you said right? And so, non-White non-Christians are paying NONE of the cost, right?

[Leafless]

How so? Did the Pope set up Canada as a religious state?

N0 of course not.

England GAVE us Canada and we inherited Christianity as well as the English Common-Law system of criminal and civil law, with the Queen as 'head of state', until 1982 with Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'.

This of course is when Provincial judges and Supreme Court judges becoming social activist overriding democratic decisions our provincial and federal government and adding a new element 'culture' that overshadowed the democratic norm that allowed Canadian citizens themselves to create cultural norms.

Did the founders forget to mention to the citizens of Canada that they did not have freedom of religion but in fact were part of a Christian religious state?

England were the victors and as far as I know not many complained of that fact, but you.

And what of those natives who happened to be here first but were not Christian?

Natives were a conquered people, and were free like anyone else to participate in Canadian society and still are.

Ah yes, the double-standard shows up again. If it is a foreign religion, it is " sabotaging national interest" but if it is a Christian religion, well that is in the national interest, right? Leafless, I cannot illustrate you bigotry and intolerance any better than your own words do.

To bad Renagade but Trudeau did NOT create Canada, it has ALWAYS belonged to the White English speaking Christian majority. This must have burnt him real bad and why he chose to develop and undemocratically impose that traitorous, racial discriminatory Charter.

Yes I can see clearly now how those Hindus stole the white culture. I'm sure that temple was designed by white Christian architects and the Hindus stole the plans and built it and called it theirs. Your insistence at dragging the Charter into the discussion is getting tiresome. This really has nothing to do with the Charter, even though according to your thought process the Charter is the instigator of all evil in the world today.

The Charter is a traitorous, racially discriminatory document invented by an arrogant, jealous, envious French minority politician namely P.E. Trudeau.

When anyone contributes to society they contribute to the betterment of all Canadians.

This is one the dumbest statements I have ever heard anywhere.

Can you prove what your saying?

This is almost like saying that the hijackers who drove airliners into the World Trade Center, contributed to the American economy by taking advanced flying lessons from private U.S. companies.

Just so I'm clear on your claim, these "main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are primarily, White, English speaking, Christian Canadians" and they are paying ALL of the costs in Canada. That's what you said right? And so, non-White non-Christians are paying NONE of the cost, right?

What I said was " main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are PRIMARILY White English speaking Christian Canadians and they are paying all the cost. So I did say they are primarily paying all the cost.

Taxes ethnic minorities pay probably would not cover their welfare and hospital cost. I have been visiting hospitals lately and I can guarantee ethnic minorities being treated for illnesses grossly over represent their tiny population here in Canada. Hospitals are full of them and have been for many years.

[capricorn]

The French, one of the two founding nations, brought us the Roman Catholic religion.

When French colonization in Canada began, only a few years had elapsed since the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes in 1598 [see text of the Edict ], which gave to Roman Catholics and Huguenots in France parallel rights. Consequently, in the early period of colonization in Canada both Protestants and Roman Catholics took part. Monts was a Huguenot, and he took out with him to Acadia in 1604 not only Protestant and Roman Catholic settlers, but also a Protestant minister and a Roman Catholic priest. "I have seen our curb and the minister," wrote Champlain , who was geographer to the expedition, "fall to with their fists on questions of faith." The Caën brothers [ Guillaume and Émery ] were Huguenots; and it is said that Champlain himself, though a good Catholic, came of Huguenot parentage. The Huguenots were, in fact, among the most progressive of the early traders and settlers who came to Canada . But the danger of religious strife in the colony, such as that which had rent the mother country with civil war, was perhaps such that the French government wished to eliminate it; possibly, also, the Huguenots had proved too independent of royal control. In the charter granted in 1627, therefore, to the Company of New France, it was stipulated that no colonists should be sent out to New France who were not Roman Catholics; and this prohibition remained in effect during the whole period of French rule. A very few Protestants appear to have settled in Canada after 1627, but their numbers were negligible; and New France was thus almost exclusively Roman Catholic.

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger...History_000.htm

Of course, we all know that the RC Church kept New France, now Quebec, under its thumb for centuries. That's another issue.

I agree with Leafless. Christianity was and is well imbeded in our Canadian culture. It was brought here by one of the two founding peoples, mainly the French.

[Renegade]

England GAVE us Canada and we inherited Christianity as well as the English Common-Law system of criminal and civil law, with the Queen as 'head of state', until 1982 with Trudeau's 'Charter of rights and Freedoms'.

No, the English WERE Christians, they didn't IMPOSE Christianity on its subjects. As an aside, if you look at Englands colonial past you will see that the reason for colonialization was almost completely economic. Many other countries with Roman Catholic populations had other motivations such as the conversion of conquered peoples.

In any case, what Canada is today is what we CHOOSE it to be and what we enshrine in law. There is no legal document I know which imposes Christianity on Canadians. Virually all laws who's only basis for being was Christian docterine, has been shunned.

I agree with you that there was a time when state and church were not easily separated. But what I am talking about is Canada as it is now. As it is now it is a secular state. Prove me wrong.

When anyone contributes to society they contribute to the betterment of all Canadians.

This is one the dumbest statements I have ever heard anywhere.

Can you prove what your saying?

Lets first agree on what you mean by "contributes". Does paying taxes mean "contributes"? Does holding a job mean "contributes". Please do tell.

What I said was " main income generating provinces Ontario and Alberta are PRIMARILY White English speaking Christian Canadians and they are paying all the cost. So I did say they are primarily paying all the cost.

Let the backpeddling begin, oh wait, it's been going on already. Here is what you said:

the majority White English speaking Christian Canadians, the ones that pay all the bills

You did not say "primarily", you did say "all". There is a big difference between paying "primarily" the cost and paying "all" the cost. Please show me where you said "primarily" in your original post.

Now that you introduced the word "primarily" what does it mean? Does it mean they pay 51% of the cost?

Pretty soon you'll be saying that all you meant was that they pay "some" of the cost.

Taxes ethnic minorities pay probably would not cover their welfare and hospital cost. I have been visiting hospitals lately and I can guarantee ethnic minorities being treated for illnesses grossly over represent their tiny population here in Canada. Hospitals are full of them and have been for many years.

I have no idea if this is true or not because no statistics I know track welfare and hospital cost by minority status. Your anedotal evidence is no means to come to any conclusion and simply serves to reinforce your own prejudices. Do you have any evidence of what you are stating besides your anedotes?

[Renegade]

I agree with Leafless. Christianity was and is well imbeded in our Canadian culture. It was brought here by one of the two founding peoples, mainly the French.

I don't think anyone disputes that Canada was founded by the English and French, both of whom were Christian. I also agree that we have inherited traditions and culture from those peoples. (For example, many establishments close on Sunday), and we have statutory holidays such as Easter and Christmas.

However, depsite these we have defined ourselves as a secular state. We value the separatiion of church and state and value freedom of religion. I can see nothing in your post or cite which contradicts this.

[M.Dancer]

I have never heard of any Canadian prime minister officiating the opening of any 'place of worship' in Canada. Outside of what this this thread is addressing, Mr. Harper officiating the opening of a Hindu temple.

I will ask you to make up a list to prove me wrong, all or any other Canadian prime ministers who have behaved in a similar manner since 1867, officiating the opening of a 'place of worship'.

You mean something like this:

In 1877 Prime Minister Alexander MacKenzie laid the cornerstone of this Heritage Church, founded in 1857. It is affiliated with the Canadian Baptist Federation and is the Canadian Armed Forces garrison church. Standing amidst offices, businesses, the University of Ottawa, the Regional Headquarters and the Court House, the Church is trying to build bridges with this community

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

or this:

August 23, 1985 - Canadian Prime Minister Mr. Brian Mulroney opened Ismaili Jamat Khana and Centre in Burnaby, B.C. in presence of Mowlana Hazar Imam, Begum Salimah and Prince Amyn Mohammad.

link

Point To renegade.

Game set and match