What the US religous right says about Canada. - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

peter12 · 10-13-2004, 06:02 PM

...Clicky....

Cube Inmate · 10-13-2004, 06:11 PM

"While anti-family activists have in recent years been astonishingly successful in rewriting Canada’s laws..."

"Anti-family activists?" Sorry right-wing nutjobs, but the only anti-family activists I know are the surly teenagers who can't wait to get out of mom and dad's house.... Nice spin though.

Cowperson · 10-13-2004, 06:16 PM

First, Canadians tend to be more peaceful. Aside from a few brief uprisings, they did not go through revolution, civil war or a fight for democracy as the United States did.

Didn't we win a war against these guys?

Ah America . . . . crazy control freaks.

Cowperson

Mike F · 10-13-2004, 06:33 PM

"So whereas in your Declaration of Independence it’s ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ the corresponding values in Canada are ‘peace, order and good government,’ " he said

Sorry buddy, but the Canadian equivalent is: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

Thunderball · 10-13-2004, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike F@Oct 13 2004, 06:33 PM
"So whereas in your Declaration of Independence it’s ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ the corresponding values in Canada are ‘peace, order and good government,’ " he said

Sorry buddy, but the Canadian equivalent is: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

It is also officially "Peace, Order and Good Government."

They go on some tangents, but I'm afraid to say they make a point. How come its alright for minorities to protect their culture, but when the "majority" wants to protect theirs, they are religious zealots, or right wing ignorant rednecks?

Displaced Flames fan · 10-13-2004, 07:03 PM

Not to jump in the middle of this, because...

1. The religious right is not where I stand....
2. I'm not Canadian and can't place myself in your viewing points....

but, I'd like a little discussion with you guys on Mike's post.

He said the Canadian equivalent is....

I find them to actually be equivalent in meaning. Do you guys find them to mean the same things as well?

Mike F · 10-13-2004, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thunderball+Oct 13 2004, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Thunderball @ Oct 13 2004, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@Oct 13 2004, 06:33 PM
"So whereas in your Declaration of Independence it’s ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ the corresponding values in Canada are ‘peace, order and good government,’ " he said

Sorry buddy, but the Canadian equivalent is: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"

It is also officially "Peace, Order and Good Government."

They go on some tangents, but I'm afraid to say they make a point. How come its alright for minorities to protect their culture, but when the "majority" wants to protect theirs, they are religious zealots, or right wing ignorant rednecks? [/b][/quote]
No, the Peace, Order and Good Government provision comes in the division of powers sections -- Eg. the Provinces have exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with respect to property and civil rights while the Federal gov't has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with respect to matters having to do with peace, order and good government.

It has nothing to do with freedoms, rights or anything else guaranteed to individuals like the US's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is.

Mike F · 10-13-2004, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 13 2004, 06:03 PM
but, I'd like a little discussion with you guys on Mike's post.

He said the Canadian equivalent is....

I find them to actually be equivalent in meaning. Do you guys find them to mean the same things as well?

My interpretation would be that they're very, very similar, but that "pursuit of happiness" is more of a "Hey government, you have no right to control me," while "security of the person" is more of a "Hey government, stop them from doing that to me"

Plus Canada added "and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" which I don't believe the US have. That is the clause that allows the Gov't to actually pass laws that are in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the grounds that they are in line with our Canadian views of what is just and not have them thrown out by the courts.

It should be noted that they rarely do so.

Savvy27 · 10-13-2004, 08:26 PM

That article makes me love canada even more.

Quote:

Originally posted by Thunderball@Oct 14 2004, 12:52 AM
It is also officially "Peace, Order and Good Government."

They go on some tangents, but I'm afraid to say they make a point. How come its alright for minorities to protect their culture, but when the "majority" wants to protect theirs, they are religious zealots, or right wing ignorant rednecks?

What are they protecting their "culture" from? If I wanted to I could avoid premarital sex, pornography, abortion, gay people and their evil ways, etc. easily. What is stopping me from thriving in my culture of intolerance? The difference is that the people who do not believe in these same values are prohibited from fully living their lives according to their own values.

People who try and force their religious views and beliefs as the only way to live a good life ARE zealots. Maybe we disagree but I think that personal liberty being sacrificed because of a portion (even if it is a majority, which for most of these issues I seriously doubt) wants to dictate the actions of others is wrong. These people are also regarded as ignorant rednecks because for the most part they refuse to accept that there are people who do not believe what they do and should be able to live their lives accordingly.

Disclaimer: I am not stating that people should be allowed absolute freedom or that I love the idea of killing babies. I just believe that personal freedoms should be allowed up and until they impinge on the freedoms of another person. I just think its ridiculous to feel impinged upon over something like a couple of guys marrying eachother. I'm also not trying to say that the majority shouldn't rule... but it shouldn't be a tyranny of the majority, and logic needs to be used.

I find them to actually be equivalent in meaning. Do you guys find them to mean the same things as well?

I agree, they appear pretty similar. (If you mean what I think you mean, which compares the american one and the expanded canadian one)

Thunderball · 10-13-2004, 09:19 PM

I think my comment would be best served at another time... these guys are a little extreme...

I was having a conversation about French politics and how they declare themselves a secular society and they've banned religious headwear and what not.

I said that was a good thing and something we should do, especially with this Shariah law nonsense coming up, and my friend looked at me like I was Hitler.

I simply believe this country was built on certain things and we should hold fast to them. Does this mean we can't welcome people of all races?? no way. But they should recognize what we are and not try to mold away...

So to substantiate my claim, I believe in a French domestic policy, and if it happens to be American too, oh well.

RougeUnderoos · 10-13-2004, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 13 2004, 07:03 PM
Not to jump in the middle of this, because...

1. The religious right is not where I stand....
2. I'm not Canadian and can't place myself in your viewing points....

but, I'd like a little discussion with you guys on Mike's post.

He said the Canadian equivalent is....

I find them to actually be equivalent in meaning. Do you guys find them to mean the same things as well?

That's good, because none of us Canadians ever make judgements about Americans.

In other news... that group consists of mostly dumb people, with the occasional moron mixed in.

Someone please explain to me how gay marriage is a threat to any family. They say it all the time but it just doesn't make sense.

Will one person please take the plunge and say "My family is threatened by gay marriage because... insert reason here".

calf · 10-13-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Oct 13 2004, 09:44 PM
That's good, because none of us Canadians ever make judgements about Americans.

In other news... that group consists of mostly dumb people, with the occasional moron mixed in.

Someone please explain to me how gay marriage is a threat to any family. They say it all the time but it just doesn't make sense.

Will one person please take the plunge and say "My family is threatened by gay marriage because... insert reason here".

Will one person please take the plunge and say "My family is threatened by gay marriage because...ummm,a) the bible says it's wrong? b ) it's just plain sick? c)I got nothin'". I'll choose c....imho there's no real reason to be so adamantly against what others do (consentually) in their own home

FlamesAllTheWay · 10-13-2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Oct 13 2004, 09:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Oct 13 2004, 09:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 13 2004, 07:03 PM
Not to jump in the middle of this, because...

1. The religious right is not where I stand....
2. I'm not Canadian and can't place myself in your viewing points....

but, I'd like a little discussion with you guys on Mike's post.

He said the Canadian equivalent is....

I find them to actually be equivalent in meaning. Do you guys find them to mean the same things as well?

That's good, because none of us Canadians ever make judgements about Americans.

In other news... that group consists of mostly dumb people, with the occasional moron mixed in.

Someone please explain to me how gay marriage is a threat to any family. They say it all the time but it just doesn't make sense.

Will one person please take the plunge and say "My family is threatened by gay marriage because... insert reason here". [/b][/quote]
You might get invited to a gay wedding... Then maybe someone in your family will turn gay! Then they might get married!!! It's really a vicious cycle...

RougeUnderoos · 10-13-2004, 10:03 PM

Yeah they say the bible says it's wrong (it's been a while since I read it) but that still doesn't explain how it's a threat to any specific family (and anyone not guided by that old book).

The only reason I can come up that would make anyone actually believe "Gay marriage threatens my family specifically" is "My marriage will break up because my wife or I will choose to enter a same-sex marriage".

It's nonsense.

octothorp · 10-13-2004, 10:12 PM

which is responsible for more divorces: homosexuality, or adultery? If you were to follow the logic that we were banning those acts which threaten the institution of marriage, you'd think that adultery would be the first thing to be written up as a major crime. I'd wager that career transfers are probably responsible for ruining more marriages than homosexuality.

Flame On · 10-13-2004, 10:32 PM

Conversely I would like them to go all the way or not at all

I mean if the Bible says gays and gay marriage (I don't think it states marriage) are wrong and there should be legislation to protect the rightful married people, then there should be other laws to shouldn't there? Adultry is a criminal offense, hell that's a commandment. Why don't they subsribe to banning a muslim marrying a christian I mean if a gay is out a muslim must be wayyy out in the eyes of the christian right. Ludicrous I know, it all is.

calf · 10-13-2004, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 13 2004, 10:32 PM
Conversely I would like them to go all the way or not at all I mean if the Bible says gays and gay marriage (I don't think it states marriage) are wrong and there should be legislation to protect the rightful married people, then there should be other laws to shouldn't there? Adultry is a criminal offense, hell that's a commandment. Why don't they subsribe to banning a muslim marrying a christian I mean if a gay is out a muslim must be wayyy out in the eyes of the christian right. Ludicrous I know, it all is.

Why don't they just ban all religions that don't believe in God altogether? I mean, they break commandment #1 (which I would think is a fairly important one)

...some people just get too worked up over things...

FlamesAllTheWay · 10-13-2004, 11:25 PM

Could alot if this debate be solved if they allowed gay people to marry, but didn't call it marriage? Like a civil union or something? All the benefits of marriage, etc, just under a different name, so to speak...

arsenal · 10-13-2004, 11:29 PM

Probably. Personally I don't have a problem with it. If 2 people are in a commited relationship, they should have the same legal rights as straight married couples.

CrzyCanuck · 10-14-2004, 07:49 AM

I take it you won't mind a gay couple adopting then? "Billy, why are your two dad holding hands?" ..."Son, I don't think you should play at Billy's anymore"