April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by flameswin

lol, Will Smith.

I was hung on up that for a second or two.

"Huh? What the #### does Will Smith care about any of this?"

"Ha! Must be another Will Smith."

[pylon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

... Except that's not the quote. The word should does not appear in the quote. Total difference in meaning. If you can find a quote from Huntsburger saying that he wishes all homosexuals to burn in a lake of fire, then everything changes. Until then, he's just tactless and uncaring, but not bigoted.

Now, I don't want to support Huntsburger, because I know that some level of bigotry often accompanies people who say that message in that way. It's unloving, and uncaring, and Christians in the past have, through word and action, elevated homosexuality as some kind of greater sin than other sins. I probably thought that way previously in my life. And it is discrimination, and frankly, I hate that it has happened.


But, simply saying that something is a sin, isn't bigotry. It can be said without hate, malice, or discrimination. Personally, I wouldn't say that message like that at all. Also, the quote as said by Huntsburger isn't in agreement with the Bible. If one type of sin keeps people out of heaven, than all types of sin would, and thus, no one would get to heaven. Also, it is an important distinction to note that "being gay" is nowhere condemned in the Bible (except in some outdated translations/versions that should not be relied on), only homosexual acts are warned against. Essentially, homosexuals are only held to the same standard as unmarked heterosexuals. Anyways, this isnt the place to get too much deeper with this discussion. It just bugs me when Christians are called bigots simply for stating what the Bible says. There is some bigotry and the like within our ranks, unfortunately, and it needs to change. I do see that some change is happening, as many Christians realize that the old way of thinking was leading to the church becoming increasingly irrelevant to the outside society, in part due to the hypocrisy in the way the Church has treated homosexuals, treating them differently than anyone else.

Disect it however you want. Anyone who preaches that drivel, must buy into it. And anyone who believes that is fundamentally flawed in my eyes, and somewhat evil. Religion and sexual preference have no place in politics, neither do zealots for either cause. Balance the Provincial budget, build my community a new arena..... whatever. But spare me your opinions on God and sodomy, as neither have any bearing on getting that done. If it is so important to you that you must make such hateful beliefs known, then your priorities are not in line with what a public servants priorities should be. Plain and simple.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

But, simply saying that something is a sin, isn't bigotry. It can be said without hate, malice, or discrimination.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. But I think the above is verging on semantics. Huntsburger clearly believes in the bible. So when he observes that the bible considers homosexuality to be a sin and an offence against God and therefore immoral, he is saying that he believes that homosexuality is a sin and an offence against God and therefore immoral. When I observe that the bible considers homosexuality to be a sin, I am doing so in order to say that no, I don't believe in the bible, I don't believe that homosexuality is immoral. Indeed, I am making the observation in order to point out that I find the bible to be immoral in this respect. That is a big difference.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Its really nice to see the mayors of both Edmonton and Calgary taking a stand on these issues. I wonder if the narrative arc of this election is going to suddenly become urban Alberta v. rural Alberta?

If the Calgary CTV poll is any indication, people will vote for the person who they think will best represent thier riding. A friend of mine has Heather Forsythe in his riding. He has nothing good to say about her as she has never responded to any concerns he's had over the years. He won't vote for her despite liking the WR platform.

John Barlow is the PC in my riding. He has lived here for 20 years working in the community. Danielle Smith is also running in my riding. While I like the WR platform he made a convincing argument that he will do an excellent job of representing my riding. At present i'm torn as which way I should go.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Its really nice to see the mayors of both Edmonton and Calgary taking a stand on these issues. I wonder if the narrative arc of this election is going to suddenly become urban Alberta v. rural Alberta?

If it's a near sweep for the WildRose in the rural areas (not necessarily Lethbridge, Red Deer or Fort MacMurry), which many people are guessing then that will be one of the big headlines of the election.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

It just bugs me when Christians are called bigots simply for stating what the Bible says.

It's not about simply stating what the bible says, it's the hiding behind bible scripture as justification for hatred and discrimination. It's just still socially acceptable enough to do it in regard to homosexuality. The bible also sanctions slavery, but if someone cited the bible in their belief in the subjugation of women for instance, it would not be nearly as acceptable in today's society.

People should simply know better with regard to homosexuality as they do now with slavery. In my view, "the bible says so" is simply not a valid justification for discrimination and hatred in 2012.

[kn]

Originally Posted by pylon

Disect it however you want. Anyone who preaches that drivel, must buy into it. And anyone who believes that is fundamentally flawed in my eyes, and somewhat evil.

Wow... how tolerant of you. I hope you have the same contempt for conservative Jews and Muslims, you know, just to be fair and equal.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by kn

Wow... how tolerant of you. I hope you have the same contempt for conservative Jews and Muslims, you know, just to be fair and equal.

Why should someone tolerate bigoted views?

Not every Christian shares that hateful view.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

If it's a near sweep for the WildRose in the rural areas (not necessarily Lethbridge, Red Deer or Fort MacMurry), which many people are guessing then that will be one of the big headlines of the election.

From what I saw in our rural debate it was far from being a sweep. The room was pretty divided between the WR and the PC.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Makarov

It doesn't seem right that Edmonton and Calgary constitute nearly 2/3 of the population of this province but only 1/2 of its MLA seats. That has to change.

It's not right. We are a heavily urbanized province and our legislature should reflect that fact. We're gerrymandered.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It's not about simply stating what the bible says, it's the hiding behind bible scripture as justification for hatred and discrimination. It's just still socially acceptable enough to do it in regard to homosexuality. The bible also sanctions slavery, but if someone cited the bible in their belief in the subjugation of women for instance, it would not be nearly as acceptable in today's society.

People should simply know better with regard to homosexuality as they do now with slavery. In my view, "the bibile says so" is simply not a valid justification for discrimination and hatred in 2012.

I'll be the first to agree with you that many hide behind the Bible as a justification for hate, and that it should never happen. If Christians spread shared their beliefs as Jesus intended, not even the biggest critics of Christianity should be able to say that they didn't think that the message was delivered with care, genuine concern, and love.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by pylon

Balance the Provincial budget, build my community a new arena..... whatever. But spare me your opinions on God and sodomy, as neither have any bearing on getting that done. If it is so important to you that you must make such hateful beliefs known, then your priorities are not in line with what a public servants priorities should be. Plain and simple.

Agree with this. Political decisions should be made because it was is best for the whole society, and not for one smaller group amongst the whole. Faith and politics don't mix well.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Bunk

It's not right. We are a heavily urbanized province and our legislature should reflect that fact. We're gerrymandered.

3.65 million total population ==> 87 seats (41,954 people / seat)

1.1 M (Calgary)
==> proportional number of seats = 26.2
==> actual seats = 25

782,000 (Edmonton city)
==> proportional number of seats = 18.6
==> actual seats = 19

Total (Calgary + Edmonton)
==> proportional = 44.8
==> actual = 44

This is "heavily gerrymandered?" (Sorry...I could have sworn your original post said "heavily gerrymandered"). Obviously I'm not addressing the 15 other *small* cities, most of which are smaller than the average electoral division size (and therefore must include much of the surrounding rural area in order to be reasonably representative).

I'm not outright saying it hasn't happened, but contrary to what was being said, Calgary and Edmonton are roughly fairly represented.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by kn

Wow... how tolerant of you. I hope you have the same contempt for conservative Jews and Muslims, you know, just to be fair and equal.

I am born to a practicing Jewish mother, and a god fearing Catholic father. By Religious standards, I am a Jew. By my standards I am an atheist. I accept my parents beliefs, my father and mother for 47 years have accepted each others faiths, and neither of them have ever held it against me for one second I chose the path of Atheism, which due to recent events, has made me even question that, and believe I may actually be more agnostic.

I can accept peoples beliefs. I can sit through a Seder and have memorized the entire Hebrew prayer service phonetically to appease my mother and be a good son. I actually own quite a cool selection of NHL and NFL Yarmulkes to sport at Jewish services and funerals, and to be honest, I love putting one on when I get the chance.

However, I was raised in a home, where whether you believed it or not, you didn't persecute someone for their beliefs, nor did you tell people they would "Burn in hell" for a genetic pre-disposition to liking those of the same sex. I was born into probably the most diverse, accepting scenario that could ever be imagined. I had a Star of David capping my Christmas tree, and a Menora and Matza Ball soup at the turkey dinner table. I am pretty sure we coined the phrase Christmakkah sometime in the early 80's. My folks are wonderful accepting people who put aside the religious crap, and have loved each other in manogamy for 47 years not because a book told them to, but because their hearts did, at the expense of my father being disowned for nearly a decade, by his folks, for marrying a "dirty jew."

So don't tell me, I am intolerant. I am the definition of tolerance.

[kn]

Originally Posted by Dion

Why should someone tolerate bigoted views?

Not every Christian shares that hateful view.

First, I never said every Christian shared that view and that is why I specifically used the "conservative" proviso.

Second, we already tolerate all sorts of bigoted views. Where was the public outrage when the woman in Calgary got a suspended sentance for the honor killing of her 14 year old daughter? But we'll consider revoking the charitable tax status of Catholic churches for failing to ordain women.

There's a double-standard in how we approach different religions depending on how "easy" it is to challenge them. Christianity is an easy target. Islam and Judaism, not so much.

[kn]

Originally Posted by pylon

So don't tell me, I am intolerant. I am the definition of it.

Fair enough. Sorry if I offended. I just thought accusing the poster of being "evil" was too much.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I'd rather that the term "hate speech" refer to speech that is actually spoken with hatred.

What about speech that advocates intolerance in public schools? Speech that permits hatred?

This is what the Hunspergers took issue with:

"The Board is committed to establishing and maintaining a safe, inclusive, equitable, and welcoming learning and teaching environment for all members of the school community. This includes those students, staff, and families who identify or are perceived as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, two-spirit, queer or questioning their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The Board expects all members of this diverse community to be welcomed, respected, accepted, and supported in every school."

So they're saying that these people should not be welcomed and/or respected and/or accepted and/or supported in at least some schools; and/or that the learning environment for them should not be safe and/or inclusive and/or equitable and/or welcoming.

As far as I'm concerned, that's hate - and that's not even touching on the kind of message it sends to have someone telling you you're going to burn in hell (for being who you are) elected as a leader of your province, and possibly as your representative in government. And Smith and the Wildrose party are also sending a message by failing to condemn it.

For reference, here's the Hunspergers' blog post: http://i41.tinypic.com/j9wriu.jpg

And here's the Edmonton Public School Board policy: http://www.epsb.ca/policy/ifa.bp.shtml

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by SebC

It's $50. It lowers your taxable income $500, which at the marginal tax bracket that teachers are in (which is pretty simple to figure out in Alberta) means they pay $50 less in tax.

Tax credit doesn't lower your taxable income. It just gives you 500 credit.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Tax credit doesn't lower your taxable income. It just gives you 500 credit.

In that case, they're estimating that ~10% of the available money will be claimed.

2 million total cost / 43,500 ATA members = ~$50/member

[darklord700]

Just watched the I never vote for PC video. It's so bad that I though not it was sponsored by PC but by a double agent from WR.