Canadian Women leaving Christianity

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Agreed

I think it's pretty clear who benefits most from the decline of Christianity in Canada. Tyranny from those who make the rules, enforce them, and understand them fully.

So people voluntarily giving up the belief in a invisible supernatural being will lead to tyranny at the hands of the legal system?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So people voluntarily giving up the belief in a invisible supernatural being will lead to tyranny at the hands of the legal system?

Why not? Somebody will be only too happy to slip into the void left by the church and exploit the stupidity and gullibility of the masses. Why not the legislative and judiciary systems. If not them, it will just be somebody else ... maybe the corporate marketing empire or whoever controls the mass media. Somebody will do it though.

[jammies]

People, people, we are not addressing the central issue here:

Does this portend a crisis in the supply of sexy Catholic school-girls?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Somebody will do it though.

Xenu, or Tom Cruise - either way you're going to be yearning for the old days when you could just put $20 in the collection plate, instead of flying half-way across the universe to die as cannon-fodder in the intergalactic battle for hearts and minds.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why not? Somebody will be only too happy to slip into the void left by the church and exploit the stupidity and gullibility of the masses. Why not the legislative and judiciary systems. If not them, it will just be somebody else ... maybe the corporate marketing empire or whoever controls the mass media. Somebody will do it though.

Well put. Although I think the education system has a bigger long term effect on social beliefs then mass media. If we wise up and put in a "How to interpret media properly" course, perhaps the masses won't be as ignorant as they are now.

Knowledge is a good safeguard against tyranny. Or at least that's what my Pastor said when I was growing up. I'm not joking here, I can thank my religious influences for teaching me the basics of critical thinking (coming out of an Anglican upbringing).

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why not? Somebody will be only too happy to slip into the void left by the church and exploit the stupidity and gullibility of the masses. Why not the legislative and judiciary systems. If not them, it will just be somebody else ... maybe the corporate marketing empire or whoever controls the mass media. Somebody will do it though.

That makes sense if we happen to be living under the tyranny of the church right now. We aren't. There is no "tyranny void" to fill.

EDIT: Although if you are saying people will turn to something else, I agree and that it could be the corporate marketing empire or materialism. It probably already is. I don't see "tyranny" though.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by llama64

Well put. Although I think the education system has a bigger long term effect on social beliefs then mass media. If we wise up and put in a "How to interpret media properly" course, perhaps the masses won't be as ignorant as they are now.

Knowledge is a good safeguard against tyranny. Or at least that's what my Pastor said when I was growing up. I'm not joking here, I can thank my religious influences for teaching me the basics of critical thinking (coming out of an Anglican upbringing).

Actually, I've been advocating something similar for years. I work in the media, and I've said for about 15 years that a Media Comprehension course should be a thee year core subject in high school. In order to function in today's society, people need to know who to interpret media spin, hidden agenda's, not to mention plain and simple misinformed reporting ... and the internet is just one more component of the media and in many cases just an extension of the media. Look how much of the news portion of the internet is now controlled by the mainstream media.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

maybe the corporate marketing empire or whoever controls the mass media.

This is my vote.

[metal_geek]

Originally Posted by llama64

I think the education system has a bigger long term effect on social beliefs then mass media. If we wise up and put in a "How to interpret media properly" course, perhaps the masses won't be as ignorant as they are now.
.

Makes sense to me, if you can get such a course past the school boards of people who want to teach the earth is 4000 years old. Get it past the board members who's partners work at credit card companies. Get it past the board members who are receiving sponsorship for the advertisemnts in the schools. Schools don't produce logical thinkers.
________
Free joomla themes

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That makes sense if we happen to be living under the tyranny of the church right now. We aren't. There is no "tyranny void" to fill.

Perhaps you're right, but it's also possible the the word "yet" needs to be tacked onto the end of your sentence. In my opinion, there is an increasing number of examples where the state is moving into the realm of legislating lifestyle and morality, such as gay marriages, abortion, healthy lifestyles, etc. Many of these are good causes and welcome changes, but for an opposite example look at some of the things foisted on the public through the Patriot Act in the US, and to a lesser extent through security legislation in Canada as well.

Gay marriage and gay rights are an example of how the legislative and judiciary bodies are getting involved in morality issues in a positive way. But just because one of their early examples is positive doesn't mean I want the judiciary/legislative powers to decide what's right and wrong for me. The legislative body (parliament) is at least elected, but the judiciary is not, nor is it answerable to an elected body even. It is a small body of the elite who I don't not trust to do what is right for the masses, or for individuals. As for the legislative body being up to the task, may I present Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Stephen Harper, Ralph Klein, Ed Stelmach, ad nauseam as examples of why they're not.

Edit: I didn't see your edit until replying, and yes, that's basically what I'm saying. The masses will turn to someone or something else. I'm not saying it will be the state, but I'm sure the state will be vying for the role along with the corporate world and the mass media. I'm sure others will want to try to control the masses for their own agendas as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Gay marriage and gay rights are an example of how the legislative and judiciary bodies are getting involved in morality issues in a positive way. But just because one of their early examples is positive doesn't mean I want the judiciary/legislative powers to decide what's right and wrong for me. The legislative body (parliament) is at least elected, but the judiciary is not, nor is it answerable to an elected body even. It is a small body of the elite who I don't not trust to do what is right for the masses, or for individuals. As for the legislative body being up to the task, may I present Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Stephen Harper, Ralph Klein, Ed Stelmach, ad nauseam as examples of why they're not.

Ah, I see. Good point. I don't know about another option though. That list of politicians is kind of grim, but we did put them there to make decisions for us. From where I stand, I'd rather a human being deciding what is right and wrong rather than some being I don't believe exists deciding, or people who claim to represent said being telling me what's what.

Regarding judicial activism -- I guess, but I don't know that I really fear what they might get up to. Sure they are powerful, but really how much can they do? Even if they aren't elected, we aren't going to let them do anything crazy. Of course lots of people think that whole gay marriage thing is crazy and they've already started...

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Ah, I see. Good point. I don't know about another option though. That list of politicians is kind of grim, but we did put them there to make decisions for us. From where I stand, I'd rather a human being deciding what is right and wrong rather than some being I don't believe exists deciding, or people who claim to represent said being telling me what's what.

Regarding judicial activism -- I guess, but I don't know that I really fear what they might get up to. Sure they are powerful, but really how much can they do? Even if they aren't elected, we aren't going to let them do anything crazy. Of course lots of people think that whole gay marriage thing is crazy and they've already started...

On that point, I whole heartedly agree. Especially since I believe that group of representative people have long since lost and/or corrupted the message of said devine being.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That makes sense if we happen to be living under the tyranny of the church right now. We aren't. There is no "tyranny void" to fill.

EDIT: Although if you are saying people will turn to something else, I agree and that it could be the corporate marketing empire or materialism. It probably already is. I don't see "tyranny" though.

Tyranny is the system that has to artifically regulate that something(s) else in which everyone turns to. By having many different something elses as opposed to one belief system there are more interactions among people of competing belief systems in which necessitates a bunch more lowest common denominator laws to keep peace and order. Thus many areas of life that were previously free of worldly legal oversight now have a smattering of official rules and regulations. The lowest common denominator principle in creating these rules and regulations have effectively outlawed many practices that are not seen as acceptable by even the smallest minority of people. Ie Free Speech is clearly not acceptable in an Islamic belief system so therefore we have a Human Rights Tribunal protecting said belief system from criticism as it interacts with people from other belief systems.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by llama64

The entirety of the Book of Revelations is specific to the context of the time in which it was written. It's symbolism cannot be directly applied to current times.

It's been included in the Bible as a method to scare people into staying Christian. Plus, what good is a religion without a good apocalyptic story?

Well, I don't think the book's symbolism can be applied to any 'times', since nothing of the nature has ever happened and may not ever happen(well, atleast not yet); therefore that theory goes out the window.

Meh, I think you missed the point. The thread topic just reminded me of these prohpecies, that's all.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by jammies

People, people, we are not addressing the central issue here:

Does this portend a crisis in the supply of sexy Catholic school-girls?

It might! Dear sweet jesus no!! Less lipservice christians = less attending Catholic schools and less funding. No funding = no catholic schoolchildren = less to grow up into sexy Catholic school girls!

Surely you see the issue! Sinners REPENT!!

Honestly though, I wonder if the tone would still be as happy if it was Judaism, Islam or some other religion declining in number...

[Ford Prefect]

^^^^
Less lip service from Catholic girls ... that is truly a frightening thought.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

^^^^
Less lip service from Catholic girls ... that is truly a frightening thought.

and now you know why some of us defend the context of christianity so vehemently!

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

By having many different something elses as opposed to one belief system there are more interactions among people of competing belief systems in which necessitates a bunch more lowest common denominator laws to keep peace and order.

We already have many competing belief systems and we aren't turning back, so this is moot.

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The lowest common denominator principle in creating these rules and regulations have effectively outlawed many practices that are not seen as acceptable by even the smallest minority of people. Ie Free Speech is clearly not acceptable in an Islamic belief system so therefore we have a Human Rights Tribunal protecting said belief system from criticism as it interacts with people from other belief systems.

Can you name a few of these many practices have effectively been outlawed because they are not seen as acceptable by a minority of people?
Your Islamic free-speech example -- I don't get it. There is a law that protects the practice of prohibiting free speech from criticism? First I heard of it, though I must admit I'm not familiar with the Human Rights Tribunal.

Nobody has told any of us that we can't criticize whatever we want, including free-speech practices in the Islamic community.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

and now you know why some of us defend the context of christianity so vehemently!

But can't I just have my lip service without, you know, paying for it?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

But can't I just have my lip service without, you know, paying for it?

But without the christian moral taboo of bad girls, and without them prancing in their little schoolgirl outfits... we may be robbing our children and grandchildren of that giddy thrill!!

QUICK TO CHURCH PEOPLE!!

(well, just easter and maybe christmas... lets not go nuts here!)