Government on the brink?

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Originally posted by Sammie+Apr 6 2005, 06:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sammie @ Apr 6 2005, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-I-Hate-Hulse@Apr 6 2005, 02:00 PM
And really Sammie, your post history would suggest you fall well right on the political spectrum. In Alberta, that viewpoint would typically be represented by the Alberta Alliance Party, a party that garnered 9.1% of your vote. Are you really suprised that not everyone here agrees with your views? Do they have to?

Oh heavens no!!! I'm now a marked, categorized, and condemned man!

If you must know. I wasted my vote on the Liberal Party for far too many years. Probably more years than you've lived. I changed my vote as a result of the Liberal Party's highly successful character assassination of Stockwell Day when he took over the leadership of the Alliance Party. It opened my eyes to the warts, deceit, and extreme corruption of a party that's been in power for far too long.

Furthermore, what does the Alliance Party of Alberta have to do with the federal Conservative Party? And why bring up that silly 9% statistic that you manufactured? Last time I checked the Conservative Party had close to 30% of the support in the entire country. Are you attempting to give the impression that my opinion is more marginalized than it really is?

As I said before, you Liberals REALLY are something beyond belief! Keep up the well used, old, and worn out mantra, "The Conservatives are scary. The Conservatives are really, REALLY scary! Be afraid. Be very, VERY afraid!!!"

Let's continue to give our billions and billions of excessive tax dollars to those wonderful Liberals to spend as they wish on whatever they wish.[/b][/quote]
No one's saying you're condemned. Just that your extreme right wing slant (based on post history) isn't representative of 91% (one hates to quote the Sun) of other Albertans (assuming they voted for the AAP, the major party to the right of the PC's). So when you come on to a forum devoted to the general public, you shouldn't be surprised when a lot of people don't agree with you.

I don't think you get my vibe. I'd like to see the Liberals turfed. But I don't think the current bunch of Conservatives are up the the task either.

Reform relics and their Religious leanings aside, we're saying the current lot Conservatives are a bunch of amateurs who'd have trouble navigating themselves through a Costco. If you read your "blog" thread, even that blogger recognizes the the current edition of the Conservative Party isnt "viable".

Tell you what. Convince me why you think the current bunch of Conservatives could do a better job, other than the obvious fact that they aren't the Liberals? One vote here for the taking...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by ernie+Apr 7 2005, 02:54 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ernie @ Apr 7 2005, 02:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 6 2005, 12:54 PM
So let me get this straight -- believing the world is 10 thousand years old is not stupid, but saying it's stupid is stupid? Interesting.

That intense belief is not going to trump all for a large percentage of the population because a large percentage of the population doesn't believe it. A large percentage of the Christian population doesn't even believe it.

Do you think he gets ridiculed and mocked for his belief because most people agree with him?

So let me get this straight -- believing the world is 10 thousand years old is not stupid, but saying it's stupid is stupid? Interesting.

Perhaps stupid is the wrong term. Ignorant would perhaps be better. But it's not really whether you think it's stupid or not its more about you not respecting someones religious beliefs just because YOU don't think his view of things makes sense. As I mentioned there are many many many many very intelligent researchers that believe the same thing. That do indeed believe a literal translation of the bible. It may not make "sense" to you or me but they certainly aren't stupid people for believing that and I'm certainly not going to dismiss their thoughts or ideas on other subjects just because they have such a strong belief.

That intense belief is not going to trump all for a large percentage of the population because a large percentage of the population doesn't believe it. A large percentage of the Christian population doesn't even believe it.

You may be interested in this little tidbit. It's an american survey done in Feb of last year. This comes from the Washington Times.

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible's book of Genesis is "literally true" rather than a story meant as a "lesson.

..........The poll found that 75 percent of Protestants believed in the story of creation, 79 percent in the Red Sea account and 73 percent in Noah and the ark.
Among evangelical Protestants, those figures were 87 percent, 91 percent and 87 percent, respectively. Among Catholics, they were 51 percent, 50 percent and 44 percent.

Survey

I couldn't find the similar canadian survey that I have seen . I expect the numbers do differ from the american one however there is certainly not just a large percentage of US Christians that take the meaning of the bible as literal but a large portion of the US population. The canadian numbers may be quite different I don't know but I certainly expect a large chunk of the population would indeed believe the same thing, especially among the practicing christians. The bible is still taught as literal in a good chunk of the churches now and when I was growing up. The allegory nature of the bible has not been around in active church teachings until very recently and I think you'll find that it has not gained acceptance into the mainstream christian churches yet.

Note large chunk does not = majority. If I wanted to imply majority I would have said as much.

Do you think he gets ridiculed and mocked for his belief because most people agree with him?

No I think it's because some can't understand why he would believe what he does and are so ignorant and small-minded that they feel it necessary to ridicule and mock him for HIS intensely PERSONAL beliefs for the simple reason that his beliefs do not agree with their own. And to go further dismiss the person that is a literal creationist as a stupid person that can have no valuable input in other areas. Look around your neighbourhood, look at your profs (science or otherwise), look at your peers (not just friends) and among them you will find many literal creationists who are quite intelligent.

Now of course it goes both ways...I have very little time for small-minded religious folks who dismiss others just because they have different religious beliefs. I don't know Stockwell Day personally though I've talked to him on a few occassions (including a converstaion on this topic) and he has never come across to me as unaccepting of others just because they don't believe what he believes, though he absolutely wears his christianity on his sleeve as it is a huge part of his life. [/b][/quote]
You know what -- you got me. Stupid is the wrong term. Ignorant works for me.

That being said, I still think Stockwell is a stupid person. It's not just his belief in dinosaurs and man co-existing. It's lots of stuff.

If those numbers about Americans believing in this literal hocus pocus then it is truly frightening. I would think the Canadian numbers would be very different but I'm not sure. I don't know a single adult, Christian or otherwise, who believes it. After all the discussions about it on this board not one person has come out and said they believe it, and there are plenty of conservatives around here. Not a lot of churchgoers though.

I'm not in school anymore but I guarantee you not a single one of my professors was a literal creationist. Not one of them. Some pretty hardcore religious types in the bunch too.

It may be arrogant and small minded to ridicule HIS personal BELIEF, but it's not nearly as arrogant and small minded as HAVING that BELIEF.

[ernie]

I'm not in school anymore but I guarantee you not a single one of my professors was a literal creationist. Not one of them. Some pretty hardcore religious types in the bunch too.

I guarantee that you would be wrong in that. I spent 9 years getting my bachelor and doctorate in a natural science. I have had biology, chemistry, physics, math, accounting and sociology profs who believe the Genesis story and the bible as being literal. A couple of them are at the top of their fields. I even know one evolutionary prof that believes it if you can believe that! These aren't stupid people. I also know several several adults who believe the same thing. I know most churches teach it as literal.

It may be arrogant and small minded to ridicule HIS personal BELIEF, but it's not nearly as arrogant and small minded as HAVING that BELIEF.

Wow you just don't seem to get it. There is nothing wrong or stupid with having that belief. The simple fact of the matter is that the methods used for such things as the age of the earth etc. are based on their own assumptions. Those assumptions though fitting the data of today may in fact be completely and utterly incorrect a few years from now. Really it's a question of do you put the faith in the religious interpretation or do you put your faith in the underlying assumptions that make the sciencintific process possible. To you and me it seems a simple matter and makes more "sense" to believe the latter over the former. Other people believe the opposite and "right" or "wrong" you'll never be able to convince them one way or the other because in the end what everyone believes is based on some leap of faith be it the existence and miracles of God or belief in the assummptions that came up those numbers. Neither belief should be cause for ridicule.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by ernie@Apr 7 2005, 11:05 AM

I guarantee that you would be wrong in that. I spent 9 years getting my bachelor and doctorate in a natural science. I have had biology, chemistry, physics, math, accounting and sociology profs who believe the Genesis story and the bible as being literal. A couple of them are at the top of their fields. I even know one evolutionary prof that believes it if you can believe that! These aren't stupid people. I also know several several adults who believe the same thing. I know most churches teach it as literal.

Wow you just don't seem to get it. There is nothing wrong or stupid with having that belief. The simple fact of the matter is that the methods used for such things as the age of the earth etc. are based on their own assumptions. Those assumptions though fitting the data of today may in fact be completely and utterly incorrect a few years from now. Really it's a question of do you put the faith in the religious interpretation or do you put your faith in the underlying assumptions that make the sciencintific process possible. To you and me it seems a simple matter and makes more "sense" to believe the latter over the former. Other people believe the opposite and "right" or "wrong" you'll never be able to convince them one way or the other because in the end what everyone believes is based on some leap of faith be it the existence and miracles of God or belief in the assummptions that came up those numbers. Neither belief should be cause for ridicule.

Possibly, maybe even probably, but not one of them ever said it. I spent just 4 years getting an English degree and in English classes the bible comes up every single day and it was never, ever taken literally. Not a lot to talk about if the book you are reading means exactly what it says. Not once, in English or any other class (Arky, Anthro, lots of history, psych...) did a prof come out and say it. Maybe behind closed doors they bought it, but in their professional life...

As for churches teaching it literally, I'll have to take your word on that. The Catholics and Episcopalians don't, I know that. An internet search also tells me that Lutherans, Unitarians, the United Church, Methodists... don't.

And again, I guess you got me. They probably shouldn't be up for ridicule. This did start with Stockwell Day though, and he's definitely up for ridicule. His belief in this one thing does taint everything else. It has to. He believes in an entirely different reality than I do.

At the end of the day though... believing the "science" from a book written 2000 years before the invention of the microscope and scoffing at, for example, Einstein, MIT, biology, geology and all the things we've learned since that book was written, it seems to me to be just a little, I don't know, delusional?

[Resolute 14]

So let me get this straight -- believing the world is 10 thousand years old is not stupid, but saying it's stupid is stupid? Interesting.

IMO, it is a catch-22.

From our view, yes that belief is stupid. Certantly, you have your right to mock Day for that, even if he would find you stupid for the same things.

That said, I think diqualifying an entire party for one man's belief - a belief that has absolutely no bearing on his ability to do his job - is also stupid.

So the short answer is, you are both stupid.

Personally, I find it rather comical that people - conservatives only, really - get mocked for having religious beliefs. It is rather bigoted in my view. I dare anyone here to criticize a person for being muslim or Jewish.

Hell, I dare you to criticize anyone for being black or female.

Seems funny to me that this country is rapidly moving towards a society where anyone can be condemned and ostracized because their opinions or beliefs offend someone else.

Well, unless you offend a Christian.

Or a man

Or a caucasian.

Or a heterosexual person.

Or an english speaking person.

Seems to me that a society so determined to eliminate bigotry against minorities is doing so by encouraging bigotry against the majority.

It is a terribly ironic and sad commentary on today's world.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Apr 7 2005, 10:14 AM
No one's saying you're condemned. Just that your extreme right wing slant (based on post history) isn't representative of 91% (one hates to quote the Sun) of other Albertans (assuming they voted for the AAP, the major party to the right of the PC's). So when you come on to a forum devoted to the general public, you shouldn't be surprised when a lot of people don't agree with you.

I don't think you get my vibe. I'd like to see the Liberals turfed. But I don't think the current bunch of Conservatives are up the the task either.

Reform relics and their Religious leanings aside, we're saying the current lot Conservatives are a bunch of amateurs who'd have trouble navigating themselves through a Costco. If you read your "blog" thread, even that blogger recognizes the the current edition of the Conservative Party isnt "viable".

Tell you what. Convince me why you think the current bunch of Conservatives could do a better job, other than the obvious fact that they aren't the Liberals? One vote here for the taking...

Extreme right wing position? By who's standards? Perhaps you're so far left you can't see the center. I don't understand why you people insist on speaking for far more people than you really represent. Is this how you manipulate the thinking of people less informed than you?

By the way, I never voted for the Alberta Alliance Party so I would suggest you re-examine where I fit on the left/right spectrum.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 7 2005, 05:50 PM

IMO, it is a catch-22.

From our view, yes that belief is stupid. Certantly, you have your right to mock Day for that, even if he would find you stupid for the same things.

That said, I think diqualifying an entire party for one man's belief - a belief that has absolutely no bearing on his ability to do his job - is also stupid.

Seems funny to me that this country is rapidly moving towards a society where anyone can be condemned and ostracized because their opinions or beliefs offend someone else.

Well, unless you offend a Christian.

Or a man

Or a caucasian.

Or a heterosexual person.

Or an english speaking person.

Seems to me that a society so determined to eliminate bigotry against minorities is doing so by encouraging bigotry against the majority.

So the short answer is, you are both stupid.

Personally, I find it rather comical that people - conservatives only, really - get mocked for having religious beliefs. It is rather bigoted in my view. I dare anyone here to criticize a person for being muslim or Jewish.

Hell, I dare you to criticize anyone for being black or female.

Seems funny to me that this country is rapidly moving towards a society where anyone can be condemned and ostracized because their opinions or beliefs offend someone else.

Well, unless you offend a Christian.

Or a man

Or a caucasian.

Or a heterosexual person.

Or an english speaking person.

I didn't mock anyone but Stockwell and people who believe what we both have deemed "stupid". Not Christians in general or conservatives in particular. Just him and the ones who believe that nonsense.

His beliefs have plenty to do with his ability to do his job. Stockwell himself would be the first to admit that he doesn't leave his hardass Christian values at home when he goes to work in the morning. To suggest that his 24/7 fundamentalist bent would have no effect on the performance of his job is, I think, stupid. So that makes three of us.

The guy would be the foreign affairs minister for crying out loud. You think it's okay that the guy making some rather important decisions about Canada's place in the world also happens to believe that dinosaurs might have had saddles? I don't.

Would it bother you at all if Bill Graham came out tomorrow and said he believes the earth is flat? It would bother me.


Seems funny to me that this country is rapidly moving towards a society where anyone can be condemned and ostracized because their opinions or beliefs offend someone else.

Well, unless you offend a Christian.

Or a man

Or a caucasian.

Or a heterosexual person.

Or an english speaking person.




Yeah, because only straight white conservative guys get ridiculed and ostracized. Feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists, immigrants... nobody ever ridicules or ostracizes them.

[Resolute 14]

I didn't mock anyone but Stockwell and people who believe what we both have deemed "stupid". Not Christians in general or conservatives in particular. Just him and the ones who believe that nonsense.

And yet you have disqualified the Conservative Party because of one man's beliefs. One man who's beliefs do not represent party policy, and whom does not represent your riding (presumably).

While you may not mock Christians in general, it appears to me that you are more than happy to paint all Conservatives with the same brush.

His beliefs have plenty to do with his ability to do his job.# Stockwell himself would be the first to admit that he doesn't leave his hardass Christian values at home when he goes to work in the morning.# To suggest that his 24/7 fundamentalist bent would have no effect on the performance of his job is, I think, stupid.# So that makes three of us.

There is not a human on earth who leaves their values at home when they go to work. We are defined by them, and our attitudes and decisions are shaped by them. To ask a person to do something like that is to ask them to be an entirely different person.

In the Canadian political system, politicans vote for three reasons.

1. They are told to by the party leader.
2. They are told to by whoever is paying them off.
3. They vote their conscience.

Day's beliefs may have made him too much of an extremist to be a viable party leader because of option 1, but as an MP their impact is minimal. No more so than any other MP's beliefs.

Also, there is far more to a politician than his religious beliefs. I'd take Day and his "world started 10,000 years ago" faith over Rick McIver any day, and that has a lot to do with their records as politicians.

The guy would be the foreign affairs minister for crying out loud.# You think it's okay that the guy making some rather important decisions about Canada's place in the world also happens to believe that dinosaurs might have had saddles?# I don't.

I honestly would not be bothered by it. Mainly because I do not see how such a belief would affect how he performs that job.

Would you have a problem if our Foreign Affairs minister were openly gay?

Yeah, because only straight white conservative guys get ridiculed and ostracized.# Feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists, immigrants... nobody ever ridicules or ostracizes them.

You missed the point.

Society is fighting bigotry against the "weaker" group by condoning bigotry against the "stronger" one.

I never stated or implied that feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists, immigrants, etc are not ridiculed or ostrasized. I am stating that society will not fight as hard for a man as it will a woman.

Or for a Christian as hard as it will for a Muslim.

Etc.

It is not politically correct to do so. It is, ironically, better to be a bigot than it is to appear one. All that matters is where your bigotry lies.

But then, I've never bought into the idea that I should feel guilty for being a man. Or white. Or heterosexual. Or Christian (nominally).

[RougeUnderoos]

And yet you have disqualified the Conservative Party because of one man's beliefs.

Yes I have disqualified the Conservative Party because of one man's beliefs. He is a powerful and influential member of the party and he also happens to be a fataing moron. Any group that would put a guy like him in a position of power is not going to get my vote.

"God's law is clear: standards of education are not set by government, but by God, the Bible, the home and the school."

- Stockwell Day, the Conservative Party's Foreign Affairs critic, in Alberta Report magazine, 1984.

This is good too...

"Most Canadians profess to be of the Christian faith and I think we need to be sensitive to the fact it bothers Christians when the name of Jesus Christ is used in a blasphemous way."

- Conservative Foreign Affairs critic Stockwell Day on the need to ban or censor Of Mice and Men in public schools, Red Deer Advocate, March 24, 1994. This happened in the middle of national Freedom to Read Week.

I wouldn't trust a guy with these beliefs to swab up the mudroom at the elementary school, stack books at the library or walk my dog. No way in hell would I contribute to him running the country I live in.

One man who's beliefs do not represent party policy, and whom does not represent your riding (presumably).

He doesn't represent my riding but he would represent my country.

There is not a human on earth who leaves their values at home when they go to work. We are defined by them, and our attitudes and decisions are shaped by them. To ask a person to do something like that is to ask them to be an entirely different person.

I don't know what you are trying to convince me of with this. You're the one who said his belief(s)...

"has absolutely no bearing on his ability to do his job - is also stupid."

not me.

[B]Would you have a problem if our Foreign Affairs minister were openly gay?[B/]

That depends if I thought he or she was smart enough to do the job. I don't think Stockwell Day is smart enough.

[ernie]

Not once, in English or any other class (Arky, Anthro, lots of history, psych...) did a prof come out and say it. Maybe behind closed doors they bought it, but in their professional life...

So basically you've never asked the question so assumed they don't think that way.

As for churches teaching it literally, I'll have to take your word on that. The Catholics and Episcopalians don't, I know that. An internet search also tells me that Lutherans, Unitarians, the United Church, Methodists... don't.

The catholics church itself does not have a defined stance on the issue beyond God created all from nothing. They do openly allow discussion of the timeline but essentially leave it up to the individual parishes to teach it as they will from what I understand (they do not teach anything other than Adam and Eve being the first parents and the only parents from what i understand). Nearly every praticing catholic I know, and I know quite a few, have been taught that the genesis story is literal and continues to be taught that in their many different parishes. Some believe it others don't. The same goes for many of the churches... some may be open to the other interpretations but by and large you'll find that the bulk of the parishes do in fact still teach a literal interpretation of the genesis story.

Science is great and what I follow but the fact remians it is still something that every century one guy can send shockwaves through his discipline and nearly everything changes.

The scientists dogma seems awfully religious to me.....

The fact is from what I can tell you don't believe that a person (such as Stockwell Day) can be smart in any other thing because to you he's stupid for believing this one thing, even though he has (arguably) proven to be a effective at his job at every level. I'd love to be around when you get the wake up call that having different beliefs does not equal stupidity.

[Resolute 14]

Yes I have disqualified the Conservative Party because of one man's beliefs. He is a powerful and influential member of the party and he also happens to be a fataing moron. Any group that would put a guy like him in a position of power is not going to get my vote.

Is he a "fataing moron" because he has strong religious beliefs or because of his political record?

Given you have already stated you have no clue what his record as Finance Minister is, I would presume he is a moron because his beliefs differ from yours.

And given you have yet to show how Day has let his personal religious beliefs affect his performance as either MP or Foreign Affairs Critic, I really have no choice but to believe you consider him a moron simply for being Christian.

You sir, are proof of my argument about today's society. Your bigotry speaks a lot about who you are. And if it was aimed at a minority group, I am certian society would take strong issue with your statements.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by ernie@Apr 8 2005, 06:10 AM

So basically you've never asked the question so assumed they don't think that way.

The catholics church itself does not have a defined stance on the issue beyond God created all from nothing. They do openly allow discussion of the timeline but essentially leave it up to the individual parishes to teach it as they will from what I understand (they do not teach anything other than Adam and Eve being the first parents and the only parents from what i understand). Nearly every praticing catholic I know, and I know quite a few, have been taught that the genesis story is literal and continues to be taught that in their many different parishes. Some believe it others don't. The same goes for many of the churches... some may be open to the other interpretations but by and large you'll find that the bulk of the parishes do in fact still teach a literal interpretation of the genesis story.

Science is great and what I follow but the fact remians it is still something that every century one guy can send shockwaves through his discipline and nearly everything changes.

The scientists dogma seems awfully religious to me.....

The fact is from what I can tell you don't believe that a person (such as Stockwell Day) can be smart in any other thing because to you he's stupid for believing this one thing, even though he has (arguably) proven to be a effective at his job at every level. I'd love to be around when you get the wake up call that having different beliefs does not equal stupidity.

So basically you've never asked the question so assumed they don't think that way.

Yeah I guess so. I guess I also assumed it would come up in the conversation. In all those discussions about biblical metaphors and allegories et cetera, I figured if the professor didn't believe it he or she might have said "by the way, I don't believe a word of any of it, everything I said and you said in the last hour and a half is wrong, the bible is the absolute literal truth, and most of what is being taught in this university is false".

That never happened. But you know several professors who essentially do believe that so maybe there were a few of them.

The catholics church itself does not have a defined stance on the issue beyond God created all from nothing. They do openly allow discussion of the timeline but essentially leave it up to the individual parishes to teach it as they will from what I understand (they do not teach anything other than Adam and Eve being the first parents and the only parents from what i understand). Nearly every praticing catholic I know, and I know quite a few, have been taught that the genesis story is literal and continues to be taught that in their many different parishes. Some believe it others don't. The same goes for many of the churches... some may be open to the other interpretations but by and large you'll find that the bulk of the parishes do in fact still teach a literal interpretation of the genesis story.

Well if that's the case then I guess there is a broken link in the chain of command.

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

The Pope said that in 1996.

I'd love to be around when you get the wake up call that having different beliefs does not equal stupidity.

I wonder if you can point out where I said "having different beliefs is stupid". I don't think I did. I was pretty specific in saying what I believe is and is not stupid. Believing that the earth is 10 thousand years old and that dinosaurs and man walked around together is (and this is my "belief" so it's sacred and cannot be challenged according to the direction of this thread), is stupid. It doesn't make sense. It's not true.

You seem to know plenty of people who buy into this stuff so maybe you can answer a few questions. What is the motivation of all those scientists (yourself included) who don't believe in this literal genesis? Is it "The Devil" at work? Misguided souls? Shoddy workmanship? Conspiracy? Stupidity? It's gotta be something.

What do they think of Einstein? That he was just wrong? Do they believe the universities are churning out scientists that don't (by and large) have any grasp at all on the actual real world? When they see something on TV about dinosaurs do they think "that's all wrong, that bone is not 100 million years old, it's 5 thousand years old".

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 8 2005, 08:18 AM

Sheesh this is getting a little dull.

Would you be comfortable with a Muslim fundamentalist as Canada's foreign affairs minister?

You sir, are proof of my argument about today's society. Your bigotry speaks a lot about who you are. And if it was aimed at a minority group, I am certian society would take strong issue with your statements.

Ah yes. Back to the poor, persecuted, vilified, downtrodden Christian White Man. When will they get a break?

Maybe we can take it up with the Prime Minister, when he gets back from the funeral for the Pope. We can ask him why Christian White Men get no respect in this society.

[Bingo]

I just jumped into the tail end of this string to see the talk about the Liberal government. How in Hades did a clearly corrupt Liberal governmetn conversation end up at Stockwell Day and religion?

[V]

Pretty easily, actually.

Step 1 - Ignore the problems with your own party.

Step 2 - Look for something in your opponent that's socially acceptable to ridicule.

Step 3 - Lead the discussion away from the problem and towards the mud-slinging.

How anyone can rationalize that religious values are more dangerous to a country than scandals is beyond my understanding. I just don't get it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Harper just looks like he is going to cry all the time. He also looks like he smells like diapers and milk. Am I right or am I right?

I don't know who'll I'll vote for. Probably the Liberals because every party screws up and "wastes" money, but they are the only party that can screw up and still balance the budget and keep the economy strong.

I also think there is relative balance in the Liberal party. I've met some pretty right leaning and left leaning Liberals in the past. It makes it a more versatile party when it comes to unique regional matters. The NDP and Reform/Alliance/PC/Conservative parties are just to specialized for my liking. They are both important voices to have though, but there does not seem to be enough moderates in either party.

I think in a country as diverse as Canada, the ruling party needs to be a "Jack of all trade" so to speak. While it's true that the Liberals have shinguard the bed on some things, I think they are still the only party that can lead the country while marginalizing the fewest.

I was never a fan of Martin though. During the leadership race, I was hoping that anyone but him would win. I am hoping for an underdog like Allan Rock or Stephane Dion to seek leasership the next time around. Get the fat cats out.

Another big reason to vote Liberal is to bug Sammie.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Apr 8 2005, 10:26 AM
I don't know who'll I'll vote for. Probably the Liberals because every party screws up and "wastes" money, but they are the only party that can screw up and still balance the budget and keep the economy strong.

Clearly I lean the other way, that won't come as a surprise to you I'm sure.

I think there's a balance in both parties however, and really when you look at the political spectrum it's not like you're choosing an apple versus an orange ... it's Granny Smith vs Macintosh.

But every screws up?

I'll give you that, but don't you think this goes a bit beyond that? We had that discussion in the office today and nobody could think of a government scandal as corrupt or shocking as this one in Canadian history.

[ernie]

Yeah I guess so. I guess I also assumed it would come up in the conversation. In all those discussions about biblical metaphors and allegories et cetera, I figured if the professor didn't believe it he or she might have said "by the way, I don't believe a word of any of it, everything I said and you said in the last hour and a half is wrong, the bible is the absolute literal truth, and most of what is being taught in this university is false

Most academics are quite good at not promoting their own personal beliefs (other than theories directly related to their discipline) and there is no doubt that unless it is a religious university the courses are going to lean towards the secular view and limit personal bias. Many bible oriented classes are taught as allegories I agree but it need not come out that the teacher or prof beleives that. I can teach an undergraduate theories from my discipline that I do not put much stock in and that I don't wish to explore in that class ot is explored later on. I'll happily do so because you need to have all the information to base your decisions on. And believe me many literal interpretation guys know the other side of the argument better than you or I do. They understand it, they follow it but do not accept it. There is nothing wrong or stupid with that.

On what the Pope said....that's what I was saying. The Catholic church has room for those discussions but they have not said "forget teaching the literal version of the genesis story it didn't happen that way". Quite the opposite. They allow their own leaders and followers to go with what they feel is the proper intepretation...a literal genesis story or topical one. And continue to have discussion on it. As such one parish may differ from another because of who is leading that parish. It is one occupation that your religious beliefs plays almost a complete role. However, no matter which way you slice it these churches have only begun to accept such things in the last decade and it is not universal acceptance. By default, most christians 20 years or older are going to have been taught the literal version in the church they grew up in. That would mean most christians do indeed few it as a literal story. It is probably changing but there is nowhere near universal acceptance in among any of the large denominations what way is the proper way to teach the bible. As well the catholic church while indicating that evolution may have occurred still very much teach that somewhere along the lines there was Adam and Eve and God provided them with souls and thus began the human race. The Catholic church has simply stated it does not fear science but does not say it's followers must accept science as fact. Atleast from my understanding. Essentially they have said from what I have read is take in all the information and make your choices as to what you believe with a few underlying tenets that must be accepted: God provided humans with souls that you do not inherit from your parents, God created the universe from nothingness and God is essentially in control of the grand design that we can't hope to understand.

I wonder if you can point out where I said "having different beliefs is stupid". I don't think I did. I was pretty specific in saying what I believe is and is not stupid. Believing that the earth is 10 thousand years old and that dinosaurs and man walked around together is (and this is my "belief" so it's sacred and cannot be challenged according to the direction of this thread), is stupid.

What you have said is that because Day has these beliefs it means he is stupid. Plain and simple. Not worthy of a vote or worthy of a financial post or foreign affairs post because he has this one religious belief. He's a stupid individual because he has beliefs based on a different dogma than you do.

It doesn't make sense. It's not true.

Yes you believe that. You believe in that the proponderence of the scientific evidence says this. You believe it because the scientific theories fit the data it must be so. As do I. But the thing is the theories are all based on some underlying dogma (defn: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds) which you can not prove. You and I make a leap of faith to believe the things we do as well. It may be good enough to win a civil trial so to speak while you think it wins a criminal trial when it doesn't.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Bingo@Apr 8 2005, 05:45 PM

I'll give you that, but don't you think this goes a bit beyond that? We had that discussion in the office today and nobody could think of a government scandal as corrupt or shocking as this one in Canadian history.

That just goes to show you how painfully boring Canadian politics are. This is nothing compared to the kind of things that go on in other countries.

Bigger scandals occur elsewhere all the time that make the Liberals look like saints.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by ernie@Apr 8 2005, 12:05 PM

Well I'm not going to pretend I know how the Catholic Church works, but I just sort of figured that if the Pope says "this evolution business seems to be true" then they'd stop teaching the stuff they know is pretty much false. Maybe not.

What you have said is that because Day has these beliefs it means he is stupid. Plain and simple. Not worthy of a vote or worthy of a financial post or foreign affairs post because he has this one religious belief. He's a stupid individual because he has beliefs based on a different dogma than you do.

Well not quite. In the end I think I offered a few other reasons as to why I think he's dumb, but that is where it started. I guess it's a little harsh and I apologize to anyone who has those beliefs. And I'll admit that I'm wrong to say "anyone who believes that is stupid".

What I probably should have said from the get-go is "Stockwell Day is a moron for several reasons, and I absolutely disagree with him about the creation of all this stuff around us, and for those reasons and that belief, I wouldn't vote for him in a million years, and I can't vote for the party that he is in because they let him stick around".