Government on the brink?

[Resolute 14]

Not quite... I should have used the word "argument" instead of "point", but we would have to see how Day would perform in such a post before your comments could be considered fact rather than bigotry.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Apr 10 2005, 09:28 AM
Not quite... I should have used the word "argument" instead of "point", but we would have to see how Day would perform in such a post before your comments could be considered fact rather than bigotry.

Bigotry again?

What have I said that is bigotry? I did say "believing the earth is 6 or 10 thousand years old is stupid", but I also retracted my "everyone who believes that is stupid", which fits the accusation. Fine line I guess. I think it's a pretty dumb belief. Do you think it's a pretty smart belief?

I also think believing the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese are pretty dumb beliefs as well. Is that further bigotry?

Pointing out the many flaws and foolishness of the dimwitted Stockwell Day (which hasn't really even been challenged with an argument) is not bigotry any more than saying "Jean Chretien is a crook" is bigotry. Saying that Day grossly unqualified for the job in question, is that bigotry?

I wouldn't hire a ditch-digger to remove my appendix. Is that bigotry?

This has been a rather confusing argument. Usually (always) it's the conservative types who jump all over the liberals for agreeing with everyone's beliefs, no matter how crazy, and being all tolerant and "moral relativism" and all that. Now it's turned around and when I say "Stockwell Day's extreme, non-mainstream beliefs are dumb", I'm a bigot.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 10 2005, 10:45 AM
I think it's a pretty dumb belief. Do you think it's a pretty smart belief?

I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of it.

I don't think it's a smart belief, but if he wants to make it then what does that matter to me? We've heard that whole same counter-argument towards same-sex marriage. If it doesn't impact you, then why should you care?

I wouldn't hire a ditch-digger to remove my appendix. Is that bigotry?

Have you made sure that your dentist doesn't believe in creation? How about your auto-mechanic? Your doctor? Your mailman? Have you made sure that you've 'safe guarded' your life against such 'idiots'? It seems to really matter to you....

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by calculoso+Apr 10 2005, 07:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Apr 10 2005, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 10 2005, 10:45 AM
I think it's a pretty dumb belief. Do you think it's a pretty smart belief?

I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of it.

I don't think it's a smart belief, but if he wants to make it then what does that matter to me? We've heard that whole same counter-argument towards same-sex marriage. If it doesn't impact you, then why should you care?

[/b][/quote]
If someone with those religous fundamentalist beliefs is in a position to be making government policies, then it would affect us though.

Freedom can only be true in a country with a secular point of view, otherwise policies will be made to represent only those with a particular religous belief. He may say that he wouldn't let it affect his policy making, but if he is as religous enough to shun science and modern knowledge, then how could he not?

It would stand to reason that someone who is that much of a fundamentalist would also believe that not making policy reflect "God's wishes" would also be sinning against God.

If it came to supporting legislation such as marriage and abortion laws, do you not think his religon would play a roll in that? Or how about foreign policy issues? All that stuff would affect us.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by calculoso+Apr 10 2005, 01:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Apr 10 2005, 01:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Apr 10 2005, 10:45 AM
I think it's a pretty dumb belief. Do you think it's a pretty smart belief?

I don't see why you're making such a big deal out of it.

I don't think it's a smart belief, but if he wants to make it then what does that matter to me? We've heard that whole same counter-argument towards same-sex marriage. If it doesn't impact you, then why should you care?

I wouldn't hire a ditch-digger to remove my appendix. Is that bigotry?

Have you made sure that your dentist doesn't believe in creation? How about your auto-mechanic? Your doctor? Your mailman? Have you made sure that you've 'safe guarded' your life against such 'idiots'? It seems to really matter to you.... [/b][/quote]
I had given up on the whole religion thing until I was called a bigot again.

The "ditchdigger/appendix" comment had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with Stockwell being plainly unqualified for the job we are discussing. Even if Stockwell had the same exact view of the world as I do, it doesn't change the fact that he's not qualified. Neither am I.

I'd make sure my dentist was a dentist, my doctor went to medical school and my mechanic knew how to fix cars. And I'd like to make sure the top diplomat from the country I live in knows the slightest, smallest, remotest thing about doing the job. Stockwell Day obviously doesn't and nobody's even tried to say he does.

Have you made sure that you've 'safe guarded' your life against such 'idiots'? It seems to really matter to you....

Nah. Everyday Joe can believe whatever he wants. So can I. They don't effect me. Prominent members of the government, lawmakers, cabinet members -- they do effect me. It does really matter me.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by longsuffering+Apr 9 2005, 11:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (longsuffering @ Apr 9 2005, 11:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Speaking of history ... I think your historical look at this string is a bit out of whack.

I didn't bring "history" up until this string was way off topic and into Stockwell Day. My point then as it is now, is deflection.

You can try to deflect my deflection comment by saying I opened the topic of history but that wouldn't be genuine.

But if you insinst on looking back I think many view this event as THE MOST CORRUPT in Canadian history nonetheless.

This may very well prove to be the "worst scandal in history" but I don't think it is fair to paint the whole party or all the current Liberal MPs as corrupt.

Truth be told, I don't think referring to ADSCAM as political corruption is right. It is/was a criminal conspiracy involving a small, but admitedly senior, group of Liberal insiders and senior government bureaucrats. I expect to see jail time for a number of people and wouldn't be surprised if Chretian is proven to have personally benefited from Ad money. But this government is not Chretians government.

Should they be kicked out because of the scandal. I don't think so. The policies of the Liberal party are more in line with my values and beliefs than those of the Harper's party. That is why they would get my vote.

That's what it comes down to for me. [/b][/quote]
I disagree with you on this. Your right its not all members of the Liberal party, however it is the leadership of the Liberal's that are being pointed out as being a major cog in this scandal.

Its the party itself that benefited from this. Thats corruption of the party, criminal absolutely, currupt party, yes. I'm also willing to bet that if there was an election called and the Liberal's were to win it, that the inquiry would be 86'ed the next day to protect the party.

I have a hard time believing that somebody would be willing to overlook the corrupt practices of the governemt because they believed in thier political agenda.

I'm a Conservative, and I voted against the Conseratives after BM quit due to allegations of corruption and pork barreling.

Even if it is a few people in the scandal, the Liberals have to go as they have completely broken faith with the people of Canada.

When you combine this scandal with Jean Chretiens hotel and golf course issues, the HRDC scandal, and the Gun Registry, its becoming clear that the Liberal's are corrupt.

In fact if I had my way, they shouldn't be allowed to run in the next election until they come clean.

But thats just me.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Apr 10 2005, 03:20 PM
I'm also willing to bet that if there was an election called and the Liberal's were to win it, that the inquiry would be 86'ed the next day to protect the party.

Why would Martin shut down the inquiry that he called for in the first place?
The party that doesn't want to see the results of the inquiry is the conservatives. They are the ones who are pushing for an election while people are still upset and before we as the voters know the final results. The Libs are the party that wants to complete the inquiry so that people know the whole story.
Personally I'd much rather wait and see the whole truth before I decide how bad the scandel is and who is all responsable.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Apr 10 2005, 12:59 PM
I'd make sure my dentist was a dentist, my doctor went to medical school and my mechanic knew how to fix cars.

Nah. Everyday Joe can believe whatever he wants. So can I. They don't effect me. Prominent members of the government, lawmakers, cabinet members -- they do effect me. It does really matter me.

Every day Joe can belive whatever he wants unless his name is Jim Keegstra.. and then anyone who goes to him is a blooming idiot, regardless of the fact of whether he knows how to fix cars or not, eh? Nice....

I think that those that directly serve you have a much more direct impact on my life than do those in gov't. Sure they can make the laws, put more money here instead of there, make backroom deals with this country instead of that country.. whatever. It's still those that directly sell me the goods, directly examine my teeth, etc that impact my life.

Now, don't get me wrong. Those people in gov't still have a huge impact on the country and shape it. I still want the best available people in those positions. Who's to say that the best people are the most highly educated or have the most experience? The best leaders surround themselves with specialists, experts, etc who they can delegate and have do the best job. Nobody does the job themselves. Sometimes, just a figurehead is the best. It's the whole team together that has to be evaluated.

As an example, I consider Chretien to be a blooming idiot. All of his "proof is a proof is a proof because it's proven" and "What do you think about the drugs coming across the border - They're great! - Oh, I thought you said trucks" situations just leave a horrible taste in my mouth. That said, I have to give him credit for the team he assembled - choosing Martin, McClelland, etc to be part of it. (Choosing Copps was a stroke of idiocy though)

[calculoso]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Apr 10 2005, 12:57 PM
If it came to supporting legislation such as marriage and abortion laws, do you not think his religon would play a roll in that? Or how about foreign policy issues? All that stuff would affect us.

So essentially you're saying that anyone who's religious can't be in government.

I find that amazingly prejudiced and discriminatory - and this from someone who isn't at all religious.

I don't want a government to be religious. I think there should be a separation of church from state. That said, automatically disqualifying someone due to their religious beliefs? Discrimination at its finest.

[Incinerator]

Originally posted by calculoso+Apr 11 2005, 05:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Apr 11 2005, 05:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Apr 10 2005, 12:57 PM
If it came to supporting legislation such as marriage and abortion laws, do you not think his religon would play a roll in that? Or how about foreign policy issues? All that stuff would affect us.

So essentially you're saying that anyone who's religious can't be in government.

I find that amazingly prejudiced and discriminatory - and this from someone who isn't at all religious.

I don't want a government to be religious. I think there should be a separation of church from state. That said, automatically disqualifying someone due to their religious beliefs? Discrimination at its finest. [/b][/quote]
True, a person's religion should not make him/her any less qualified to play the political game. It's just that when said person make policies that don't agree with his/her personal religious beliefs it becomes incredibly hypocritical for this person to separate the church and the state within his/her own self. If you're in politics you should follow what the majority wants (hypothetically, in a democracy), but what could be said about someone who's convictions are so weak that he/she will do something that goes against their own moral values/beliefs?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by calculoso+Apr 11 2005, 05:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Apr 11 2005, 05:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Apr 10 2005, 12:57 PM
If it came to supporting legislation such as marriage and abortion laws, do you not think his religon would play a roll in that? Or how about foreign policy issues? All that stuff would affect us.

So essentially you're saying that anyone who's religious can't be in government.

I find that amazingly prejudiced and discriminatory - and this from someone who isn't at all religious.

I don't want a government to be religious. I think there should be a separation of church from state. That said, automatically disqualifying someone due to their religious beliefs? Discrimination at its finest. [/b][/quote]
Let me ask you this:

Would you discriminate against someone with unfavourable beliefs when you choose a babysitter? For example, would you let a Raelian look after your youngster if you thought there was a good chance that they might try to influence your child's religious beliefs? If you're a reasonable person you sure would!

Now if you believe in secularism, why wouldn't you do the same thing when choosing a person as influencial as your nation's leader?

[Sammie]

Let's let Stockwell Day speak for himself on this subject:

http://www.conservativeforum.org/EssaysForm.asp?ID=6295

We often hear that "moral" questions have no place in modern politics. But political discourse itself is essentially a series of moral questions. Aristotle defined politics as "the art of free men deliberating together the question: how ought we to order our lives together." That ought is the basic moral question. Ought we to tax our citizens more or less? What penalties ought we to impose on what crimes? Ought we to protect human life, and if so at what stage?

I believe that on such matters politicians have a responsibility to state their convictions clearly, but I also believe that these debates should be conducted with respect for the democratic rights of all citizens, even those who may disagree with us on these subjects. I will always state my beliefs clearly, but I will always seek to conduct debate in an open and democratic manner. As Prime Minister I would not - and could not - "impose" my will on my party or the country. No Member of Parliament has the right to do that.

To take but one example, it is well known that I am pro-life. I believe that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that human life begins at the moment of conception, and I believe that all human beings possess an inalienable right to life. I do not support abortion or euthanasia, and I would personally favour measures to protect human life in Canadian law.

But I would not seek to impose my views on the Canadian people. I would want issues such as these to be determined freely and democratically by the people, either through a referendum initiated by Canadians or a free vote of their representatives in the House of Commons. Debates like this need to be conducted with the greatest possible respect for democracy and the views of others, without the angry and harsh rhetoric that too often prevents serious democratic debate on moral questions.

What's to be feared here? What's so scary? Where does his religious beliefs interfere with carrying out his political duties?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by calculoso@Apr 10 2005, 11:39 PM
Every day Joe can belive whatever he wants unless his name is Jim Keegstra.. and then anyone who goes to him is a blooming idiot, regardless of the fact of whether he knows how to fix cars or not, eh? Nice....

Every day Joe can belive whatever he wants unless his name is Jim Keegstra..

The Jim Keegstra I'm thinking of is a convicted criminal and a holocaust-denying scumbag racist moron. Are you thinking of someone else?

Jim Keegstra is welcome, like Every Day Joe, to believe whatever he wants. It doesn't change the fact that what he believes is stupid.

[peter12]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 11 2005, 12:38 AM
Let's let Stockwell Day speak for himself on this subject:

http://www.conservativeforum.org/EssaysForm.asp?ID=6295

We often hear that "moral" questions have no place in modern politics. But political discourse itself is essentially a series of moral questions. Aristotle defined politics as "the art of free men deliberating together the question: how ought we to order our lives together." That ought is the basic moral question. Ought we to tax our citizens more or less? What penalties ought we to impose on what crimes? Ought we to protect human life, and if so at what stage?

I believe that on such matters politicians have a responsibility to state their convictions clearly, but I also believe that these debates should be conducted with respect for the democratic rights of all citizens, even those who may disagree with us on these subjects. I will always state my beliefs clearly, but I will always seek to conduct debate in an open and democratic manner. As Prime Minister I would not - and could not - "impose" my will on my party or the country. No Member of Parliament has the right to do that.

To take but one example, it is well known that I am pro-life. I believe that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that human life begins at the moment of conception, and I believe that all human beings possess an inalienable right to life. I do not support abortion or euthanasia, and I would personally favour measures to protect human life in Canadian law.

But I would not seek to impose my views on the Canadian people. I would want issues such as these to be determined freely and democratically by the people, either through a referendum initiated by Canadians or a free vote of their representatives in the House of Commons. Debates like this need to be conducted with the greatest possible respect for democracy and the views of others, without the angry and harsh rhetoric that too often prevents serious democratic debate on moral questions.

What's to be feared here? What's so scary? Where does his religious beliefs interfere with carrying out his political duties?

It's a lot easier to say that when you have no hope in hell of ever becoming Prime Minister.

Free votes? Great idea. Definitely a step in the right direction towards fixing some of the monopolistic power the Canadian executive wields. Of course once you are PM you realize how crippling a free vote is to your goals and policy.

[Sammie]

Originally posted by peter12@Apr 11 2005, 08:12 AM
It's a lot easier to say that when you have no hope in hell of ever becoming Prime Minister.

Free votes? Great idea. Definitely a step in the right direction towards fixing some of the monopolistic power the Canadian executive wields. Of course once you are PM you realize how crippling a free vote is to your goals and policy.

In other words, let's keep the crooks now in power because we're not sure the other guys will do what they say they're going to do. Makes perfect sense. Not!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by calculoso+Apr 11 2005, 05:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (calculoso @ Apr 11 2005, 05:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Apr 10 2005, 12:57 PM
If it came to supporting legislation such as marriage and abortion laws, do you not think his religon would play a roll in that? Or how about foreign policy issues? All that stuff would affect us.

So essentially you're saying that anyone who's religious can't be in government.

I find that amazingly prejudiced and discriminatory - and this from someone who isn't at all religious.

I don't want a government to be religious. I think there should be a separation of church from state. That said, automatically disqualifying someone due to their religious beliefs? Discrimination at its finest. [/b][/quote]
Well touchy subject for sure. But anybody who is deeply religious has an obligation to live by their faith. This means that a "separation" of church and state is not possible as their religious policies SHOULD be dictating how they operate in government. For them to not let their religious beliefs affect their government policy would be turning their back on their religious beliefs. If they don't live by their faith then they are a phony.

So no, I personally would not vote for religious candidates. If they don't practise what they preach then they are phonies and I wouldn't want them in gov't anyway. If they do practise what they preach then they are obligated to let their beliefs dictate policy.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 11 2005, 06:38 AM
What's to be feared here? What's so scary? Where does his religious beliefs interfere with carrying out his political duties?

Well all he does is claim that he won't "impose" his beliefs on others. I'm not sure why I'd believe him to be honest. I'm pretty sure most Christians I know would like to impose a variety of their morals on me. He's not allowed to come out and say it and yet you know how he'd vote, certain issues he wouldn't back down on, etc.

He can't completely separate his beliefs and policy decisions. And if he did, I'd accuse him of not being a practising Christian and thus a complete phony.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Incinerator+Apr 11 2005, 05:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Incinerator @ Apr 11 2005, 05:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

So essentially you're saying that anyone who's religious can't be in government.

I find that amazingly prejudiced and discriminatory - and this from someone who isn't at all religious.

I don't want a government to be religious. I think there should be a separation of church from state. That said, automatically disqualifying someone due to their religious beliefs? Discrimination at its finest.

True, a person's religion should not make him/her any less qualified to play the political game. It's just that when said person make policies that don't agree with his/her personal religious beliefs it becomes incredibly hypocritical for this person to separate the church and the state within his/her own self. If you're in politics you should follow what the majority wants (hypothetically, in a democracy), but what could be said about someone who's convictions are so weak that he/she will do something that goes against their own moral values/beliefs? [/b][/quote]
Exactly. Well said.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Sammie@Apr 10 2005, 11:38 PM
Let's let Stockwell Day speak for himself on this subject:

I believe that the scientific evidence is overwhelming that human life begins at the moment of conception,

What's to be feared here? What's so scary? Where does his religious beliefs interfere with carrying out his political duties?

If a politician said he felt overwhelmingly convinced that 2+2=5 would you vote for him/her? No, because it shows a lack of reason.

There is no overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the notion that human life begins at conception. For Stockwell to believe that shows that his religious/moral belief has interfered with his ability objectively and reasonably evaluate the facts of the situation. He just decided what it was he wanted to believe and convinced himself that reality must conform with his belief.

That's scary.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Apr 11 2005, 09:05 AM
Well touchy subject for sure. But anybody who is deeply religious has an obligation to live by their faith. This means that a "separation" of church and state is not possible as their religious policies SHOULD be dictating how they operate in government. For them to not let their religious beliefs affect their government policy would be turning their back on their religious beliefs. If they don't live by their faith then they are a phony.

So no, I personally would not vote for religious candidates. If they don't practise what they preach then they are phonies and I wouldn't want them in gov't anyway. If they do practise what they preach then they are obligated to let their beliefs dictate policy.

That in my opinion is a pile of crap, and I don't consider myself a religious person. I have spritual beliefs, but have never been a proponent of organised religion.

A deeply relgious person can successfully make the separation of church and state, and can make the distinction between personal values and national policy. A deeply religious person strives to live their own personal lives as they see fit. How they live their personal lives is for them to reconcile with their belief system. It is not for them to dictate how others live their lives. Members of government take an oath to represent the people, not force religious values upon the people, and they usually make this oath by swearing to their god. In other words, it would be sacrilege for a deeply religious person to break an oath before god and force his/her values upon the people.

As far as the practise what you preach comments go: you seem to have a misconception that all deeply religious people are preachers, when in fact most deeply religious people are happy to live their lives as they see fit, and let others do the same. I admit there are pesky ones, but I consider them the exception, not the rule.

I will not call religious members of government who try to do their job democratically instead of religiously phonies or hypocrites for two reasons:

1) I have a great amount of respect for a person who realizes it is not their right to force their values upon the people, but instead represent the people, they do their JOB. I admire the person who can elevate their thinking enough to make the distinction.

2) I have no right to judge a person on how well they are following their religious beliefs. That is between that person and their maker. How can a person cry for separation of church and state, and then have the right to grade an MP on how well they stick to church doctrine? It's not a fair way to judge an MP.

Trust is the issue here.