Should Canada revoke freedom of religion for Muslims?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
These kind of people give islam a bad reputation...
Just like animal mother gives christians a bad reputation.....
Just like animal mother gives christians a bad reputation.....
Quoting petros
Under the Charter banning one religion would mean banning all religions.
How do you kick a god out of a country if the god is the supreme overseer?
Under the Charter banning one religion would mean banning all religions.
How do you kick a god out of a country if the god is the supreme overseer?
Hmmm, maybe there's hope for the CPoC yet. Tell me more.
To true...so much for hope...
Fair enough.
Yes. Erroneously, it makes you a racist too apparently, or so I've been told.
I think Animal Mother was a fine example of Christian love and strength, lol.
That's what the HRC's are there for...:lol:
"Yes jack we can. Ever hear of residential schools? What about broken treaties?"
taxslave, split the cost of buying a BIG package of band-aid for both of your bleeding hearts.
My point was that through history most of the conquered peoples have been totally eliminated via unmerciful and cruel genocide or were given absolutely no rights beyond following the rules and laws set by the conquerers.
Name any conquered peooples other than North American Natives who were given a treaty. Name also those who receive billions of dollars for nothing else but the colour of their skin. Name any other who had a treaty that enables them to land claims several times larger than the province/country where they live on taxpayers expense.
I worked with a couple of Natives during my working years, who were the graduates of residential schools. They managed to go beyond any and all limitations, and made a life for themselves. The same door is open for any and all students in residential schools.
Treaties have been broken by BOTH sides, all through history.
taxslave, split the cost of buying a BIG package of band-aid for both of your bleeding hearts.
My point was that through history most of the conquered peoples have been totally eliminated via unmerciful and cruel genocide or were given absolutely no rights beyond following the rules and laws set by the conquerers.
Name any conquered peooples other than North American Natives who were given a treaty. Name also those who receive billions of dollars for nothing else but the colour of their skin. Name any other who had a treaty that enables them to land claims several times larger than the province/country where they live on taxpayers expense.
I worked with a couple of Natives during my working years, who were the graduates of residential schools. They managed to go beyond any and all limitations, and made a life for themselves. The same door is open for any and all students in residential schools.
Treaties have been broken by BOTH sides, all through history.
So should we start with the Scots, the Irish, the English, the French, and then move onto the rest of northern Europe? Israel came out with something not long ago about papers not being 'in order', use that template. Perhaps Canada Steamship wouldn't mind a human cargo in the bowels of their tanker and container ships, in that they are mostly empty these days anyway.
So why pretend to the rest of the world that we are a banner of human advancement when the gap between what we preach and what we practice is a lot larger than 'noble' allows for. As it is, we (Canada) do what we are told to do.
"I question the wisdom of a post that contains the words "so called", when discussing the First Nations...:lol:"
CDNBear, the word "FIRST" by dictionary definition reflects uniqueness, being ONE, that is ahead of all others. Good example is any competition not yet corrupted by political correctness whereby all participants are equal.
So, which Nation, of all the "SO-CALLED" First Nations was REALLY the First?
CDNBear, the word "FIRST" by dictionary definition reflects uniqueness, being ONE, that is ahead of all others. Good example is any competition not yet corrupted by political correctness whereby all participants are equal.
So, which Nation, of all the "SO-CALLED" First Nations was REALLY the First?
So instead of an enlightened approach, you would have prefer my peeps were annihilated?
Ummm, 1, we don't get billions of dollars, 2, we don't get what we do get, because of the colour of our skin.
That is because as a divided group, they have land claims that over lap each others.
And those that weren't too.
Can you show me the treaties that have been broken by the First Nations?
I know it doesn't help your case, so that is likely why you forgot to include in your abbreviated definition, "Come before".
That why it's called First Nations, it's plural. We all came before you. I know it's hard for you to grasp, but as a guest on my land, it would serve you well to remember. :lol:
CDNDear,
I do not wish that your 'peeps' were eliminated. I only wish that you and your 'peep' realize how lucky you are, compared to other conquered people who did not have the luck to deal with people who offered them treaties.
Your 'peep' receive plenty of dollars just for being "First Nations". in other words, for the colour of your skin.
Maybe your 'peep' should agree among themselves about land claims before displaying themselves as greedy.
If any of your 'peep' can't or doesn't want to go beyond residential schools, whose problem and/or fault is that?
On broken treaties, I admit, you got me. But my point was that human nature, being what it is, breaking treaties happen. Hell it got Europe into not one but TWO World Wars.
About 'come before': Did the Iroquois come before the Apache? Did the Mohawk come before the Dakota? Did the Commanche come before the Inuit? Give me a definite answer who is FIRST. Then, I will respect the term "First Nations". And I say that fully realizing that ALL of them, yes, all of YOU, came before any white man, and before me.
But I hope that you will also realize that I earned my Canadian citizenship, according to the law of the land.
I do not wish that your 'peeps' were eliminated. I only wish that you and your 'peep' realize how lucky you are, compared to other conquered people who did not have the luck to deal with people who offered them treaties.
Your 'peep' receive plenty of dollars just for being "First Nations". in other words, for the colour of your skin.
Maybe your 'peep' should agree among themselves about land claims before displaying themselves as greedy.
If any of your 'peep' can't or doesn't want to go beyond residential schools, whose problem and/or fault is that?
On broken treaties, I admit, you got me. But my point was that human nature, being what it is, breaking treaties happen. Hell it got Europe into not one but TWO World Wars.
About 'come before': Did the Iroquois come before the Apache? Did the Mohawk come before the Dakota? Did the Commanche come before the Inuit? Give me a definite answer who is FIRST. Then, I will respect the term "First Nations". And I say that fully realizing that ALL of them, yes, all of YOU, came before any white man, and before me.
But I hope that you will also realize that I earned my Canadian citizenship, according to the law of the land.
CDNBear: Jack has a point about the money. He just isn't smart enough to know how to word it properly.
There are Billions of dollars spent by Dept. of Indian Affairs, just not very much gets to the intended recipients. Of any government program about %60 is used up in administration according to a former MLA that I know. So of every billion dollars of tax money dedicated to DIA,about $600mil is squandered by mostly white bureaucrats in Ottawa and $400mil gets through to various intended recipients. Out of this $400 mil. the band administrators etc must now do their own skimming and payoffs. Does not leave a lot for doing real work.
There are Billions of dollars spent by Dept. of Indian Affairs, just not very much gets to the intended recipients. Of any government program about %60 is used up in administration according to a former MLA that I know. So of every billion dollars of tax money dedicated to DIA,about $600mil is squandered by mostly white bureaucrats in Ottawa and $400mil gets through to various intended recipients. Out of this $400 mil. the band administrators etc must now do their own skimming and payoffs. Does not leave a lot for doing real work.
Ummm, riiight.
So we should be grateful that we made treaties in good faith, only to be screwed on the majority of them? We should be grateful to the overlords for the trinkets we got and that we didn't get wiped out?
Have you even considered that you should be grateful to us, for saving English asses on many occasions? Help the English defeating both the Americans and the French? Or how about the simple fact that for the most part we pretty much just protest aggressively, instead of the Palestinian way?
No because of the treaties. It had nothing to do with colour or race, it was simply a matter of proprietorship.
Maybe you should try to not lump all Nations into one. You're thinking of BC.
I have no idea what you're talking about there.
Awesome, then apply it there, not here.
Likely, but then again, you're trying to compare two different regions.
We all are, it's likely the only unified ideal we have, lol.
That's awesome YJ, The Six Nations, were a Nation, and qualified as such, by international standard, before Canada did.
That's my point. At the end of the day, and I have posted it numerous times. Each Native would receive approx. $5000. And since I don't. I guess it's fair to say, that not all Natives receive any Gov't funds either.
Agreed, hence my position on corruption, sloth and waste, in my community.
There is nothing special about a treating which gives first nations more than anyone else. The snow job was getting the white to think he doesn't qualify for the same benefits. We are all equal in Canada and we all have access to the same rights and dutys.
Not nearly as insane as allowing a religion that has been so drastically mutated and deformed into a violent entity, to flourish in a western Nation...
See Europe for valid reasoning.
But then you have to make a distinction between religion and fanaticism.
Rooting out McVeigh-type Christians is quite different from persecuting the Christian Faith altogether. The same applies to Islam.
What appears to be happening though is that the standard of distinction expected for the Christian Faith seems to fly out the window when it comes to applying the same distinction among Muslims, whereby all Muslims are guilty by association.
Lt's take a parallel to compare.
Let's say I were a Catholic. Certainly I'd be responsible for my own actions (if I commit a crime, let's say), and I could be assumed to be in agreement with any official policy decision adopted by the Vatican (if it should be found for example that hiding cases of sexual abuse among priests was in fact an official policy decision of the Vatican's, as in fact appears to be the case right now). Beyond that though, it would be unjust to blame me for the actions of individual priests or even the Pope himself that are committed in their own names. For example, if it were found that though many hid cases of abuse that they knew of but this was not official Vatican policy but rather something they did of their own individual initiative, then certainly they would be held accountable for themselves individually and that would have no bearing on me. And of course what the Church of England would do would have no bearing on me whatsoever since they are two totally separate organizations.
Yet we seem to be applying a very different standard for Muslims, ignoring that separate Muslim organizations have no more to do with each other as Timothy McVeigh has to do with the the Roman Catholic Church for example.
Yeah there really is something wrong with The Klan exisiting in Nor Am isn't there?