How many professed Catholics truly believe?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
1. Sharia is just a fancy word for Muslim law. Catholic and Protestant schools also impose Chistian law to the degree that the MoE allows too. Christian law can also be said to discriminate against women. So I take you oppose the separate school system for Christians too then.
2. So are you proposing we eliminate the separate school system and just have one secular system?
3. The same government that built the other schools. Then again, with many leaving the secular schiols, most likely some schools would just be redesignated.
4.The same government that pays for bussing niw.
5. The same government that regulates schools now.
I thought you said a separate school system does not cost extra abyway.
This has nothing to do with education, but rather discrimination on the basis of religion.
The difference is the Catholic schools are taxpayer funded but not the Jewish schools, not in Ontario.
that is completely disingenuous and a slur to moderate Muslims all of whom do not support Sharia law
how so?
you are getting in way over your head here Machjo...way over....
I do? show me how?
am I? that was not my intent so show me where my argument proposed such
3.
that could be done, schools get sold all of the time...but what haste is this regarding students leaving secular schools?
the thing is...in your haste to dismantle the separate system, you:
- have no idea how the school systems functions from a faith perspective nor from an academic perspective and have no idea if anyone would even want to begin their own faith based schools...so really this is all a moot point
that can't happen...the system is already over burdened due to our litigious society...kids no longer walk a few blocks to school...they must be escorted or bussed because technically the school is responsible for that kid right from the first bell...there is no money which is why separate and public are combined...they work together
okay...good luck with the cost and bloat on newly hired government employees
the current system doesn't...but you want to start up a whole passel of new ones no? so that other faiths aren't "discriminated against" ...isn't that your reasoning...all other faiths are suffering from discrimination and should be given faith bases schools?
it has EVERYthing to do with education...and it comes from a faith base...how would you know anything about it since your mind is completely closed to the possibility of a single positive occurring from a the system currently running?
IF as you say it has nothing to do with education but rather discrimination on the basis on religion belieft then tell me just how opening more faith based schools is going to change that?
are you sure you aren't just wanting to stick it to a system you emerged from without considering others may be doing well in that system perhaps even thriving and that many other Christians are embracing the separate system?
then they need to step up their game because the Muslims seem to be doing just fine, unless of course there is more to it than just not receiving their dollars per year per student?
The Muslim schools on Ontario are not getting their fare share either. But there are more Muslims than Jews to support them. Also, though my Arabic is not that good, I know what Shari'a means, and no it does not mean terrorism. It is often misused in the media. So yes, Shari'a means nothing more than Muslim law. It's just a fancy Arabic word for it.
I can see at least three systems that would conform to international human rights principles:
1. A unified secular syatem. Take France for example. At most, a school could teach the Bible as literature, but that is it.
2. A voucher programme. Take Sweden for example. Schools are still subject to MoE standards, so at most a school could name itself Christian or whatever and teach a compulsory course on the Bible or some other book as literature, but would essentially be a secular school otherwise, still having to accept students first come first served and hire teachers on the basis of merit, not religion.
3. A non-discriminatory separate school system. Like the current system in Ontario but for all schools. Potentially very expensive and inefficient, but at least still treating all religions equally. I prefer 2 followed closely by 1 then 3 at a distance behind that, though even 3 at least treats all equally.
If we believe in human rights, then that is how our Constitution ought to be, not giving special privileges to this group and that. If it's too expensive to do it for all religions, then do it for none.
Then again, if Muslim and Jewish schools are doing just fine in Ontario without taxpayer funding, then why can't Catholic schools do the same?
Why not just one secular system then?
I can see at least three systems that would conform to international human rights principles:
1. A unified secular syatem. Take France for example. At most, a school could teach the Bible as literature, but that is it.
2. A voucher programme. Take Sweden for example. Schools are still subject to MoE standards, so at most a school could name itself Christian or whatever and teach a compulsory course on the Bible or some other book as literature, but would essentially be a secular school otherwise, still having to accept students first come first served and hire teachers on the basis of merit, not religion.
3. A non-discriminatory separate school system. Like the current system in Ontario but for all schools. Potentially very expensive and inefficient, but at least still treating all religions equally. I prefer 2 followed closely by 1 then 3 at a distance behind that, though even 3 at least treats all equally.
If we believe in human rights, then that is how our Constitution ought to be, not giving special privileges to this group and that. If it's too expensive to do it for all religions, then do it for none.
Then again, if Muslim and Jewish schools are doing just fine in Ontario without taxpayer funding, then why can't Catholic schools do the same?
Why not just one secular system then?
I was trying to point out that one group is open about what they do and the other side is quite determined to downplay any wrong doing.
It's one thing to make a call on Residential Schools when the closest you have been to one is a few (very few) pages of written words by somebody other than a victim or their families rather than having a child go through nightmares for months on end..
I don't have an issue with any members of their congregation so don't make it out to a condemnation that goes further than the Clergy themselves.
How many of the dealers and customers are where they are because of past abuses (by anybody) compared to the customers who grew up in a healthy environment.
Suicide Risk Among Abused Children | Psych Central News
Repeated abuse was generally more strongly associated with suicide attempts than a single occurrence of abuse. Furthermore, sexual abuse by an immediate family member (such as a father, stepfather or brother) carried the greatest risk. Abuse perpetrated by an extended family member (uncle or cousin) carried an intermediate risk, while abuse by an unrelated individual (an acquaintance, romantic partner or stranger) carried a weaker risk.
so basically we are back to you not actually understanding the current system at all but still wishing to destroy it ....not very democratic...however
you have left me feeling super curious....
Are you saying that you would support the teaching of and implementation of Sharia law within a Canadian Muslim school system and thus support it being imposed upon Muslim women within Canada?
To the same degree that Christian law does in the present separate school system, yes. I have read the Qur'an multiple times and you'l fin that Shari'a and Christian law are not that different as they would apply to a public school. Tell me, what law specifically would you have a problem with, and I'm not talking laws made up by ISIS fanatics.
As for democracy, UDHR states that no distinction is to be made on the basis of religion. The present separate school system does just that. So in fact what I'm proposing is the replacement of a non democratic syatem by a democratic one. How are discrimination, especially on the basis of stereotypes and prejudices, democratic?
Even the word Shari'a. I would hope any legal expert would ensure he knows the proper meaning of the word before drawing conclusions on it.
Why are you promoting that ISIS is the normal method of Muslim society. If they were the leaders in advances in science and other areas before the Christian Holy Wars wiped out their most educated people.
Try looking at Afghanistan as the model during the early 70's until the US fuked them over as being how Muslims adapt to a 20th century world.
Iran in 1953 took the royalties from big oil so the citizens would get some of the benefits.
Perhaps you also have an intentionally flawed view of Muslims in general as you are promoting the Pentagram version of how they would fit in if left to their own devices.
(in part)
In 1973 the state was declared a republic and throughout the 1970s and 1980s a communist group called the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took over and attempted to once again reform the marriage laws, women's health laws, and encouraged women's education. During this time it made significant advances towards modernization.[7] Minorities of women were able to hold jobs as scientists, teachers, doctors, and civil servants and had a considerable amount of freedom with significant educational opportunities.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Afghanistan
Here is how the US fuked up those advancements.
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
[SIZE=-1]Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
[/SIZE]
Try looking at Afghanistan as the model during the early 70's until the US fuked them over as being how Muslims adapt to a 20th century world.
Iran in 1953 took the royalties from big oil so the citizens would get some of the benefits.
Perhaps you also have an intentionally flawed view of Muslims in general as you are promoting the Pentagram version of how they would fit in if left to their own devices.
(in part)
In 1973 the state was declared a republic and throughout the 1970s and 1980s a communist group called the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) took over and attempted to once again reform the marriage laws, women's health laws, and encouraged women's education. During this time it made significant advances towards modernization.[7] Minorities of women were able to hold jobs as scientists, teachers, doctors, and civil servants and had a considerable amount of freedom with significant educational opportunities.[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights_in_Afghanistan
Here is how the US fuked up those advancements.
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
[SIZE=-1]Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
[/SIZE]
Last edited:
Also, are you implying that somehow Catholic is Canadian but Muslim is foreign? Muslims have been in Canada for decades and even some indigenous Canadians have adopted Islam. Laws should not be based on predudices. Whatever laws apply to one religion ought to apply to all religions in a democratic society.
I think the problem is that many think the word Shari'a means Iranian law. It does not. In fact, there is even much disagreement among Muslims themselves on how to interpret it, just like Christians disagreeing on how to interpret Christian law.
I think the problem is that many think the word Shari'a means Iranian law. It does not. In fact, there is even much disagreement among Muslims themselves on how to interpret it, just like Christians disagreeing on how to interpret Christian law.
I would even say that in some respects the Qur'an is more progressive than the Gospel even if I think that even the Qur'an is somewhat behind the times.
Just read the Qur'an within the context of its time and you'l see that it actually guaranteed women not equality, but more rights than before, and even more than the Gospel. The Talib an just has its own corrupt interpretation, that's all.
I think the problem is that many think the word Shari'a means Iranian law. It does not. In fact, there is even much disagreement among Muslims themselves on how to interpret it, just like Christians disagreeing on how to interpret Christian law.
I think the problem is that many think the word Shari'a means Iranian law. It does not. In fact, there is even much disagreement among Muslims themselves on how to interpret it, just like Christians disagreeing on how to interpret Christian law.
I would even say that in some respects the Qur'an is more progressive than the Gospel even if I think that even the Qur'an is somewhat behind the times.
Just read the Qur'an within the context of its time and you'l see that it actually guaranteed women not equality, but more rights than before, and even more than the Gospel. The Talib an just has its own corrupt interpretation, that's all.
but that is not true at all...drug dealing is illegal for one thing and unless you are completely ignorant to the affects of drug abuse you know it is a terrible scourge upon our society and takes it's toll of many, many lives daily and costs us untold millions in health care.
the church(es) have hidden the abuse and moved the abusers around and around...
one does not justify nor reduce the blame of the other
child abuse: sexual, verbal, physical, emotional, mental...are all wrong
it can not be negotiated be it by the drug runners trafficking in women and children or the church
to condemn all priests for the actions of some is akin to condemning all men for rape and molestation of children and women in the world....it is illogical and defeatist because it minimizes and blurs the truth...that is simply unfair to the innocent on all levels.
and to the victims who need things to be kept very clear, very black and white
it is likely quite accurate to say that most drug dealers, pushers, junkies and anyone who uses who is not merely a recreational user has likely been abused in some form or another, yes
however, not all who were abused fall into the pattern of addition
yes there is a huge correlation
yes because parents are meant to be guardians not sexual predators
yes...the further away the perpatrator is from being perceived as a trusted individual the more the victim is able to accept it as a random act of violence and thus deal with it better
You do know the drugs come into North America via the CIA right? You can put the addictions squarely on their shoulders and perhaps that is which child abuse wasn't eliminated to same way polio was. In this case it was creating future client.The disposible population that lines the pockets of the Church and State with untold millions.
If prisons in Canada are mostly Natives and in the US mostly blacks are you saying they are 'natural law breakers' or admit their station in life (given to them by others) leads to jail and the income that earns the State at the taxpayers expence.
You forgot to mention that the higher up in society the abusers are the more likely they are to get away with it. (at the expense of the self-esteem of the abused) BTW the flaw in this part is repeated abuse rather than the bad relative who stops by once a year. The abused child gets to see his attacker weekly and it is the attacker that gets all the warm welcomes, even from the parents in some cases. I'm pretty sure my father would have cold-cocked the fuker during his sermon. They also had a tendency to think the Government was a honest body and would do no wrong to the citizens too.
What "Christian\" law are you talking about? What "Christian" law is taught in Catholic schools that would be in opposition to Canadian laws?
Yup yup yup...... can ya believe the brains this guy has? I tell ya, he knows everything about everything. 9/11, CIA, the "jews", holocaust, exactly when the 2nd coming is gonna happen.
and again, the incidences of child abuse within the Church is no higher than in the general public. The way you go on about it, one would think that the RCC had a lock on child abuse.
They just sell to teen street workers. It's all good.
1/2 the rate of the general public.
In other words Catholic kids are twice as safe than the general public.
Machjo, I don't know what you think the separate school system is teaching but your view is completely false.
You may have read the Qur'an multiple times and kudos to you for attempting to understand the religion...but really it has little to do with the experience of a Muslim woman under Sharia law. In fact your interpretation as such has disappointed me.
What you keep doing is diverting the issue...and frankly facts seem to have little apparent influence upon your opinion. While I can respect that you have a right to your opinion, it is completely in error as to how a separate school functions and therefore we are arguing at cross purposes. You have asked no questions about how it functions and have put forth opinions as fact which are untrue. How can I possibly argue with your opinion when it is based upon "feeling" over fact. I can't.
On the other hand while you may argue the merits of Sharia law under the Qua'ran (fact) I would argue Muslim women and their experience in my community under barbaric thought and the resulting treatment (feeling and fact) which would mean little to you.
I think if you would but open your mind to the system as it is today, you could in fact find some value. I do not really understand your position nor your desire to destroy a system which many people embrace and from which so much good is produced. That is a loss on your part since goodness should not be dismissed.
However I have enjoyed our back and forth immensely and I thank you for offering another perspective.
really................?
nooooooooooooooooooooooo
ah, tch...they sound so nice...
nope can't say that I did know that...nope
so now, you are tying the church into drug distribution? Would that be just the Catholic church or all churches?
Here's what I have to tell you on that MHz...maybe it is, maybe it isn't but that has little to do with my little world. And the reason that it matters to me in my little world is how our priests treat our children, which I can observe, and how our teachers treat our children, which I can witness and attest to and how I treat the little ones placed before me on a daily basis.
Let me give you a ray of hope in the slime MHz. Had a kid come into my office on Thursday, brought in by the teacher. Kid had lost it. Tears streaming down her face. Couldn't talk, couldn't think, couldn't function could barely breathe. She was writing a test for the ministry so the pressure was over the top. And she was done. She sat on a little chair with the booklet in front of her placed on my filing cabinet and the little pencil was clutched tightly in her little hand. And she sobbed and sobbed.
So I kept working and just talking to her and talking to her and talking to her as I worked. Not speaking with any depth, just jabbering and chatting and laughing. When the sobs became a dull little hiccup and sigh I gave her some toilet paper out of my bathroom because I had no kleenex left. She dried her tears and blew the snot out of her little nose and stared at me with big sad eyes but she was calm and composed.
Next day I looked up and who should be there her with her ministry test booklet clutched in her hand but her. Just quietly waiting until I looked up, not saying anything weighing me and the environment. Patient. So I took her little booklet and read aloud what she had written and worked on so hard. She is no Shakespeare but her heart was in the story and she glowed she was so happy. So I told her how proud I was of her and what a wonderful job she had done and we high fived and she skipped out. She skipped out.
Now that is called "a break through". It is called that because her language is challenged and her impulse control is not what it should be for her age...but she had actually asked her teacher if she could go to the office to share what she had done. So that is a break through. The teacher was over joyed. I was beyond words.
That is all I know of the separate system where I work. That is the church I know. That is the system I experience. That is the joy I see.
So does the church suck? Yeah it does sometimes. And sometimes it works. So let's not bury it all in a cesspool. Because sometimes the light shines so bright it is blinding.
okay,...life isn't fair at times...at other times justice is served...you can not label everyone as guilty within the church and think it justifies the blackness in your heart and your condemnation of the church...Christ said, it is not for you, it's time to let it go and make your own world right
there comes an age and a time to let it all go and make it your mission in life to make your own space right, your own space pure...that's what we can do, that's all we are asked to do...it is the right thing to do
The schools ran until the 1990's. Perhaps the RCC can fund their own schools now and the freed up money can go to the public schools system and they can use it to play catch-up. Who could object to that, might as well strip off that tax empty status as well, after all, it is for the children.