Sanctus
Does the Church of Satan protect its pedophiles with the same enthusiasm as the Catholic Church?
Canadian Prime Minister Worships The Devil
- Thread starter Liberalman
- Start date
Sanctus
Does the Church of Satan protect its pedophiles with the same enthusiasm as the Catholic Church?
Mikey, Mikey.......as usual I have some problems with the thrust of your post.........but
WELCOME BACK from wherever you were in cyberspace, life, or your head.....
WELCOME BACK from wherever you were in cyberspace, life, or your head.....
My bad. I'm usually most festidious about including the post I was replying to. I wasn't replying to yours, I was replying to triedits post, complaining that the OP was offensive, and trying to explain that it was meant to be as offensive as he could get away with. It was his hobby.
Your question didn't really warrant addressing by me, because I didn't think you were all that serious with it.
I know very few people on this forum who would argue against religious freedom.
Mikey, Mikey.......as usual I have some problems with the thrust of your post.........but
WELCOME BACK from wherever you were in cyberspace, life, or your head.....
Hey!
how're you doing Colpy!?Good to hear from you!
I understand (perhaps) your displeasure with the "thrust" of my statement as you characterize it, but the issue for everyone is that it's a well established fact that proponents and practioneers of many ideologies feel themselves somehow protected from a scrutiny that reveals more than invited fact about how these folk actually behave. Just as we can readily identify the abuse of women children and similar tribal prejudices to our "own" society but we can also identify when willing complacency to this unwritten "code of discussion" around issues like how Catholicism and Islam and a great many religious practices have perpetrated and practiced greater harm than benefit to the societies that harbour them.
"Terrorism" is an emergent property that comes disguised as many different issues and policy executions of religious groups. We can't and ought not remain complacent with behaviors and policies of any and all organizations that wield the wealth and political clout to significantly influence which particular ideology holds the reins of political power.
We as a society have passed laws that call for identification of child-abusers and numerous other abusers in data-bases .....
Just like guns in registries and vacation-spa penal environments afforded the wealthy, everything is a matter of record.
The facility to diseminate information and opinion can't be reserved by the church and its adherents as beyond the same level and degree of social justice regarded by the people of this society who fund television networks and afford themselves enormous facility to influence millions any more than this practice and privilege is enjoyed and employed by the comon commodities traders.
Like it or not the damage is real and the consequences and the standard to which organized religions have been held accountable for their actions rivals only the temerity and coruption regarded as modern government.
there is a book by that name. By a fellow whose name escapes me right now.... he has an obsession with sprouts and brentford
No that I'm on some crusade to save the devil worshipers, but it would seem that one theist shouldn't cast stones at another theist in some exagerated pretence of being oh so offended. I don't care who worships what but they shouldn't be insulted for it.
http://www.theisticsatanism.com/geifodd/sitemap.html
You know funny thing about devil worshipers?
They use our biblical scripture.
When Jesus clearly says his..evil and should not be associated with.
Amazing.
They use our biblical scripture.
When Jesus clearly says his..evil and should not be associated with.
Amazing.
Again this sounds like an unfounded witch hunt.
The diiference between a multimilion dollar company and billion dollar company is they have an astrologer in the board room. Damn religious fanatics no brains at all. just fear and rumours.
Oh i have read the satanic bible from levey , makes more sense than riligious beliefs i was raised with. Never will i look at religion the same way again.
The diiference between a multimilion dollar company and billion dollar company is they have an astrologer in the board room. Damn religious fanatics no brains at all. just fear and rumours.
Oh i have read the satanic bible from levey , makes more sense than riligious beliefs i was raised with. Never will i look at religion the same way again.
I understand he was just a poser and the real devil worshippers have moved on. Has anyone coined "Brimstone Elitist" yet?
Has it ever crossed your mind that the reason for which our Senate is predominantly LIberal is because over the last 70 years or so, we've elected predominantly Liberal governments?
The composition of our current Senate reflects the recent history of our country and does act as a check and balance to the HoC where a party who gains a majority basically gets a 4-year dictatorship in this country.
The Conservatives want Senate reform because they don't like the fact that our Senate serves as an "institutional memory" of why it is we as Canadians have made the decisions we made over the course of the years.
The Conservatives would love nothing more than to reduce that institutional memory to no longer than eight years so that two terms is all that would be required to reverse anything and everything that makes Canada, Canada.
Harper's hate-on for the Senate exists only because it serves as a reminder that Canada is and has always pretty much been 65% "liberal-minded".
You'll note that his proposed Senate reform Bill merely allows for a "popular consultation" and not for "direct election" of Senators. Whomever is selected still, ultimately needs to be appointed by the PM to the Senate to gain his or her seat.
There IS a reason Harper left himself that "wiggle room".
What do you think will happen, should the bill pass, when voters select someone of whom Harper does not approve? As he's shown in the past with Emerson (floor-crossing), Fortier (Senate appointment, unelected Minister), the promised vote to reverse same-sex marriage (which became a vote on whether to hold a vote as soon as he figured out he couldn't win), the quest for consensus on Afghanistan (after which we learned that "consensus" meant "I will delay the vote until such time as I can twist another party's arm to vote with me"), or his promise to "never" tax income trusts (after which we learned that in Harper-speak "never" means about 8 to 10 months), he'll simply ignore what he says he stands for as soon as it doesn't suit his purposes. He'll just plain not appoint them, that's all.
The composition of our current Senate reflects the recent history of our country and does act as a check and balance to the HoC where a party who gains a majority basically gets a 4-year dictatorship in this country.
The Conservatives want Senate reform because they don't like the fact that our Senate serves as an "institutional memory" of why it is we as Canadians have made the decisions we made over the course of the years.
The Conservatives would love nothing more than to reduce that institutional memory to no longer than eight years so that two terms is all that would be required to reverse anything and everything that makes Canada, Canada.
Harper's hate-on for the Senate exists only because it serves as a reminder that Canada is and has always pretty much been 65% "liberal-minded".
You'll note that his proposed Senate reform Bill merely allows for a "popular consultation" and not for "direct election" of Senators. Whomever is selected still, ultimately needs to be appointed by the PM to the Senate to gain his or her seat.
There IS a reason Harper left himself that "wiggle room".
What do you think will happen, should the bill pass, when voters select someone of whom Harper does not approve? As he's shown in the past with Emerson (floor-crossing), Fortier (Senate appointment, unelected Minister), the promised vote to reverse same-sex marriage (which became a vote on whether to hold a vote as soon as he figured out he couldn't win), the quest for consensus on Afghanistan (after which we learned that "consensus" meant "I will delay the vote until such time as I can twist another party's arm to vote with me"), or his promise to "never" tax income trusts (after which we learned that in Harper-speak "never" means about 8 to 10 months), he'll simply ignore what he says he stands for as soon as it doesn't suit his purposes. He'll just plain not appoint them, that's all.
I can perfectly understand why western Canada would think the composition of our Senate is unfair. It is. I live in NS, and we have a disproportionately high number of Senators. I see no reason why we shouldn't elect senators. If the country votes predominantly 65% Liberal, then Liberals should have no problems either. I don't think two four year terms is right though. MP's don't have term limits, why should a Senator?