Church & State

[Never Give Up]

I’ve hunted high and low, Reverend Blair, and I just can’t find your supporting evidence for:

• You promote discrimination against gays and lesbians,
  are trying to limit women's rights, and
  are biassed against people who do not share your religious leanings.
  
  Because there is a strong element of extremism evident in your proposed policies.
  
  the ones trying to push their relgious agenda through politics are extremists though...incapable of separating their church from our state.

Normally, reasons and sources are advanced to support or counter a matter under discussion. It would be kind of nice if you could support your statements rather than simply make them and assume that they are true.

I’ve used:

• The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which incidently begins with... “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”
  Oxford Dictionary
  Geneva Convention
  Canada Elections Act
  Asia News
  Global PeaceWorks

:cheers:

 

[Never Give Up]

Re: RE: Church & State

The government of Uganda has stated that while they do promote abstinence, it was the promotion of condom usage that really turned the tables.

Perhaps you can source that.

According to Harvard University

When the program started in the late 1980s, the number of pregnant women infected with HIV was 21.2 percent. By 2001, the number was 6.2 percent. The Harvard study also reported Ugandan adults are not having as much risky sex: of women 15 and older, those reporting many sexual partners dropped from 18.4 percent in 1989 to 2.5 percent in 2000.

The emphasis on abstinence in Uganda's program is unique. In other nations with high HIV infections, such as Zimbabwe and Botswana, condoms have been promoted as the answer to ending the AIDS crisis. In Botswana, 38 percent of pregnant women were HIV positive in 2001, contrasted with 6.2 percent of Ugandan women.1

``Ugandans really never took to condoms," Dr. Vinand Nantulya, an infectious disease advisor to Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni, told The New Republic.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Three posts in a row? That's getting close to spamming.

Perhaps you can source that.

The President of Uganda in an interview on CPAC. They were talking specifically about the AIDS pandemic and the negative influence of US government policies and the anti-condom stance of the Catholic Church.

 

[Numure]

I'm not married, and close to 30. I've had sex with numerous people(man and women), and no sickness to be found. Your point is?

New global estimates released on Tuesday based on improved data show about 40 million people worldwide are living with HIV/AIDS, including an estimated 2.5 million children under 15 years old. About five million people were infected in 2003 and more than three million died.

"The AIDS epidemic continues to expand -- we haven't reached the limit yet," said Dr. Peter Piot, head of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).

"More people have become infected this year than ever before and more people have died from AIDS than ever before," he told Reuters. "It is the first cause of death in Africa and the fourth cause of death worldwide."

You’re scaring me, Übergod. Perhaps you want to look into this and practice a little protection. It makes more sense than, when it’s too late, regretting it.

What does that have to do with, sex? I do wear a condom at all times. Except longer standing relationships where trust has taken its place.

 

[Numure]

Even in my aging generation, protection was proned in school. And the use of condom as well. You arnt teaching me anything new when talking about AIDS. Your definition must be idiot to not know of AIDS. Safe sex, works just as well as abstinence. Though the former is more in tune with todays reality.

 

[DasFX]

Next thing we will have the Hindu and Sikh party of Canada fighting in Parliament with sacred knives over the fact that there is chairs in the house.

Okay, um first of all Hindus don't have sacred knives. Secondly, what kind of ignorant comment is this? I mean, the last time I was in New Delhi and visited the parliment, they had chairs like in Ottawa and it included members of parliament who were Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and a host of other religions and I saw no knife fights.

Wow, such ignorance. You take one incident (I believe he is basing this example on the Sikh temple fight that happened in BC many years ago) and casts it onto all. By the same token, I guess all Germans are Nazis, all blacks are criminals, all italians are constuction workers and work for the mob, all philipinos are nannies and all Christian clergyman like to touch little boys.

 

[DasFX]

Separation of church and state is good in theory, but what explanation do you have for the decaying morality of society as religion has been removed from prominence?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Greed. Our society has gotten worse and worse as we've become more and more consumerist and our leaders have become more and more business oriented. The prohibition of drugs also plays a major role.

Things have been this bad before several times throughout history. Those times were usually religious though. What they have in common is a disparity between rich and poor and prohibitions againstthings that the poor do that the ruling class does not.

A perfect example of this is when gin was outlawed in Britain. The industrial revolution had brought a lot of people to the cities and most of them were poor. Crime and violence were rampant. The British government outlawed gin, but kept whiskey, which they drank, legal.

The thing is that most people back then were religious.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Church & State

Greed. Our society has gotten worse and worse as we've become more and more consumerist and our leaders have become more and more business oriented. The prohibition of drugs also plays a major role.

Things have been this bad before several times throughout history. Those times were usually religious though. What they have in common is a disparity between rich and poor and prohibitions againstthings that the poor do that the ruling class does not.

A perfect example of this is when gin was outlawed in Britain. The industrial revolution had brought a lot of people to the cities and most of them were poor. Crime and violence were rampant. The British government outlawed gin, but kept whiskey, which they drank, legal.

The thing is that most people back then were religious.

Isn't greed a deadly sin and covered in the ten commandment?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Not anymore, apparently. I'm not sure if the hardcore Christians changed the words in their book again or have just been too busy obsessing over the fact that gays can get married to read the parts about money. Maybe they figured out how to get camels through the eyes of needles and figure they've discovered a loop-hole. At any rate, they have been ignoring the admonitions against greed and avarice.

 

[SirKevin]

Re: RE: Church & State

Okay, um first of all Hindus don't have sacred knives. Secondly, what kind of ignorant comment is this? I mean, the last time I was in New Delhi and visited the parliment, they had chairs like in Ottawa and it included members of parliament who were Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and a host of other religions and I saw no knife fights.

I could be wrong but I believe they were referring to the recent Sikh challenge in Quebec to allow Sikh males to bring their knifes/blades/swords/dangerous pointed weapons to public schools on religious grounds. If Sikhs were elected and pursued a religious genda similiar to what the CHP seeks, you can be sure these blades would be allowed in schools.

I’ve hunted high and low, Reverend Blair, and I just can’t find your supporting evidence for:

Surely you do not need us to quote the CHP's own policy positions on same sex marriage and abortion. While I could go either way on abortion, your stance on same sex marriage is a blatant violation of the Charter's promise for "equal benefit for every individual".

As for the Charter "recognizing the supremacy of God", it is a little known fact that that is actually a reference to the Jehovah Witness God, and Parliament is in fact constitutionally obligated to ban modern medicine. :wink:

 

[LadyC]

Re: RE: Church & State

Not anymore, apparently. I'm not sure if the hardcore Christians changed the words in their book again or have just been too busy obsessing over the fact that gays can get married to read the parts about money. Maybe they figured out how to get camels through the eyes of needles and figure they've discovered a loop-hole. At any rate, they have been ignoring the admonitions against greed and avarice.

On their knees. The verse was saying that man needs to be humble before God.

At any rate, Rev, you're full of criticisms of Christians... earlier you pointed out that they should separate their church from our state. Trouble with that is, I have both.

I agree that some politicians try to integrate their religious beliefs with their politics, but I think that the media is partly to blame. If a pol says he's a Christian then everything he says and does is suspect. I never noticed the same when Ujjal Dosanjh was Premier.

 

[LadyC]

As for the Charter "recognizing the supremacy of God", it is a little known fact that that is actually a reference to the Jehovah Witness God, and Parliament is in fact constitutionally obligated to ban modern medicine.

I seriously doubt that.

Source?

 

[SirKevin]

As for the Charter "recognizing the supremacy of God", it is a little known fact that that is actually a reference to the Jehovah Witness God, and Parliament is in fact constitutionally obligated to ban modern medicine.

I seriously doubt that.

Source?

Umm, I was mocking the ambiguity of the "supremacy of God" reference.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Chetien and Martin are both devout Catholics. Nobody is accusing them of pushing their religious beliefs on us. You might have noticed that I'm a little critical of Catholics too, C.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24)

On their knees indeed, just like Harper in front of Bush, or Bush in front of the anti-choice lobby.

 

[LadyC]

Ummm... okay.

But what ambiguity? Most of the major religions actually worship the same God.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Church & State

I could be wrong but I believe they were referring to the recent Sikh challenge in Quebec to allow Sikh males to bring their knifes/blades/swords/dangerous pointed weapons to public schools on religious grounds.

No it was about the BC temple, two groups of Sikhs cound't agree on whether to have chairs or not, so they got into a fight, folk got hurt and the police had to be called in and it was on the national news.

Nrinder Nindy Kaur Nann
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recent horrendously violent occurences at the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Surrey, B.C. was an issue of fundamental Sikhs versus moderate Sikhs-well, at least according to the sensationalized media.

On January 11, 1997 that peace was violently disrupted. The Guru Nanak Gurdwara turned into a bloody battlefield. Moderates attempted to return tables and chairs into the communal dining hall that were thrown out and destroyed by some fundamentalists in December. Some 75 fundamentalists sat cross-legged on the floor in protest refusing to move. When tables were squeezed in place, shouting and swearing commenced disobeying the conventional rules of the gurdwara. In moments, as tempers rose and shouting persisted, the sacred kirpans were drawn in a vicious offensive attack against fellow Sikhs.

Kirpans are one of the five sacred symbols of a baptized Sikh, only to be drawn in religious and personal defence. Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the living gurus, justified the drawing of kirpans as such: "When all other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the kirpan." The situation at the Surrey gurdwara had far from reached "all other means" of negotiation, and still the kirpans were drawn. Not only were they not used in defence, they were used against other Sikhs!

The argument that dining at tables and chairs opposes the Sikh custom of equality falls short of validity when one questions why the fundamentalists, who held a majority on the managing board of the gurdwara, did not impose this change during their ten year reign. They claim that the appropriate manner in which to dine in a gurdwara is on the floor, which is the practice in Indian and other international gurdwaras. It is in Canadian Sikh historical practice to dine at tables. Personally, if there were tables, I would eat at a table. If there weren't, then I would dine on the floor. However, if there were both (as some people argue to be the fairest resoltuion), I would refrain from dining in the hall altogether. The argument is not about fundamentalism, rather it rests on the bases of equality that the founding guru of Sikhism, Guru Nanak Dev, emphasized in his teachings. "All Sikhs must sit and dine at the same level," he said, be it all at tables or all at mats on the floor.

 

[LadyC]

Re: RE: Church & State

Chetien and Martin are both devout Catholics. Nobody is accusing them of pushing their religious beliefs on us. You might have noticed that I'm a little critical of Catholics too, C.

Contrary to popular belief, Catholics are Christians.

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 19:24)

On their knees indeed, just like Harper in front of Bush, or Bush in front of the anti-choice lobby.

Nice analogy, R... and so eloquent.

As I said... the only way a camel can pass through the eye of a needle is on its knees. The walls to the ancient cities had small openings designed to allow only a few in at a time, slowing enemies. Camels had to walk in on their knees.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Fundamentalists today constantly tell each other that the "eye of the needle" was a narrow gate into Jerusalem through which a camel could just barely squeeze, implying that even rich people can get into Heaven, provided that they walk a straight and narrow path.

While believing this no doubt lowers the cognitive dissonance they suffer between the resentment against wealth that is integral to the Christian religion they revere, and their own desire to achieve, it is nonetheless a silly legend, like the alligators in the sewers.

yoke

 

[LadyC]

Yes, I've heard that, too. I still prefer my version, though not for the reasons you posted. I like the idea of being humble... that no matter how wealthy a person is, he's no better than anyone else.

I wonder why you didn't quote the whole passage, though....

Matthew 19:24-26 "'And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, 'Who then can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said to them, 'With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'"