# Separation of Church and State



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

The opinions of the Vatican and Catholic church on the allowance of same-sex marriage have been widely reported. As the legistation enters the House of Commons this Fall, Federal MPs will be asked to vote on it. Should their religeous beliefs trump their representation of their electorate?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I believe the MP should vote as they always should be voting, a representation of their electorate with some personal conviction. eg. It may be an outspoken minority who want, say capital punishment, but the MP finds capital punishment distasteful, and therefore can vote according to the demands of his/her constituents with some actual values that should have been apparent when they were elected. But then again, thats ideal, and since humans are very imperfect, I choose the 3rd option. I don't mind which way the vote does go.


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797), Speech to the electors of Bristol. 3 Nov. 1774

The problem is where to draw the line. As a democracy, should the sitting member do what the majority wants? Should the member do what is "right" rather than go along with the mob? 

What is right? What is moral?

If we are no longer a religious society, how does one decide just how to frame a law?

From an intellectual POV, I can't find a reason not to allow homosexual marriages. As a liberal, having 2 people marry does not interfere with my ability to do what I want, so there is no reason for me to oppose such a union. But there is a terrible "yuck" factor involved. I'm very squeemish about the entire issue, and I have nagging doubts that gay marriage is not a good idea.

As for referencing the Bible, I think that if you look hard enough you can find quotes to buttrass any arguement, pro or con. So no help there, one way or another.

It will have to be a free vote in the HofC, but how individual members will vote, I'm not sure.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

It is worth noting that the voters of Bristol defeated Edmund Burke in the next election.

Obviously they had second thoughts on how much independence they expected from him.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Personally, I find it abhorrent, perverted and bizarre.... that the Catholic church is resorting yet again to scare tactics to exert its influence. I sincerely hope that our MPs vote for human rights, not for the narrow-minded obsessionism of a religeous minority (albeit a large one).

Everytime I see such behaviour it weakens my respect for such institutions. Just what are they afraid of? They are not being asked to perform marriages in their places of worship. Religeons are capable of tremendous good and provide meaning to millions. Why then, do they so often resort to acts of clear hatred and threat? I'm not picking on any one in particular. Indeed, part of the problem is that many religeons are out of step with their own followers.

The recent referendum for the abolition of the denominational school system in Nova Scotia (I think) was vigorously opposed by the church but even in staunchly Catholic areas a majority passed the amendment (in all but one riding).

I hope our politicians have enough self-confidence to think for themselves rather than take instruction from an iconoclastic institution that would rather babies died of malnutrition than bless the use of birth control.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I don't see what the big deal is... 
Marriage = more taxes
Living in sin = no taxes

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think leadership is not necessarily equivalent with "representing the will of the majority " in any given riding.

There is difference between being for or against the GST and voting in a situation where the Charter is involved.

Perhaps another category in the poll.

"Should politicians support the Charter and the courts"

Think this through a bit and plug in any other minority situation.

For me, the any organization promoting discimination against gays should be charged under the appropriate legislation that currently exists for fomenting hatred.....and throw the book at em.  

Canada is showing some serious leadership here very much in keeping with its history of forward looking support for organizations like the UN and Peacekeeping. The Charter is something for Canadians to be proud of....support it and the principles it is founded on.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Religion shapes the conscience of an individual, just like the media does. If you look at the gay marriage issue, 20 years ago we would have said hell will freeze over before we see gay marriage. Two decades of media salesmanship (gay characters on TV, pride parades etc.) political pressure and vilification of Christianity has convinced much of the population that homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality. The media has done a wonderful sales job.
The bottom line is that your beliefs are influenced by the sermons of somebody else, be it a teary-eyed Rosy O'Donnel on 60 minutes or your preacher on Sunday morning. 
Why is it OK to vote your conscience when its steered by the doctrine of popular culture but its not OK if its steered by the doctrine of your faith? 
I think its discriminatory to say a person can't vote their conscience if that decision is inline with Catholic, Evangelical or Muslim doctrine but their vote is never questioned if they have no religious affiliation. 
Personally, I find it abhorrent, perverted and bizarre for a person to claim to be a Catholic and to reject their convictions to vote for whatever way the political winds are blowing. When the PM standing up and saying I am Catholic yet I'm in favor of abortion and gay marriage, its totally hypocritical. Thats as stupid as standing up and saying I'm a member of PETA and I own an animal testing facility. Every-time I hear such a comment it weakens my respect for such an individual. 
If you're a Catholic politician and you vote for gay marriage, please don't be a hypocrite, have some balls and leave the church. There are religions to fit just about any moral taste. Find the one that fits you and go. If you claim a religious affiliation then embrace it or leave. Don't be a hypocrite. The church has every right to call for its congregation to adhere to its docturine.
As for the vilifying comment that the Catholic Church would rather see babies die of malnutrition then bless the use of birth control. No, they would rather see good hearted people like you send a sandwich or some garden tools instead of a box of trojans. Starving people in Bosnia were given a good supply of condoms and abortion pills so they could have safe sex while they were starving and freezing to death complements of the UN. The only reason there are starving people in the world is that the rest of the world is looking after number one and truly don't care.
As far as politicians representing there electorate, why start now? I'm sure when they vote themselves a big raise or increased benefits the electorate were not consulted. When every Liberal in the house stands up and votes yes, they're obaying orders from King Jean not their constituents. If you don't tow the party line you pay the consequences. Such is politics in any party.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

An exemplary presentation of the "reson d'être' for the Charter and separation of Church and State.









Terms like progress and enlightenment , and greater understanding of human physiology and phsychology come to mind.
Shall we call the abolition of slavery, civil rights etc "bending to popular culture"....I'd call it moving forward.
Sort of like moving from Phlogiston to Chemistry or Lamarck to Darwin eh.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

I don't believe the media sold us gay marriage.

I think it allowed us to see gays weren't devils incarnate, twisted sex fiends or really all that different from you and me. Is that bad?

Not to me. 

Nor do I think the media has vilified Christianity. I think churches, including the Catholic Church, have done that job quite well on their own.

As for Catholic politicians voting for what they believe, I have no problem with that. Whether they vote for or against allowing gays to marry, as long as they vote for what they believe is best, I'll accept their decision.

I don't find it hypocritical of Catholic politicians to vote for allowing gays to marry. The Church allows Catholics not only to have free will, but to exercise their free will. That means they're allowed to make "mistakes." If voting to allow gay marriages is a "mistake," so be it. 

I do, however, have a problem with Catholic politicians voting the way a priest or a bishop told them to vote and I have a problem with priests and bishops telling Catholic politicians their immortal souls are in danger if they don't vote a particular way.

Catholics comprise less than 45 per cent of Canada's population and according to recent polling, barely 40 per cent of those Catholics are opposed to gay marriage. They should not be allowed to dominate and decide a public issue by religious proxy. 

If a priest or a bishop wants to make that decision for all Canadians they should run for public office. Or turn Canada into a theocracy, like Iran.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As it goes in Parliament. "Hear, hear ...well put sirra"

Brain strained how do you feel about politicians voting with the Charter in mind even if it might not represent their riding majority.

I really think this is the heart of the issue. The "external dictums and edicts" are just noise.....either we have a charter that the courts and laws can work with or not.

I mean I might not LIKE the speed limits, I dare say most don't, but it's the law, my "likes" don't really have any bearing on it.
If the courts look at the Charter and declare an inequality, some may not like it but it's the law and it's under a set of principles call the Charter of Rights and Freedoms developed to guide legislators and courts.

If there is hypocrisy it would be in flouting the Charter just to get re-elected.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Separation of church and state is a very necessary thing I think. I think they can coexist quite nicely and I like how things have been presented in Canada with allowing gay marriage yet also allowing religious organizations to have their own beliefs and are not being forced to endorse gay marriages. 

Macdoc.. re the comment about throwing the book at them. I can understand where your coming from but I think its a bit of a dangerous statement. Recent comments, beliefs and ideas made by the Catholic church (as much as they irritate me as well) should not, IMO be considered as "hate" crimes.  The Catholic Church has their beliefs on homosexuality and that marriage should be between a male and a female. In a free society, anyone could publicly state that belief and I think they shouldn't feel like they are going to have the book thrown at them. That opens a *HUGE* pandoras box on freedom of belief, ideas and thoughts. 

Having said that... I despise how the Catholic Church 'leaders" has issued their "edict" on how people should believe and understand scripture. I better watch what I say though for fear of getting booked for a hate crime.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

If the Catholic Church attempts to subvert a sovereign nation by threatening it's leaders in order to promulgate discrimination what else would you call it? Can we say IRELAND!!!!!








It's one thing to hold an opinion and subscribe to doctrine. But this is more than proselytizing however, it's an implied, and if you are Catholic, mortal threat that infringes upon the civil structure of this nation. It's odious and is basically saying to all Catholics "We, the leaders of your church, believe gays are sinful, perverted and not deserving of equal treatment UNDER LAW and your Charter be damned."
That's a hate crime IMHO.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macdoc,

You've dragged out the predictable buzzwords used to belittle religious moral principles. I could have wrote your response for you. Progress and enlightenment. (Insert yawning emoticon here) Yes the progress we've made since the enlightenment of the 60's has been fantastic since we started ignoring those outdated teachings of religion. We've got the lowest divorce rate in history, no STDs, no teen pregnancies, no abortions, crime has diminished, no drug problems and the metal detectors are no longer needed in schools. Secular humanism has been a great success.

Church is separated from state, but the church has every right to instruct their congregations on church teaching. The Charter you like to mention also assures Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech as ehMac has pointed out. If the teachings of the church proclaim homosexuality, adultery, stealing etc. are immoral acts, the charter assures they have the right to believe that and proclaim it. If you don't like it, don't listen. They even have the right to vote if they have those religious principles (for now).

Gays and Lesbians are protected under the charter as it stands now. It is a crime in this country to insight hate and violence against ANYONE, even Christians. If saying homosexuality is immoral is a hate crime I guess prostitutes, adulterers, thieves and murderers also have a axe to grind with the churches. I can see the sermon police rounding up the clergy. Maybe we need state sanctioned religion like in China.

As for your greater understanding of human physiology, last time I checked the parts on a man and woman were designed by nature to fit. They also had this ability to procreate the species through this union naturally. That has been a defining characteristic of marriage since its inception. That hasn't changed.

Brainstrained mentioned that only 40% of Canadian Catholics were opposed to gay marriage. That's because the other 60% probably haven't walked into the church since their baptism and probably get their moral guidance from Dr. Ruth. I think they should stand for what they believe and go shopping for a new religion and stop calling themselves Catholics. Maybe they should join PETA and open up a fur farm. Oh but that would be hypocritical! Religion is not a democracy, Jesus never ask for anyones opinion when he was stating what was right and wrong. You accepted it or rejected it. Its not a buffet at Denny's but many seem to think it is.

As far as Canada being a theocracy like Iran, it already on its way there. Our Left wing UNELECTED Supreme Court judges, in there infallible wisdom are making all the decisions for us. Our government drafts legislation while the House of Commons is out and sneaks it off to the SC for their rubber stamp without even a debate in the House on something that will affect the very fabric of our society. The vote in the Fall is just window dressing. Everyone will tow the party line and the legislation will pass. Last I heard, the Supreme Court is still debating the idea of allowing Churches to refuse gay marriage, shortly after, the Supreme Court will be hearing the case of Adam and Steve vs the Catholic Church after they demand to be married base on their new rights. Then maybe Adam, Steve and Sue will decide that the new definition of marriage includes the right for all three of them to get married. And the mess gets worse.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I wouldn't even know where to start addressing THAT rant but 
"Religion is not a democracy" umm yes and therein lies the problem as we happen to live in a democracy and I'm very glad the Charter provides freedom FROM religion.

What a downright ignorant approach to associate homosexuality with thieves and murders  Such a santimonious pile of claptrap.... sounds like you were born about 400 years too late, the Puritans would have loved your approach and I'm SURE you would have been happier.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macdoc, while I personally believe if the position but forward by Edmund Burke -- that a politician should use his intellect and not vote at the whim of the majority, I accept there are politicians (Alliance MPs?) who disagree with Burke.

Macguiver, what is objectionable by the Catholic Church is not their reminding parishioners of the sanctity of marriage. Other churches are doing the same. What is objectionable is attempting to intimidate Catholic policians with eternal damnation and portray gays as monsters.

One gets the impression that some priests and bishops eagerly await the return of the inquisition.

I prefer to let God pass judgment on politicians and gays. He/she/it will be better at it than me.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

This about sums it all up for me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"What is objectionable is attempting to intimidate Catholic policians with eternal damnation and portray gays as monsters.
One gets the impression that some priests and bishops eagerly await the return of the inquisition."

There's a few other "Bible Belt" denominations I can think of that perhaps aren't even as polite as the Catholics are being.







It's exactly this kind of issue that shows the "true colours".

BrainStr - I'm still not clear
a) respect the courts and Charter with their vote
b) vote THEIR OWN conscience/intellect
c) vote as they think their riding wishes

I assume b) is Burke's position - how do YOU feel about a) and c)

••
The child abuse by the churches is certainly a condemnation of "celibate priest theory" and the kind of coverups ensure we need the Charter.
But Doug I'm still curious as to whether YOU think the MPs should
a) respect the courts and Charter with their vote
b) vote THEIR OWN conscience/intellect
c) vote as they think their riding wishes


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

All religions are nothing more than business; the more mainstream the religion the bigger the business and the more the religion must fight to maintain its interests — read profits.

The Catholic Church, being the first Christian big business, is at the top of the heap, with unbounded riches amassed principally in, because of its incredible wealth, its own city-state.

Those riches, from priceless art to gold-encrusted popes and ceilings, were not gathered easily, but through what other religions learned, as well: greed, hatred, fear, slavery, torture, rape -- child and otherwise -- murder, genocide and war.

Religion -- all religions -- are, and always have been, at the apex of all that is evil. Anyone, not least a politican, intimidated by an edict from anyone purporting to be God's representative on Earth, whether a priest, rabbi, minister, cult leader or grasping televangelist, should be locked in a home for the feeble-minded.

When the pope and the others on the company board, fearful for their profits, issue decrees to governments and their representatives around the world telling them they will burn in hell if they don't back the company, it is past time to raise the flag of Henry VIII and drive the psychopaths back under their rock, pun intended. 

Christianity is on a roll. To deny it is madness. The president of the United States, supported by the Christian right in ever-increasing numbers, proclaims he is a committed Christian, and he and his coterie are out to prove it. Expect many huge encroachments of religion, or "faith-based" bigotry, into what once was a free country and one that cares less and less about whether it appears to be a "faith-based" dictatorship.

The loss of privacy and other personal freedoms, together with the loss of the keystone, the right to a fair trial, is the end of the end of democracy, not the beginning. Do not expect any less in any country in the orbit of the United States, certainly not Canada, ruled de facto by it. Expect everything that appears along with a police state, including the horrors generated by the colossal cowardice of the government that engenders it.

The prime minister of Britain says he is a committed Christian; why the surprise when inquisitions surface such as that of David Kelly, who could not sanction the British government's lies and was driven to suicide for it? Why not a war -- by the past empire that morphed into the present empire -- to regain another religion's oil and profits fought on the strength of the rulers' deceit through fabrication of evidence and moral condemnation -- by a government that tortures and imprisons without charge -- of a government that tortures and imprisons without charge? 

Islam is on a roll. To deny it is madness. Any separation of religion and state never existed in Islamic countries -- Turkey's propaganda notwithstanding -- so there is no need, as in the United States, Britain and the rest, to prepare the masses for more religious wars. Soon such preparation will not be needed here, either.

So gather round, all ye cannon fodder, and listen to the padre as he blesses the most recent stealth bomber and nuclear submarine and all the 32 hydrogen bombs that sail in her, as he implores God that to help win this righteous war He bring success to the bombs and kill the millions of people who dare -- who have the effrontery! -- to lift a finger and say "Wait a minute," never mind "No."

It's just business, Bubba. So don't buy nothin' French, an' pass them freedom fries.

[ August 07, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Etaoin Shrdlu ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I guess my morals derive from life experience, a pot pourri of various edicts and advice from sources as various as the Bible, Koran, books, personal interactions, tit bits from almost every religeon on the planet as well as wise words of elders and youngers. But I am a sceptic and I take nothing at face value. I do not believe because others believe. I don't lack faith, but I don't accept it unquestionably. I am not afraid of the world or whatever (if anything) comes after. I try to do good. If there is such a thing as judgment, then my expectation is that the Superior Authority will have slightly greater expectations of a good life than rote adherence to a series of rules and regulations that pay lipservice to tolerance and all too often promote bigotry and hatred.

I hope that politicians recognize their role is to act as respectful human beings, to draw conclusions, to recognize multiple points of view and to act in the best interest of the people.

I am ashamed by the attitudes of some people who insist that homosexuality is somehow evil and wrong. The problem is not (and has never been) with gays and lesbians but with people who are blind to their own prejudice.

I hope that Canadian society realizes the utter folly of mixing Church and State. That's where my faith lies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

JW - Societies have morals, people have ethics.  but we know what you meant.
••
Etaoin .   .....Ehmax et al take note ....you thought I had a strong opinions on the matter.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Macdoc, as I said I am an adherent of Edmund Burke, but I accept the position of those politicians who say they must support the wishes of the majority, provided they do so consistently.

I have disdain for politicians who will automatically vote to "respect the court and the Charter." That, indeed, is surrendering governance to the courts.

Some 20 years ago I initially opposed repatriating the constitution because it would make the Charter and the court's interpretation of it supercede Parliament -- our elected representatives would no longer be the final arbiters. Trudeau and company added the notwithstanding clause to give Parliament a check to balance the authority of the court.

So Parliament can, and indeed has the responsibility of rejecting court interpretations, if those judgments are counter to the interests and/or wishes of Canadians. Obviously many vocal Canadians feel Parliament should begin to exercise that perogative over gay marriage. I have no problem with gay marriages but I agree with those critics that it's time Parliament stopped letting the court do their work for them.

One byproduct in recent years of the repatriation has the number of Charter cases being heard and decided by the courts. Virtually all these cases involve legislation that is older than the Charter. As Parliament in recent decades has become more and more reluctant for fear of criticism to update and introduce new social policy, the courts are being forced to take on that role by default. Their only real guide and measure is the Charter.

True governance is more than the interpretation of laws. It is leadership, influence, compromise, foresight and, if necessary, the exercise of power and authority, in the face of conflicting ideas and opinions. Sadly, we haven't had much of that from Parliament in recent years.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BrainS - good post. I have a bit of difficulty reconciling "will of the majority" with leadership as often they are not in synch.

There should be more back and forth between Legislators and the Courts but my perception is that in areas of Land Claims, Native Fishing rights and some others the process has been reasonable with laws being drafted and/or questioned ( obviously much existing legislation has to be examined in light of the Charter ).
Look at decriminalizing marijuana that's certainly shows leadership and the debate over two tier healthcare.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc 

Great comeback. You've done a wonderful job of twisting what I said and vilifying me but you haven't addressed a thing I said. 
In no way am I equating a murderer with a homosexual. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. I am merely making the point that in the Catholic Church and many other Protestant, Muslim and Jewish faiths, homosexuality is a sinful act as is cheating on your income tax. The church has the right to proclaim both as sinful and if Joe politician happens to agree with that he has the right to vote his conscience just like any other politician. If you share a moral compass with Howard Stern, so be it, you can vote your conscience too. Thats called democracy. If his electorate don't approve they can send him packing next election unlike the unelected pillars of wisdom in the Supreme Court, accountable to nobody. Had these pillars of wisdom stood up and declared abortion as unconstitutional and called for an immediate ban on the procedure I doubt you'd be praising the Charter then. 

Purtain eh! Sounds like you were born about 2000 years too late, the Romans would have loved to have you throw the book at them Christians. You and Etaoin could have gotten jobs at the Colosseum.

And for Etaoin's statement
Religion -- all religions -- are, and always have been, at the apex of all that is evil.
WOW! You Scare me! I guess you must be a big fan of North Korea and the former Soviet Union. No evil to be found in those atheist nations. All those evil homeless shelters, hospitals, food-banks and third-world aid programs have to be stopped.

And used to be jwoodget. Good post on your convictions! I may not agree with you on this issue but you showed some class defending your ideals and didn't resort to personal insults.

Brainstrained.
Excellent commentary on the Courts issue. I agree with you 100% on that.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

MacGuiver, I suspected you'd haul up that old canard of the Soviet Union and toss around accusations that I am in some way sympathetic towards it while implying I'm atheist. Thanks for obliging me. Kudos for lathering it up with North Korea. You've just shot yourself in both feet.

Surprise! Like ancient Egypt's pharohs, Japan's emperors, Russia's czars, France's kings and England's and Scotland's monarchies, North Korea's Kim Jong II tries to claim he's divine, as his father did. "All good things come from Kim."

In a world full of bloodthirsty nutbars, that clown ranks with the best -- or worst -- of them. North Korea and its starving peasants living in wattle-and-daub huts -- if they haven't eaten them -- and under the heel of its personality-cult leader, North Korea more resembles Europe under its divine-right rulers until the Age of Englightenment than anywhere on the planet. North Korea turned its late god "Dear Leader" and his half-baked son into a religion.

As for the Soviet Union, I disagree with your argument that there is "No evil to be found in those atheist nations," and that the homeless are evil, along with shelters, hospitals, food banks and Third World aid programs.

Whillikers! Why would you say such things?

Stalin killed six million people at the very least, and it would have been many more if he hadn't been bumped off. But religions are far worse. Even "Uncle Joe" didn't threaten his victims with eternal damnation and burning hellfire for six times eternity in the next world after slowing burning them alive in this one. Six million? Pshaw! Religions have had thousands of years and many times six million.

While its not enough for religion, this world was enough for Stalin. Amateur.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Etaoin

Oh I'm sorry, Stalin only killed 6 million. I didn't realize he was such a nice guy. Yes and the fact that over 1 million unborn babies are killed in the USA each year is a direct result of the evil of organized religion. Or is there nothing bad about killing an unborn child?

You did an exemplary job of twisting what I said to discredit me. I didn't say homeless people are evil, read a little more carefully. I said HOMELESS SHELTERS! And I assumed my sarcasm was apparent but obviously not.
We have many shelters for the homeless, hospitals, food banks and Aid programs for the 3rd World thanks to the good intentions of organized religion, the root of all evil as you claim. Millions would die each year without it.

Speaking of roots of all evil, what about money? Those people working in sweatshops for 12 hours a day for barely enough to sustain themselves so some big CEO at Nike can make a few extra million. The poisons being dumped into the environment, harming and killing millions can be traced to the hunger for money and power, nothing else. The drug dealers poisoning our youth and destroying their lives are not doing so out of religious convictions. But I won't be so naive to state money is the source of all evil.

Granted, you're not totally incorrect. Not all religions are good and all make mistakes, they are run by human beings after-all. For example the Nazi's had strong ties to the Occult and look at the wonderful things they did. Jimmy Jones was a nutbar and he steered his followers to suicide. But your blanket statement that all evil is rooted in religion is idiotic. If all evil is rooted in religion, please enlighten me to the source of all good?

Sorry to think you'd be sympathetic with the likes of Stalin, I thought you were quoting him when you said "Anyone, not least a politican, intimidated by an edict from anyone purporting to be God's representative on Earth, whether a priest, rabbi, minister, cult leader or grasping televangelist, should be locked in a home for the feeble-minded." and "it is past time to raise the flag of Henry VIII and drive the psychopaths back under their rock, pun intended." Siberia anyone?

Stalin was somehow more compassionate than religion? Oh Boy! If there is a place called hell, and I personally believe there is, it would be wrong not to warn your followers to avoid it. If I know or even believe there's a shark in the swimming pool, would my intentions be evil to tell my children not to jump in? The danger of hell would be no different.

If I was wrong to assume you're an atheist, what religion are you? Remember your own words, "Religion -- all religions -- are and always have been, at the apex of all that is evil. If you're not an atheist you just shot yourself in the foot.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go St. Andrews Hospital and have the bullets taken out of my feet. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't usually participate in these sexuality-driven discussions, but as a gay man, and an ex-Catholic, I feel that I have to take the plunge this time around ...

We live in a (quasi)DEMOcracy, not a THEOcracy; that is, we are governed by political (which, unfortunately, translates far too often into capitalist) principles, not by religious ones. The trouble with theocracy is, what do you do with people who do not believe in your god, or in any god for that matter ? Historically, the answer has been, quite literally, to silence them.

Thankfully, we all have a voice in this society - not equally loud, but I really do believe that all Canadians have a voice (which is one of the reasons I chose to make this country my home). 

Given that this is not a theocracy, I think it inappropriate for politicians to rely only on their religious convictions on issues such as this. By standing for office, they are agreeing to participate in a democratic process, not a theocratic one - their constituents are not only their congregation. If they can't reconcile that, they should not be in office (though I guess they COULD try to turn the country into a theocracy whilst in office, but would have to do so using democratic priciples .

A couple of points I would like to make - I agree wholeheartedly that Catholics (in this case) who cannot reconcile their personal beliefs with those of the official church should leave the church and stop calling themselves Catholic - AMEN to that ! That way the church would quickly realise just how out of touch with a large proportion of "their" congregation they really are, and all of us would quickly see how few "real" Catholics there are ... 

The hypocrisy in this regard also extends to the Catholic church itself - given the teachings with respect to birth control and abortion, for example (both still mortal sins, AFAIK), shouldn't they ex-communicate anyone who has experience of, or simply supports, either of these ? Of course, that would greatly reduce the political (and financial) influence of the church (it's only reason for existing), so I'm not holding my breath on that one ... 

Something that has come up in this discussion, and in similar discussions in the past, is the whole concept of minority rights within a democratic society. IMO (and, I think, in the opinion of Canadian society), rights should not be based solely upon the majority view - by definiton, there could be no such thing as a minority right under such a scenario. In a truly pluralistic society you have to accept that not everyone is going to agree with you - it is how you deal with disagreement that shows your true colours. 

Finally (!), with respect to the apoplexy at the debasement of the age-old "sacrament" of marriage by allowing CIVIL marriage for same-gender couples, I have this to say. I read recently (don't remember where, unfortunately) that for centuries the church wanted ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the whole concept of marriage, and that it's only in the last couple of hundred years (a long time, granted, but hardly since time immemorial, and certainly not since bibical times, which is the implication) that they agreed to participate in it at all, and then unwillingly - hence the description of one of Shakespeare's characters as having been married several times "at the church door" - having agreed/been forced to embrace the "undesirable" concept of marriage the church consented to performing a marriage ceremony, but it damn well wasn't going to take place within the sacred space - instead, marriages were conducted AT THE DOOR of the church - thus, were technically IN the church, but not at the altar, the most sacred space ... 

OK, I've had my say ... 

Mike McHugh


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

Hi, MacGuiver

To say there is no God is as arrogant as saying there is.

Does your question as to what religion I practise mean you prefer black/white contrasts to issues, that there are no shades of gray, particularly in regards to belief in God? I have no religion, and I doubt you really think that one must have a religion before entering yet another useless debate about God, though your post suggests otherwise. Not knowing whether God exists hardly means I have a religion.

Of course I knew you were being sarcastic. Not recognizing that my reply was, too, may be indicative of a high-contrast view of the world. If rather blunt sarcasm escapes, little is left except the literal meaning of the written word, perhaps.

Of course Stalin has few equals in horror. Do I really need to say this with black electrons on white -- or in this case, gray? But the Bible says losing your soul is worse than anything to which the world could condemn you. So, yes, the atrocities committed by God's annointed are worse, if measurements must be taken. In addition to killing uncounted millions over the centuries, they try to ensure those millions' lives in the next life are more hellish than they were when they were killed in this one.

OK, I lied. My religion is Plutocracy. I believe that the souls of the godless are transported to Pluto, where they freeze for eternity. I really, really believe this, and it's my duty to warn you that your personal belief is wrong, and because you are wrong, you will be turned into a wisp of frozen methane -- maybe the only methane there, permanantly separated from God and even from other methane wisps -- except Stalin's.

To spread this truth, please send money for my religious centre that spreads the Word. I must bombard the world with the Word for thousands of years. Cheques can be made out to The Church of the Incredible Presumption, though I prefer credit card numbers -- and so does God. Failing that, at least send a tenth of you and your progeny's income until you and your great great grandchildren die, or you and them will freeze on Pluto, and YOU will be responsible for their wispiness there. God says so, and it's my duty to warn you of eternal punishment from our loving God.

I admit Plutocracy cannot be proven -- it cannot because God wants us to have free will and decide for ourselves. Except He'll freeze you forever if you decide it's a crock. But I'm here to tell you, I don't need proof, because I have faith, and faith is stronger than proof. I also have all Plutocracy's holy writ (and God annointed me with the understanding of it -- He told me) that proves (even if I can't) that Plutocracy is real. Besides, I read it in a book, so it must be true. If it isn't true, then none of it is true, and that can't be true. It's my duty to warn you, and I've proven that by saying it three times.

I'm going to enter the Liberal leadership race, and when I'm prime minister, the caucus had better vote the way I tell 'em to because I'll make it clear that if they don't, they, too, will end up on Pluto next to Stalin, and you'll have company, after all. They'll cower, or I'll know the reason why.

Thank God there are people who will fight to the death to ensure I can keep preaching Plutocracy. I don't think I would.

Hey, I just realized! You brought up the Nazis first, so I win!


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Thanks mikemchugh.

Quite enlightening ..... we learn much at ehMac









For me, hell (a human invention/condition) begins with inflamatory language whether internal or inter-personal. It ends with needless suffering.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Etaoin Shrdlu ...... urgent ... California needs you now!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Etaoin, wow... that's quite the post! Religion is the apex of all that is evil! 

Now its no secret to many that I'm a believer. But I must say that while I disagree with your statement, I do think there is also a lot of validity to it. I think many organized religions have nothing to do with the belief system that they supposedly embody but instead become their own entity of beuracracy, leaders, self decreed rules and "laws". In essense, they do become more like a business. Its obvious just look at some TV evangelists. 

To me its extremely sad that "religion" is looked upon in this manner. 

For me, "religion" (My belief system and many of the people I have met in an organized church) have been a real positive thing and the farthest thing I could imagine to being the apex of something evil. 

There's been talk of the Charter of Rights and I think some are interested to bring it up only when it suits there purpose. (Some even midly changing the wording to make their own point). Its a two way street and I've always looked at it that way. If I value my freedom to have my *own* beliefs, I must honour the freedom for others to believe what they want to believe. I forget that actual quote, but someone once said something to the effect: "I may disagree with all my being on what you say, but I will defend with all my being you're right to say it. "

Just a reminder for everyone:










*Fundamental Freedoms:*

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

a) freedom *OF* conscience and religion; 
b) freedom *OF* thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 
c) freedom *OF* peaceful assembly; and 
d) freedom *OF* association.

*Equality Rights:*

*Every individual* is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

-----

Great debate. Thanks for keeping things civil for the most part.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mike glad to have you on this discussion - a bit of sanity.
I'll ask you the same question I asked others about what an elected MP should do ...your opinion of course.

a) respect the courts and Charter with their vote
b) vote THEIR OWN conscience/intellect
c) vote as they think their riding wishes

BTW the Charter is mainly to protect minorities.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

d) assess all of the above and vote according to the arguments.

Etaoin, fellow Plutonian, I am not worthy. An eloquent allegorical tale.

Macguiver, methinks you are a good person but are too sensitive. Make a point of talking with someone who is gay. They don't bite. Mike would be a start.

Mike, welcome. Speak up. Your point about minority rights gets to the heart of the debate. The majority rarely has its rights eroded.

Straw polls seem to indicate that about 60% of the population are against same-sex marriage. While disheartening, I don't think this means Canadians are homophobic. I think they have a hard time "breaking with tradition". Ironically, same-sex couples do not want to break tradition either. It is the tradition of marriage that is so appealing. It carries with it respect and recognition of commitment. People choose to ascend to this level of recognition. These are not trite marriages of convenience. I've a hunch that same-sex divorce rates will be a lot lower than hets (and not just because of the residency requirement). 

Same-sex marriage does not devalue, undermine, interfere with or demean the sanctity of marriage. It's win-win. We are not losing anything by recognizing love and commitment between two people. 

Sheep weddings are quite a different story. Baa.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Etaoin,

I knew you were Plutocratic! But you know what, you have every right to warn your followers about freezing on Pluto no matter how absurd I think that might be. If you know that as true then you'd be a negligent leader if you failed to tell them. And if your followers find your warning absurd they can pack up and join the Marsocracy that fits their beliefs. And if you want to tell every person in the world about the wonders of Plutocracy, you have every right to do it. Start your own TV Station, if I don't like it I can turn to Playboy.

I don't know what utopian nation your from but last time I checked it cost money to live in this country. Please share with us your secrets on how to heat a church, feed a minister and his family, get him from A-B without spending a dime? Churches need donations. Granted there are individuals that abuse charity and downright scam their followers. No cleric needs a fleet of BMW's and a summer mansion on the shores of Malibu Beach. Religion didn't corrupt him, greed and lust for the almighty dollar did. Its either Black or White with you. Are there no shades of grey? You're paint every religious group or individual with the same brush.

Good idea to join the Liberal leadership race, it works just like you described already. King Jean tells his team to check your personal beliefs at the door and vote how King Jean and the Supremes deem appropriate. You can't lose!

Mike, good post. Constructive debate without falling to the level of personal attacks on peoples intelligence we've seen even though you're so close to the issue. I'm interested in your account of church history regarding marriage and plan to look into it. I wish more people, King Jean included, would have the balls to show their convictions with their feet like you did. AMEN!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Great discussion folks. Very interesting.







Thank you very much mikemchugh for your post and contributing!  Very thought provoking and mind opening comments. 

Macdoc, to answer your question, I would have to chose A. In the end, I think an elected MP should respect the courts and the charter. I think somewhere in there, there needs to be adequate debate of course where ideas that are derived from the MP's consience and the ridings wishes are conveyed. 

--

I liked the Plutonian tale.







I'd like to think my belief is not as far out sounding as that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Okay I decided to address the rant.

Macguiver said sarcastically
"Yes the progress we've made since the enlightenment of the 60's has been fantastic since we started ignoring those outdated teachings of religion. We've got the lowest divorce rate in history, no STDs, no teen pregnancies, no abortions, crime has diminished, no drug problems and the metal detectors are no longer needed in schools. Secular humanism has been a great success."

In response - the reader may draw their own conclusion from the trends cited below about the accuracy of Macguiver's assessment of just what is going on in those categories and the interesting accompanying trend regarding religion. Just coincidence I guess......never progress...naw couldn't be.








•••••
Teenage pregnancy by Heather Dryburgh
Health Reports, Vol. 12, No. 1 Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-003

During the last quarter century, there has been an overall decline in the teenage pregnancy rate in Canada, 

••
The crime rate in Canada is measured by the number of Criminal Code incidents reported to police. In 1999, Canada posted its lowest crime rate in 20 years with 7,733 incidents per 100,000 people. The drop in police-reported crime is not the only indicator that the crime rate has actually fallen, however. According to a 1996 survey, victim-reported crime (which includes incidents not reported to police) decreased between 1993 and 1996. Interestingly, better behaviour seems to be catching on abroad as well: Canada's waning police-reported crime rate has been mirrored in several other countries.

••
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (STDs) 

• The incidence of three common bacterial STDs--syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia--generally decreased over the last decade in the developed world, both in the general population and among adolescents.

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31,2000 -- The use of illegal drugs by youths aged 12 to 17 dropped sharply from 1997 to 1999, the federal government said today. And while drug use among people 18 to 25 went up, it was still far below what it had been 20 years ago. 

••
Some researchers have suggested that religion may have little or no effect on divorce rates. The apparently higher rate among born-again Christians, and lower rate among Atheists and Agnostics may be due to the influence of financial and/or educational factors.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
•••••••••

Now here's the interesting kicker to the story.

From the Canadian Census 2001
The percentage of Christians is in rapid decline in Canada, dropping at 0.9 percentage points per year. 

Small non-Christian faith groups are increasing in number and popularity. 

The percentage of Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, secularists, and persons of no religious adherence is increasing rapidly.

Results from the 41 countries sampled showed that the percentage of the public who consider religion important ranged from 97% in Senegal to 11% in both France and the Czech Republic . They found that the percentage was:
59% in the United States
57% in Mexico
33% in Great Britain
30% in Canada.

Increase in those reporting “No religion”

Prior to 1971, fewer than 1% of the Canadian population reported having no religion. In 2001, that percentage increased to 16% of the population, or just under 4.8 million people, compared with 3.3 million a decade earlier
•••
Indeed secular humanism is succeeding DESPITE the best efforts to prevent it.

Being gay is like being left handed, it's the way people are born and who knows it may just be one of the ways evolution reacts to over population. A built in control gene.

" There was a time in North America, when being left handed was considered to be wrong.  To be left handed meant there was something un-natural about you.  Millions of people were forced to be right handed, in-spite of how the way nature (or god) had made them.  Later, it was discovered that forcing the conversion of a left handed person to right handed, could cause serious learning deficiencies, and even crippling low self-esteem.
  How then, could the same (or grossly worse) attitude toward gays be any less damaging, or crippling."
from http://comingout.gayalberta.net/them/them.htm.asp

Canada is showing real leadership here, get behind the goverment and make ALL our citizens equal.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Gee, another post by Mike McHugh -- number 13 in two and a half years. At this rate he'll be a full citizen in a couple years.  

Unless, of course, our esteemed mayor deems him fit to grant him full citizenship for rational, thought-provoking posts. 

[ August 09, 2003, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Brainstrained ]


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

> Please share with us your secrets on how to heat a church, feed a minister and his family, get him from A-B without spending a dime? Churches need donations.


MacGuiver, I hate no one. I don't. But I really, truly, in all honesty, cross my heart and hope to die, don't give a rat's patootie whether the church freezes or burns to the ground. I simply don't care. Let the dead bury the dead.

Of course churches need donations. So does the pope, from whom all blessings flow, and the archbishop of Canterbury, the moderator of the United Church, whoever's at the top of the Latter Day Saints pyramid scheme, the Christian Scientists buying their way into the next level of heaven, those whackos following Dienetics, concocted by a science-fiction writer on a bet, and the head honcho winding the clocks at the Watch Tower. I don't understand how they make ends meet. Why, it must be a miracle -- or their shares in Boeing, the Electric Boat Co., Litten Industries and Krupp.

There are few shades of gray when it comes to such a group.



> But how come I can read post after post on my forum about these awful, generalizations and sweeping comments on all religions and beliefs and no one cries fowl?!?


Max, because there are so many victims who refuse to stay quiet any longer and are being heard, so many that the Anglican Church declared bankruptcy to pay for the evils it committed in residential schools and elsewhere. So many that the federal government has to bail it out so it can pay the hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits brought by victims who were CHILDREN when they were raped and beaten and had their entire lives destroyed by the church's thugs. So many the government had to CAP the payouts. So many that the Catholic Church hired shysters to put entire archbishoprics in bankruptcy protection so the cardinal who protected his bands of pedophiles could still wear his gold medals and blood-red costume. So many the entire continent is bathed in the blood of their heinous acts.

Can you doubt it's not as bad or worse in South America, Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere? How can you believe it is any better among the other religions? Simply pick up a newspaper and read of Muslims killing little girls because they know how to read, and killing women because they need to work to feed their families, both against God's will. Killing men because their beards come up a quarter centimetre short on a ruler, against God's will. Burying women up to their heads in sand then beheading them because they were raped, as God wills it.

Women thrown on a pyre to burn alive because their husbands died, as God wills it. A man killing his seven-year-old wife because she wanted to stay home with mama, not return with him to his bed, as God wills it. A woman blinded and horribly disfigured after her husband throws acid in her face, as God wills is right and proper. A man crucified on a fence because he's homosexual against God's will.

Shiites killing Sunnis for God. Sunnis killing Shiites for God. Catholics killing Protestants for God. Protestants killing Catholics for God. All of them killing Jews for God. And Jews killing Palestinians for God. And Palestinians killing Jews for God.

Probably that's why, Max.

But I am sorry it's your board, and I wouldn't blame you if you erased the entire thread, then decreed that religion is off-limits. Anyway, I'm sick to death of God.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Sorry about leaving everyone hanging with that Martin Luther. I hiccupped.  

I meant to say Martin Luther, an anathema to Catholics but still an influential thinker, said marriage is not a sacrament, it is a "worldly thing."

"Church approved" marriages, however, date back to early Christian times, though Canon Law, ie. the law of the Catholic Church, didn't require Church marriages until the Council of Trent about 1560.

The Council was part of the Catholic Church's counter-reformation, and the purpose of making it Canon Law was because a lot of people weren't getting married in churches and to underline that marriage, contrary to Luther's opinion, was a sacrament, a belief that dates back to Saint Paul.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ehmax as I've indicated before I "respond in kind".

MacGuiver made certain statements about how horrible things were regarding divorce, STDs etc since our society was becoming secular and by inference things must have been so much better when people were more religious.
I pointed out that he was incorrect and that in fact things were improving over time in those very categories he was saying were getting so awful.
more later


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*But I am sorry it's your board, and I wouldn't blame you if you erased the entire thread, then decreed that religion is off-limits.* 

As I said before, I may disagree with all my being on what you say, but I'll defend with all my being you're right to say it. 

Open discussion is a good thing. (With the exception of discussing how to pirate software etc... on ehMac) 

All the things you listed are very awful. But they do not come from God. At least not the God I believe in which is the God described in the Bible. Yes, many billions of people over the years have done horrible things 'in the name of the Father'. Just as many more billions of people have done horrible things in the name of money, in the name of power, in the name of their own selfish desires and ambitions. To think that all evil actions and deeds have only come from people with some religious affiliation is naive. 

Of all the horrible things you have described that happened, there is nothing in the teaching of Christianity that would have people behave like that. Its actually quite the contrary. I could bore you with pages and pages on scripture.  Passages like: "Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all people." I could go on an on, but then I'd be called a bible thumper. 

Macdoc, I understand your post was a response 'in kind' which to me is just a fancier way of saying 'he started it'.  

Alas... carry on. I won't be around too much in the next little while (the great outdoors beckons me) so please behave kids.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macdoc, thanks for the stats. It's like that starvation diet that helps you live longer. You still die at the same age, but you feel time has slowed getting there. So much for the doom and gloom.

As for Mike's post rate: quality over quantity....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

the esteemed Martin Luther was .......WHAT ???  

Hmmmpt leave a guy hanging  

Where's Vertigogo these days..he's usually good for sensible insight.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Wow Macdoc, that's quite the creative use of facts!







Gee, didn't they start promoting the four major food groups a couple of decades ago? Just coicidence?

Hey, following the four basic food groups is succeeding for a better society DESPITE the best efforts of others like Dr. Atkins.









You'd just almost think you'd like religion totally wiped out. 

You said: *How then, could the same (or grossly worse) attitude toward gays be any less damaging, or crippling."* 

I totally agree with your statement. But how about if I told you your constant, repeated negative posts on the Christian belief and other beliefs on my site makes me feel very awkward and awful? I will tell you, I have very rarely ever felt "accepted" for my beliefs. Quite the opposite is true. I never initiate a conversation to anyone about my belief but yet on occasion I have been called a Jesus freak, Bible thumper and in general have been told things (and read posts) that didn't really enhance my self esteem. I know this has been brought up a bagillion times, but I'm even now told I have to be careful to say the phrase Merry Christmas. 

Being a Christian (Not a member of some club, but a follower of Christ) is who I am. I would say it is my main identity. I would even venture to say its built into me. 

If you are so for the Charter of Rights and making "ALL our citizens equal", why is it so one sided for you? How is your post above any less "hateful" than what statements from some religious leaders about gays are? 

They're both wrong IMO. 

If anyone would make such a generalizing, sweeping comment about a particular group.. blacks, jews, gays etc... there would be (and there just has been) cries of outrage (And rightly so). But how come I can read post after post on my forum about these awful, generalizations and sweeping comments on all religions and beliefs and no one cries fowl?!?  

You make is sound like all religion in general is thee cause of homophobia. Its been a cultural thing in all of society. I know of athiests who make horrible gay jokes and comments just as I know of Christians lumping gays into the same category as murderers. Have you seen some of the old SNL skits from the 70's about gay people? 

Nobody or no group of people have the monopoly on wrong doing or 'evil'. Evil comes from a person's own heart. We're all responsible for our own, individual actions. 

Again, I agree with your statement to "make ALL our citizens equal". I agree with the whole Charter including its very first proclamation: "freedom of conscience and religion. "

How about a little breathing room here and a little acceptance for everyone on ehMac?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Oh! my goodness ... "eek"

[BSeparation? ..... try Total Disconnect!







[/B]

This is better than "reality" TV! The pathos is more .... 
shall we say .... palpable  

Maybe we should first discuss the basics of onanism (sinful same-self-sex) before we discuss sex with other people.
_"Do unto thyself what you would have others do unto you where possible" _
http://www.ralphmag.org/onan.html

_"The Archbishop of Canterbury has called an emergency meeting of primates (







) of the church." ........ "Archbishop Gregory Venables, primate (???







!!!) of the Province of the Southern Cone (







), called the decision to ratify the election of Mr Robinson a "slap (







) in the face of the Anglican Church around the world"_ 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3136915.stm

I am amused









Do we speak of the Church of the ignoble Henry the Eighth? .... who disconnected from Rome to disconnect the head from the body of his wife? .... and thereby rake in (nationalize) the massive assets of the C.O.R. and rule by his unruly dick?


Do we speak of the Church of Levitican Dogma? A thoroughly and certified pagan commentary on Mosaic Law?

The world hold's it's breath while Episcopalian primates slap each other around and sort out the matter of who shall disseminate a British version of ancient pagan tribal law to the human flock.

Let's discuss the new "Metro-sexual" phenomena! 
Should they/we be ordained?
Do we care?
wordspy


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

BTW yur honur there has only been a billion on earth since 1900.

Human populations dropped to as low as 1/2 million during one period and stayed generally steady in the 10 million range from about 2100 BP until the turn of the last century.

1/2 of ALL the humans that EVER lived are alive right now  

The earth cannot sustain long term even a 10th of the current population.









If you take just Quebec and Ireland as case studies you'll see that as the RCs lost their death grip on the population the population growth has slowed dramatically to the point where Quebec is way below replacement rate. The turning away from religion in these areas is even more dramatic.

It's the kind of irresponsibility that Bush & Co and the RCs in withdrawing desperately needed funding for education and contraceptive provision NGO's that gets me seeing red and says fundamentally that these organizations are antithetical to a peaceful and sustainable world.

People are falling away because they recognise that a revelant world view is needed and by and large most major religions are dinosaurs in that respect.

Many perceive and sometimes rightly so that the organizations serve their own ends rather than the community. Scandals and a failure to clean house and often subvert the "laws of the land" in protecting clergy don't help the perception.

The planet and the human species needs much rational thought put into sustaining our fragile spaceship and getting along while the population declines ( yes it is trending down) to more sustainable levels.

Religious frictions and relying on a collection of stories that served a small agrarian community will not serve today.  

BTW the Romans were doing a much better job of governing an empire BEFORE the Christians got into power. It was a tolerant and successful formula in Rome's Golden Age that saw conquered people allowed to maintain their customs and rituals with the overlay of Roman and Greek civil government, roads and taxes.

Anyway a union between two adults has legal and societal weight and all such unions need to be treated equally. Preaching anything else is hate mongering and promoting discimination no matter in what flowery language it's disguised.  
Communities can and do celebrate that union in varied and simple or complex ceremonies but underneath it's a civil union in law with certain privileges and obligations for the parties involved.
The gay community is only asking for the equality it is granted under the Charter to be acknowledged so they are not second class citizens with reduced rights.

Not so long ago women had to work hard to get the same thing.

Societies make progress as understanding and education increase, support it.

••

Macello you are just














at times. Very punny.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Oh! my goodness ...  

This is so '70's! and ...... Helluuu! ... Bill of Rights and Freedoms? ... done! ... move on! ...... Thanks P.E.T.!

*Separation of Church and State? ..... 
try Total Disconnect!







*

The Gay Bishop is better than "reality" TV! 
The pathos is more .... shall we say .... palpable .... why make-over a few jocks when you can save the whole flock?  

Maybe we should first discuss the basics of onanism (sinful same-self-sex) before we discuss sex with other people.
_"Do unto thyself what you would have others do unto you where possible" _
twain 

_"The Archbishop of Canterbury has called an emergency meeting of primates (n: placental mammal ) of the church." ........ "Archbishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Province of the Southern Cone (







), called the decision to ratify the election of Mr Robinson a "slap (







) in the face of the Anglican Church around the world"_ 
bbc 
I am amused









Do we speak of the Church of the ignoble Henry the Eighth? .... who disconnected from Rome to disconnect the head from the body of his wife? .... and thereby rake in (nationalize) the massive assets of the C.O.R. and rule merrie englande with the C.O.E. and His unruly dicke?

Do we speak of the Levitican prohibition of sexual activity as practised by church officials throughout history .... a thoroughly and unchristian dogma and commentary on Mosaic Law bestowing upon the clan of Levi dominion over the children of israel?

The world hold's it's breath while British primates slap each other around and sort out the matter of who shall disseminate this ancient pagan tribal law to the human flock.

Memo to self:
We have yet to deal with the new "Metro-sexual" phenomena! wordspy 
Can girls be metro-sexual?
Should they be ordained?
Is "significant other" an oxymoron to the metro-sexual?
Do we care?









Is this exciting .... or what?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Re; earths population and perpective.

I read two snippets in the Books section of the Globe and Mail today. One was a review of James Gleicks biography of Isaac Newton (looks like a masterpiece akin to Chaos). He notes that in 17th Century London lived the likes of Newton, Pepys, Wrenn, Halley, Boyle and Hooke. London had a population of one fifth that of Toronto. What a place to live! The second snippet was the fact that 52 million people die each year in the world. A third of those deaths (17 million) are from infectious disease which is promoted by urbanization..

I'm not sure where macdoc gets the figure for the earth only being capable of long term sustenance of 600 million people. It's a scary fact if true. Ironically, it sounds like the sort of thing a "fire and brimstone, we are all doomed" extremist sect might trot out to rationalize mass suicide









EhMax, I believe you when you say you also feel "persecuted" for your beliefs. However, this debate is not pointing the finger at individual beliefs but at the role of "organized religeon". I must say I have a hard time understanding how the various churches justify their substantial infrastructures when their true role is virtual and based upon the support of the individual. As for all of the terrible things done by various churches, these reflect not on the majority of their followers but on the structures built by the chrches that allow such inhumanities to breed and hide.

Freedom of belief and conviction is as basic a human right as sexual equality.


----------



## ajamett (Feb 5, 2001)

No TALIBAN
No VATICAN


----------



## VertiGoGo (Aug 21, 2001)

As a gay man soon to be married to my long-term partner, church goer and Mac user, I feel I must weigh in on this. 

I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State. Religious beliefs have no place in the policy making of the nation, as these are not necessarily shared beliefs...and the same-sex marriage is no exception. During the recent parliamentary committee hearings examing the issue, there were just as many religious leaders opposed to same-sex marriage as there were who supported. it. 

Now, politicians and opponents of marriage for gays and lesbians have launched an attack against the "unelected" courts who rightly applied the Charter in this matter. That is a load of crap. If elected politicians would get off their collective asses and propose legislation that does not step all over minority rights in the first place, the courts would not have to keep pushing the social envelope. 

Politicians have been given too many chances to do what is right, but they have failed. So, if they will not represent their gay and lesbian constituents...the courts must.

As for the pope's recent edict; the Vatican should look at its dwindling numbers, empty houses of worship and at the countless victims of sexual abuse it has left it its wake before it can suppose to have any manner of "moral authority." The fact the Vatican ordered its own clergy and parishners to cover-up systemic abuses further compounds their irrelevance. 

On the subject of marriage; a same-sex couple's marriage has no impact on anyone other than themselves...and their family and friends whom they choose to share the event with. 

The current issue of same-sex marriage is about civil recognition and equality under the law. It is not about religion in the least. Faith communities will not be obliged to marry anyone other than those who qualify under their respective belief systems. 

Finally, the love, devotion, truth, honesty and compassion that forms my relationship is no less valuable and precious than the relationships of those who oppose same-sex marriage. Go ahead and not like it, but do not stand in the way of my gays' and lesbians' membership in an institution that most straight couples take for granted. 

My vows will be made before God...and no religious zealot should be allowed to interfere.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*macello said:
Do we speak of the Church of the ignoble Henry the Eighth? .... who disconnected from Rome to disconnect the head from the body of his wife?*

Actually, Henry separated from Rome in order to give the newly appointed Archbishop of canterbury the power to grant him a _divorce_ from his first wife. And contrary to popular belief, he only killed two of the six wives total.

Just a small point.

--PB


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

PosterBoy,

I stand corrected. Sorry, I was freak'n on my current bitch'n word "disconnect". I am easily discorrected too ... so keep watch!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Congrats Vertigogo and a very accurate assessment.

••
JW ...be afraid, be terribly afraid.
http://www.mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_determining_sustainable_population_levels.htm

We are approximately THREE TIMES the sustainable world population at Canadian standard of living levels.
Ignore the first column for the moment as you have to know how they calculated the FP ( footprint ) per person - basically the required land to sustain a living standard.
The second column is total world population and the third the accompanying standard of living allowable. We are way way past the levels of population to offer a decent standard of living to all that are on the planet now.

Table 3. Maximum World Populations  
Footprint .......Bal Population .....FP Reference
0.4 .............18.40 b .............. India
0.8 ..............9.25 b ..............Ethiopia
1.8 ..............4.11 b ..............South Korea
2.5 ..............2.96 b ..............Slightly below European
4.0 ..............1.85 b ..............Slightly below Canada
5.0 ..............1.48 b ..............United States

        b: billion

The UN currently projects the world's population at 2050 to be between nine and ten billion. In order for that population to be sustainable, Table 3 indicates that the highest sustainable average living standard would be approximately 0.8, about the living standard and FP of Ethiopia today. This is a difficult and harsh standard of living that all nations have struggled for centuries to move away from —approximately one-third the current world average standard of living. The scientists mentioned in the opening second paragraph have concluded that approximately 2 billion inhabitants is the maximum sustainable population level. Table 3 illustrates the approximate livingstandard that the population level could support under average circumstances as determined by Wackernagel and Rees. Thus, the 2 billion maximum stated by other scientists is consistent with the work of Wackernagel and Rees.

Providing for a degree of volatility around the average implies a reduced population level or targeting a living standard significantly below the current world average. A margin of safety implies that the world's prudent carrying capacity using Wackernagel and Rees's research is on the order of 1.5 billion or fewer inhabitants.
•••••
Crimes against humanity = any person or organization that stands in the way of dealing with this 










Estimates range from 2 to 5 MORE planet earths to sustain the standard we live at with the current population.

And we've haven't found ONE more yet, and are busy ruining this one.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Sorry all for the post and a half ...... blame it on ehMac GUI .... eh .... I hit the "add reply" button instead of the "url" button in such passionate haste. 







the second post is operative.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macello just what IS it you imbibe, smoke, ingest or ......





















  

eHMac GUI...yeah right....deranged mind more like it









Concentrate concentrate, repeat after me "I do not have ADD, I do NOT have ADD, I DO NOT have ADD.


----------



## jo42 (Jul 21, 2003)

1) Everyone pay attention to what macdoc writes.

2) macdoc, problem is, to solve this looming catastrophe, we'd have to ask, no, tell people to do with less. Imagine the response when told that people could only have one child in a lifetime. Told to give up their SUVs, minivans, pickup trucks and other resource wasting conveniences such as flying, and, to pay for the true cost of hydro, gas, consumerism, garbage (from latter), etc.

Unless humanity wakes up and pulls its collective heads out of their backsides, I foresee a dark age so severe as to almost bring humanity to extinction. Some have predicted that wars will be fought over water and other natural resources.

Yeah, I know, pretty dark and gloomy, but no one believed me either when I said the dot-com boom and "new economy" where a load of [expletive].

Bottom line, we can't keep on going like this forever. Our finite resources must be managed. IMHO, a ceaseless, selfish, money grubbing free for all is not the answer to humanity's future.

Feel free to discuss and/or flame...


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

Hello again,

Sorry not not responding to a couple of recent posts which addressed my first message - I'm in Washington DC for a few days (on business), and haven't had much chance to keep up ...

Brainstrained - yes, I'm a "lurker" - I subscribe to several mailing lists, which I read daily, but rarely post. I'm not much for "small-talk" (electronic or vocal). If I feel that I can make a constructive contribution to a discussion, I will; otherwise I keep quiet ... 

macdoc - your question is a tricky one (of course !). Obviously, given my first post, b) is out. So is c), for the following reasons - an elected politician has to represent ALL constituents, not just those who voted for him/her. Of course, that is always going to be framed by the policy of the party s/he is representing, but still, I think a politician should at least be cognisant of other opinions. It also does depend on the issue at hand - I see a difference, say, between a fiscal policy issue, or foreign policy issue, and a moral/ethical one. In this case, a minority rights issue should not, IMO, be governed by the majority opinion where that opinion will have adverse effects on the minority (of course, if the majority opinion was "for" gay marriage we wouldn't be having this discussion  ).

So, my answer is a), and not just by a process of elimination. In the case of minority rights just how else are they going to be granted ? Courts cannot stop racism or homophobia by legislating them away, but they can make it illegal for someone to discriminate against another person based on such behaviour.

Incidentally, the whole party-line/free-vote thing is another can of worms for me. Standing for political office is - like most things - a two-way street. A politician represents their constituents, but s/he also represents the party. If there is an official party policy on a certain issue, and a politician stands for election for that party, then I think that, implicitly, that politician is agreeing to support that position (of course, personally they may not like it, and could therefore work to change it, but meantime they should support it publicly, as their party does). 

This was the case a few years ago in Ontario, when the NDP were in power. Again, the issue was a gay-rights one (it may even have been this same issue, I can't recall right now). Official party policy was that the discrimination should end; however, when the issue came up in the legislature there was such a public hue-and-cry that NDP politicians got cold feet (constituent/re-election power, again) and a free vote was allowed. The motion was, not surprisingly, defeated. That left a very very bitter taste in my mouth, I can tell you. A free vote should never have been called for, in my opinion - the party position was clear, and had always been clear, and people who were elected as NDP candidiates knew exactly what that position was and, I assumed (oops !) supported it. For some of them to change their tune like that was, I think, unforgiveable ...

Anyway, I hope this answers you both - this has been a bit rushed, and hope it makes sense - for my sins ( )I have to rush off to an all-day (on a Sunday !) presentation on international patent statutes (I'm a Patent Agent) ...

Mike McHugh


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mike
I think it's one of the strengths of democracy to have conflicting forces in play so that there is discussion not government by writ.

The Star had a good view today

Star Editorial MPs should back same-sex marriage 

I heartily agree that there are ranges of decision such as fiscal policy, trade policies, defence policies but the the Charter is there to protect minorities just as corporations have protection for minority shareholders.

At least the issue is getting some hoary old institutions to reexamine the world and their place in it....didn't realize so many dinosaurs survived the Yucatan catastrophe


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Thanks for the pointer macdoc. It's easier to put off recognition of catastrophe until its upon us (such as global warming), especially when the early effects are subtle and variable. If we started to recognize that energy supplies are unsustainable, that science has no magic solutions and that we are, in effect, accelerating towards the wall, then perhaps we'd be able to rationally step back and implement measures that begin to address the problem. Fat chance.... unfortunately.

The result will be instability, conflict, disease and denial. Modern civilization is an oxymoron. We tend to look forward about as far as our noses (or re-election). As a consequence, we will have disaster planning instead of disaster avoidance.

Sorry kids.... and I am not being sarcastic. There are practical things that can be done to mitigate the looming problems caused by over-population, but pissing billions down the drain on bullets and bombs is not among them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The good news is that the population is growth is leveling out much faster than predicted earlier but even at 8.5 billion which is the current 50 year forecast the load on the planet is just horrendous.

Commercial fishing is effectively dead, has been for years which the cost of chasing declining catches far outweighing the value of the catch  

Argue what you want but whether it's natural or manmade the last decade has seen increasing heat - look at all the wild fires right now  

Water is becoming a major issue
"
But shift from a local to a global water perspective, and the terms dramatically change. The World Bank reports that 80 countries now have water shortages that threaten health and economies while 40 percent of the world — more than 2 billion people — have no access to clean water or sanitation. In this context, we cannot expect water conflicts to always be amenably resolved."
http://ag.arizona.edu/AZWATER/awr/dec99/Feature2.htm

It's a horrible race that may see many many cherished species gone. A combination of technology to reduce the impact and a fall to a sustainable population of 2 billion or less may save both our species and the planet with reasonable diversity.

One of our own Canadians has a book about the subject

"Philosopher ponders
The End of The World

by Steve O'Neill 
Office of Research

With the beginning of a new year, most people's thoughts turn to the future. A new book by a U of G philosopher is also concerned with the future - the possible lack of one for humans.

In The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction, Prof. John Leslie lists potential threats to human existence and discusses the possibility of what he calls "doom soon" - the extinction of the human race within the next few centuries. He estimates the possibility of doom soon at 30 per cent or higher.

"The book guesses that there's a 70 per cent chance humans will still be around after 500 years, after which the human race will probably be fairly safe," says Leslie. "Still, even a 30 per cent chance of doom soon can look pretty frightening. And the real chance of doom soon could quite easily be a lot higher, maybe even 90 per cent."

The reasons for such startling figures? Leslie cites environmental threats such as pollution, destruction of the ozone layer and the extinction of plant and animal species, as well as other dangers like nuclear war and disease. Other less apparent hazards are also explored, including an asteroid striking the Earth and scientific processes like genetic engineering going awry.

Leslie says that by writing The End of the World, he wasn't trying to paint a hopeless picture. Rather, as a utilitarian philosopher, he tries to decide what's right or wrong by looking at possible courses of action, then multiplies the chances that such actions would succeed by the benefits that would be gained by them succeeding. So even if the chance of an action succeeding is small, if the benefits of its success would be great, there's an obligation to perform the action.

In keeping with this theory, Leslie says writing the book was the "right" thing to do.

What chance does his book have of actually playing a major part in preventing doomsday?

"The chance seems to me rather slim," he says. "But take a slim chance, multiply it by the huge amount of good that could be done by preventing doomsday and you can get a very great expected utility."

The End of the World will be published in April by Routledge, which has put the book at the head of its spring trade catalogue in both North America and Britain. Routledge will be publishing simultaneously a paperback edition of Leslie's 1989 book, Universes."

What to do???
The Politics of Extinction
Remain a parasite OR become an Earth Warrior.

By Captain Paul Watson 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are at the present time living in an age of mass extinction. Each year, more than 20,000 unique species disappear from this planet forever. This represents more that two species per hour. Species extinction is the fuel that supports the ever increasing progress of the machinery of civilization. 

Individual humans are for the most part insulated from the reality of species loss. Alienated from the natural world, guided by anthropocentric attitudes, the average human being is unaware and non-caring about the biological holocaust that is transpiring each and every day. 

The facts are clear. More plant and animal species will go through extinction within our generation than have been lost thorough natural causes over the past two hundred million years. Our single human generation, that is, all people born between 1930 and 2010 will witness the complete obliteration of one third to one half of all the Earth's life forms, each and every one of them the product of more than two billion years of evolution. This is biological meltdown, and what this really means is the end to vertebrate evolution on planet Earth. 

Nature is under siege on a global scale. Biotopes, i.e., environmentally distinct regions, from tropical and temperate rainforests to coral reefs and coastal estuaries, are disintegrating in the wake of human onslaught." ........
continues

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/beerswil.html

then there is this  

http://www.vhemt.org/


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc

Wow! How do you find the time to research all these thing? Man, your computer must never shut off looking up all the stats. You truly are a MacAddict! (I'm not being rude here, its actually a complement)

However I do take issue with some of your stats but don't have near enough time to try to address them all. Your world population crisis stats did however catch my attention since its something I've done some reading on.

Here are some facts I found online regarding the over-population myth that make me wonder.

" Some of the issues raised regarding population size include population density, loss of arable land, and inadequate food supplies. The following facts are from The War Against Population and the websites below. 

No more than 1-3% of the earth's ice-free land is occupied by humans. In any case, population density isn't of itself a problem. Maryland and the United Kingdom both have a population density greater than does China. Switzerland is more densely populated than Pakistan. The entire world population of 6 billion would fit into the state of Texas (7,438,152,268,800 square feet) with each person having 1,240 square feet to call their own. This population density is "somewhat more than San Francisco and somewhat less than the Bronx."

What about agriculture? Less than 11% of the earth's ice-free land is used for agriculture. Somewhere between 8-22 times the current world population could support itself at the present standard of living using present technology and leaving 50% of the earth's land surface open to wildlife and conservation areas. Former Harvard Center for Population Studies Director Roger Revell estimated that the agricultural resources of the world were capable of providing 2,500 calories per day for 40 billion people and that it would require the use of less that 25% of the earth's ice-free land area. According to the Consultative Group on International Agriculture, "There will be adequate food to feed the 8 billion people we expect in the world by 2025. The food will be produced and prices will continue to fall."

While the focus has been on possibility of a crisis caused by too many people, a different problem has reared its head. This is the problem of too few people. According to the United Nations Population Division, from 1950-55, the total fertility rate (the average number of children born per woman per lifetime) was five; by 1975-80, it had fallen to 4; today it is 2.7. Sixty-one countries, representing 44 percent of the world's population, are at or below the replacement rate of 2.1. In fact, 44 of these countries are significantly below the replacement rate: "In 10 countries, fertility rates are below 1.5," and "In 20 of the more developed countries the total fertility rate has stayed at below- replacement level for at least two decades." 

Decreased population growth brings about its own problems. The aging of the population has important economic implications regarding retirement funds and medical costs. In 1955, there were nine American workers to support each Social Security recipient. Today there are three. By 2030, the number is expected to be two. Japan became the first country to have more people over 65 than under 15, and it is expected that the aged will rise from one-sixth of the population to one-third in the next 50 years. The numbers available for the work force will decrease and immigration will have to increase. The U.N. reported that "replacement migration" to maintain the current workforce would need to be 32 million immigrants in Japan and 161 million in Europe over the next 50 years and warns, "immigrants are likely to face serious social and political objections." The other option is delayed retirement, and it is this The New York Times refers to when speaking about industrial countries when it says, (they) "will have to accept a loss of productivity, creativity..."

Starvation and hunger are NOT a result of over-population, but rather a result of tyrannical governments and mismanagement of rescources.
I pulled this info from the web so take it as such. If its true it makes a compelling arguement that the population crisis could be a myth possibly to promote another agenda.

I may wade into some of your other stats later if I get the time.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

As I said "didn't realize so many dinosaurs survived the Yucatan catastrophe "

Pity the planet and our children's children   



















[ August 10, 2003, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: macdoc ]


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc,

Good constructive response! If I've said anything to personally attack you in that post please point it out, if not, whats with the hateful comments? I even payed you a complement on your research. For one so concerned about peoples rights and dignity it sure doesn't show. This open mind you seem to keep preaching about isn't so open afterall.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Where did I say anything about open mindedness. ???

You referred to a number of social issues sarcastically and I spent the time to lookup the major issues and point out that your perceptions along with that of many others are not based in fact. You are certainly not alone in that.

I'm quite content with knowledgeable work of scientists and concerned groups that shows the earth's resources under extreme strain. Am I open minded about it no.

Do I think those who do not support family planning and contraception and that the earth can continue to support more and more people are dinosaurs? - You bet, I'm not in the least bit open minded about it at all. 

If you want to align yourself in with that particular group then indeed by all means take it personally.

If instead you are suggesting the article does not reflect your opinion then you have no reason to be incensed and the article stands on it's own as wishful thinking.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Where Church and State meet!
*BRAVO!! Prince William!*
The Church of England is safe in royal hands.
dik-dik 

Prince William has killed a 14 inch antelope on holiday in Kenya with a 7ft spear .....









Was it sleeping?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Another blow for God and Country 









Well I guess it's not significantly different than whacking a cow with a hammer other than the message it conveys.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

The idiot prince must have spied the ears of his father on the wee timorous cowerin' beastie of a dik-dik ... seen red .... and done the Edipal Deed ....








..... God bless our royal but froffly dim bulbs ..eh?

Given that the Royals have a terribly shallow gene pool to work with when compared to the clergy, it might help the H.O.T.E.E.'s ... or Heterosexualists of the Episcopalian Empire if young Willie would wed a comely ministress of the cloth.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

macdoc wrote:

_I'm quite content with knowledgeable work of scientists and concerned groups that shows the earth's resources under extreme strain. Am I open minded about it no._

That's really scary.

There have been countless times when science has said one thing, only to say something else a short time later. Alternate theories are proposed all of the time. If you don't keep an open mind, then you'll not only reject the new theories that turn out to be false, but also the new theories that turn out to be true. Plus, if you can't defend your viewpoint in light of an alternate viewpoint, how well do you really understand your viewpoint?

As for the topic of population growth, there's an interesting article in Wired 5.02 about Julian Simon. Simon argues (among other things) that resources aren't becoming scarce, but rather more abundant. It's an interesting read. 

However, let's say resources are becoming more scarce. If that were the case, wouldn't the price of the resources increase with their scarcity? Wouldn't the increased price decrease demand for the resources, as well as promote new ways of gathering those resources? Just a thought.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Good post Jfpoole, and good points. The article was a good read and makes some excellent points. Dinosaurs may not be that stupid afterall.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Etaoin Shrdlu (May 19, 2003)

From Soup to Nuts



> However, let's say resources are becoming more scarce. If that were the case, wouldn't the price of the resources increase with their scarcity? Wouldn't the increased price decrease demand for the resources, as well as promote new ways of gathering those resources? Just a thought.


It isn't that simple. The price of _X_ often is buried layers deep and might have little to do with the cash paid at the counter. Subsidies, for instance, pay for much of a product, whether by direct rebates to the producer or by tax write-offs or by trade restrictions or by all of them. So whether _X_ is wheat and other crops subsidized by government or steel, an airline, a car or health care (feel free to add to the list, but use an unabridged dictionary for all nouns so you don't miss any), the cost to the consumer is impossible to nail down.

A bushel of wheat is subsidized in the West to the point where in Gabon, subsistance farmers cannot sell it for 10 cents and make a profit. The farmer is subsidized, the manufacturer of the equipment to harvest it is subsidized. The transportation to move the grain is subsidized, including trucks, trains, ships and grocery carts. Everything in every step of the process is subsidized, and everything that goes into that particular step is subsized, and everything making up the step that makes up the step is subsized, and so on down. 

Tax breaks and direct cash from governments to attract car manufacturers lower the price of cars tremendously. Governments regularly hold reverse auctions, offering greater and greater sums of cash to attract manufacturers. Through tax breaks, management is subsidized, workers are subsidized, the steel, glass, plastic — and the fuel — whether by armies and their blood or by cash backed by armies and their blood — is subsidized. The transportation companies that distribute the cars are subsidized — with all the same subsidies the car manufacturer gets.

Everyone and everything is subsidized — even subsides themselves and the electrons making up this post. To say that a can of soup costs 99 cents is too simplistic for words. Debating the true cost of anything is akin to debating the number of angels on the head of a pin (slyly dragging God into it to keep this true to the topic heading and because the subsidies for God are at the apex . . . oh, never mind).

Anyway, the cost of anything can only be said to be relative, thereby proving Einstein — who was subsidized — right.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That is an interesting article jfp but it is extremely anthropomorphic and while ahve not had a chance to read it thoroughly water supply and fallling water tables seem glaringly absent.

It's one thing to discuss THEORY of pricing of resources and take a completely human centric viewpoint. But observable fact is that whales, tigers, cod to name a couple "front page items" have been devastated, there is a easiily observed bands of pollution in the high arctic, the ozone hole over the Antartic was a severe threat until CFCs were banned and is still a concern, coral reefs that took thousands of years to establish are dying in huge numbers world wide and even sharks are in need of protection from human predation, and the list goes on on and on

As to pricing "theory", it falls through in the case of something like the menhaden fishery which is the underlying feedstock for the east coast fishery and has been over harvested but it competes directly with soy oil so is not subject directly to market force pricing.








But ask any fisherman on the Chesapeake bay what the devastation is like. ( BTW the Bush family is the major player in that horrible scenario )
Arguing the price of chromium as a resource hardly adds contributes to the sustainable population issue which the world faces.

I'll read the article thoroughly and comment again but on the surface it's so NAcentric in it's approach that to some degree it appears off-topic....but then so is this .







....happy to move it to a new thread.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

"Simon argues (among other things) that resources aren't becoming scarce, but rather more abundant. It's an interesting read." 

Projections have better track record for the projectionist's wallet than for any of us. 
Instead of the brilliantly projected leisure time due us by the time the '70's rolled around, we got Leisure Suits









The late Julian Simon, a corporate economist of the famous Chicago School that brought you Generalissimo Pinochet certainly was the darling of the agribusiness and fossil fuel PR folks.

What is interesting to me is that one has to make a leap of faith that Simon's use of data is not as fellacious as other methods of projection.

That human intelligence must be factored into resource use is presented as Simon's "eureka". (emphases mine)
_*If* the real resource was the human intellect, Simon reasoned, and *(if)* the amount of human intellect was increasing, both quantitatively through population growth and qualitatively through education, then the supply of resources would grow, outrunning demand, pushing prices down and giving people more access to what they wanted, with more than enough *(what?)* left over to deal with pollution and congestion. In short, mankind faced the very opposite of a crisis._ 

Remember when Reagan said that trees pollute? (Stop me before I kill again!)  

.... BIG IFs .....eh? ....... READS LIKE SWISS CHEESE TO ME!








Three items not factored into Simon's bed of roses: 
1/HUMAN STUPIDITY!








2/HUMAN GREED!








3/ The Project for the New American Century

[ August 11, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: macello ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Interesting article on Simon. The only external power source available to the planet is solar energy yet none of our gadgets for harnessing this energy are energy positive (when you take into account the energy we use to create them). That means that even solar energy is draining our natural resources. Sure, the planet has reserves and we keep uncovering new reserves. However, the curves for consumption are outpacing those for future discovery. What Simon is noting is the remarkable degree of give between need and provision. Commodity prices are robust until they approach depletion - due to market forces and short term planning. But the last phase is catastophic to the point where alternatives must be adopted. That's fine as long as there are alternatives. Bananas are one example. Due to the lack of genetic variation due to the (non-molecular) engineered sterility of bananas, the entire world crop is in danger of being wiped out by a single fungus. We'll switch to other fruits and bananas will exist only as a synthetic flavour. But what about gasoline?

There are zero alternatives for powering airplanes or ships (with the possible exception of nuclear power for the latter). If we ever find a way of generating hydrogen effectively, perhaps fuel cells may extend the life of cars but there's nothing in sight for planes. How will this impact modern society?

I guess its easy to feel good and hope for the best. Likewise, it is silly to live in constant fear and pessimism. There is a middle ground where we should be concerned. We should minimize waste. We should invest in research into new energy sources. Above all, we should act responsibly. The fact that we haven't already toasted the planet is a testament to luck rather than design. As planetary custodians, its difficult to feel proud of the job we've done so far and we should not count on our luck holding out.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Sorry, I meant fallacious ...... also


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Used to be .....good post - perhaps add to your list supporting population management, family planning and access to birth control and wide spread education....these are things governments and voters CAN do.

Air quality in Toronto is so horrible and getting worse and Canada has ALL the benefits -


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Back on topic the Star had a good editorial today.
Liberals Follow the Right Course 

There was a cute cartoon with it......concerning dinosaur discovery by the Vatican, oops sorry AT the Vatican


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

Thanks for the pointer, Macdoc - I read the Globe, so wouldn't have seen this otherwise (incidentally, the link to the other editorial you posted on the weekend doesn't work, at least for me ...).

I do have to say that I am - very pleasantly - surprised that Chretien and Martin are taking a stand on this issue - I fully expected them to crumble ... cynical, perhaps, but there you go.

Having just come back from Washington DC, where EVERYTHING is politics, it's refreshing that at least here we are still able to deal with ISSUES, at least some of the time.

BTW, this issue really does seem to be popping up everywhere, and not just on news shows - TV, radio, newspapers, cartoon strips ... who'd a thunk ?!

Mike McHugh


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This was in the Star today and thought worth posting here in the entire.....an American's viewpoint and it''s hilarious.....and right on point.

"Hey, Canada's one cool country

SAMANTHA BENNETT
You live next door to a clean-cut, quiet guy. He never plays loud music or throws raucous parties. He doesn't gossip over the fence, just smiles politely and offers you some tomatoes. His lawn is cared-for, his house is neat as a pin and you get the feeling he doesn't always lock his front door. He wears Dockers. You hardly know he's there.

And then one day you discover that he has pot in his basement, spends his weekends at peace marches and that guy you've seen mowing the yard is his spouse.

Allow me to introduce Canada.

The Canadians are so quiet that you may have forgotten they're up there, but they've been busy doing some surprising things. It's like discovering that the mice you are dimly aware of in your attic have been building an espresso machine.

Did you realize, for example, that our reliable little tag-along brother never joined the Coalition of the Willing? Canada wasn't willing, as it turns out, to join the fun in Iraq. I can only assume American diner menus weren't angrily changed to include "freedom bacon," because nobody here eats the stuff anyway.

And then there's the wild drug situation: Canadian doctors are authorized to dispense medical marijuana. Parliament is considering legislation that would not exactly legalize marijuana possession, as you may have heard, but would reduce the penalty for possession of under 15 grams to a fine, like a speeding ticket. This is to allow law enforcement to concentrate resources on traffickers: If your garden is full of wasps, it's smarter to go for the nest rather than trying to swat every individual bug. Or, in the United States, bong.

Now, here's the part that I, as an American, can't understand. These poor benighted pinkos are doing everything wrong. They have a drug problem: Marijuana offences have doubled since 1991. And Canada has strict gun control laws, which mean that the criminals must all be heavily armed, the law-abiding civilians helpless and the government on the verge of a massive confiscation campaign. (The laws have been in place since the '70s, but I'm sure the government will get around to the confiscation eventually.) They don't even have a death penalty!

And yet, nationally, overall crime in Canada has been declining since 1991. Violent crimes fell 13 per cent in 2002. Of course, there are still crimes committed with guns — brought in from the United States, which has become the major illegal weapons supplier for all of North America — but my theory is that the surge in pot-smoking has rendered most criminals too relaxed to commit violent crimes. They're probably more focused on shoplifting boxes of Ho-Hos from convenience stores.

And then there's the most reckless move of all: Just last month, Canada decided to allow and recognize same-sex marriages. Merciful moose, what can they be thinking? Will there be married Mounties (they always get their man!)? Dudley Do-Right was sweet on Nell, not Mel! We must be the only ones who really care about families. Not enough to make sure they all have health insurance, of course, but more than those libertines up north.

This sort of behaviour is a clear and present danger to all our stereotypes about Canada. It's supposed to be a cold, wholesome country of polite, beer-drinking hockey players, not founded by freedom fighters in a bloody revolution but quietly assembled by loyalists and royalists more interested in order and good government than liberty and independence.

But if we are the rugged individualists, why do we spend so much of our time trying to get everyone to march in lockstep? And if Canadians are so reserved and moderate, why are they so progressive about letting people do what they want to?

Canadians are, as a nation, less religious than we are, according to polls. As a result, Canada's government isn't influenced by large, well-organized religious groups and thus has more in common with those of Scandinavia than those of the United States, or, say, Iran.

Canada signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, lets 19-year-olds drink, has more of its population living in urban areas and accepts more immigrants per capita than the United States.

These are all things we've been told will wreck our society. But I guess Canadians are different, because theirs seems oddly sound.

Like teenagers, we fiercely idolize individual freedom but really demand that everyone be the same. But the Canadians seem more adult — more secure. They aren't afraid of foreigners. They aren't afraid of homosexuality. Most of all, they're not afraid of each other.

I wonder if America will ever be that cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Bennett is a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.   
••

You know if Chretien succeeds in this he may just have found his legacy in bringing gays into the mainstream fully and this is very much in keeping with the spirit behind the Charter that his hero Trudeau fought so hard for.

Many may not like the consequences of the Charter but for me it makes Canada a country to be very proud of and in making this move the Liberals are very much in their tradiional role as....well.....liberals.  

Even some Americans think so, I dare say many do.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

We can only hope that Samantha Bennett's publisher has constitutional integrity. Her revelations about our good fortune are the exception in US media.
She reminds me of my all-American sister-in-law from Michigan who recently said "Y'all are more 'merkan than us!". 

The ability of states within the US to entrench religious dogma in civil law is the status quo and that state law be sanctioned to do so by constitutional amendment is being examined by the US DOJ to "codify" the denial of all beneficial legal state and federal instruments to all gay people in a spousal relationship. 
Unlike Canada where it seems agreed that in any case beneficial legal instruments shall be entrenched with constitutional sanction, US conservatives hope to harvest religious homophobic paranoia to deny not only the "sanctity" but more importantly the civil rights of gay persons by reverting the issue to the states and their "community standards" as in the Lawrence vs.Texas case.
_"Vice President Dick Cheney argued during the 2000 campaign that marriage should remain a state domain."_ 
sfgate 

*Ralph Klein! ..... Alberta's in Canada!! 
The bus for Butte leaves in an hour!*


----------

