# Ontario Tories - I hope you lose in a flaming ball of glory



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Creationism in science class would disqualify schools for funding: Conservatives


> Tory said: "They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian belief.”


Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. It's a fantasy theory. John Tory has his head so far up his a** on this one, he deserves to take the Ontario PCs to the brink of self-implosion.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

guytoronto just clearly fears those who believe in religion and whom are different from his own superior self. 

Consider giving it a rest.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Lars, this is not about religion. 
ID (or whatever Tory is trying to sell) has no place in school at the same level as science.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The CBC link has a party spokesperson pretty clearly saying that it could not be taught in science without funding being cut. Tory may have just been referring to the general idea of creationism being taught in a religious school because, presumably, they would have religious classes. Uncontroversial when worded correctly.

Here's a nice quote:
..............
"I think people will respect the fact that I'm being open and honest with them, that I'm putting forward a proposal for dealing with an issue that's been around for decades — and I'm prepared to talk about it without fear-mongering during an election campaign," he said.
..............


Tory badly needs political polishing and better political intuition. Maybe next election. Or, perhaps, if they can find evidence of McGuinty eating kittens and/or being reptilian.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, could it be that Tory's stance on school funding and now his talking about creationism would give people the right impression? 
I don't see these as isolated incidents, even if the spokeperson would make it seem that way. Take as a whole, you get the impression that he trooling for a certain kind of vote.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

He is definitely going for votes (why not?) but whether he intends to put creationism in science; intends to give a certain crowd that impression without intending to do anything (some communications advisor has not figured out strategy yet); or, just did not word his statement clearly enough is unknown. Taken as a whole, there is a much stronger case for him being an incapable politician but that does not eliminate the other options. 

Similar things can be said of virtually any politicians (grab two items, extrapolate a bigger whole). Another thing is that with the Ontario schools item, there is a justification for Tory's proposal: right now the state implicitly discriminates against other religions. That does not make Tory's the best proposal or even the best practical one (I'm not certain enough on the legal/political details) but it can quite easily be argued to be an improvement on the status quo.

If one can do that while getting votes on a less philosophical basis (some parents paying lower tuition) that seems like the proper pursuit of our politicians whether I am for a given idea or not -- develop, propose and advocate for policies that have a philosophical and potentially popular basis. That beats most of the vacuous poop we usually get. 

Except that, in this case, the whole thing was and continues to be mishandled. 

This should not have been in an election platform, in my opinion. In a platform, propose a grand commission to study "modernising" Ontario's schools and funding system + $X increased funding to "blah blah blah bright future" and focus the campaign on something a lot less complex and lost less likely to go 'bump' in the night.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, could it be that Tory's stance on school funding and now his talking about creationism would give people the right impression?
> I don't see these as isolated incidents, even if the spokeperson would make it seem that way. Take as a whole, you get the impression that he trooling for a certain kind of vote.


can you say Stockwell "Doris" Day?
sure, I knew you could


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> guytoronto just clearly fears those who believe in religion and whom are different from his own superior self.


Ya, I do fear us slipping back into the dark ages where people believed epilepsy was caused by evil spiritual possession. Ignorance is no excuse for pushing a religious agenda in schools.

Tory was dead wrong to even suggest moving in this direction. Other provinces are moving away from religion in their education. Why does Ontario want to go backwards?[/QUOTE]



Lars said:


> Consider giving it a rest.


Not until religion is no longer forced on others.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Not until religion is no longer forced on others.


School is all about having $h!t you don't want/need to learn forced on you, why would learning about religions be any different? As long as students are learning about all/major religions and taught as theories and not fact I don't see any harm in that.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> School is all about having $h!t you don't want/need to learn forced on you, why would learning about religions be any different? As long as students are learning about all/major religions and taught as theories and not fact I don't see any harm in that.


Pretty much.

Learning about creationism isn't a threat to our society. Adding new and different perspectives to one's mind is hardly the worst thing in the world. We're not forcing the theory on anyone - we're just leaving it out in the open and giving people their own choice as to whether or not to believe in it and allowing them to jump to their own conclusions based on what they're being told or taught on the subject.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

To ban the teaching of religion in our schools is to deny history itself and that is the class it belongs in, history.

It would be like banning the teaching of anthropology. It happened. It's happening. It is part of human culture. 

No amount of wishing by those who oppose it will ever see its demise. It will survive for centuries to come.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

They aren't banning the teaching of religious history, but the teaching of religion AS history instead. Creationism didn't happen.

But, as John Tory points out, it's hardly very different from the current practice in Catholic schools.

So now he needs only to make up his mind.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Lars said:


> Learning about creationism isn't a threat to our society. Adding new and different perspectives to one's mind is hardly the worst thing in the world. We're not forcing the theory on anyone - we're just leaving it out in the open and giving people their own choice as to whether or not to believe in it and allowing them to jump to their own conclusions based on what they're being told or taught on the subject.


Creationism has no place in school. 

It's not a theory and frankly should not even be mentioned as credible.
I have a theory that man came from spacemen that visited earth eons ago to do some genetic experiments. Should that be taught at the same level as evolution?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> Learning about creationism isn't a threat to our society.


Creationism is a religious belief. If you want to teach it, stick it in a religion class. Religion, if taught, should only be a fraction of a curriculum. It should never be mixed in with anything science related. It's part of history, has helped define geographic borders, and that's it.



Lars said:


> Adding new and different perspectives to one's mind is hardly the worst thing in the world.


Would you condone teaching any of the following as 'possible' fact?
Peter Pan, Santa Claus,Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian 'Gods', Tree Spirits, Gnomes, Fairies, Pixies, Elves?

Could we show 'Lord Of The Rings' in History class and say it's an alternative perspective of our history?

Could we teach 'Flat Earth Theory' in Geography class and say it's an alternative perspective of geography?

Could we teach 'Alchemy' in Chemistry class, and pass it off as a possible alternative to actual chemistry?

Maybe we could teach Astrology instead of Astronomy?



Lars said:


> We're not forcing the theory on anyone


Schools are not the place for unscientific theories. School is a place of higher education. That may involve teaching about different belief systems from around the world. It should not involve teaching Creationism as a possible alternative to scientific theory.



Lars said:


> we're just leaving it out in the open and giving people their own choice as to whether or not to believe in it and allowing them to jump to their own conclusions based on what they're being told or taught on the subject.


Do we teach kids that 2+2=4, maybe 5, possibly 3, but you come to your own conclusion? No, we teach them facts. Creationism is not fact. It is a belief based on superstition, ignorance, and a book over a thousand years old.

We don't teach kids in English class that "ain't" is cool. We don't teach kids in chemistry class that strong acids might not cause eye damage. We don't give them wishy-washy information and let them decide for themselves. We don't teach them in biology or home-ec class that a diet of cola and candy possible won't screw them up.


----------



## genuineadvantage (Mar 14, 2007)

http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Blizzard_Christina/2005/06/19/1094816.html

http://www.paymoregetless.ca/brokenpromises/

http://ontariondp.com/node/1172

http://www.realestatearena.net/2006/11/29/the-pointy-headed-liar-dalton-mcguinty/

Notice how it gets repetitive? I hope people don't fall for the Liberals BS like they have done so for oh I don't know 14 years in a row on a federal level. Lets talk about REAL issues.

Take care everyone and vote with your head not your a**


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> To ban the teaching of religion in our schools is to deny history itself and that is the class it belongs in, history.


I'm in no way suggesting that the teaching of religion should be banned. It just needs to be taught for what it is. An ancient belief structure, right up there with Greek and Roman mythology.

Teaching creationism as possible fact would be like teaching that Atlas may be holding up the world.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

genuineadvantage said:


> http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Blizzard_Christina/2005/06/19/1094816.html
> 
> http://www.paymoregetless.ca/brokenpromises/
> 
> ...


I'll be the first to admit I'm pissed at Dalton for the taxes, and the health care issues, and all that. But I'm more pissed at Tory, so Dalton gets my vote.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I'm in no way suggesting that the teaching of religion should be banned. It just needs to be taught for what it is. An ancient belief structure, right up there with Greek and Roman mythology.


I agree, I don't think the Conservatives are suggesting we replace evolution with creationism in public schools, but to just add it. No harm in learning about religions, might help explain a lot current world events to students.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

genuineadvantage said:


> TorontoSun.com - Christina Blizzard - Dalton's Broken Record
> 
> Daltons Broken Promises
> 
> ...


It's funny, the same people who don't want religion pushed on people want to legalize drugs. But we all have priorities, I guess broken promises and having their hands in our pockets isn't as bad as religion in schools to some.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I agree, I don't think the Conservatives are suggesting we replace evolution with creationism in public schools, but to just add it. *No harm in learning about religions, might help explain a lot current world events to students*.


You talking about the crusades?

And yes, there is harm in teaching creationism in public schools -it's religious and should be the "job" of the parent if they want.

Muddying the waters with the "legalisation" of drugs? No one is telling you to teach drug use in schools. 
No one is telling you that you can't pray to any god you want.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

The understanding of religions is important to understanding world events (especially a lot of the conflict in the middle east).

There is no need for separate schools though. Why do we need a Roman Catholic school board? Why do we need Muslim or Jewish schools? Are we so scared of desegregating out society?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> There is no need for separate schools though. Why do we need a Roman Catholic school board? Why do we need Muslim or Jewish schools? Are we so scared of desegregating out society?


Welcome to Canada, you'll notice to your right a trash can on fire please place all of religious paraphernalia in here and enjoy your stay.

Are you afraid of segregating our society? Being from TO you should be used to segregation, maybe TO should do away with Greek Town, China Town, etc.

I mention drug legalization because it seems some would rather have drugs pushed on their kids than religion.



guytoronto said:


> And yes, there is harm in teaching creationism in public schools -it's religious and should be the "job" of the parent if they want.


Some would say so is teaching in general, maybe everyone should get home schooled. And there is a difference between teaching only creationism, and teaching it along side other theories.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Are you afraid of segregating our society? Being from TO you should be used to segregation, maybe TO should do away with Greek Town, China Town, etc.


Wow, I've now actually read that somebody thinks that that which for most of us makes Toronto special can be referred to as "segregation." It's a gross error, but mark you calendars folks, the view exists.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Note that Jumbo is in Oakville... far from the rude hordes who threaten him with thier differentness, perhaps?

I dunno, I agree with you... I dig the variation - the more the merrier.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Wow, I've now actually read that somebody thinks that that which for most of us makes Toronto special can be referred to as "segregation." It's a gross error, but mark you calendars folks, the view exists.


Reminds me of the talk of how voluntarily chosen religious schools is a form of segregation. Depends on your definition and, apparently, one's politics. The sort of broad definition that captures voluntarily chosen religious schools would also capture voluntarily chosen neighbourhoods, by the way. A stricter definition, and one that would tend to apply a form of moral weight to the term, may focus on the involuntary.

So, it's not actually a gross error and is inline with usage (over usage) of the terminology in the schools debate in general.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You getting paid by the syllable these days....


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Lars said:


> guytoronto just clearly fears those who believe in religion and whom are different from his own superior self.
> 
> Consider giving it a rest.


Well I for one DO fear those who believe in religion. It's a form of psychosis isn't it?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> I mention drug legalization because it seems some would rather have drugs pushed on their kids than religion.


Quite the specious argument there. Can you even backup such a statement?

As for “creationism” or “ID”, it is just a cheap excuse to say “God is responsible”. There is no scientific reasoning behind it – there is no rigor (as the theory of Evolution has endured). Overall”ID” should never be taught besides science, as it a religious belief.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Wow, I've now actually read that somebody thinks that that which for most of us makes Toronto special can be referred to as "segregation." It's a gross error, but mark you calendars folks, the view exists.


So people from different cultures can have their own neighborhoods but not schools?

It's not my definition of segregation, but GT's, if religious schools is segregating society why isn't religious neighborhoods?


----------



## genuineadvantage (Mar 14, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> I'll be the first to admit I'm pissed at Dalton for the taxes, and the health care issues, and all that. But I'm more pissed at Tory, so Dalton gets my vote.


Many people are pissed at Dalton for his broken promises for sure. But you haven't mentioned NDP, why not vote for them


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Quite the specious argument there. Can you even backup such a statement?


Can anyone back up that learning about religion in school is going to ruin our children's lives?



ArtistSeries said:


> As for “creationism” or “ID”, it is just a cheap excuse to say “God is responsible”. There is no scientific reasoning behind it – there is no rigor (as the *theory of Evolution* has endured).


Yes and it is still a _theory_, right, believe it or not there are many things that science can and will not be able to explain.



ArtistSeries said:


> Overall”ID” should never be taught besides science, as it a religious belief.


Sure, but it can still be taught in school, it doesn't have to be in "Science" class, how about "History" class?

Geez, all of you anti-religious folk are being just as nutto as those who are religious. Again school is a place for learning, students can decide for themselves what they believe is right and wrong.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

> Creationism is not fact.


Irrelevant. Though evolution is fact, no human being can prove the earth and human life began through evolution. You can just as easily and quickly state, again with no evidence, that God created earth and human beings to start the process, and that both the earth and humans evolved since their initial "implantation." That being said, since neither theory physically proves our existence with total and absolute fact, teaching both theories is not the end of the world.



> Could we show 'Lord Of The Rings' in History class and say it's an alternative perspective of our history?
> 
> Could we teach 'Flat Earth Theory' in Geography class and say it's an alternative perspective of geography?


1) Don't use unrealistic examples. LOTR is a _movie_, for crying out loud. We KNOW it's not real. That movie also isn't based on past events that any one thinks actually happened (i.e; the existence of blood-thirsty orcs).

2) We have physical evidence to prove the earth is not flat, thanks to up-in-space views, pictures, and video. You have yet to disprove the existence of God. You haven't found physical proof that He DOES exist (well, the Bible proves it, but if you don't believe in the Bible, you won't consider it physical evidence), but likewise, you haven't found anything concrete to deny His existence, either. Similarly, you also can't compare a higher power to anything else in terms of proving or disproving its existence. (i.e.; "Well, I haven't found proof elves exist; does that mean they might as I haven't disproved it?"). God's existence, or the existence of a higher power, is believed through faith. Other examples aren't based on faith, therefore not comparable. As well, religion (in many forms) exists among millions, if not over a billion(s) people on this earth, and is therefore not just considered "any other theory," as it has a _substantial_ amount of believers of a higher power.

My 2-cents. Please feel free to disagree.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> So people from different cultures can have their own neighborhoods but not schools?
> 
> It's not my definition of segregation, but GT's, if religious schools is segregating society why isn't religious neighborhoods?


Please, god, look up the definition of "segregation."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Lars said:


> God's existence, or the existence of a higher power, is believed through faith.



“Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science. ”

—Fr. George Coyne, Vatican's chief astronomer between 1978 and 2006. 

"Invoking ID as God’s place filler can only result in the naturalization of the deity. God would simply become another part of the natural world, and thereby lose all of the transcendent mystery and numinous praxis that delimits religion and science."
Skeptic: eSkeptic: Tuesday, April 5th, 2005
Maybe we should teach ID...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Please, god, look up the definition of "segregation."


Sure here you go:

Geographical segregation exists whenever the proportions of population rates of two or more populations are not homogenous throughout a defined space. Populations can be considered any plant or animal species, human genders, followers of a _certain religion_, stone types, _ethnic groups_, etc.

Geographical segregation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Lars said:


> Though evolution is fact, no human being can prove the earth and human life began through evolution. You can just as easily and quickly state, again with no evidence, that God created earth and human beings to start the process, and that both the earth and humans evolved since their initial "implantation." That being said, since neither theory physically proves our existence with total and absolute fact, teaching both theories is not the end of the world.


True, but does that mean we should also teach that it's possible that aliens planted life here? Or how about a Flying Spaghetti Monster? Just because some can't be disproved, doesn't make it a valid theory. Evolution has solid scientific data supporting it back to the beginning of time. Creationism has none.



Lars said:


> Don't use unrealistic examples. LOTR is a _movie_, for crying out loud. We KNOW it's not real. That movie also isn't based on past events that any one thinks actually happened (i.e; the existence of blood-thirsty orcs).


Show me any evidence the Bible is any different.



Lars said:


> You haven't found physical proof that He DOES exist (well, the Bible proves it, but if you don't believe in the Bible, you won't consider it physical evidence)


I have a book proving The Cat In The Hat Came Back. Show me any evidence that the Bible is any more factual that The Cat In The Hat.



Lars said:


> As well, religion (in many forms) exists among millions, if not over a billion(s) people on this earth, and is therefore not just considered "any other theory," as it has a _substantial_ amount of believers of a higher power.


Millions of children believe in the existence of Santa Claus. The Greeks and Romans had their gods. There are numerous different beliefs. Number of believers does not equate to validity.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

And yet most people will think of the dictionary definition, which has negative implications:

seg·re·ga·tion (sěg'rĭ-gā'shən) Pronunciation Key 
n. 

1. The act or process of segregating or the condition of being segregated.
2. *The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination.*

segregation - Definitions from Dictionary.com




JumboJones said:


> Sure here you go:
> 
> Geographical segregation exists whenever the proportions of population rates of two or more populations are not homogenous throughout a defined space. Populations can be considered any plant or animal species, human genders, followers of a _certain religion_, stone types, _ethnic groups_, etc.
> 
> Geographical segregation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> And yet most people will think of the dictionary definition, which has negative implications:
> 
> seg·re·ga·tion (sěg'rĭ-gā'shən) Pronunciation Key
> n.
> ...


You have a habit of taking things the wrong way.

Sometimes people choose to be segregated, otherwise we wouldn't have ehmac, imagine being lumped in with all those pc users?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Evolution has solid scientific data supporting it back to the beginning of time.


 Really, what was that exact day again?



guytoronto said:


> Millions of children believe in the existence of Santa Claus. The Greeks and Romans had their gods. There are numerous different beliefs. Number of believers does not equate to validity.


Validity doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be learned in school.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> *Validity* doesn't mean it should or shouldn't be learned in school.


I'm assuming that's a joke...... right?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You have a habit of taking things the wrong way.
> 
> Sometimes people choose to be segregated, otherwise we wouldn't have ehmac, imagine being lumped in with all those pc users?


Sometimes people are unaware that the words they are using have dreadful, negative connotations.

Turn to someone where you work, live or play and say, "People should be *segregated*!" and say it like you mean it. See how that works out for you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Really, what was that exact day again?


Given that the process has taken millions of years the margin of error will still be more acceptable than that 6000 year old ID timeframe.

So when was the earth created by Big Papa in the sky? You should be able to tell us to the hour, no? PS, why did he also make fossils? What it just to mix us up?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MD: The discussion was on segregation so a certain consistency is there, non? Now if it was about segues...

segregation
• noun 1 the action of segregating or the state of being segregated. 2 the enforced separation of different racial groups in a country, community, or establishment.

As I said, one can focus on the enforced part in which case the schools comment should also have been noted as an error, but was not due to personal politics. Or we can stick with the more general, which does apply to both.

Like any politically motivated pejorative, it is not about (gross) accuracy or inaccuracy but about the fun of using the label and the mock indignation of a poster when the term is used in return. 

GT Bible: There are plenty of real historical events mentioned in the Bible. It is different. Whether it is more valid than FSM or the Iliad is another matter.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Ya, I do fear us slipping back into the dark ages where people believed epilepsy was caused by evil spiritual possession. Ignorance is no excuse for pushing a religious agenda in schools.


Since when did that worthy fact, urrr... theory bite the dust??? And the only thing that should be pushed in school are drugs! (So that the students have something to look forward to; rather than the skeevy halitosis emitting English Lit teacher Mr. Letcherous...)



> Tory was dead wrong to even suggest moving in this direction. Other provinces are moving away from religion in their education. Why does Ontario want to go backwards?


Tory, the red Troskyite parading a the leader of the Conservatives... They should bring back Mike Harris and get some Common Sense happening again. I miss the Days Of Protest! I miss having the dude that owned a car dealership in charge of the Ministry of Road Congestion. I miss the high school drop out attacking the teachers! I miss being able to hang out at Ipperwash and taunting the Ontario Party Poopers! (I'd hang out at Caledonia if the land claim was closer to Hewitt's)

Either is far better than the carpetbagger Sorbara and his scalawag Prince Dolt; but then again, Bob Rae is better than those two characters any day. Since Tory does not have any policies that are not already written in the Communist Manifesto, I guess shovelling some religion into the schools is pretty much the only thing he can get into, especially since Michael Vick was caught "promoting sport". Long Live Frank Miller!...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Wow, I've now actually read that somebody thinks that that which for most of us makes Toronto special can be referred to as "segregation." It's a gross error, but mark you calendars folks, the view exists.


Actually... For all of the "warm special feelings" that emit from the lips of Hogtown politicos - there is segregation. Hogtown, so happy with the un- "segregated" nature of it's people and well as home to the Christie Pits Riots.

Just take a mosey down to Regent's Park and see segregation based on class distinctions. Sure, there may be racial integration to some degree, but it is entirely segregated on class distictions. We live in a country where our words do not match our actions. Native children huff gasoline because they have no chance, no chance because they are discriminated against in every turn. Immigrants huddle in rude ghettos because no one will hire them based on their skills, whether they are bricklayers or doctors (or for that fact, barbers, who by the way were 'legislated' out of existence in this province!)

We have a portion of the population that activly promotes linguistic segregation, and I speak about the fact that if one moves to The Belle Province, by law you can not obtain an education in English. Notwithstanding! In the aftermath of the scandal surrounding Residential Schools, we have, in that very same province, the same actions of cultural genocide, with the only difference that the kids can return home on the weekend - the same deal we give to the murderer Rollo! In the name of protecting the very precious Frnech language, we ALLOW segregation and we ALLOW discrimination.

So those comments surely do not meet the eye in some immediate fasion; but lurking under the skin is the fact, the very fact, that this nation does indeed practice segregation; and we are surrounded by the very evidence that damns our noble words. Now, I am going to head over to KoreaTown for some KimChi and Bul Go Gee...

Now, back to our regularily scheduled program: Flaming Glory Balls Of Tories and Annals Of Antidisestablishmentarianism!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Sometimes people are unaware that the words they are using have dreadful, negative connotations.


Or people choose the meanings they want to hear.



HowEver said:


> Turn to someone where you work, live or play and say, "People should be *segregated*!" and say it like you mean it. See how that works out for you.


Good thing I didn't say that, but anyways, it all depends on the context, right, because sometimes people should be segregated, i.e. criminals/prison.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> Actually... For all of the "warm special feelings" that emit from the lips of Hogtown politicos - there is segregation. Hogtown, so happy with the un- "segregated" nature of it's people and well as home to the Christie Pits Riots.
> 
> Just take a mosey down to Regent's Park and see segregation based on class distinctions. Sure, there may be racial integration to some degree, but it is entirely segregated on class distictions. We live in a country where our words do not match our actions. Native children huff gasoline because they have no chance, no chance because they are discriminated against in every turn. Immigrants huddle in rude ghettos because no one will hire them based on their skills, whether they are bricklayers or doctors (or for that fact, barbers, who by the way were 'legislated' out of existence in this province!)
> 
> ...


EP, you're from Hamilton, what do you know about TO.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> Given that the process has taken millions of years the margin of error will still be more acceptable than that 6000 year old ID timeframe.


 Oh margin of error, right, sciences old song and dance. Why is it so hard to believe that there are some things that science cannot explain?



ArtistSeries said:


> So when was the earth created by Big Papa in the sky? You should be able to tell us to the hour, no? PS, why did he also make fossils? What it just to mix us up?


Dunno, don't care, why is it so important to you? So a margin of error of millions of years is acceptable but not billions?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

ArtistSeries said:


> I'm assuming that's a joke...... right?


What we can't learn about valid/non-valid theories, something about learning from others mistakes comes to mind.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Oh margin of error, right, sciences old song and dance. Why is it so hard to believe that there are some things that science cannot explain?


Actually, science can explain everything. Some things we just haven't discovered how to explain.

Even something like love can be scientifically measured and understood.

As our knowledge of science and the universe grows, more and more things become apparent.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Actually, science can explain everything. Some things we just haven't discovered how to explain.
> 
> Even something like love can be scientifically measured and understood.
> 
> As our knowledge of science and the universe grows, more and more things become apparent.


Sounds like you have faith in science, better watch out, you know what happens when you start to get that.

But without proof those things are just as likely as judgment day or reincarnation.


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

my girlfriend is like Guy Toronto somtimes with this whole SCIENCE explains everything fud...She refuses to look at anything from any other angle and it's irritating sometimes...(love you honey-just in case you read this ) here is new proof of creation....

3,000-year-old beehives unearthed in Israel - CNN.com

I believe both should be taught in school....I would rather have creation and evolution then have Heather has two mom's and Daddy's roommate...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> No harm in learning about religions, might help explain a lot current world events to students.


Absolutely. I think comparative religion should be in the core curriculum. Once people learn about all the silly stories primitives have concocted over the millennia, it become very difficult to continue to have faith in your own silly myths, and you start thinking rationally.

Bring on the comparative religion classes! Just don't call it 'science' and don't try to put bullsh*t creationist stories in the biology class. It's tough enough getting students to understand what is and isn't science without muddying the waters with a lot of well-refuted rubbish.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> It's funny, the same people who don't want religion pushed on people want to legalize drugs. But we all have priorities, I guess broken promises and having their hands in our pockets isn't as bad as religion in schools to some.


teaching creationism and religion is NOT a choice by underage students
the consumption of recreational drugs is a choice for adults


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

if god show up to teach a class, I'll be there to take it


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> teaching creationism and religion is NOT a choice by underage students
> the consumption of recreational drugs is a choice for adults


Technically, kids don't really have much choice in what they learn. So legalized drugs won't be consumed by children, right, because they don't smoke or drink either. If you think that teaching religion is worse than easier access to drugs, you have some issues.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if god *show up* to teach a class, I'll be there to take it


Let's hope that class is english.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Let's hope that class is english.


what makes you think god speaks english?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if god show up to teach a class, I'll be there to take it


I'm not big on sadistic teachers with little to no sense of humour and a serious case of demanding to be the centre of attention. Also some dull do-gooder hippie would not be very interesting either.

Or is it the FSM god doing the teaching? How about Aphrodite and Athena? :love2: 

Sidenote: A fun read for the ideas once you get beyond Heinlein's style
http://www.amazon.ca/Job-Comedy-Jus...828049?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189116547&sr=8-20


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Technically, kids don't really have much choice in what they learn. So legalized drugs won't be consumed by children, right, because they don't smoke or drink either. If you think that teaching religion is worse than easier access to drugs, you have some issues.


let's make recreational drug use illegal for underage children
let's apply the same standard to religious instruction

 

both are bad for young minds


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> I'm not big on sadistic teachers with little to no sense of humour and a serious case of demanding to be the centre of attention. Also some dull do-gooder hippie would not be very interesting either.
> 
> Or is it the FSM god doing the teaching? How about Aphrodite and Athena? :love2:
> 
> ...


perhaps god would be better suited for a "shop" class
you know, building arks, pillars of salt, pillars of fire, parting seas and donald trump's hair


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> what makes you think god speaks english?


What makes you think god teaches class?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> What makes you think god teaches class?


let him or her come down and teach a class so we can hear exactly what it is he or she has to say, although I think god is better suited as a lecturer and not as a teacher

and i hope there's a Q & A session afterwards

I have a few pointed questions to ask the big girl or guy


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

On the note of questions, a book about a trial:
Amazon.ca: Blameless in Abaddon: Books: James Morrow


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I have a few pointed questions to ask the big girl or guy


And what language will you be asking these questions?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> And what language will you be asking these questions?


hopefully god will have a translator or two on hand


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> here is new proof of creation....
> 
> 3,000-year-old beehives unearthed in Israel - CNN.com


How does this in any way show proof of creation?



imactheknife said:


> I believe both should be taught in school....I would rather have creation and evolution then have Heather has two mom's and Daddy's roommate...


...and your true prejudice is revealed. Spoken like a true religious fanatic.

Let's ignore scientific and biological fact! Let's preach hate, fear, and ignorance!


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> How does this in any way show proof of creation?
> 
> 
> ...and your true prejudice is revealed. Spoken like a true religious fanatic.
> ...


Where do you even get this idea from? No need to take the fundamentals of a few select radicals to paint everyone with the same brush.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> EP, you're from Hamilton, what do you know about TO.


... I do have to go to TO from time to time to support my Mac habit! Actually, I am in downtown TO more than I am at Jackson Scare (Downtown) in The Hammer. I also have the habit of purchasing music, so again I have to go to TO because the last real music store in The Hammer closed some years ago. Not to mention books and stuff. Besides, being "from Hamilton" doesn't mean "I'm lovin' it"...


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> I believe both should be taught in school....I would rather have creation and evolution then have Heather has two mom's and Daddy's roommate...


It's "than" not "then," but that isn't the real problem with your post.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Lars said:


> Where do you even get this idea from? No need to take the fundamentals of a few select radicals to paint everyone with the same brush.


it's more than just a "few"


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it's more than just a "few"


Irrelevant. It's also not "all."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Lars said:


> Irrelevant. It's also not "all."


you mentioned "few"
nobody mentioned "all"

ergo; your argument is irrelevant


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> let's make recreational drug use illegal for underage children
> let's apply the same standard to religious instruction
> 
> 
> ...


God help us all they could become more generous!!!  
Religious People Are More Generous, Says Study | Scientific Blogging

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Neat study but perhaps the "obvious" research thread is more appropriate. I think the basic stats on charity demonstrate the same thing. Many religious practices probably have an almost evolutionary design about them to trigger a concept of communal assistance and obedience. 

The obedience part is what worries many people but it does not seem to be unique to religion. That's the difference between looking at what people are and looking for reasons to hate religion. 

Sort of like highlighting all the "bad" things (and "bad" things are common to so many people and groupings of peoples) that members of one group do to lower them in the eyes of public opinion without reasonable context. It is very much how racism is propagated. Militant atheism is not that different, nor is the extremes of many religions.

Newsflash: Religion is not all damaging. There, an atheist said it. Are they going to take away my card? Best to question atheists who are delusional enough to believe in objective morality and/or ethical frameworks. They are fundamentally trapped between wanting a god but not one that is too popular because that's too much like the Gap.

Regardless of what militant atheists and run-of-the-mill angry-at-christianity people may think, the notion of history necessarily unfolding "better" without organised religion is unfounded. Religion and similar things (belief as a general human tool; socially common beliefs more importantly) are far too deeply rooted to just hypothetically remove them and ponder a fake and bright unknown past. 

That unknown past could be "better" or "worse" (recall: no objective morality without a god).

By the way, your above post is much better than what was there before.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Beej said:


> By the way, your above post is much better than what was there before.


You can always count on Beej for sound and reasoned discussion. Thanks for that. 
Yeah I trashed my previous post. After reflecting I realized I opened up too many fronts and I was just too ticked when I started righting. The point of it was that a lot of the things that people are motivated to do in the name of religion, society is better off because of it. ie. Soup kitchens, food banks, homeless shelters, human rights work, humanitarian relief work, educating the poor, hospitals, rejection of drugs, sanctity of life, monogamy, commitment to marriage and family etc. etc. etc. So when some idiot makes a blanket statement that "all" religion is dangerous I get a little hot under the collar. Especially in light of the many social ills we've been blessed with as a result of declining religious conviction or outright opposition to them. I have to shake my head. 

Granted not all religions are created equal either and all are capable of making mistakes. Some can be totally self serving or downright evil. Some scientists can work to save your life while others gladly work to take it away. Religions and the people that adhere to them are no different. The blanket condemnation simply demonstrates great ignorance.

Here's another interesting story:
ABC News: Who Gives More -- The Rich or The Poor?


> The Church Connection
> Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
> 
> Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:
> ...


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

There are always good stories and bad stories. Yes, some people motivated by religion do good things. A lot of people motivated by religion do really evil things.

Now look at the heart of the matter. Why do some people do good, why do some people do evil? Could the same ends be reached without religious motivation?

How about just general 'goodwill to all men'? Nothing really religious about it.

Why can't we teach kids about helping others, benefiting the maturity of mankind? Do we really have to mix in with it things like 'well, science could be wrong, SuperGod can do anything', and 'be good or you'll burn in the fiery pits of hell'?

Oh, and...



imactheknife said:


> I believe both should be taught in school....I would rather have creation and evolution then have Heather has two mom's and Daddy's roommate...


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

AFAIK, the 200,000 kids in the Ontario Catholic PUBLIC School system are already being taught creationism. The kids in Catholic high school have to waste 4 credits on mandatory religion classes when they could be learning a skill or language.

I think that we should yank funding to Catholic public schools or equally fund the other 50,000 kids in other religious schools. Equality is what matters.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Why do some people do good, why do some people do evil? Could the same ends be reached without religious motivation?
> 
> How about just general 'goodwill to all men'? Nothing really religious about it.
> 
> Why can't we teach kids about helping others, benefiting the maturity of mankind?


That's a lot like, "Why can't we all just get along." Who am I to say what stories, reasoning and metaphors are 'optimal' for teaching certain values given the diversity of people? Religion can work quite well for many things. It can also be abused -- many parents dish out non-religious abuse. Why can't all parents treat their kids with some basic decency or maybe even -- gasp! -- love?

So I'm not 100% certain why we can't all just get along but it looks like many of the traits that got us to where we are also, unfortunately, lead to less getting along. Piers Antony's GeoOdyssey series had some interesting perspectives on this.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> Equality is what matters.


That's why this political eff up is somewhat fascinating. McGuinty is, essentially, defending a status quote of obvious and known discrimination but Tory is taking the heat. This should serve as a handy warning to other political strategists and communications advisors.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

gmark2000 said:


> AFAIK, the 200,000 kids in the Ontario Catholic PUBLIC School system are already being taught creationism. The kids in Catholic high school have to waste 4 credits on mandatory religion classes when they could be learning a skill or language.
> 
> I think that we should yank funding to Catholic public schools or equally fund the other 50,000 kids in other religious schools. Equality is what matters.


Another statement for the myth busters. If they're learning "creationism" a la 6000 year old earth and walking with dinosaurs they're not following church teaching or they're not attending a Catholic school. The catholic church has no "scientific" theory on how things came to be but they do attribute that however it came to be, it was God's plan and by his design. 
Oh and by the way, my children's Catholic school with those 4 waisted credits scored in the top 4% in academic testing last year in Ontario.

As for equal funding other schools I agree. I think each kid should be allotted an equal amount of annual funding to follow them to the school of their choice (as long as it meets provincial standards.) be it faith based or private. They do this quite successfully in some countries in Europe.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> That's why this political eff up is somewhat fascinating. McGuinty is, essentially, defending a status quote of obvious and known discrimination but Tory is taking the heat. This should serve as a handy warning to other political strategists and communications advisors.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

gmark2000 said:


> The kids in Catholic high school have to waste 4 credits on mandatory religion classes when they could be learning a skill or language.


It all depends on what they are teaching in that religion class. Understanding world religions is a good thing. Preaching a religion as the path to salvation? Save it for church.



gmark2000 said:


> I think that we should yank funding to Catholic public schools or equally fund the other 50,000 kids in other religious schools. Equality is what matters.


Yank it, Like Quebec did.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Yank it


I think that is frowned upon in some religions.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Beej said:


> That's why this political eff up is somewhat fascinating. McGuinty is, essentially, defending a status quote of obvious and known discrimination but Tory is taking the heat. This should serve as a handy warning to other political strategists and communications advisors.


Status quote?

(Edit to add): Weren't they a British prog-rock group from the 70s?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Another thing to note, if this is really about religion, is that the Federal government and, possibly, provincial governments directly or indirectly fund religious education for aboriginals under the guise of, "culture". This could involve teaching about things like spirit bears, people not having migrated from Asia and religious smoking. 

Is that considered a waste of the kids' time too? Should the Federal government also work to eliminate all such funding and pressure other levels of government to do likewise? That could involve strings on funding that requires it be for secular education only (social studies would cover more aboriginal topics than elsewhere, though); local groups could pool their own money to develop religious programs as they see fit.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

gmark2000 said:


> AFAIK, the 200,000 kids in the Ontario Catholic PUBLIC School system are already being taught creationism.


This is entirely incorrect, since "creationism" is not part of the Catechism (teachings) of the Church, and hence, not part of the curriculum taught in Catholic schools. The whole "creationist science" derived directly from the teachings of John Calvin and other Protestants who hold as a tenet of their faith the importance of personal interpretation of the Bible; while the Catholic Church derives the Catechism from the work of Councils, the writings of the church fathers, and the work of a large body of theologians. The Catholic Church is, and has been, a major contributor to the advancement of the sciences; through the preservation of ancient works, the funding of scientific research, and other such institutes such as the Vatican Observatory and hundreds (of not thousands) of universities.



> The kids in Catholic high school have to waste 4 credits on mandatory religion classes when they could be learning a skill or language.


Religion classes teach those things not easily taught in other courses of study. I was never in a Math class where we were taught social principles; nor did I ever sit in a Grammar class where we were taught social responsibilities. If I was intent on not "wasting credits" in order to "learn skills": I would not have wasted so much time in useless English literature classes; I would not have taken History because it is bunk; nor would I take Biology because it serves no practical purpose. Instead of a wide range of courses, I would take all of the Shop courses I could, and nothing more. So you do have to be open minded because education is not just about "learning skills" but it is "learning to learn". If you start cutting out all of the courses that are "useless", none of the brats would be at school!

I think that those who have not attended a Catholic school think it is some kind of hotbed of religious zealotry, of which it is not. Life is much the same, though under the aegis of the principles of Catholic living, and Religion is but one course out of a year. 



> I think that we should yank funding to Catholic public schools or equally fund the other 50,000 kids in other religious schools. Equality is what matters.


Why is it that when some group of malcontents does not like the way things are going in the Public schools; they wish to attack the Catholic schools? If there are enough students of a given faith in a school, then a Religion course should be taught within the school as a credit course. The government should not be in the business of funding religious schools; they should fund the system that they are constitutionally obliged to fund. If there are those people that do not wish to live within the system, then they are entitled to have their own private schools, where they pay tuition just like any other private school. Otherwise, the government will end up having to fund Upper Canada College, and that will spell the end of elitism, and we can't have that. We need elitists to save us from the corruption of riches and money.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Good post. :clap: tho Galileo and Teilhard de Chardin may have some caveats to the praise.. 

Religion being first class my kid gets extra sleep at his Catholic high school. 

I have less problem with optional course or religious course per se than with zealots attempting to alter public ed.

Deny sex ed to kids and alter science or history courses.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Ah English class all those books I rented the movies for, correction, all those _fictional_ books I rented the movies for. Oh oh, fiction in the class room, blasphemy, they have no scientific backing, burn them all! I don't want my kid learning fiction, it'll brainwash them into using their imagination, noooooo!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Good post. :clap: tho Galileo and Teilhard de Chardin may have some caveats to the praise..
> 
> Religion being first class my kid gets extra sleep at his Catholic high school.
> 
> ...


MacDoc, you have a kid in a Catholic High School?? NO WAY!  
How on earth did that ever come about? Especially with your outspoken love of all things religious. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> How does this in any way show proof of creation?
> 
> 
> ...and your true prejudice is revealed. Spoken like a true religious fanatic.
> ...


I don't go to church so that shows how easy you assume I am religious with my comments...I believe what I believe for other reasons......did I offend your feminine side with my comments...

If the human race doesn't reproduce how can the world go forward....two dads can't do it, two mom's can't do it.....unless you have some cool evolutional thing up your sleeve....thats why I don't believe same sex is right....Kids don't need to know or be forced to know this at a young fragile age....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Feminine side...?

This thread gets weirder and weirder.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: clearly the next election has many surprises in store for us. Only one vote per person though, masculine and feminine sides aside.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Indeed. I swear I don't know whether to wind my watch or water my petunias.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

imactheknife said:


> If the human race doesn't reproduce how can the world go forward....two dads can't do it, two mom's can't do it.....unless you have some cool evolutional thing up your sleeve....thats why I don't believe same sex is right....Kids don't need to know or be forced to know this at a young fragile age....


You argument is weak at best, extremely ignorant at worst.

By your argument, the only purpose of humans is to procreate, and keep the human race going. No mention of love, no mention of family support. Emotion is irrelevant.

I guess rapists are better than gays, because at least rapists can produce children.

Incest? Way better than lesbian moms.

Yup...imactheknife, you are on the cutting edge of socially forward thinking.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Incest?
> ...
> socially forward thinking.


If you meant incest in a negative manner like some use the term homosexuality, you may want to rethink that. The psychological dominance aspect is negative (as with psychiatrists, teachers, etc.) but the rest of the usual, "it's bad because it always has been" argument does not sit so well with "socially forward" thinking.

This world is going to get incredibly more complex and scary for those that cling to objective morality...or they'll win and the future will suck just as bad as the past. beejacon


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Those who forget the past... learned nothing in history class.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Good post. :clap: tho Galileo and Teilhard de Chardin may have some caveats to the praise..


The Inquisition was more important than you may think! Sure, they tortured and killed people that worshipped Satan' but it also was a key motivational tool for getting people off their duff and moving to the New World. And of course, that is why we are here. If it wasn't for torture and the requirement to have sausages hanging from the kitchen ceiling; we'd be elsewhere while the First Nations go on to build their own glorous civilizations, needing to kill each other rather than just manning baracades. To think if Galileo had not worked for the Mafia, the Church may have been able to make a deal he couldn't refuse!



> Religion being first class my kid gets extra sleep at his Catholic high school.


Good for finishing up homework for other classes; or in my case, the morning rabble rousing when I chose to play the part of the Devil's Advocate, and show my opposition to the official Catholic doctrine. Besides, I normally caught up on my sleep during History class because those classes were so outmoded and retrograde. For instance, did you know that Egyptians had every form of technology conceivable (even though China had real civilization thousands of years before, but that is revisionist mumbo-jumbo)?! That is the kind of stuff that we learned. Or that Napoleon was the greatest leader ever, or that Louis Riel was not a criminal. Yep, good for many a little nap in the morning, yawn...



> Deny sex ed to kids and alter science or history courses.


Sex Ed courses were the best because really, they made it sound so bad that one would not want to have sex. It was so mechanical like "intercourse is the insertion of the male penis into the female vagina..." As if it was some kind of Ikea instruction sheet. With motivation like that, I was lucky that I had sex BEFORE sex ed, otherwise I may have remained celibate throughout my high school years. Goes to show that if sex ed is not taught in school, then the whole curiosity thing, you know, arises...

High School is one of those things that is entirely unpalletable. The list of courses that I didn't like dwarfs the handful of courses that I did like. Fortunately there were those things that made up for it: afterschool, school band, alcohol, parties, truancy, pinball arcades, audio-video club, the weekend, "you can fix anything with a big enough hammer, give me a hammer and I'll hammer until you look good", computers, NLF pools, pranks, mocking the special ed students, watching the Leafs loose yet another game, summer vacation, PD days, drugs, food fights, sex-ed with the girlfriend, stuffing loosers in lockers, Wednesday afternoon Jay's games in TO at Exinhibition Stadium, Hortoning, fights, drafting classes, driving around in jalopies, hanging out in front of the school smoking, friendly Henry (the dirty old letcherous teacher) leering at the girls in his funny pork pie hat, Catholic school girls in kilts, watching the submarine races with the girlfriend, porch parties, Asteroids, drugs, coffee at Hortons, alcohol, school dances and scoring in the bathroom with the girlfriend, skipping, dried vegetable substances rolled in paper that were ignited and inhaled, and did I mention alcohol? Without these things, what would High School be? Just an excuse to drop out and work at Stelco or Dofasco!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

See - Catholic High Schools are completely assimilated


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Especially in light of the many social ills we've been blessed with as a result of declining religious conviction or outright opposition to them. I have to shake my head.


Your statement above is a brilliant example of one of the most common misconceptions I run into in scientific research. You've mistaken correlation for causation. Similarly, the studies you've linked, while interesting, show a correlation between religious adherence and charitablity. This does not show that theses same people would not be equally generous were they to convert to different faiths or abandon their faiths altogether.

I'm not arguing that our society does not have a lot of 'social ills', but I think your position that these problems result (i.e. are caused by) loss of religious conviction is over-interpreting the data.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

"Who, who, who....
Who let the dogma out...."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Your statement above is a brilliant example of one of the most common misconceptions I run into in scientific research. You've mistaken correlation for causation. Similarly, the studies you've linked, while interesting, show a correlation between religious adherence and charitablity. This does not show that theses same people would not be equally generous were they to convert to different faiths or abandon their faiths altogether.
> 
> I'm not arguing that our society does not have a lot of 'social ills', but I think your position that these problems result (i.e. are caused by) loss of religious conviction is over-interpreting the data.


A couple problems with the above. Most social science work that uses statistical data to support a theory is based on correlation (there are, technically, time-series causality tests, but they are also based on correlation). 

The causation is determined by having a rational framework for why the correlation should exist. That's the nature of the beast. If it were socially acceptable to have large-scale social science experiments (there have been a few), the level of control over factors that are not part of the experiment would still be far too low, relative to the sciences. Somebody could always say, "correlation, not causation" and they could be right. So conclusions must be dealt with practically; the balance of probability, so to speak.

Also, I notice that attributing harm to religion by the anti-religious faithful is rarely met with basic analytical standards.

In this case there is a sound framework (moral suasion, peer pressure, suggestibility, etc.) and plenty of data behind the charity of religious people. Furthermore, if the issue is fully or partially attributable to a self-selection bias then the implications of that do not look good for us self-centred grasping non-religious people, do they? 

As for broad arguments of social ills, yes, the data is being over-interpreted. Around here it usually seems to be the anti-religious crowd over-interpreting their data. Good to see someone else is on the lookout for that sort of thing.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Also, I notice that attributing harm to religion by the anti-religious faithful is rarely met with basic analytical standards.


I think you meant to say harm to society by religion...

You mean basic like this - higher teen pregnancies in more religious states.....










Those are easy to come by.

I'd say there is far more error in the RR types simply being flat out wrong about increased crime and decay when the actual stats point the other way.

We don't exactly see Sweden crumbling do we with a 75% unbeliever status.

..of course we could attribute it to genetics....seems there is a slower uptake in the Con mindset 



> **** politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs
> 
> The brain neurons of liberals and conservatives fire differently when confronted with tough choices, suggesting that some political divides may be hard-wired, according a study released Sunday.
> 
> ........*Conservatives, however, were less flexible, refusing to deviate from old habits "despite signals that this ... should be changed." *


**** politicus: brain function of liberals, conservatives differs

old habits??......'pears about right


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

> Or one could, with equal justice, conclude that wishy-washy liberals don't stick to their guns, while conservatives and steadfast and loyal.


I think this view of the study is more accurate.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

I agree with the part about conservatives sticking to their guns.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: In the other states, the teen pregnancies are aborted without being counted.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Macfury said:


> MacDoc: In the other states, the teen pregnancies are aborted without being counted.


:lmao: Any evidence to back this up, or just making stuff up to support an incorrect theory?


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Beej said:


> If you meant incest in a negative manner


You mean there's another manner in which to mean incest?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Wolfshead said:


> You mean there's another manner in which to mean incest?


I think he means the hot "Who's Your Daddy" sense. XX)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I received a letter from Mr. Tory explaining that his education plan would only bring the 53,000 religious students "in to the system." He then goes on to say that this could never apply to provate schools.

Just an appalling piece of logic. Why not "bring the private schools in" as well? Or are religious schools more worthy of "bringing in" than other schools? 

I'm all for letting people choose to use their education allocation for whatever school they choose--but not merely because the school is religious.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Then again, you could bring all those other students "in to the system" by having them attend public schools. You can't get any more "in to the system" than that.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Macfury said:


> I'm all for letting people choose to use their education allocation for whatever school they choose--but not merely because the school is religious.


Yeah when it comes to choosing schools, I'm all for choice Belgian style. Watch John Stossel's "Stupid in America". The Belgians make a strong case for an individually funded educational system that shuns the monopoly we see in the US. If we had a single school system in Canada, we'd likely face the same nightmares of our US neighbors (Not that we don't have our share of annual strike actions now). The unions have our kids by the throat and God forbid they have a greater monopoly they have now. I think having the Catholic board now has at least kept the Public Board on their toes and vice versa. Choice is good and so is competition. I'd like to see more. Not a clone of the US education system and the problems that they're plagued with.

I agree with MF that this shouldn't be exclusive to religion either. This quote from the Stossel's report sums it up.


> Chavous, who has worked to get more school choice in Washington, D.C., said, "Choice to me is the only way. I believe that we can force the system from an external vantage point to change itself. It will never change itself from within. ... Unless there is some competition infused in the equation, unless that occurs, then they know they have a captive monopoly that they can continue to dominate."
> 
> Competition inspires people to do what we didn't think we could do. If people got to choose their kids' school, education options would be endless. There could soon be technology schools, science schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what else. If there were competition, all kinds of new ideas would bloom.


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I would like to give people the choice of attending my "Only Whites" school, where they while have such advantages as:

- not tripping over their baggy pants hanging around their knees
- will only have to learn one language, English. Ebonics will not be offered as an optional course
- special attention will be paid to studying the criminal justice system, and understanding why the majority of violent criminals are not white

Anybody have a problem with this? I'm only offering choice!


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Guy: Freedom of choice must suffer the indignities even of extremely bad hyperbole.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> I would like to give people the choice of attending my "Only Whites" school, where they while have such advantages as:
> 
> - not tripping over their baggy pants hanging around their knees
> - will only have to learn one language, English. Ebonics will not be offered as an optional course
> ...


You're being just a tad extreme. I'm not aware of these problems in Belgium. Just kids that are smarter than average with better teachers and the absence of the annual strikes in exam season we're blessed with here.
Like it is now, a provincially mandated curriculum would have to be met and there would obviously have to be oversight of the institution to assure that sort of thing didn't happen. Standardized testing would be used, just like now, to determine if an institution was failing to teach the required curriculum.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

RicktheChemist said:


> I have to agree with this point 150%...
> 
> I don't want to hear about religion.. I don't want it taught in schools...


Fine Rick send your kids to the Secular Humanist Public Board then and I can assure you they won't hear a peep! You have that choice NOW so what are you bitching about. Hell they'll even deprive the majority of children of faith any mention of their major religious holidays should they offend your sensitivities. Holiday Tree anyone?

But I'd like my kids to be taught in an environment that espouses christian morals and ethics and who the heck are you to say they can't? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Fine Rick send your kids to the Secular Humanist Public Board then and I can assure you they won't hear a peep! You have that choice NOW so what are you bitching about. Hell they'll even deprive the majority of children of faith any mention of their major religious holidays should they offend your sensitivities. Holiday Tree anyone?
> 
> But I'd like my kids to be taught in an environment that espouses christian morals and ethics and who the heck are you to say they can't?
> 
> ...


Christian morals and ethics? Add that to military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.

Studying the history of the christian church might be a good start.

But just to clarify, kids in public schools learn a great deal about religion and ethics, and specifically about your religion and many others. It's a fallacy to say they don't, as is the idiotic holiday tree reference. Public schools are usually full of all kinds of religious idolatry around holiday time. Sorry you had no idea about this.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Christian morals and ethics? Add that to military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.
> 
> Studying the history of the christian church might be a good start.
> 
> But just to clarify, kids in public schools learn a great deal about religion and ethics, and specifically about your religion and many others. It's a fallacy to say they don't, as is the idiotic holiday tree reference. Public schools are usually full of all kinds of religious idolatry around holiday time. Sorry you had no idea about this.


I know history, church and secular. Its the horrors that go on today in secular humanist land that concern me. Its the present day "progressives" that I want to protect my kids from. The kind that in their progressive wisdom would put vile, dangerous crap like this together and feed it to unsuspecting children & parents in public schools.

Black Book
 XX) 

You can force your kids to endure Fisting101 classes all you like. I choose to opt mine out.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Here is a clue for homophobes, and you don't have to buy it, it's free: the kind of homosexuality hidden by "the Church" and its scandals over the last several millenia and the current day is much more harmful than any scary little pamphlet you pretend or fabricate as being distributed to children.

But really, this kind of homophobia is almost always projection. I hope you're as familiar with psychological terms as you are historical ones.







MacGuiver said:


> I know history, church and secular. Its the horrors that go on today in secular humanist land that concern me. Its the present day "progressives" that I want to protect my kids from. The kind that in their progressive wisdom would put vile, dangerous crap like this together and feed it to unsuspecting children & parents in public schools.
> 
> Black Book
> 
> ...


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I think you meant to say harm to society by religion...
> 
> You mean basic like this - higher teen pregnancies in more religious states.....


I see they are assuming all of those teens subscribe to some kind of religion, because no where in the study did it show that they asked them. Assuming one's religion by state is a little flawed don't you think? Otherwise we should consider ourselves here in Ontario either Catholic or Protestant.

Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)

And having your children in a Catholic school system, is this the kind of study you want to be digging up?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> But I'd like my kids to be taught in an environment that espouses christian morals and ethics


:lmao: Question:

1) What exactly are Christian morals and ethics, and how do they differ from your everyday Canadian culture morals and ethics (i.e don't commit murder, don't cheat on your wife)?

2) Since when are the teachings of ANY morals and ethics the responsibility of a school? Should this not be the responsibility of the parents?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Why is Dalton pretending that there is only a public system here in Ontario, so how does he feel about the Catholic system? Is he equally as proud?

Ontario Liberal Party - Change That's Working


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Here is a clue for homophobes, and you don't have to buy it, it's free: the kind of homosexuality hidden by "the Church" and its scandals over the last several millenia and the current day is much more harmful than any scary little pamphlet you pretend or fabricate as being distributed to children.
> But really, this kind of homophobia is almost always projection. I hope you're as familiar with psychological terms as you are historical ones.


Pretented or fabricated? Nice try!
OOOOHH HOMOPHOBIA!!!:yawn: I knew that leftist card would be on the top of the deck. Sorry dude but I wouldn't want my heterosexual kids pissing on each other or jamming fists up their asses or other orifices yet alone someone giving instruction to do it. That may be your idea of good wholesome secular fun but its not mine. Maybe they'll get really progressive in the next pamphlet and have a section on gerbil safety.

As for psychological terms, schizophrenia comes to mind. As in that pamphlet was so objectional you must have made it up followed by you're an obvious homophobe for having a problem with it.

And I agree with you that we have a problem with homosexuality in the priesthood. Over 80% of the abuse is homosexual in nature. Your use of the word "homosexuality, scandal and harmful" in a single sentence automatically qualifies you for a free membership. Welcome to the Homophobe Club, we've got jackets.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> The causation is determined by having a rational framework for why the correlation should exist.


Yes... in order to make the claim of causation you need both correlation and a plausible (or, in my field, demonstrable) _mechanism_.

I'm not arguing that such a mechanism does not exist in this case, and I actually believe that religious people are more charitable than non-religious people. My (speculative) mechanism is that religious people believe that their actions are all observed by a supernatural judge who will reward them for their charitable behavior, or punish them for other types of behavior. Unfortunately, this belief inhibits their moral development, but the net result is desirable behavior, so it's not all bad.

Cheers


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> OOOOHH HOMOPHOBIA!!!:yawn: I knew that leftist card would be on the top of the deck.


He tends to play that card a lot. How is socially acceptable to stomp on religion left, right and center, but as soon as you say something negative about a gay lifestyle you're a homophobe?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> I would like to give people the choice of attending my "Only Whites" school, where they while have such advantages as:
> 
> - not tripping over their baggy pants hanging around their knees
> - will only have to learn one language, English. Ebonics will not be offered as an optional course
> ...


Sounds very much like the Kanadian Kollege of Knowledge...

The school would very obviously be based on the principles of National Socialism with courses in German, Japanese and Italian. Not to mention the "correct" history of the world, again, based on the principles of National Socialism and Nathan Bedford Forbes who wrote the Kloran. But then again, the students would be in good shape, considering all of the paramilitary training during the day. And the free diet plan is quite effective at the goal of total weight loss...

So I think there would be a great deal of problems since Canadians are inherently hypocritical about such things. For instance, they will allow Al Qaida burka ladies to vote (and probably blow up polling places), while they probably would not let a number of hooligans in brown shirts and hats vote. But then again, Ernst Zundel was a candidate for the Liberal Party leadership at the convention that selected the facsist sympathizer Trudeau as leader. Sounds as if the Kanadian Kollege of Knowledge could be quite a success, especially with members of the Liberal establishment, who are all facsists anyways.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> So I think there would be a great deal of problems since Canadians are inherently hypocritical about such things. For instance, they will allow Al Qaida burka ladies to vote (and probably blow up polling places)


That was sarcasm, right? You aren't suggesting that is why women in burqa's shouldn't be allowed to vote?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> :lmao: Question:
> 
> 1) What exactly are Christian morals and ethics, and how do they differ from your everyday Canadian culture morals and ethics (i.e don't commit murder, don't cheat on your wife)?



Examples: 
-Abortion morally acceptable and legal in Canada (for any reason right up to delivery)
-Abortion is murder of an unborn human life and is morally wrong. 

-Sex before marriage is fine.
-Sex outside of marriage is wrong.



guytoronto said:


> :2) Since when are the teachings of ANY morals and ethics the responsibility of a school? Should this not be the responsibility of the parents?


I agree totally, it is my responsibility. Glad you recognize that. That is why I choose to put my kids in a school that espouses my moral values and won't be teaching my children things that I believe to be immoral. That is also why I will vigorously defend my right to do so against guys like yourself that want to circumvent that from happening.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Sorry dude but I wouldn't want my heterosexual kids pissing on each other or jamming fists up their asses or other orifices yet alone someone giving instruction to do it.


You ignorance is amazing. If you think these things are limited to homosexuals and you can actually 'protect' your kids from learning about, you are more deluded than anyone here.

Even implying that these things are "taught" to unsuspecting youth is laughable.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> Examples:
> -Abortion morally acceptable and legal in Canada (for any reason right up to delivery)


 I don't believe that is correct. As far as I am aware, the only time a fetus can be aborted during the third trimester is if the mother is at risk.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacGvr

Your ethics are your own responsibility.

Canadian mores disagree with your ethics.
You don't like Canadian mores...that's fine.

Some disagree with your ethical stance and think sex is bad before marriage.
Their ethical stance.
Canadian mores agree with yours on this, disagree with the "some".

Society has mores.
Individuals have ethics.

Kids need the widest range of information and open communication to develop their own reasoned ethical stance.
Not have it rammed down their throat by parents.
If it's relevant it will "take"....if not - you'll be laughed at by your own kids.

..y'know - like ritual cannibalism.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Abortion is murder of an unborn human life and is morally wrong.


Christian moral and ethics do not support this. Christian doctrine does not support this. Where are you getting this?



MacGuiver said:


> Abortion is murder of an unborn human life and is morally wrong.


Christian moral and ethics do not support this. Christian doctrine does not support this. Where are you getting this?

I'm confused. You state those two issues, but neither is part of Christrine doctrine, established moral codes or ethics. Could you please supply any evidence to the contrary?



MacGuiver said:


> I agree totally, it is my responsibility. Glad you recognize that. That is why I choose to put my kids in a school that espouses my moral values and won't be teaching my children things that I believe to be immoral. That is also why I will vigorously defend my right to do so against guys like yourself that want to circumvent that from happening.


Public schools don't teach morals and ethics. Didn't we already cover this? You teach your kids what is moral and ethic to you and your family. Why are you blaming the public school system for your inadequacies?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> You ignorance is amazing. If you think these things are limited to homosexuals and you can actually 'protect' your kids from learning about, you are more deluded than anyone here.
> 
> Even implying that these things are "taught" to unsuspecting youth is laughable.


Maybe in your circles a good soaking in urine is enjoyable but not in mine.XX) Whatever fills your boots. 
Those are all things I'm gleefully ignorant of and I wish to remain so. I also want the same for my kids since its my responsibility after all to teach them morals.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

HowEver said:


> and specifically about your religion and many others. It's a fallacy to say they don't, as is the idiotic holiday tree reference. Public schools are usually full of all kinds of religious idolatry around holiday time. Sorry you had no idea about this.


The "Christmas Tree" or Tannenbam, is a GERMAN symbol that predates Christianity, that was reintroduced by Luther; and introduced to the Anglo-American world by Queen Victoria. It was not a religious symbol at all as the baby Jesus probably didn't have gifts under on when he was a kid (though he may have has a dredl!).

This nation is inherently a Christian nation, founded on principles of Christianity; though it does not have an Established Church. Early attempts at an Established Church were ended through the turmoil of 1837, and the failure of Bishop Strachan to establish the Church of England in Canada. Our legal system is inhereted through Christianity, through the principles of the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian which brough to us the jurisprudence of Christo-Roman law; through the body of Common Law; and through the principles introduced by the Fathers of the Church, which are so very important in the Quebec Civil Code which predates British suzerainity. To replace those very notions would be entirely difficult as it would require a "remanufacturing" of the entire legal system.

And so is the nature of the school system. In Ontario we have FOUR school systems: English Protestant; English Catholic; French Catholic and French Protestant; and those systems are inherent in the instrument of the Constitution. Virtually all (with only one existing today) of the Protestant boards changed over to a "Public" education system, and since the Hueguenot population was so tiny, they also folded themselves into the "Public" system. The Catholic Boards of Education continue to be split between French and English, though in many juristictions they share common resources and even common buildings.

What Tory proposes is more complicated than one may see. If it was simply an extension of funding to unfunded schools; this is a simple fiscal problem. But it is not as the creation of new faith bases school boards would require opening up the Constitutional Instrument. And we all know what that means! Either Ontario chooses to follow the spirit of the Constitutional Act (as Newfoundland recently did when they reformed their system) and seek the support of the Federal Government and the majority of the other Provinces and Territories; or as Manitoba did and impose it by the use of the Notwithstanding Clause (and the need to "renew" the education system every five years.)

Perhaps instead of mouthing off words to win votes; Tory could instead look to those things that are doable: allow for faith based religion courses for school credits; allow for people to select other school supporter on their tax assessment; and allow for the operation of faith based schools within the "Public" system on the same basis as the "French" and "English" Catholic systems do. This avoids the whole "opening the Constitution can of worms", avoids trying to change a complex legal system of jurisprudence which has proven difficult to change, and it avoids all of the arguments of "support Public education" or "get rid of Catholics".

But then again, he can win votes and if elected, he can McGuinty the public with Fiberalism and simply break all of his promises. Remember that McGuinty has managed to break almost 200 of his 250 promises, an average of one broken promise every 17 days...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

GT _ public schools generally have ethics classes where such issues are discussed. The goal is to teach to make ethical decisions out of which societal mores develop.

For instance "bullying" and reporting a bully are ethical decisions kids face, the schools and gov are helping them decide how to handle it and "shifting" the "don't tell" mores that prevailed in the past to a "deal with it up front".


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ..y'know - like ritual cannibalism.


:yawn: :yawn: :yawn: MacDoc you can put that tired old jab out to pasture. Coming from you I see it for what it is and it really doesn't phase me. 

I'd also bet the moon your moral free ranging children have developed the same reasoned ethical stances as daddy on 99.9% of issues? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

da_jonesy said:


> That was sarcasm, right? You aren't suggesting that is why women in burqa's shouldn't be allowed to vote?


It was not sarcasm, and the Burka is not "a part" of Islam; but a part of a heretical belief system that pretends to be Islam. If it was "a part" of Islam, they'd wear the Burka in Turkey. Militancy has no place in the land of the free, and we have seen the rise of a dangerous wave of Fundamentalism in our own nation. And not only Islamacists whose noxious beliefs poison the very faith that they pretent to emulate; but that of the Christian Fundamentalists who are heretical sinners.

The right to vote is a sacred right and should be treated with respect. Anyone could enter and vote with a towel covering their face; and such disgracefuil and sin filled behaviours do not have a place within this nation. If they want to worship the infidel Osama, they should go live with his regime of crazed zealots without freedom and without any respect, because in the world of Osama, mankind is but animals to slaughter for a cheap thrill, and women are there just to rape for a cheap thrill. And that is not sarcastic, but the entire truth of the infidel Osama and his band of sinners.

If one can not stand up for their own freedom, then how can we continue to pretend that this nation is a democracy?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe in your circles a good soaking in urine is enjoyable but not in mine.XX) Whatever fills your boots.
> Those are all things I'm gleefully ignorant of and I wish to remain so. I also want the same for my kids since its my responsibility after all to teach them morals.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Just because you find some idiotic pamphlet on the internet doesn't make it a true artefact of real life.

Let me spell out "projection" for you though: very likely your objections to homosexuality indicate that it runs deep inside you, yourself. (As for the concept of schizophrenia, it hasn't meant what you think it means for about 30 years or so.)

Now, when you turn up some actual facts instead being a hatemonger, let us know.

Also, defending other people's rights doesn't make a person one thing or another, except for a defender of rights.

And since none of the things that frighten you so deeply actually happen, except in your own mind, keeping on about it very much continues to say more about you and not your targets.

Chances are if you ever met any homosexuals you would find them to be far more normal than yourself. Unfortunately, hate is blinding, and you'll likely never appreciate this.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That was sarcasm, right? You aren't suggesting that is why women in burqa's shouldn't be allowed to vote?


Pretty sure it wasn't sarcasm, since Al Qaeda has no requirement that women wear burqas.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> He tends to play that card a lot. How is socially acceptable to stomp on religion left, right and center, but as soon as you say something negative about a gay lifestyle you're a homophobe?


Show me where I've "stomped" on religion (as opposed to "organized religion"). Better yet, show me how MacGuiver isn't a homophobe.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Show me where I've "stomped" on religion (as opposed to "organized religion"). Better yet, show me how MacGuiver isn't a homophobe.


LOL!! Those nasty "organized" religions. Tell me how a religion isn't organized? New agers would get that title yet they're extremely organized. New age retreats, new age gurus, new age authors instructing on how to do it right. Conferences. Just what the heck is an "unorganized religion anyhow? 

Oh and you're membership card is in the mail on that nasty homophobic statement about our gay priests.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Membership in what?

This was your statement btw: "And I agree with you that we have a problem with homosexuality in the priesthood."

Unfortunately, you did not understand my statement. I don't care if your church is full of people of any one or several kinds or another; the fact is that "homosexuals" don't prey on children, predators prey on children. And your church does appear to have too many predators.




MacGuiver said:


> LOL!! Those nasty "organized" religions. Tell me how a religion isn't organized? New agers would get that title yet they're extremely organized. New age retreats, new age gurus, new age authors instructing on how to do it right. Conferences. Just what the heck is an "unorganized religion anyhow?
> 
> Oh and you're membership card is in the mail on that nasty homophobic statement about our gay priests.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> the fact is that "homosexuals" don't prey on children, predators prey on children. And your church does appear to have too many predators.


So you're saying homosexuals are absolutely incapable of preying on children? Thats amazing! With stats like that, I'll be registering my kids in the first all gay staffed daycare center and summer camp I can find.
The obvious answer to the abuse crisis is restricting the priesthood to gays only. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Most predators are sexually repressed.

Religion sexually represses people.

Ergo, religion creates more sexual predators.

Teaching "Christian Morals and Ethics" to your children will increase the likelihood that they will be sexual predators.

....on the flip side....

Sexual orientation is biological.

Biology was 'created by God'.

Ergo, 'God' created homosexuals.

...therefore...

Teaching "Christian Morals and Ethics" and religion to your children is contrary to the 'will of God' and actually most likely will doom them to an eternity in hell.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> The obvious answer to the abuse crisis is restricting the priesthood to gays only.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Maybe, since most sexual predators identify themselves as heterosexuals.

Or maybe it's not biology that creates a sexual predator. Maybe it's sexual repression brought on by numerous factors (like religion).


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I am not quite sure what homophobes and pederast priests have to do with Ontario flaming tory glory balls?

Every institution has the problem of sexual predators. It is not a part of the Catechism of the Church, nor does the Church promote it as some kind of ideal lifestyle. It is something that regretably happens and has nothing to do with religion, organized or not; nor does it have anything to do with homosexuality, transsexuality, or for that matter, any kind of sexuality. Pederasty is nothing more than an act of violence, a crime not unlike battery or murder; and should be, as it is, dealt with in that manner. No one proposes closing down a school because of pederast teachers; so no one should point an accusing finger at the Church in the same light.

The Church has long since railed against such immoral behaviours; the Apostle Paul's epistles to the Corinthians in a damning testimony to such abberant behaviours, behaviours so bad that Nero himself chose to stay in Corinth for an extended period of time "for the festivities". Not to say that the lunatic fringe actually understands what Paul brings to light...

To be sure, the Church through it's byzantine and theocratic process, does not bring any transparency to the matters. But then again, the Church is, and has never been, a font of liberal democracy. These matters, though publicised by a press that all too often does not understand what it reports and comments on, are resolved through the application of Canon Law; as well as the Criminal Law of tha nation. It is explicit within the Catechism of the Church that the Criminal Law of the nation shall come into play, and the Church even condones the application of the death penalty, though the Church itself can not sentence a person to death. (Even during the Inquisition, any 'criminal' was turned over to civil authorities for the application of the death penalty, though the Inquisitors were allowed to apply various forms of extreme torture so long as it did not cause death.)

This does not, in any ways, have anything to do with Ontario Tories, or any political party whatsoever. Nor does it apply to the school system, taxation, homosexuality, Constitutional rights, or anything else of such nature. It is the supreme responsibility of any government to ensure the fair and equitable application of rights upon the people, under the terms of the Constitutional Instrument that regulates their own powers. And no matter what Mr. Tory says during the heat of a campaign, he is, if elected, bound to the same Constitutional Instument, the same Jurisprudence, and the same responsibilities to the People as anyone else elected to said position.

Our legislators do not always do the right thing, and hence, the balance of power that brings oversight in the form of the Judiciary, guarantor of those same rights brought forth to the people by the founders of this nation. It is up to the electorate to be sure to select those who stand for integrity, those who will make those decisions in a fair and equitable manner, for this is what composes that which we call patriotism. And it is also up to the electorate to make sure that those who lied, sinned and cheated during their stay at the legislature are ejected with haste; otherwise we as an electorate promote those acts of class warfare that are not very different from the acts of violence that the pederast priest promotes.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Most predators are sexually repressed.
> 
> Religion sexually represses people.
> 
> ...


Show me the proof its biological? To the best of my knowledge, thats really just an assumption. Identical twins have ended up with opposite sexual orientations yet they're genetically the same.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Maybe, since most sexual predators identify themselves as heterosexuals.
> 
> Or maybe it's not biology that creates a sexual predator. Maybe it's sexual repression brought on by numerous factors (like religion).


LOL!!.Yeah Paul and Carla were really sexually oppressed. Bunch a prudes they were. 
I think they tried every move in that Little Black Book I posted earlier.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Show me the proof its biological? To the best of my knowledge, thats really just an assumption.


That statement right there again shows how ignorant you are. I feel sorry for your kids, growing up in a household where knowledge and intellect is frowned upon, but ignorance and blind faith and devotion are rewarded. Welcome to the Dark Ages.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> So you're saying homosexuals are absolutely incapable of preying on children? Thats amazing! With stats like that, I'll be registering my kids in the first all gay staffed daycare center and summer camp I can find.
> The obvious answer to the abuse crisis is restricting the priesthood to gays only.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Try to follow along. Read slowly. I'm saying that you don't have to be homosexual to prey on children. Of course, you know this, but are having trouble grasping it. Read it again if you need to.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Try to follow along. Read slowly. I'm saying that you don't have to be homosexual to prey on children. Of course, you know this, but are having trouble grasping it. Read it again if you need to.


Maybe you should type it slowly...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> Most predators are sexually repressed. Religion sexually represses people. Ergo, religion creates more sexual predators.


Actually, "sexual" predators are addicted to "violence by other means". It has nothing to do with sexuality or love, or for that matter, religion. It is little different from prison sex, which is the same expression of violence. Predators are not sexually repressed, but are dysfunctional in other areas.

Religion is a system of belief created by God; Cults are a system of belief created by Man. No religion promotes violence, but rather, promotes social order and a system of morality.

Religion does not 'sexually repress" people, but rather teaches a moral lifestyle. Such acts as fournication are looked down upon simply because it places the sex act above the true bond of love between people. Though there are those people who are unmarried that lead a moral lifestyle with their partner; there are a greater number of people that engage in such acts simply for a cheap thrill devoid of any love or respect for the other person. Such an act is little different from those acts that are railed upon by society, only cloaked behind the patina of "between consenting adults".

Priests engage in pederasy not because of their pledge of celebacy, but out of the violence and criminality that lurk inside of them. Out of the 800,000 Catholic priests in the world, only a tiny minority of them engage in such profane acts. And ergo, religion does not create sexual predators, but impulses created within the hypothalamus of the brain...



> Teaching "Christian Morals and Ethics" to your children will increase the likelihood that they will be sexual predators.


With 2 Billion Christians in the world, there should be a fair number of sexual predators. But since there isn't; and since those acts of violence are also perpetrated in the lands of other faiths, like China, Japan, India, etc., it should be quite the plague. (And similar behaviour is observed in the animal kingdom, as Jane Goodall found out.) But it isn't, and sexual predators are just that, and it has nothing to do with religion or even the Conservative Party.



> Sexual orientation is biological. Biology was 'created by God'. Ergo, 'God' created homosexuals.


So are you sugesting that since God created the Universe, he also built the Peep Show downtown, not to mention crack houses and Harley-Davidson motorcycles?



> Teaching "Christian Morals and Ethics" and religion to your children is contrary to the 'will of God' and actually most likely will doom them to an eternity in hell.


Osama may say such a thing... Teaching a system of morality and ethics is important in the development of a child. There is nothing wrong with a system of Christian morals, just as their is nothing wrong in teaching a system of Taoist, Jainist, Sihkist, Hinduist, Shintoist, Confuscanist, Buddhist, Islamic, or whatever system of religious morality. We live in a nation built upon a foundation of Christian morality, adapted to the practical reality that we give latitude to those of other faiths, Abrahamic or otherwise; because it is precisely because of our Christian morality that people are allowed to practice the faith of their selection; so long as they abide by the system of laws as guaranteed by the Constitution.

As Jesus demonstrated, The City of God has ample room for all of those who embrace God, and who embrace universal love through the rejection of sin and evil. And yes, there is even room in The City for the Liberals!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> Show me where I've "stomped" on religion (as opposed to "organized religion"). Better yet, show me how MacGuiver isn't a homophobe.


I didn't say you did, religion is being stomped on all over this thread, but as soon as a negative comment appears about homosexuals you come riding in on you white horse to defend them. It just seems in your eyes the rights of peoples sexuality trumps that of peoples right to religion, or else you would be spending your two cents on both sides.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> I didn't say you did, religion is being stomped on all over this thread, but as soon as a negative comment appears about homosexuals you come riding in on you white horse to defend them. It just seems in your eyes the rights of peoples sexuality trumps that of peoples right to religion, or else you would be spending your two cents on both sides.


Thanks for the confirmation that I didn't "stomp" on religion.

As for defending the rights of others, when that becomes a bad thing, let us know, okay?

And for the record, the appropriate symbol for defending this group would be a rainbow horse. I'm just saying.

As for defending one right as 'trumping' another, again, this is your invention, not mine.


----------



## Daktari (Feb 21, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Pretented or fabricated? Nice try!
> OOOOHH HOMOPHOBIA!!!:yawn: I knew that leftist card would be on the top of the deck. Sorry dude but I wouldn't want my heterosexual kids pissing on each other or jamming fists up their asses or other orifices yet alone someone giving instruction to do it. That may be your idea of good wholesome secular fun but its not mine. Maybe they'll get really progressive in the next pamphlet and have a section on gerbil safety.
> ....... (snip)
> 
> ...


:yikes:  

I'm speechless. Seriously, I don't know what to say. Let me gather my thoughts.

o_0


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> That statement right there again shows how ignorant you are. I feel sorry for your kids, growing up in a household where knowledge and intellect is frowned upon, but ignorance and blind faith and devotion are rewarded. Welcome to the Dark Ages.


LOL!! Did you major in Drama in highschool?:clap: 
If that sex ed brochure I pointed to counts for knowledge and intellect these days you can have it. I choose for me and my children to remain blissfully ignorant of your version of sexual morality and you can remain blissfully ignorant of my faith and my family life. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Ignorance is bliss, to some. To others, it's anathema.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Daktari said:


> :yikes:
> 
> I'm speechless. Seriously, I don't know what to say. Let me gather my thoughts.
> 
> o_0


 Yeah so was I when I saw that sex education brochure. 

Cheers 
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Show me the proof its biological?


Asking for proof in the biological sciences simply illustrates your ignorance of what science is and how it works. Empirical sciences *disprove* hypotheses. We don't prove hypotheses.



> To the best of my knowledge, thats really just an assumption.


Your knowledge is not up to date. The existence of a strong genetic component in male sexuality is now fairly well established (female sexuality appears to be much less 'hard-wired'). But sexuality, like most complex behavior, has both learned and genetically determined aspects. So, you are correct that


> Identical twins have ended up with opposite sexual orientations yet they're genetically the same.





As a parent, I sympathize with your wanting your children to be educated in a system that doesn't challenge your beliefs. However, I would much rather my children be exposed to the diversity of reality, even with it's ugliness and myriad memetic viruses, as long as they are well equipped with critical thinking abilities and opportunities to rationally examine the claims and choices available to them. Given the value you place on irrational bronze-age mysticism, I can understand why you might not.

Cheers.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Too funny. It can't be that often that anyone on this board gets called out for being a Bronze Age mysticist, but I'm glad to have witnessed this particular occasion.

I agree with Bryan on this one. I'd rather kids have good critical tools available to them - the chief one being a good head on their shoulders - than rail on about science's alleged flaws - especially when my general knowledge of science is a layman's at best.

I'd say more, but you'll have to excuse me - I have to go to talk to all my gay friends, associates and coworkers and berate them for that shameful urine & pederasty thing.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> As a parent, I sympathize with your wanting your children to be educated in a system that doesn't challenge your beliefs. However, I would much rather my children be exposed to the diversity of reality, even with it's ugliness and myriad memetic viruses, as long as they are well equipped with critical thinking abilities and opportunities to rationally examine the claims and choices available to them. Given the value you place on irrational bronze-age mysticism, I can understand why you might not.
> 
> Cheers.


Oh Bryan you're so witty.:clap: 
I love your brand of intellectually coated bigotry.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Oh Bryan you're so witty.:clap:
> I love your brand of intellectually coated bigotry.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


And I love your bogus pamphlet that you pretend is being handed out to Canadian school children. You have to hold up a pamphlet supposedly handed out to children in Boston in 1995 to express your horrors about a "secular humanist" school system. 
1) I don't believe this was ever handed out as part of a approved school curriculum.
2) You seem to be so empty handed that you have to go to the USA and to 1995 to back up your prejudice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I was correct. This was not part of a curriculum. It was on a table at a conference. 
This is a statement about the booklet:


Fenway Community health said:


> Fenway Community Health expressed regret for accidentally making available HIV prevention materials designed for people over 18 years of age at an April 30 conference attended by middle school and high school-age students, educators, public health workers, college students and others.


So why are you taking this out of context out of country and out of decade? Why no mention of the apology?
Isn't this just a little dishonest?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> And I love your bogus pamphlet that you pretend is being handed out to Canadian school children. You have to hold up a pamphlet supposedly handed out to children in Boston in 1995 to express your horrors about a "secular humanist" school system.
> 1) I don't believe this was ever handed out as part of a approved school curriculum.
> 2) You seem to be so empty handed that you have to go to the USA and to 1995 to back up your prejudice.



Hey Martie

I never claimed it was distributed in Canada and the page I linked clearly indicates that. Judging by the vigorous defense it got here, its safe to assume Liberal minded Canadians would have no problem with it. They certainly didn't share my horror about it going out to kids. In fact they defended it. And these folk want to control the education my kids. No thanks.

You and other also imply this never happened and a few resorted to conspiracy theories that it was made up. If so, why the apology from Fenway County Health?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Hey Martie
> 
> I never claimed it was distributed in Canada and the page I linked clearly indicates that.
> 
> ...


Hmm, that's funny. Near as I can read, I never said it didn't happen. Near as I can read, I said you misrepresented the facts by implying what wasn't true.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

martman said:


> Hmm, that's funny. Near as I can read, I never said it didn't happen. Near as I can read, I said you misrepresented the facts by implying what wasn't true.


No you didn't outright say it didn't happen. But you implied it didn't when you said they "supposedly" handed out pamplets. 

*supposedly* |səˈpōzidlē|
adverb [ sentence adverb ]
according to what is generally assumed or believed *(often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement)*: the ads are aimed at women, supposedly because they do the shopping.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> No you didn't outright say it didn't happen. But you implied it didn't when you said they "supposedly" handed out pamplets.
> 
> *supposedly* |səˈpōzidlē|
> adverb [ sentence adverb ]
> according to what is generally assumed or believed *(often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement)*: the ads are aimed at women, supposedly because they do the shopping.


Pamphlets were not handed out in class and in fact were left on a table at a conference therefore were not "handed out" to anybody.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'll weigh in on this issue. 

I went through private school. All through elementary school I went to a private Christian school, and through high school, which my parents managed to pay for, although they could barely afford it. 

The schools I went through were top notch, although I never excelled acedemically (You can probably tell by my grammar and spelling). There are a lot of boogey-man myths on the issues of private, religious schools. I was taught evolution, and the same curriculam as my friends who went to public school.. we usually had the same text books. On average, the schools excelled academically, and outright kicked butt in sports, especially considering we were usually 1/20th the size of schoo. 

Like mentioned in this thread, there was no Christian scientific theory, it was just learning about science, and isn't it beautiful. 

I did feel somewhat isolated from "the public" or "secular world" as they say. For that reason, its my wife and I's choice not to send our kids to a private school. I prefer the philosophy of an open public schools system. 

Having said that, I'm extremely dismayed at the outright bigotry that is prevelant in Canada, and this thread makes ever so evident. 

Its ironic to me, because people on this thread are making accusations about people who attend private schools, and that there's this idea that they will grow up to be close-minded, bigoted people. 

I've found the exact opposite to be true. When I went to a public college, I was in a social studies course, and there was debates about various topics. I was shocked to hear the biggoted views of many of my fellow students AND faculty. 

I truly find the biggoted views towards people of faith, such as myself, very shocking. Views expressed by several members on this thread. I have absolutely no problem with people who disagree with religion, who are atheist.... and open discussion is great. 

I do have a major problem with biggoted comments that are directed towards people with faith. Its a total crock of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're just as bad as people who say, God hates ****. Bigotry, intolerance etc... is ugly no matter what side of the fence you're on. 

I would love to see a single public school system in Canada (with no special funding to Catholic schools, which is completely unfair), where diversity and difference of opinions is celebrated, and there is freedom of thought, ideas and religion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Hey Martie
> 
> I never claimed it was distributed in Canada and the page I linked clearly indicates that. Judging by the vigorous defense it got here, its safe to assume Liberal minded Canadians would have no problem with it. They certainly didn't share my horror about it going out to kids. In fact they defended it. And these folk want to control the education my kids. No thanks.
> 
> ...


"These people arew in the USA and from 1995. they are not trying to educate your kids. Get over it.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Don't worry too much about this thread Mr. Mayor. We've just used extreme examples to illustrate our points. I'm sure nobody thinks that private schools churn out bad people.

It just seems rather silly that Ontario is holding onto the Catholic School Board when Quebec already dumped theirs.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I think you meant to say harm to society by religion...
> 
> You mean basic like this - higher teen pregnancies in more religious states.....


A good example of what bryanc was commenting on. Over-interpreting. That does not mean the conclusion is wrong, it means that it does not reasonably follow from the given data.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Wolfshead said:


> You mean there's another manner in which to mean incest?


Start with the basic concept of sex between consenting adults being none of the state's business. Now add in reasoning for incest to be considered a "morally" bad thing. It is not so simple when one wants to be truly socially 'progressive' instead of just fashionably progressive.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A good example of what bryanc was commenting on. Over-interpreting. That does not mean the conclusion is wrong, it means that it does not reasonably follow from the given data.


A good example of trying to garner favour while providing zero basis for a contention, then admitting to the original conclusion not being wrong. :clap:.....summary....OBFUSCATION.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> A good example of trying to garner favour while providing zero basis for a contention, then admitting to the original conclusion not being wrong. :clap:.....summary....OBFUSCATION.


Garnering favour? Fiction suits you. Admitting to the original conclusion not being wrong? Comprehension escapes you. Read instead of just being angry at your mistake being pointed out.

"That does not mean the conclusion is wrong, it means that it does not reasonably follow from the given data." 

What part of this would you like me to clarify for you? 

More realistically and according to your practice, if you can replace words in someone else's post to create your own then you can create a rational argument! But, if you are interested in understanding what is going on, please continue...

MD, you have got it quite wrong. You dramatically reduce your analytical standards when you favour a given conclusion. I have seen this many times. We can chat over the cellphone while you drive if you care to discuss it in more detail. When you Believe, you lower your standards and proceed like a good little soldier of Truth. When you do not Believe, the good little skeptic's pencil gets sharpened. 

Let's start from the basics. Do you understand the difference between correlation and causality? We can continue from there when possible. For most people this can actually be a difficult concept, so there is no reason to feel bad about not, "getting it". There would be reason to feel bad if you try to SHOUT and redirect your way through a lack of understanding instead of simply admitting that you truly do not get it as it applies to statistical conclusions in medical and social science research.

I know it is difficult for you to fess up when you make a mistake (many ehmacers know that it is difficult for you, whether or not you realise how obvious that is), but you did make a mistake -- I initially thought that you were just making a joke by providing such an obvious example of bryanc's comment. I was wrong. Apparently you were serious.

Your usual bluster does not change your mistake but nor is your mistake particularly significant. Just say, "oops" and move on instead of trying to SHOUT your way through it. You can always use your standard option two of just disappearing while possibly posting in the thread months later. 

I recommend trying option three: learning from others. You have much more to learn than you seem to be aware of.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ehMax said:


> I truly find the biggoted views towards people of faith, such as myself, very shocking. Views expressed by several members on this thread. I have absolutely no problem with people who disagree with religion, who are atheist.... and open discussion is great.
> 
> I do have a major problem with biggoted comments that are directed towards people with faith. Its a total crock of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're just as bad as people who say, God hates ****. Bigotry, intolerance etc... is ugly no matter what side of the fence you're on.


Religious people tend to take criticism of religion very personally. It's not considered "bigoted" to argue about political matters, or which operating system is better.

Why is it that when religious beliefs are criticised it is always a personal attack?People can be criticised for every other belief that they hold and nobody cries foul.

I did skim through the entire thread and the only "bigotry" I saw was from apparently religious people directed against homosexuals. If there was anything that could be called bigotry against religious people, it seemed to be a reaction to that. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> God help us all they could become more generous!!!
> Religious People Are More Generous, Says Study | Scientific Blogging


Did you read the article? The editor appears to have chosen a title which directly contradicts the content of the study.

"[the study] found that priming people with ‘God concepts’ – by activating subconscious thoughts through word games – promoted altruism. In addition, the researchers found that *this effect was consistent in behaviour whether people declared themselves believers or not. The researchers also found that secular notions of civic responsibility promote cooperation and generosity.*"

There are many other articles around the net about this study, but they use more accurate titles such as "God thoughts influence generosity".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

jasonwood said:


> Why is it that when religious beliefs are criticised it is always a personal attack?People can be criticised for every other belief that they hold and nobody cries foul.


This is one of the most interesting bits of mental judo I know of. You're perfectly correct, of course, but even I feel vaguely uncomfortable criticizing someone's religious beliefs.

It does seem to be an 'elephant in the room' sort of issue... we're all aware of it, but nobody seems willing to talk about it.

From my memetic-analysis POV, it seems to me that this is a necessary adaptive trait for religions, and probably dates back to early superstitions (which may predate the evolution of our species). If religions were held to the same standards of evidence or logic that other complex ideas (economic theories, technical proposals, even educational models) are required to meet, they'd long ago have gone extinct. So religions use arcane traditions full of secret languages (if you say something that is obviously silly or untrue in Latin, it still sounds impressive), distracting ornamentation, stupefying rituals, bizarre costumes, and music to disconnect critical thinking among the flock (I don't know anyone who can concentrate while listening to a pipe-organ). Most importantly, religions focus on indoctrinating the very young, so that the beliefs are well established before the individual matures to the point where becoming skeptical of their elders starts to become normal, and believing in imaginary friends starts to become abnormal. The result of this appears to be a population of otherwise rational people who view the precepts of religious belief to be a special case - one that is not a valid target for critical analysis.

It's certainly a neat trick.

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

double post


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

quoteth by BJ;



> You dramatically reduce your analytical standards when you favour a given conclusion. I have seen this many times.


 

you chastise someone for the lack of their analytical standards and then claim you've seen it "many" times

thanks for my morning laugh


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MS: What's the big stupid grin about? He says he's seen it many times. What's your point?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Evidently Spec would rather he come up with a precise figure - an accurate tally, no less!

Apparently we all are deserving of such exactitude and nothing less is acceptable. This board has standards to operate on, you know!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> you chastise someone for the lack of their analytical standards and then claim you've seen it "many" times


You seem to be confusing a statement about what I've seen someone do many times when "debating" with...expecting a statistical analysis and theoretical framework for causality related to said debates? 

Oh dear. You are a little out of your depth here. Keep smiling; move along.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's sad to see people stepping into the fray with neither knowledge nor armour--tin foil hat notwithstanding.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> It's sad to see people stepping into the fray with neither knowledge nor armour--tin foil hat notwithstanding.


Does bitterness and simplicity count as knowledge and armour, at least in the "mind" of the one that wields them?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej said:


> Does bitterness and simplicity count as knowledge and armour, at least in the "mind" of the one that wields them?


Definitely--but they take a royal beating when they gird their loins with such protection.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Definitely--but they take a royal beating when they gird their loins with such protection.


After such a beating, they can always just cast out their net of hatred in an attempt to entangle the "evil" ones. 

To the one doing the casting it may seem like quite the bold and effective manoeuvre. Some magic spirits may be required at that point to keep the dream-world alive.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> You seem to be confusing a statement about what I've seen someone do many times when "debating" with...expecting a statistical analysis and theoretical framework for causality related to said debates?
> 
> Oh dear. You are a little out of your depth here. Keep smiling; move along.


so "many" now qualifies as an "analytical standard?"

i'm waiting for your book; "Beejanomics"

a proposed passage;

"Don't get confused by 'statistics' or 'discrete numbers' when trying to figure out the economy. Let us just say that the economy does many things."

I'm sure your first year ECO100Y teacher would be impressed.

I wonder if that qualifies as casting a "net of hatred."


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> This is one of the most interesting bits of mental judo I know of. You're perfectly correct, of course, but even I feel vaguely uncomfortable criticizing someone's religious beliefs.
> 
> It does seem to be an 'elephant in the room' sort of issue... we're all aware of it, but nobody seems willing to talk about it.


There is plenty to criticise, ridicule and dismiss regarding religion and its underlying delusions of objective morality, but the above is an odd argument to make. 

One, there is plenty of criticism of religion out there or, better yet, outright dismissal from relevant debates. Sure, some more critical thinking would be great -- from all perspectives. But, perhaps you are referring to specific circumstances underwhich religion is not challenged? Like not discussing religion or politics at the dinner table?

Second, when your "ethical" framework decision regarding having one kid versus two was questioned -- as the irrelevant sky-daddy personal coping mechanism that it is and that you are free to pass on to others -- you became quite irritated. It may have been myself, MF or someone else. 

So I thought that you may be more aware of how that sort of discussion is different than others. Maybe not knowledgeable regarding the "why" (some weird chemical thing in the "faith" section of our brain?) but more aware. 

Some people get quite irritated when their personal coping mechanism (personal moral compass; delusional sky-daddy ethical framework; 2000 year old story book; etc.) is criticised, questioned and/or dismissed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> so "many" now qualifies as an "analytical standard?"


The point went right over your head. Would you like me to quantify by how much? <-- So, now do you get it?

Let's try this:
"I'm sure your first year ECO100Y teacher would be impressed."

You use the word, "sure" yet provide no insight into that determination. <-- So now do you get it?

I doubt it because, as I said, you are a little out of your depth. But, hey, keep using the bitterness and simplicity if it makes you feel like you are sparring.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I would compare this to the devout believers in environmental global catastrophe who become unreasonably upset when someone disagres with them. I'm simply happy to co-exist with people who have wrongly held beliefs that don't match mine--this type becomes furious and antagonistic. 

I also see similar behavious in people who love one particular political party unreasonably--say the Liberals. Or hate another with similar unreason--the Conservatves, for example.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I also see similar behavious in people who love one particular political party unreasonably--say the Liberals. Or hate another with similar unreason--the Conservatves, for example.


Are you saying that you unconditionally love the Conservatives and everything that they do and propose and hate the Liberals and everything that they do and propose? <-- Now that's 'spectacular "logic".


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I believe he is joking, Beej, in his customary black way. In any case, first time I read it, I laughed out loud, it was so outrageous. Or you could view it simply as baiting. Perhaps its a 50-50 thing. In any case, I don't consider MF remotely serious about this matter.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> I believe he is joking, Beej, in his customary black way. In any case, first time I read it, I laughed out loud, it was so outrageous. Or you could view it simply as baiting. Perhaps its a 50-50 thing. In any case, I don't consider MF remotely serious about this matter.


Quite likely. Furthermore, I believe that I was joking in my post. Actually, I know that I was joking. Note that I have not completed my analysis yet, so be wary when interpreting the words, "furthermore", "believe", and "know". I'm trying to stay up to 'spec on these things after all.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

jasonwood said:


> Religious people tend to take criticism of religion very personally. It's not considered "bigoted" to argue about political matters, or which operating system is better.
> 
> Why is it that when religious beliefs are criticised it is always a personal attack?People can be criticised for every other belief that they hold and nobody cries foul.
> 
> I did skim through the entire thread and the only "bigotry" I saw was from apparently religious people directed against homosexuals. If there was anything that could be called bigotry against religious people, it seemed to be a reaction to that. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Hey Jason. Operating system preference isn't quite the same as freedom of religion with is protected in both the constitution and charter of rights. 

I totally respect your point of view, ideas, thoughts, beliefs. What I don't respect from anyone on ehMac.ca, is totally bigoted, rude, and insulting attitudes. Bigoted being one obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinion and prejudiced against those who hold a different opinion. 

Or to put it another way, I don't like coming on my site, and being told that I'm stupid in many different rude ways, for my beliefs. I also don't like being lumped into one big group and assumed that because "I'm religious" I hold certain beliefs or attitudes. I don't like bigotry and rudeness from any side of any debate. (Not saying, I have never been guilty of this)


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

Looks like I'm late to this party.

My opinion: pull your kids out and homeschool em. Starve another extension of the government beast!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> Quite likely. Furthermore, I believe that I was joking in my post. Actually, I know that I was joking. Note that I have not completed my analysis yet, so be wary when interpreting the words, "furthermore", "believe", and "know". I'm trying to stay up to 'spec on these things after all.


add "many" to your list of pseudo-quantitative terms to avoid


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> I have been running errands *most* of the day and haven't been watching *too much* tv today.


We need actual minutes here. How much is "too much?" Let's apply the tough Spec standard here.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Please let's don't. I'd rather try to quarter an atom with a chainsaw.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Please let's don't. I'd rather try to quarter an atom with a chainsaw.


An atom of what?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

?


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ehMax said:


> What I don't respect from anyone on ehMac.ca, is totally bigoted, rude, and insulting attitudes. Bigoted being one obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinion and prejudiced against those who hold a different opinion.
> 
> Or to put it another way, I don't like coming on my site, and being told that I'm stupid in many different rude ways, for my beliefs. I also don't like being lumped into one big group and assumed that because "I'm religious" I hold certain beliefs or attitudes. I don't like bigotry and rudeness from any side of any debate. (Not saying, I have never been guilty of this)


I may have missed part of the conversation (or perhaps read it in a frame of mind that wasn't conducive to picking these things up). So let me just clarify what I think because now I feel like I'm being "lumped in" with a group I might not wish to be lumped in with.

I don't hold any prejudice against someone who identifies themself as "religious". I have very religious family members who I love irrespective of their religious beliefs. I have had very religious co-workers who I count among my closest friends (and I don't have a lot of friends!!). There are religious people who I admire a great deal.

But respect for a person, or even their right to believe whatever they wish does not mean you have to respect what they believe, especially when they bring it into the public squre. When someone believes tax dollars should be used to teach creationism in public schools, they have to be prepared to defend that position. As much value as the creation story might have in the lives of many, there is no good reason to teach it in schools as if it might actually be true.

It isn't about banishing religion from schools. I'd be a huge supporter of a mandatory comparative religion class in schools. Kids should learn about all religions.

The current school system in Ontario is unfair. A single religion is receiving full school funding while no other is. But the answer is not to fund all religions. This will only further ghettoize our children. The answer is to have one secular public school system where everyone can go to school together. And if you don't like it then you are absolutely free to home school or pay for private school. So far the only party to endorse this obvious solution is the Green Party.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The current school system in Ontario is unfair. A single religion is receiving full school funding while no other is.


I have kids in Catholic School and I agree about the funding. It was guaranteed by the BNA Act and the constitution I believe but I think its not fair to people of other faiths to pay taxes for education and see nothing in return. The Belgian system would be fantastic. The US style education system you desire is in shambles. If you think the Unions have an iron grip on your kids now, just wait.
By the way, Catholic schools don't teach creation science.



> But the answer is not to fund all religions. This will only further ghettoize our children.


In my life experience that's a total myth. My best friends growing up were all in Public School. There was never any friction or segregation due to my being in a Catholic school. My own kids have friends from all faiths or none at all. People do have a life outside of school. 

I think your argument could have merit if we were talking about indian reserves.



> The answer is to have one secular public school system where everyone can go to school together.


Its moral issues that are the deal breaker. Like it or not, the public system espouses a secular humanist belief system which can often be in sharp contrast to many people's "ism" of choice.
As it stands, if you take away funding tomorrow many will still opt out. We see people now taking their kids out of the public system at great personal expense and that won't change. Just more people will be robbed of their taxes.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> It was guaranteed by the BNA Act and the constitution I believe but I think its not fair to people of other faiths to pay taxes for education and see nothing in return.


1) It's not guaranteed anywhere. If it was, there would still be a publicly funded Catholic School Board in Quebec.

2) You are correct. It is unfair that people of other faiths don't have the option to have their schools publicly funded. That's why we should remove public funds from the Catholic School Board. Then all faiths will be treated equally - they will receive zero money from the government. It would be kinda like a separation of church and state....that's just crazy!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> 1) It's not guaranteed anywhere. If it was, there would still be a publicly funded Catholic School Board in Quebec.
> 
> 2) You are correct. It is unfair that people of other faiths don't have the option to have their schools publicly funded. That's why we should remove public funds from the Catholic School Board. Then all faiths will be treated equally - they will receive zero money from the government. It would be kinda like a separation of church and state....that's just crazy!


Guy your mind is somewhere on the other side of Lake Ontario. Separation of Church and State is an article in the US constitution, not ours. Granted its often erroneously sited by the anti-religion folk as if it were in ours. In fact our constitution is quite emphatic about protecting religious rights and freedoms.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Guy your mind is somewhere on the other side of Lake Ontario. Separation of Church and State is an article in the US constitution, not ours. Granted its often erroneously sited by the anti-religion folk as if it were in ours. In fact our constitution is quite emphatic about protecting religious rights and freedoms.


Separation of Church and State is more than words in the US Constitution. It's a concept that protects people in many countries around the world.

Protection of religious rights and freedoms does not mean forcing the government to support any religion. It just means the government can't force people NOT to practice their religion.

Since religion is a personal matter, it should only encompass the person, his home, and his church (or temple, or whatever), and that is it (to a certain extent - we don't allow the sacrificing of virgins in this country).

Taking money from a secular society to promote your own religious agenda in the public space (i.e. schools) isn't protection of religion. It's a waste of government tax dollars. If you are insecure in your own beliefs that you need government money to support it, you need to reexamine your faith.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

There are a bunch of posts after this one, but due to ehMac issues, they are not showing up. D'oh!


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Guy your mind is somewhere on the other side of Lake Ontario. Separation of Church and State is an article in the US constitution, not ours. Granted its often erroneously sited by the anti-religion folk as if it were in ours. In fact our constitution is quite emphatic about protecting religious rights and freedoms.


Separation of Church and State is more than words in the US Constitution. It's a concept that protects people in many countries around the world.

Protection of religious rights and freedoms does not mean forcing the government to support any religion. It just means the government can't force people NOT to practice their religion.

Since religion is a personal matter, it should only encompass the person, his home, and his church (or temple, or whatever), and that is it (to a certain extent - we don't allow the sacrificing of virgins in this country).

Taking money from a secular society to promote your own religious agenda in the public space (i.e. schools) isn't protection of religion. It's a waste of government tax dollars. If you are so insecure in your own beliefs that you need government money to support it, you need to reexamine your faith.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Hmmm...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Can't see replies. ehMac needs 911.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> Can't see replies. ehMac needs 911.


Six days of separation?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Taking money from a secular society to promote your own religious agenda in the public space (i.e. schools) isn't protection of religion. It's a waste of government tax dollars If you are insecure in your own beliefs that you need government money to support it, you need to reexamine your faith.


I wasn't aware Catholics (30% of Ontarians) don't pay taxes and therefor don't contribute to the funding of their own schools? I must call my accountant.  

As for insecurity, I'm quite secure with my beliefs and with the current system, and even an expanded one that allows others to espouse their own. Why do you insist on forcing everyone into a single school system that only promotes "your" atheistic world view 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> I wasn't aware Catholics (30% of Ontarians) don't pay taxes and therefor don't contribute to the funding of their own schools? I must call my accountant.


Having two school systems creates extra administration and overhead, depriving students of a better education. The insistence to have a private school board causes less money to be spent on the kids.



MacGuiver said:


> As for insecurity, I'm quite secure with my beliefs and with the current system, and even an expanded one that allows others to espouse their own.


Again, if you are so insecure in your own beliefs that you need government money to support it, you need to reexamine your faith.



MacGuiver said:


> Why do you insist on forcing everyone into a single school system that only promotes "your" atheistic world view


I wasn't aware that math, grammar, geography, and history are "atheistic" views. Or maybe the Catholic view of history ignores things like the Holocaust and pedophiliac tendencies within the church.


----------



## Chantal (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm a bit too tired to read through all of the posts in this thread right now. I do want to say something though at the risk that it may have already been said. 

I don't feel that religion has any place in schools unless it is limited to history class. (IMHO most of the religion related subject matter in history class will probably revolve around how religion has caused so much turmoil in this world.) I don't have an issue with private schools, as long as they aren't private religious schools. Education and religion just don't mix. I don't even like the idea of Catholic schools, even though we already have them.

If parents want their kids to learn their religion, they should be teaching them at home, sending them to church, the synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship.

Why would you want some stranger teaching your kid about your religion without you present anyway?


----------



## Chantal (Sep 14, 2007)

I totally agree with you there. Problem is, the Liberals wouldn't go as far as to say that. They'd lose the Catholic vote (political suicide) if they did. :lmao: 

Anyway, I think the politicians are bringing up this religion thing to distract us from other issues. It seems to be working, because that is all anyone talks about now.

Sneaky, eh?



jasonwood said:


> The answer is to have one secular public school system where everyone can go to school together. And if you don't like it then you are absolutely free to home school or pay for private school. So far the only party to endorse this obvious solution is the Green Party.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Chantal said:


> Why would you want some stranger teaching your kid about your religion without you present anyway?


Likewise why would I want some stranger teaching my kids their brand of sexual and social morality which could be in complete contradiction to the faith and morals I'd like them to have? I don't have that concern with the Catholic Schools. If it was all reading, writing and math they're really wouldn't be an issue but schooling goes far beyond that. I don't want my kids to be in an environment where mention of Christ, Easter or Christmas is as forbidden as four letter words. Where the Christmas pageant is replaced with the Holiday pageant and anything closely symbolizing their faith is treated like a pariah. We live in a small town and the public school "Holiday pageant" would please the most militant atheist.

As far as the "stranger" teaching my child about the faith we belong to, we're all Catholics and understand the faith from the same catechism. The religion classes are also approved by the church so why would I fear this religion class again? Also judging from how well the Catholic students have scored in standardized testing, the religion component hasn't had a negative impact on core curriculum results either.

You then go on to say if they taught religion in History it would focus on the trouble it causes around the world? Then you wonder why parents of faith are reluctant to send their children to the Public Board. Sorta sounds like education Soviet Union style to me.

I think if you scratch hard enough at the thin veneer of many of those insistent on a one and only secular humanist school system, you'll find an atheist with a deep seated hatred for people of faith and aspirations of "converting" their children.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> .. you'll find an atheist with a deep seated hatred for people of faith and aspirations of "converting" their children.


hmm, is that something Jesus would say?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Likewise why would I want some stranger teaching my kids their brand of sexual and social morality which could be in complete contradiction to the faith and morals I'd like them to have? I don't have that concern with the Catholic Schools.


Last time I checked, they teach cold hard facts about sex in school. Diseases, condoms, pregnancy, abstinence, etc. It's actually quite pathetic that the 'Christian' view is to teach nothing of fact in the matter, instead resorting to preaching ignorance and fear. It's no wonder that more religious states in the US have a higher teen pregnancy problem. Odd that someone who wants to teach Christian 'moralities' is leading their children down a path that would be considered anti-Christian.



MacGuiver said:


> If it was all reading, writing and math they're really wouldn't be an issue but schooling goes far beyond that. I don't want my kids to be in an environment where mention of Christ, Easter or Christmas is as forbidden as four letter words. Where the Christmas pageant is replaced with the Holiday pageant and anything closely symbolizing their faith is treated like a pariah. We live in a small town and the public school "Holiday pageant" would please the most militant atheist.


Meh, I have issues with the stand of militant atheists when it comes to things like this. I have no problems with the terms Easter and Christmas. They have dual meanings - secular (Easter Bunny and eggs, Christmas Tree and Santa Claus), and religious (Christ dying, Christ being born - you Christians sure have a 'Christ' fetish going on). It's kinda stupid not to teach the origins of these holidays. It's history. They don't need to preach the faith, they just have to teach history.



MacGuiver said:


> As far as the "stranger" teaching my child about the faith we belong to, we're all Catholics and understand the faith from the same catechism. The religion classes are also approved by the church so why would I fear this religion class again?


You put more faith in a book of broken-telephone produced 1500 years ago and an organization that has repeatedly throughout history lied to people to protect itself. How can you trust them? Faith? Trusting that more than modern day evidence (i.e. teaching abstinence as the ONLY form of sexual education leads to more problems than a broader curriculum) is quite silly.



MacGuiver said:


> You then go on to say if they taught religion in History it would focus on the trouble it causes around the world? Then you wonder why parents of faith are reluctant to send their children to the Public Board. Sorta sounds like education Soviet Union style to me.


Does that mean you are comfortable with lying to your children in order to promote your faith? Doesn't seem very moral.



MacGuiver said:


> I think if you scratch hard enough at the thin veneer of many of those insistent on a one and only secular humanist school system, you'll find an atheist with a deep seated hatred for people of faith and aspirations of "converting" their children.


Children are born atheists. Parents convert them.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

"Faith" is the very antithesis of "education". Therefore, the concept "faith-based education" is oxymoronic, a fundamental contradiction in terms. 

How can organisations which are based on circling the wagons in blind adherence to some myth be expected to encourage the inquiry and exploration which we expect from education?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There are people who put far too much faith in atheism. So much so, that it has become their very own religion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC said:


> There are people who put far too much faith in atheism. So much so, that it has become their very own religion.


SINC gets it. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

rgray said:


> "Faith" is the very antithesis of "education". Therefore, the concept "faith-based education" is oxymoronic, a fundamental contradiction in terms.
> 
> How can organisations which are based on circling the wagons in blind adherence to some myth be expected to encourage the inquiry and exploration which we expect from education?


That must explains why Catholic kids are doing better in standardized testing than Public School kids. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> That must explains why Catholic kids are doing better in standardized testing than Public School kids.


And why Catholics have a higher rate of teen pregnancy and divorce.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> And why Catholics have a higher rate of teen pregnancy and divorce.


Got any stats to back that up or are you just throwing out fallacious arguments?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

SINC said:


> There are people who put far too much faith in atheism. So much so, that it has become their very own religion.


Funny.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> hmm, is that something Jesus would say?


Yes. 



> "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
> If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.


From the sheer hate and anger expressed from some of the good worldly secular folk here I'd say thats true.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> There are people who put far too much faith in atheism. So much so, that it has become their very own religion.


What a strange idea. How can one have 'faith' in the absence of a belief?

It must be one of those Zen things... like the sound of one hand clapping.

You've really bent my mind Sensei SINC.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> What a strange idea. How can one have 'faith' in the absence of a belief?
> 
> It must be one of those Zen things... like the sound of one hand clapping.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as absence of belief.

Those who choose religion believe there is a higher being.

Atheists believe there is no higher being. (IE: Atheists have faith there is no higher being.)

Therefore atheism becomes a form of religion.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Got any stats to back that up or are you just throwing out fallacious arguments?


http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
*Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.*

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html
*The Barna Research Group's national study showed that members of nondenominational churches divorce 34 percent of the time in contrast to 25 percent for the general population. Nondenominational churches would include large numbers of Bible churches and other conservative evangelicals. Baptists had the highest rate of the major denominations: 29 percent. Born-again Christians' rate was 27 percent. To make matters even more distressing for believers, atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate of divorce 21 percent.*

http://www.coolnurse.com/teen_pregnancy_rates.htm
*The United States of America has double the adolescent pregnancy and birth rates of any other industrialized country. Why? Because we don't educate about birth control in sex education classes, we don't discuss it at home, we don't give teens good access to it, and we don't advertise it in our media. Other countries do, and they are rewarded with low rates of teen pregnancy and teen abortions. But, you say, making condoms available in school-based clinics would ‘give kids the wrong idea’. In fact, 5 recent research studies indicate that it doesn't.*

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
*The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world. “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies."*

But I know...your *faith* says otherwise, so truth is subjective.



MacGuiver said:


> That must explains why Catholic kids are doing better in standardized testing than Public School kids.


Got any stats to back that up or are you just throwing out fallacious arguments?


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

SINC said:


> There is no such thing as absence of belief.
> 
> Those who choose religion believe there is a higher being.
> 
> ...


Interesting argument, but faith is the belief that something exists without proof.

Atheists don't have faith.

If you want to take the broader meaning of religion, then yes, Atheism is a religion. The benefit is that our moral code is our own, not something dictated by any 'God'.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Atheists don't have faith.


I don't know, from the sounds of it all of you have a lot of faith that science is going to explain all the mysteries of the universe to you.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas
> *Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.*
> 
> Barna survey: Baptists have highest divorce rate
> ...


Problem with your stats Guy. I don't live in the Southern United States and I'm a Catholic, not an Evangelical Protestant. More Fud 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Got any stats to back that up or are you just throwing out fallacious arguments?


Sure.

democraticSPACE.com/blog

Cheers 
MacGuiver


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

So now it comes down to what is more important to you:

Good grades with a higher likelihood of teenage pregnancy and divorce rate.

or

Lower grades, but less likelihood of teenage pregnancy and a stronger marriage.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> There is no such thing as absence of belief.


So you have beliefs about the spin states of nutrinos in the atoms of your fingernails? There are lots of things that I'm sure you have no knowledge of at all. How can you formulate beliefs about such things?

I have no knowledge of gods, demons, invisible space pixies, or life forms on other planets, so I have no beliefs about these things. I do, however, have knowledge about the _stories_ people tell about some of these things, and I have beliefs about the _stories_. 



> Those who choose religion believe there is a higher being.


Don't you think it's odd that one would 'choose' to believe something. Do you _choose_ to believe you are typing on a computer, or do you formulate your beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence?

If I were not constrained to formulate beliefs on the basis of reason and evidence, I would certainly have very different beliefs, but then, what use would they be?

Nevertheless, I concede that there do seem to be a lot of people who believe in a 'higher being' and I can think of no reason they would form such a belief, so you're probably right... they just 'choose' to. It's completely incomprehensible to me, but there it is. At any rate, these people are called "Theists" (or "Polytheists" if they believe in the existence of more than one of these entities).



> Atheists believe there is no higher being.


I've never met anyone who holds this belief. There is a subtle but profound logical difference between the statements "I believe there is no god" and "I don't believe there is a God". The latter is the position of Atheism ("A" = 'without', "theism" = "belief in god(s)", therefore "atheism"="without belief in god(s)").

You're statement above is a common misconception, and philosophical straw-man, regarding atheism.



> (IE: Atheists have faith there is no higher being.)


Lacking beliefs does not require faith.



> Therefore atheism becomes a form of religion.


If anyone holds the beliefs you attribute to atheism, you're right, however all atheists I know (including me) do not have these beliefs.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> So now it comes down to what is more important to you:
> 
> Good grades with a higher likelihood of teenage pregnancy and divorce rate.
> 
> ...


You've yet to prove Catholic school kids are getting knocked up more than Public School ones. The only reason I sighted the grades is because Rgray was saying religion is an impediment to learning. I was simply proving otherwise.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> You've yet to prove Catholic school kids are getting knocked up more than Public School ones. The only reason I *sighted *the grades is because Rgray was saying religion is an impediment to learning. I was simply proving otherwise.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Catholic girls really go; nudge, nudge, _etc_.

("Sighted"? Shouldn't this be a thread influenced by our quality edumacation?)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm getting so tired of Guy's rants I'm switching my vote back to Conservative.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> Catholic girls really go; nudge, nudge, _etc_.
> 
> ("Sighted"? Shouldn't this be a thread influenced by our quality edumacation?)


LOL!
Sorry spelling cop, that should be "sited". I stand corrected. If only I'd gone to Public School I'd surely never make such errors. 

Now give yourself a nice pat on the head for demonstrating your superior intellect by posting such a compelling argument against Catholic Schools.:lmao: 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

BUZZZ!

You FAIL again!

It should have been "*cited*."

No kidding, you really would have been better off in public school.

I wonder as a high school student if you could have even managed the directions for opening that condom package....

: )



MacGuiver said:


> LOL!
> Sorry spelling cop, that should be "sited". I stand corrected. If only I'd gone to Public School I'd surely never make such errors.
> 
> Now give yourself a nice pat on the head for demonstrating your superior intellect by posting such a compelling argument against Catholic Schools.:lmao:
> ...


Original post:



MacGuiver said:


> You've yet to prove Catholic school kids are getting knocked up more than Public School ones. The only reason I sighted the grades is because Rgray was saying religion is an impediment to learning. I was simply proving otherwise.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> BUZZZ!
> 
> You FAIL again!
> 
> ...


LOL!! 
OUCH! Grammar cop catches me twice. 
Thats so funny because I actually went to a Public High School. You may be on to something there.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> LOL!!
> OUCH! Grammar cop catches me twice.
> Thats so funny because I actually I went to a Public High School. You may be on to something there.
> 
> ...


No way! We can clearly tell that you have had more education than that. Sunday school, perhaps? The seminary? Bible college? Theology studies?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

HowEver said:


> No way! We can clearly tell that you have had more education than that. Sunday school, perhaps? The seminary? Bible college? Theology studies?


No but I did stay at a Holiday Inn once.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> There is no such thing as absence of belief.
> 
> Those who choose religion believe there is a higher being.
> 
> ...


thanks for my afternoon guffaw....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> thanks for my afternoon guffaw....


Oh I'm so glad!

You've given me so many over the years it's time I was getting even.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I'm getting so tired of Guy's rants I'm switching my vote back to Conservative.


Is that vote regarding teenage pregnancy and/or academic performance? If not, you are way off topic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Is that vote regarding teenage pregnancy and/or academic performance? If not, you are way off topic.


Best you have another Stella Beej. 

Given the contents of this thread from start to now, either of your subject matters would be acceptable. Even for MF.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Best you have another Stella Beej.
> 
> Given the contents of this thread from start to now, either of your subject matters would be acceptable. Even for MF.


I'm on Stella number two. Are my jokes already that incomprehensible? Oh fuddle duddle.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> I'm on Stella number two. Are my jokes already that incomprehensible? Oh fuddle duddle.


Ah, hell, keep 'em comin'.

I find them rather entertaining tonight.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Now I feel pressured to perform.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Now I feel pressured to perform.


I wasn't enquiring about your sex life. Gimme a break.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Now if we could only give those good Catholic girls a decent sex education curriculum without them getting pregnant...any ideas?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm working on my third Corona tonight. I feel qualified to lead the nation now.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I have faith in you, Max. I mean, I believe in you Max. Er, I have rationally chosen to support you? No, that's still not right.

I have faith that a rational evaluation of your abilities will support the belief that you would not be any worse. Yes, that's it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, that's it Beej. You got Max pegged.

Now would you please do something about gt?

The boy is so lost.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GT needs to believe as Sinc believes:
"Everyone needs believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer."

In GT's case the missing "to" could be included to establish a separation of Sinc from GT. GT could even add a, "that" to the second part, but with a risk of seeming somewhat eccentric.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Gentlemen, please... now you're really pushing me toward another beer.

[_Must... resist... fridge tractor beams_]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> I'm on Stella number two. Are my jokes already that incomprehensible? Oh fuddle duddle.


oh no, he's channeling PET
your oil patch task masters aren't going to be impressed


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I have a couple of coffee mugs with "Fuddle duddle" printed on 'em.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> your oil patch task masters aren't going to be impressed


The madness of l'il King 'Spec. He keeps trying to lash out but comes up short with the same old material. To his credit, at least it offers more variety than just calling me "evil". 

'Spec, you seem to be spending too much time pouting about how often you make yourself look foolish (as a result of your obsessions). Not that I don't give you a helpful nudge now and then.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: You Neo-Cons are all alike.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: You Neo-Cons are all alike.


:lmao: 

As a time-waster we could make a wager regarding 'spec's spirits level, but I'm not sure that he would volunteer the truth. Faux news is that fella's style. But maybe that's just my "oil patch task masters" talking (???) or maybe it's just because I'm evil (???). 

This reminds me of a school that few think about considering itself to be THE rival of a better known school. The students at the better known school are, of course, either unaware of the "rivalry" or, as is often the case, consider it hilarious.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: I'm reminded of a similar case in which engineering students imagined themselves the life of the party by lifting a car to the top of a building--each year. They were despised because of their lack of imagination and the so-called cleverness of the matter was so transparent, any fool with time on his hands could have duplicated the stunt.

Don't mention Spec being in his cups. I think this gets you banned from EhMac. Only Spec can tell you he's in his cups--by admission or through posts displaying foggy reasoning powers and dodgy logic.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I said nothing of cups; I only spoke of spirits -- it's a spiritual thing.

As for the spiritual one's foggy reasoning powers and dodgy logic, that is more of an identity verification. Be comforted by verification that the account has not been taken over. 

Regarding cups and/or high levels of spirituality, it takes a certain 'special approach. I say level six spirituality. You?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

For some it takes only two or three ounces of 40-proof spirituality...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Max said:


> Gentlemen, please... now you're really *pushing me toward another beer.*
> 
> [_Must... resist... fridge tractor beams_]


A case of beer pressure?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

By rewiring the pulse projectors of the Deep Space 9 in a hitherto untested circuit, I can maintain the position of the base station, while _moving the beer laden fridge[/I!]_


----------

