# Martin may face wrath of Vatican



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Martin may face wrath of Vatican All I can say is: "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon." (Matt 6:24)


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

Paul Martin may serve God, but the Prime Minister serves Canada. There is a disconnect.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Voters, it notes, are committing a sin if they back politicians who make "immoral" choices.


back to the Dark Ages

if the Vatican snubs Martin, it may incrase his popularity in Canada
that knife cuts both ways


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". And for the average Canadian, the tax collector shall get most of anything that is left.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

I hope the Synod reflects on the path a policy like this may eventually lead:
First, refuse communion, then refuse baptism for their children, then refuse communion to their friends,....their neighbors, everyone who disagrees,....
Hey, I visisted a Hindu temple last week, would I be barred from communion too?  
I hope sanity prevails.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". And for the average Canadian, the tax collector shall get most of anything that is left.


LOL!!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't think this would make me vote for him, but maybe if they excommunicated him.  

Seriously though, isn't this about as obvious an example of political interference as could be asked for? When are we going to yank their tax-free status (which explicitly depends on their non-involvement in politics).

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Excellent new tax revenue source ..it's about time.

Property taxes, income tax on all the Catholic Church transactions and property.

Interfere in politics.....lose the tax exemption ...very straight forward.
This is intereference at the highest level and deserves the broadest response.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

Frankly, ALL religious institutions should have their tax-free status revoked. Why should I, a non-believer, subsidize their particular superstitions? This meddling in political affairs may will rebound severely on the Vatican and all churches/synagogues/mosques/insertyourfavouriteplacehere.

Perhaps that is the silver lining.....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ErnstNL, after visiting the Hindu temple, it might be seen as an act of trying to understand your neighbor, which is very Christian. Or, you could be excommunicated. I guess it is a matter of perspective. I have been to this temple and it is a fine place attended by fine people, so let us hope that the latter does not take place. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## DEWLine (Sep 24, 2005)

I think PM Martin understands his duty as PM better than the Vatican understands their shared faith. If the Vatican pushes hard enough on this, Martin could end up looking the martyr to Canadian voters' eyes.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I think the PM should just join another church.
Seal hunters don't join Green Peace, beef farmers don't join PETA. Ron Geramy doesn't want to be a Quaker.
Why would anyone with opposing beliefs want to be affiliated with a religion or group they are in direct opposition to?
The ball is in your court Paul. Are you Catholic or are you something else? Make up your mind.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Who's Ron Geramy?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SINC

He's a porn actor from the seventies.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Try "Ron Jeremy." AKA "The Hedgehog."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

BTW, there is at least as much variety of Catholics as there are individual beliefs nested within other religions. The Catholics don't operate as a hive mind, ya know. Try insects - now _they're_ organized.

Some Catholics want things loosened up, some want things tightened down some more. Martin has other options than merely staying in or getting the h3ll out.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> BTW, there is at least as much variety of Catholics as there are individual beliefs nested within other religions. The Catholics don't operate as a hive mind, ya know. Try insects - now _they're_ organized.
> 
> Some Catholics want things loosened up, some want things tightened down some more. Martin has other options than merely staying in or getting the h3ll out.


I agree Max that church members are all over the map to what they adhere to, but the final buck stops at the Vatican and the Catechism. That is what defines Catholic teaching, its not supposed to be a smorgasbord though many have made it so, picking what suits them and rejecting what they don't want. Even inventing their own theology.
Jesus himself was pretty cut and dry, you can chose to accept his word or you can reject it. There was no grey area with him. If Jesus said stealing was wrong it didn't mean it could be fine for you if you stole on a weekend.

The church should be no different. Can't accept the teachings then renounce it. Their are over 1,000 Protestant denominations and surely one will fit him fine. Paul should do like Belinda and cross the floor.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Jesus himself was pretty cut and dry, you can chose to accept his word or you can reject it. Their was no grey area with him. If Jesus said stealing was wrong it didn't mean it could be fine for you if you stole on a weekend.


No grey area? So what are his thoughts on assisted reproductive technologies? or perhaps his thoughts on pediphilia in the Church?

Nothing about the Bible is black or white... It is entirely shades of gray. The whole text is subject to various interpretations, hense why there are how many different christian faiths? 

Which of Gods rules are more important than the others? Of course it has to be interpreted... how many pages long is the thing?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> I agree Max that church members are all over the map to what they adhere to, but the final buck stops at the Vatican and the Catechism. That is what defines Catholic teaching, its not supposed to be a smorgasbord though many have made it so, picking what suits them and rejecting what they don't want. Even inventing their own theology.
> Jesus himself was pretty cut and dry, you can chose to accept his word or you can reject it. Their was no grey area with him. If Jesus said stealing was wrong it didn't mean it could be fine for you if you stole on a weekend.
> 
> The church should be no different. Can't accept the teachings then renounce it. Their are over 1,000 Protestant denominations and surely one will fit him fine.
> ...


It's cool that you talk of Jesus like he's a guy you have a smoke with on the porch a few times a week and all. I rather admire your comfort in speaking of a god that way. But of course, not everyone has a relationship with a deity... not everyone is a deist. Even deists of the same stripe can argue about how thick the stripe should be or is, and whether we're good with Mondrian or we're more into a decent tartan plaid. 

Maybe the buck stops with the Vatican but we're talking about a body which is also by its very nature political... and I say that the catechisms are themselves open to interpretation. Always have been, always will be. The Vatican has supported or ignored all sorts of crap over the centuries to suit itself, and many an intelligent Catholic can be excused for being at least reasonably skeptical about taking what Vatican honchos might be saying at any given moment as the word of God. Not that intelligent Catholics are any closer to the Truth than dumb Catholics - just so we understand one another. I don't even know what the truth is. Must be why religion exists at all, I suppose. Something to offer answers to The Big Questions.

But here we are talking about religion and politics - and look, sex has poked its rude head in here, too. Three topics guaranteed to make a mass of people agree on squat. Best of luck to us all in sorting one another's views out.


----------



## MBD (Sep 1, 2003)

Isn't this how Protestants got their start in the first place?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> The church should be no different. Can't accept the teachings then renounce it. Their are over 1,000 Protestant denominations and surely one will fit him fine. Paul should do like Belinda and cross the floor.



There are a number of varations of Catholicism... 



> In Western Christianity the principal groups that regard themselves as "Catholic" without full communion with the Pope are the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and some elements of Anglicanism ("High Church Anglicans" or "Anglo-Catholics"). Smaller groups include the Old Catholics, the Aglipayans (Philippine Independent Church), and the Polish National Church of America. Their spiritual beliefs and practices are similar to those of Catholics of the Latin Rite, from which they emerged, but they reject the Pope's claimed status and authority.
> 
> The Anglican Communion is in practice divided into two wings, "High Church Anglicans" also called the Anglo-Catholics and "Low Church Anglicans" also known as the Evangelical wing. Though all elements within the Anglican Communion recite the same creeds, Low Church Anglicans regard the word Catholic in the ideal sense given above, while High Church Anglicans treat it as a name of Christ's church which they consider to embrace themselves together with the Roman Catholic and several Orthodox Churches.
> 
> ...


I don't Paul Martin has any duty to the church beyond his own personal observance. His duty is to Canadians first.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

the church has to modernize it's priciples. Nothing wrong with gay marriage, in fact, there is something terribly wrong when people care so much about what a group of 80 year old men think.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

digitalmatty said:


> the church has to modernize it's priciples. Nothing wrong with gay marriage, in fact, there is something terribly wrong when people care so much about what a group of 80 year old men think.


If your basing your statement on Angus Reid Polls your probably right but on what biblical basis do you think they should marry people of the same sex? Also, if we shouldn't listen to 80 year old men that have devoted their entire lives to the study of scripture for our Christianity, who do you propose is better qualified or educated in biblical teaching to lead us? I'm all ears.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



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

It's a personal decision. Paul Martin must simply decide whether to act in the best interests of the people or the best interests of the church. Whatever he decides, he should be honest with both institutions and either step down from his political position or quit the church. This simply reinforces the principle of the separation of church and state. It does not interfere with one's beliefs. But it does mean that one cannot be guided by those beliefs if, by doing so, one goes against one's representative duty to all Canadians.

Clearly, the office of the prime minister represents all Canadians, not just Canadian Catholics.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

John Kennedy faced these similar sorts of "pulls", but he always contended that the people of the US elected him as president regardless of the fact that he was Catholic.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

This is the calculus Rome has to consider:

1) Western countries (apart from the US) are rapidly diverging from social standards acceptable to the Church.

2) In order to reverse this trend, the Church must start exerting it's political influence to either A) change the positions held by politicians they control, or B) change the politicians in power.

3) In exerting this influence, they risk running afoul of separation-of-chuch-and-state legislation in these countries.

I think they're stuck. If they do nothing, the continue to become more irrelevant to modern society. If they do something, they risk loosing their tax-free status and credibility as 'non-political' agencies.

I'm sure it will take decades, but I think this may be the twilight of orthodox Christianity.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

The church could elect a Pope from Latin America if they were serious about expanding their growing base of Catholics. Just a thought.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Excellent new tax revenue source ..it's about time.
> Property taxes, income tax on all the Catholic Church transactions and property.
> Interfere in politics.....lose the tax exemption ...very straight forward.
> This is intereference at the highest level and deserves the broadest response.


The church is adjusting its own doctrine. That is not interfering with politics. If the church chooses not to grant any sacraments on its own members, it is entirely in its right to do so.

However, it is you who is advocating the state interfere with the church: by recommending tax code alterations because you don't agree with their methods and values. Do you recognize how hypocritical that is? But that is a general trend in your thinking, MacDoc. Remember this? http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=262326&postcount=8.

If the church was talking about denying communion to politicians supporting racist laws or capital punishment, no one would be complaining. Because it is liberal causes like abortion and gay rights, there is much squaking.

Myself, I have never understood how someone can be a liberal and a Catholic. But Catholics have traditionally been Liberal party (and Democratic party) supporters. Strange world.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Good points... methinks MacDoc's distaste for religion entails its own set of blinkers.

Despite the worst excesses resultant from religious belief, it would be unwise not to take into consideration what benefits a spiritual life can confer on the individual... this includes organized religion, much as some would vilify it and call for its eradication.

That said, I agree with MacDoc that all religious institutions should be subject to taxation. H3ll, most every other institution has to pay the piper... why then the exemption for churches? It's a malevolent system which invites terrible abuses.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Somehow I find it hard to image Martin giving a rats ass what the big V or the Pope has to say about him and what he does. I mean he doesn't care what the people in his own country have to say, why should he care about this?

The Pope...geeze.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> The church is adjusting its own doctrine. That is not interfering with politics. If the church chooses not to grant any sacraments on its own members, it is entirely in its right to do so.


And by doing so alienates an entire cross section of its own congregation who disagree with its views. 



lpkmckenna said:


> However, it is you who is advocating the state interfere with the church: by recommending tax code alterations because you don't agree with their methods and values. Do you recognize how hypocritical that is?


It is not hypocritical at all, how do you figure that this makes it hypocritical? The church is absolutely looking to affect the decisions government and the population. To this degree they are no longer just a religous organization they are a political entity. To think of them in any other way is foolishness.



lpkmckenna said:


> If the church was talking about denying communion to politicians supporting racist laws or capital punishment, no one would be complaining. Because it is liberal causes like abortion and gay rights, there is much squaking.


Talk about hypocracy, by your very argument the Church lost any special status decades ago. Their silent assent to the hollocuast shows exactly how they can pick and choose when will and will not interfere in politics.

You tell me which is more morally reprehensible? The hollocaust or gay marriage? Oddly enough it appears the Church thinks that gay marriage is worse since it is speaking out on the issue.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Max I could care a rat's ass what incense anyone wants to burn to whatever they fancy in their closet.
That's exactly where religious beliefs belong .....along with whatever sexual proclivities they enjoy in private.
In return for gov staying out bedrooms and closets.......religion stays out of politics, schools and public places......

Wanna have a "religion course" - teach it like sex ed - may feel good might be dangerous........abstinence from is good 'til your older.
Age of majority...go nuts....just like booze.
Wonder how many would chase after that particular E.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> It is not hypocritical at all, how do you figure that this makes it hypocritical? The church is absolutely looking to affect the decisions government and the population. To this degree they are no longer just a religous organization they are a political entity. To think of them in any other way is foolishness.


MacDoc says to revoke the tax-free status of the church because they are "interfering in politics." Revoking the tax-free status of the church to "punish" them for their doctrine is the same as denying communion to politicians to "punish" them for their voting record.

But is the church really interfering? The church can deny sacraments as they choose. To suggest they can deny sacraments to everyone except politicians is absurd. The JWs disfellowship members if they even get involved in politics; is that interfering? Catholic doctrine is fairly liberal in comparison to the JWs, or Scientology, or Mormons, or Hasidic Jews, not to mention Fundamentalist Christians or conservative Muslims.



da_jonesy said:


> Talk about hypocracy, by your very argument the Church lost any special status decades ago. Their silent assent to the hollocuast shows exactly how they can pick and choose when will and will not interfere in politics.
> 
> You tell me which is more morally reprehensible? The hollocaust or gay marriage? Oddly enough it appears the Church thinks that gay marriage is worse since it is speaking out on the issue.


Perhaps the church does not wish to repeat the mistakes of the past? They wrongly turned their face away then, and don't wish to do the same.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> You tell me which is more morally reprehensible? The hollocaust or gay marriage? Oddly enough it appears the Church thinks that gay marriage is worse since it is speaking out on the issue.


Is that Christaphobic fud I smell? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> MacDoc says to revoke the tax-free status of the church because they are "interfering in politics." Revoking the tax-free status of the church to "punish" them for their doctrine is the same as denying communion to politicians to "punish" them for their voting record.


But the big difference is that we live in a democracy. I get to choose who makes our rules. The masses do not get to elect the Pope and Cardinals, so there is a BIG difference. 




lpkmckenna said:


> Perhaps the church does not wish to repeat the mistakes of the past? They wrongly turned their face away then, and don't wish to do the same.


That pretty convenient for the Nazi's and Italian Facists of the 1930's and 40's. Not wishing to repeat the mistakes of the past would mean speaking out for absolute equality for EVERYONE regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Is that Christaphobic fud I smell?


Nope... I think Christ was a righteous dude who has had his message of love and compassion perverted and twisted by those who want to assert their control over others.

I look at the whole event and I think that Douglas Adams sums it up pretty well...

2000 years ago someone got nailed to a tree for saying "Why can't we all be nice to each other for a change?"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

da jonsey, your comment "I think Christ was a righteous dude who has had his message of love and compassion perverted and twisted by those who want to assert their control over others." is a fine commentary on the reality of Jesus. Much of what he said has been lost in this power struggle over who represents these words moreso that the other person. Quite sad. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> In return for gov staying out bedrooms and closets.......religion stays out of politics, schools and public places......


Maybe white arm bands marked with a cross would be a good idea in public? Yes and if you wish to eradicate anyone with a religion from voicing a political opinion you've probably narrowed the house of commons down to about a couple dozen. The rest could get their white armbands on the way out.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Maybe white arm bands marked with a cross would be a good idea in public? Yes and if you wish to eradicate anyone with a religion from voicing a political opinion you've probably narrowed the house of commons down to about a couple dozen. The rest could get their white armbands on the way out.



How is it that Macdoc's comment was so unreasonable that you have to post this trash comparing catholicism to nazism? White armbands in place of red ones?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> But the big difference is that we live in a democracy. I get to choose who makes our rules. The masses do not get to elect the Pope and Cardinals, so there is a BIG difference.


Yes there is. Thus the separation of church and state.


da_jonesy said:


> Not wishing to repeat the mistakes of the past would mean speaking out for absolute equality for EVERYONE regardless of race, creed, sex or sexual orientation.


Are you done telling the Catholic Church how do run their own affairs?

I'm an atheist. I find just about everything the church does to be absurd. So I left. I don't happen to see this particular issue to be any more or less absurd than anything else they've done; pretty much in character, I think.

So I'll say it again: the church can do whatever it damn well pleases. Stripping the church of it's tax-free status in retribution is inconsistent with the values of a liberal democracy. Are we going to penalize all of the churches, or just the Catholics?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Yes there is. Thus the separation of church and state.
> Are you done telling the Catholic Church how do run their own affairs?


In so far that they think they need to assert their beliefs into the public realm in such an insidious and blatant manner.



lpkmckenna said:


> So I'll say it again: the church can do whatever it damn well pleases. Stripping the church of it's tax-free status in retribution is inconsistent with the values of a liberal democracy. Are we going to penalize all of the churches, or just the Catholics?


I think it is pretty clear that it should be applied to any organization that crosses the boundaries into becoming a political organization.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Nope... I think Christ was a righteous dude who has had his message of love and compassion perverted and twisted by those who want to assert their control over others.


Actually his message was not exclusively love and compassion if you read it. That Jesus dude was concocted in the haze of marijuana smoke in the free-love days of the sixties. 

Our need of repentance and living according to Gods laws is a major part of his teachings as are the consequences when we chose not to. If you don't believe me, read for yourself.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Actually his message was not exclusively love and compassion if you read it. That Jesus dude was concocted in the haze of marijuana smoke in the free-love days of the sixties.


OK then... hit me with the parts where Jesus snaps a cap and says we have to hate and beat on people.



MacGuiver said:


> Our need of repentance and living according to Gods laws is a major part of his teachings as are the consequences when we chose not to. If you don't believe me, read for yourself.


Hey on that topic... Where does he say which one of God's laws are more important than the others? Also where are his teachings on pediphilia in the clergy? Or his position on assited reproduction?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> OK then... hit me with the parts where Jesus snaps a cap and says we have to hate and beat on people.
> 
> Hey on that topic... Where does he say which one of God's laws are more important than the others? Also where are his teachings on pediphilia in the clergy? Or his position on assited reproduction?


LOL!!! I don't recall telling you Jesus told us to beat and hate anyone?
Actually he did "snap a cap" so to speak when he took a whip, kicked over the tables and drove the money changers from the temple. A bit out of character for Hippy Jesus I know, but Jesus none the less.

He never mention pedophilia directly although he did say "if one soever harms a hair on the head of a child, it would be better that he'd never been born". Oddly assisted reproduction never came up, nor did internet porn and drive by shootings but it was 2000 years ago. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> LOL!!! I don't recall telling you Jesus told us to beat and hate anyone?
> Actually he did "snap a cap" so to speak when he took a whip, kicked over the tables and drove the money changers from the temple. A bit out of character for Hippy Jesus I know, but Jesus none the less.


Yeah, we all know that one. So Jim and Tammy Faye would get a severe beating... but tell me where he gets his belt out and lays the boots to two women who get married?



MacGuiver said:


> Oddly assisted reproduction never came up, nor did internet porn and drive by shootings but it was 2000 years ago.


Gee that begs the question... how relevant are the teachings of a 2000 year old text in this day and age? And you want us to listen to what it has (and has not) to say about same sex marriage?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah, we all know that one. So Jim and Tammy Faye would get a severe beating... but tell me where he gets his belt out and lays the boots to two women who get married?
> 
> Gee that begs the question... how relevant are the teachings of a 2000 year old text in this day and age? And you want us to listen to what it has (and has not) to say about same sex marriage?


No boot were laid on anyone but he did make clear the nature of marriage:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."

As for the relevance in todays society. I know Hippy Jesus fits the bill because he couldn't care less what you do, he just gives out big hugs, but that Jesus never existed. Looking at the current state of the world I'd have to say his teachings have already been deemed irrelevant. Time will tell how that turns out.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> As for the relevance in todays society. I know Hippy Jesus fits the bill because he couldn't care less what you do, he just gives out big hugs, but that Jesus never existed. Looking at the current state of the world I'd have to say his teachings have already been deemed irrelevant. Time will tell how that turns out.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Totally and absolutely right on the button. On about seventeen different co-inciding levels.

I'm just surmising here...but I'm betting that MacGuiver belives in a higher power. Just as I do. But, at the very same time...he has exposed the ridiculous falsehoods that were readily accepted by a naieve previous generation who decided to "dial their own" particular messiah.

And who are now dealing with the cruel reality that their chosen way is made of soft clay. Not able to support the traffic. Not at all. Falling to bits, actually.

MacGuiver never fails to amaze.

Anything he writes is worth a good hard look. Always. No matter what his stance, or what the subject is.

Trust me on this.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."


 a lot of divorce lawyers are gonna be pissed off....


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Trust me on this.



Yeah I am still waiting on your last "trust me on this". As I recall it had something to do about the Liberals losing power the spring of 2005.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> No boot were laid on anyone but he did make clear the nature of marriage:
> 
> But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.
> For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
> Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate."


So my question is... where did Jesus write this? This comes from "The Gospels" which is a bunch of different guys writing what they say Jesus told them. If that were the case why do we bits and pieces? Why do we not get the same story from different Gospels? Why didn't Jesus write them himself?

You are getting the word of Jesus interpreted by someone else, which means you are not getting the Word of Jesus are you? You are getting what someone else said he said. Ina court of law that is hearsay evidence and certainly not admissable.

I'm still waiting for an example of the Stern and Cross Jesus (aside from the money lender one) which make people fear their behaviour.



MacGuiver said:


> As for the relevance in todays society. I know Hippy Jesus fits the bill because he couldn't care less what you do, he just gives out big hugs, but that Jesus never existed. Looking at the current state of the world I'd have to say his teachings have already been deemed irrelevant. Time will tell how that turns out.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


You know the burden of proof is on you... I put my money that if Jesus existed he was the hippy hugging Jesus. I bet, however that over the years his words were twisted and bent by others looking to place themsleves in positions of power over the masses... else why did we have crusades, inquisitions and silent consent to genocide? But you know what? Same sex marriage is the single most vile thing that faces the church today and so now we should speak out about it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

macnutt IS a "spring chicken"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> IMPROPER USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE
> 
> Aline Baroud
> Andrew Gibbs
> ...





> In addition to possible imprisonment, anyone convicted of influence peddling under the Criminal Code, whether claiming to have influence or buying influence, also faces administrative sanctions.


The Pope is clearly in violation of Canadian laws in attempting to influence the Prime Minister of Canada in the governing of Canada and the application of it's laws and Charter and should be told so in no uncertain terms.

As a Catholic clearly considers the THREAT of excommunication a substantive threat this is no light matter.

The Pope is clearly stating he HAS influence and is attempting to exercise it.

In return for being left largely to their own devices, religions in Canada are untaxed BUT are also prohibited from political activism.
Start lobbying, lose the tax free status.

Religious organizations just as corporations are subject to restriction under law, saying a relion "can do anything it wants" is as ludicrous as if it applied to a corporation or an individual.

Tangling the rights of an individual private religious belief with organized political activism by the religious ORGANIZATION is ridiculous.

What if the head of a corporation threatened Martin or any public official ??

There are restrictions on lobbying, influencing pulbic officials by threat or bribery and specific restrictions on organized religion regarding political activisms and their tax exempt status.

The Pope is on odious grounds in all of these areas and to answer someone else ...yes if the Catholic Church in Canada is part of the offence then why should other religious organizations be penalized.

Not all religious organizations are sued when one is - ( Anglicans and Cathlics respectively on native schooling and Christian Brother abuses ).

Organized religions like corporations, unions and other organized groups are subject to legislation and subject to the Charter ....as McGuinty said recently to his credit - one law for all.
If they breach their responsibilities under those laws - then they should be held fully accountable.

If an organized religion breaches the law against poltical activism then it should lose it's tax free status.

Look at the issues between Hare Krishna and Scientology, JW and numerous governments.

By and large the older established religions have not crossed the "activism" line and some level of peaceable coexistence between secular government and religious organizations has been the norm in the past couple of decades with the exceptions noted.

That may be changing and blatant attempts like this to influence legistation by way of threat by the Pope ( or the Seikh leader ) needs be dealt with in no uncertain terms under Canadian law.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacGuiver said:


> As for the relevance in todays society. I know Hippy Jesus fits the bill because he couldn't care less what you do, he just gives out big hugs, but that Jesus never existed. Looking at the current state of the world I'd have to say his teachings have already been deemed irrelevant. Time will tell how that turns out.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I find it fascinating that, over the course of 2000 years and the great spread of Cristianity throughout the West and indeed, around the globe, so many different interpretations of Jesus abound... yet in this thread there appears to be a [email protected], cheap-seats battle between (loving but pathetic) Hippy Jesus in one corner and rightous Temple-bustin' Jesus (angry, vengeful, [email protected] with a mean streak, yo)... it's a cartoon distillation. Sort of your Ultimate Fighter debate about a fellow who hasn't breathed the sweet air of terra firma for two millenia.

This reduction of scope and scale of such a massively influential individual reminds me of the same kind of either-or games which we so love to play in the political realm. Sort of a Playskool attempt to 'get' religion. Once and for all.

Good luck, everyone, on deciding which Jesus is the real McCoy. I'd say I'll be in the ring watching the gorefest, but there's not even popcorn available and besides, it's a sunny day and I just remembered I'm supposed to meet Hippy Jesus for brekkie at the local greasy spoon. Later on, around two in the morning if I recall correctly, I'll be bringing [email protected] Jesus along with me to help me sort out this guy who owes me some rather large coin... you know, it's really a great world.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc: Along those lines, it would seem reasonable only to remove tax free status of individual churches that refuse communion based on political activities. Churches cannot be punished for the actions of the Vatican, nor expected to bear the burden of presumed guilt because of their loyalty to the Vatican. However, if a church acts on the order, then you seem to have an argument worth consideration. 

It will get messy though, which will mean politicians will get away with vaguely worded 'happy-fun hugs-and-kisses' legislation while the courts are left to interpret a great deal of grey. It would almost be entertaining to see how it goes down if it wasn't so profoundly important to how we deal with the practicalities of separating church and state.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> Good luck, everyone, on deciding which Jesus is the real McCoy. I'd say I'll be in the ring watching the gorefest, but there's not even popcorn available and besides, it's a sunny day and I just remembered I'm supposed to meet Hippy Jesus for brekkie at the local greasy spoon. Later on, around two in the morning if I recall correctly, I'll be bringing [email protected] Jesus along with me to help me sort out this guy who owes me some rather large coin... you know, it's really a great world.


LOL!!!!

Actually Max I haven't had a double double and a donut at Tim's with the Lord myself but I have read his word. My knowledge of Jesus comes from the Bible, not a 60's musical. My Jesus isn't the knee cap buster as you allude to but more like a good loving parent. He Loves us all as no one else could and dishes out the hugs too, but like any good parent he sets boundaries for his children so they don't get hurt or hurt others. Hippy Jesus has no boundaries and his Children can start to look like the kids on Super Nanny that get all hugs and flowers but no discipline or direction.
It is a nice day and I'm going out to spend the day with my family. Have a great one and if you get talking to Hippy Jesus, I'd love to hear what he has to say.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The Pope is clearly in violation of Canadian laws in attempting to influence the Prime Minister of Canada in the governing of Canada and the application of it's laws and Charter and should be told so in no uncertain terms.


MacDoc, you didn't read your own reference. It is the public official who would be commiting influence-peddling, not the Pope. You have it all backwards.


MacDoc said:


> As a Catholic clearly considers the THREAT of excommunication a substantive threat this is no light matter.


No one is being threatened with excommunication. The Vatican is only talking about denying communion.


MacDoc said:


> The Pope is clearly stating he HAS influence and is attempting to exercise it.


The Pope hasn't said anything yet. The Vatican as a whole is considering this policy. Nothing has been done yet.


MacDoc said:


> In return for being left largely to their own devices, religions in Canada are untaxed BUT are also prohibited from political activism.
> Start lobbying, lose the tax free status.


Uh, what planet do you live on? Churches in Canada are politically involved on many levels. They participate in political protests, they allow church halls to be used for party meetings, and political leaders meet with religious leaders all the time. The Pope has met with the PM every time he has visited Canada.


MacDoc said:


> Religious organizations just as corporations are subject to restriction under law, saying a relion "can do anything it wants" is as ludicrous as if it applied to a corporation or an individual.


On the matter of their own doctrine, they can do anything they want.


MacDoc said:


> What if the head of a corporation threatened Martin or any public official ??


Nobody was been threatened. We are talking about a communion wafer here. Have a little perspective, will ya?


MacDoc said:


> Organized religions like corporations, unions and other organized groups are subject to legislation and subject to the Charter ....as McGuinty said recently to his credit - one law for all.
> If they breach their responsibilities under those laws - then they should be held fully accountable.


Except there is no law against denying the sacraments to a church member.


MacDoc said:


> If an organized religion breaches the law against poltical activism then it should lose it's tax free status.


And that is written into law already? No? Are you advocating something new here?

I'll say it again: if the Vatican was considering denying communion to politicians voting in favour of racist laws, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

If the church wishes to deny communion to its own members, no government has any right to complaint. It's been a considerable length of time since I went to church, but if I remember correctly, one cannot participate in the communion after having commited a mortal sin until one has first been to confession.

(I remember that my family would always go to confession after having missed a sunday service. Until you had confessed, you wouldn't go up for communion. Skipping church is only a venial sin, however.)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> My knowledge of Jesus comes from the Bible, not a 60's musical. My Jesus isn't the knee cap buster as you allude to but more like a good loving parent. He Loves us all as no one else could and dishes out the hugs too, but like any good parent he sets boundaries for his children so they don't get hurt or hurt others.


OK, fine... so I ask you this. Is jesus's (nee God) love unconditional?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Wow. 

I never feel as uncomfortable on ehMac as a I do when people start attacking Catholicism. I'm a Roman Catholic and it's a pretty simple thing to understand where the Church is coming from. Don't obey the rules and put yourself in a state of grave or mortal sin, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the eurachrist is denied. 

This isn't about Paul Martin as PM or any other Catholic MP as an MP. It's about being Catholic, and following the Church's teachings. Bottom line. 

The Church shouldn't worry about losing people who don't follow its teachings, it should focus on those who do want to follow them. If Paul doesn't like Catholicism, there's a whole plethora of options for him. 

As for deny the Church tax exempt status, well I hope they try because it will wake Catholics up and will end up tossing a quite few of politicians out of Ottawa. 

And MacDoc, please stop pontificating about religion and politics. It's getting tired, and frankly the Pope don't care about what you think cause he's the frickin' Pope. 

And you're not. 

(I couldn't resist).


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

No one is attacking Catholicism. On the whole, most are comfortable with the church's views. It's only the "touchy" issues that bug others (and me).

As for denying communion: it's quite rare. I would say this policy is wrong because the choices of politicians are public, while the rest of us sin in private. Also, the politician who has voted wrongly may have repented in confession. That is private, too, but when Paul goes up for communion the ministering priest may not know that!

If the church wants to "punish" politicians, they should show some backbone and excommunicate them.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

LPM, 

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Catholicism isn't under attack. I consider punitive tax moves to be an example of the church under attack. 

The church wouldn't have to deny the Eurachrist if the person realized as per church teaching that you should or rather must not take communion while in a state of sin. If Martin were to repent and to ask forgiveness then he could take communion again. 

But here's the catch, he has to show he is truly sorry for his sins, and that includes rebuking those policies that have put him at odds with the church. 

Martin like all humans and all Catholics has a free will. He can choose to continue his path and face the possible consequences. Or he can choose to change his gov'ts direction. 
It's because of free will that the Church does not excommunicate Martin. He can still choose to follow Church teachings. 

It's Martin who was precipitated this and not the Church. He could have left the Church and followed his conscious. He cannot however claim on one hand to be a Roman Catholic if he does not follow the teachings of the teaching of the Vatican.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I have never met an individual who faithfully follows the "teachings of the Vatican" in their private life, never mind any public decisions.

(And I thought it was the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles?)

Catholics tend to live quite liberally, with pre-marital sex and "living in sin" and contraception and foul language being the most "serious" violations. They speak disapprovingly of church teachings on gays and women priests and in vitro conception. They "pick and choose." Can they claim to be Catholic?


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Lp, 

The teachings of the church are the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles. Sorry I wasn't crystal clear on that. 

I'm sad that you've never met an individual who faithfully follows the teachings of the Church in their private life. People have all kinds of failings and weaknesses. They have pre-martiaul sex, they swear and they commit call kinds of sins. 

I'd gather the tendency towards sin is why there's so few saints. 

And to be honest, you can't be a cafeteria Catholic. That's been clear throughout JPII's papacy and it should be crystal clear with Benedict. 

People can claim to be Roman Catholic and they can also claim to be anything they want. 
Doesn't make it so. It's in the practice of the faith, the whole faith and nothing but the faith, that makes one Roman Catholic. 

And for the record, I've sworn and committed more sins than I can remember. But it's in obedience to the catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, sorrow for my sins and repentance that I practice my faith. 

Now by the time you read this line you're probably sick of my pontificating, so I'll stop. If people want to know the ins and outs of the Roman Catholic Church, they can talk to a priest or read the catechism 

I'd only like to ask that before making statements about the church and its teachings that people do a little research. Particularly when it comes to the subject of the Eurachrist and when it should and shouldn't be given out.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> Lp,
> 
> The teachings of the church are the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles. Sorry I wasn't crystal clear on that.
> 
> ...


 Well said! I couldn't agree more. It gets frustrating having to read the same old misconceptions about Catholicism by people who obviously have no idea what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches. Arch-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that 99% of the people that say they hate the Church only hate what they *think* the Church is. Maybe the other 1% are here on ehMac?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> This isn't about Paul Martin as PM or any other Catholic MP as an MP. It's about being Catholic, and following the Church's teachings. Bottom line


No, it's about a religious organization breaching it's agreement with a national government to not be poltically active in return for tax exemption.
It's also about attempting to influence a public official by threats.

Martin as a private individual makes his own decisions and lives with those.

Martin as PM is a public official with responsibilities to the nation an to uphold the laws and agreements with the individuals * and institutions* that make up the nation.

The Catholic Church is one of those institutions and is clearly in breach of it's responsibilities in Canada to abide by the laws and agreements with the government.

THAT's the bottom line.
Your lack of understanding that simply underscores the need to keep religion out of government.

You see nothing amiss with the Pope as the head of a world institution THREATENING the head of our country and attempting to influence his decisions on public matters.

....That you see nothing wrong with this is the scariest part of all.....and most illuminating.
Once more the wisdom of separation of church and state as a fundamental principle of a modern democratic state is demonstrated.

JWs at least are honest about where they're allegiances lie.



> Nationalism
> 
> Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to salute the flag of any nation, recite the pledge of allegiance, stand for or sing the national anthem, run for public office, vote, or serve in the armed forces.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

NBiBooker said:


> Now by the time you read this line you're probably sick of my pontificating, so I'll stop. If people want to know the ins and outs of the Roman Catholic Church, they can talk to a priest or read the catechism.


I'm not sick of your "pontificating." I like debating with people who clearly state their views.


NBiBooker said:


> I'd only like to ask that before making statements about the church and its teachings that people do a little research. Particularly when it comes to the subject of the Eurachrist and when it should and shouldn't be given out.


The Catechism is a huge book. And there are numerous encyclicals about all sorts of things. You would have to be a Vatican scholar to know where to find things. A bit much to ask of armchair critics.

But regardless, this issue is about a new development in church thinking. There's nowhere to look for clear insight. The church currently gives communion to politicians without regard to their record, and now they may change that. Even a priest would struggle to explain why.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> No, it's about a religious organization breaching it's agreement with a national government to not be poltically active in return for tax exemption.
> It's also about attempting to influence a public official by threats.
> 
> Martin as a private individual makes his own decisions and lives with those.
> ...


MacDoc, it's only a communion wafer. Get over it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Imagine if God is a woman of color from rural Georgia, and has one bad attitude towards everything that has been done in Her name??? 

When I taught in Waycross, Georgia, there was an African-American cook at our school who brought me to her church one Sunday. Being white and Jewish, I was the only white non-Christian in the congregation. However, listening to the sermon, which was about freedom, and hearing them sing, I could envision God being just like Bessie. Amen brothers and sisters. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Give this a read, everybody: http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051001/w100147.html

It doesn't look like Martin is too concerned. Good for him.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> it's only a communion wafer.


We'll assume Martin will take that attitude as well....but lobbying and influence laws are there for good reason......as is the tax exemption/political activism contract.

Breach the contract - lose the exemption.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> MacDoc, it's only a communion wafer. Get over it.





Dr.G. said:


> When I taught in Waycross, Georgia, there was an African-American cook at our school who brought me to her church one Sunday. Being white and Jewish, I was the only white non-Christian in the congregation. However, listening to the sermon, which was about freedom, and hearing them sing, I could envision God being just like Bessie. Amen brothers and sisters. Paix, mes amis.


While Dr. G. has an open mind on the subject, MacDoc's closed mind on so much of human history he passes off as "fairy tales" is clearly the loser, for one who shuts their mind so tightly will forever be in the minority in their views.

Religion clearly is and has been part of being human for centuries. To reject it outright is to admit no tolerance for normal human behaviour. Any religion serves a purpose to believers.

Under duress, even atheists are known to pray. Not being a religious person, I have not attended a church in 40 years, but I recognize the role religion plays in the lives of many worldwide. It is only those who so vigorously voice their objection to these so called fairy tales who are the losers in their lack of comprehension of religions benefits to mankind over the centuries.

The new secular society may very well be the evil most religions fear.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> While Dr. G. has an open mind on the subject, MacDoc's closed mind on so much of human history he passes off as "fairy tales" is clearly the loser, for one who shuts their mind so tightly will forever be in the minority in their views.
> 
> Religion clearly is and has been part of being human for centuries. To reject it outright is to admit no tolerance for normal human behaviour. Any religion serves a purpose to believers.
> 
> ...


I guess it was inevitable (the 'open mind' charges). Aside from the basic dispute being over tax treatment and what that entials, and doesn't, I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, except trying to discredit someone else's line of reasoning by the old political stand-by -- challenging some basic aspect of their nature/personality/humanity/wordly understanding.

What did you mean by 'vigorously voice their objection'? Hopfully it's not: Not believing in the 'fairy tales' and going as far as not wanting special tax treatment for organised religion = lack of comprehension of relgion's benefits to manking over the centuries. That would be a silly way to pigeon-hole something you dislike/disagree with.

The new secular society may very well be 'evil' to organised and prescriptive religion in that it changes the power balance, but it is a boon to personal religion and spirituality. Where something as specific as taxes fit into this is far from clear, but I was enjoying reading most of the posts.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, while I am not a religious person, certainly not in the formal sense, I see the validity of the point you made when you stated "Religion clearly is and has been part of being human for centuries. To reject it outright is to admit no tolerance for normal human behaviour. Any religion serves a purpose to believers." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Religion clearly is and has been part of being human for centuries. To reject it outright is to admit no tolerance for normal human behaviour. Any religion serves a purpose to believers.


Bigotry clearly is and has been part of being human for centuries. To reject it outright is to admit no tolerance for normal human behaviour. Any bigotry serves a purpose to believers.

Gee, anybody can play this game!

Sorcery clearly is and has been part of being human for centuries. To reject it outright is to admit no tolerance for normal human behaviour. Any sorcery serves a purpose to believers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> What did you mean by 'vigorously voice their objection'? Hopfully it's not: Not believing in the 'fairy tales' and going as far as not wanting special tax treatment for organised religion = lack of comprehension of relgion's benefits to manking over the centuries. That would be a silly way to pigeon-hole something you dislike/disagree with.


I disagree with none of the above. I simply make the point that human history and religion are intertwined and failing to recognize that any religion has and will continue to have a role in human existence is not logical.

Secularism is in itself a form of religion, ie: choosing NOT to believe in anything, thus being secular is believing in their own particular brand of "fairy tales".


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Thank you Beej exactly.

Sinc seems to not grasp the difference between private belief and public influence.

Taking the same line of reasoning as his one could quite accurately say that the separation of church and state has been "traditional" and clearly an important principle.
It would also be accurate to say that religious conflict has been "traditional".

Seems this study has been quickly forgotten
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=31721&highlight=religion
"Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'"



> Secularism is in itself a form of religion


No it's not Sinc - perhaps a bit of formal reading on religion might be in order...or you can continue to look foolish of course


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Secularism is in itself a form of religion, ie: choosing NOT to believe in anything, thus being secular is believing in their own particular brand of "fairy tales".


What nonsense. Not believing in religion is a form of religion? 

I suppose not believing in communism is a form of communism?
And not believing in human rights is a form of human rights?

Any other words in the dictionary you wish to empty of meaning for your own purposes?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc, I think we chewed that document to death. It was clearly too vague, with poor methodology.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Thank you Beej exactly.
> 
> Sinc seems to not grasp the difference between private belief and public influence.


Oh, I grasp it all right.

When secularists outnumber those who believe in one religion or another it may be another story, but for now secularists are a mere blip on the screen worldwide.

Like I said, I am not religious, but I know religions ain't going away anytime soon.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What you COULD have said Sinc is that secular government in light of a wide spread religious belief may not be the most effective form of human governance.

THAT might have engendered respect instead of laughter.

•••

Digging yourself deeper. Good stable government is NOT a quantity issue - engineers are only a "blip" too - but we are all highly dependent on them being correct in their understanding of the physical universe.....not on their accurate reading of entrails.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Abe Lincoln was fond of telling the story about when he was campaigning for Congress, and he stopped in to a local church to get out of the rain, since he was not a religious person, in a formal sense, but believed in God. 

The minister ended his sermon with a request for all who wanted to go to heaven to stand up. Most stood up, but not Lincoln. The minister went on to say that all those who did not want to go to hell should stand up. Now, everyone stood up........except Abe Lincoln.

The minister asked of Lincoln, "Mr. Lincoln, I asked all those who wanted to go to heaven to stand up, and asked all those who did not want to go to hell to stand up, and everyone stood up but you. Where are you going?"

Lincoln, in classic Lincoln fashion replied, "Sir, I am going to Congress."

In 1832 when Lincoln was only 20, he ran for a seat in the Illinois legislature. One of his opponents was the famed Methodist circuit rider Peter Cartwright who spread the word that his young opponent was “an infidel.” As a young man Lincoln described himself as “a piece of floating driftwood,” unmoored between the claims of various backcountry preachers. That Lincoln never did join a church has led many to believe he was a man without faith. Donald, his recent excellent biographer, substitutes for a more theological faith Lincoln’s self-defined “‘Doctrine of Necessity’ – this is, that the human mind is impelled to action, or held in rest by some power, over which the mind has no control.”


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> What you COULD have said Sinc is that secular government in light of a wide spread religious belief may not be the most effective form of human governance.
> 
> THAT might have engendered respect instead of laughter.


Will you ever come down far enough from your tower to know that your views are not of the majority? Religion will survive long after secularity is but a memory.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations." Pres. Abraham Lincoln [March 4, 1865]


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> I disagree with none of the above. I simply make the point that human history and religion are intertwined and failing to recognize that any religion has and will continue to have a role in human existence is not logical.
> 
> Secularism is in itself a form of religion, ie: choosing NOT to believe in anything, thus being secular is believing in their own particular brand of "fairy tales".


Ok, we appear to agree on the first point. My issue was in connecting not believing in religion and/or tax emption to not understanding religion's role for many people. My post mostly applies to that kind of thinking. ie. you don't have faith in this therefore you don't understand it (faith as different from agreement on logical arguments). It's like saying you don't like a certain movie to a fanatic of that movie: some refuse to believe that anyone who 'gets it' could not like it.

On the second point, a secular approach to separating government from religion does not mean no religion. It means no religion in government. However, equating not believing in anything divine with a brand of fairly tales is quite a stretch, but I guess the problem is in my using the term fairy tales. Perhaps 'faith' is a better term, but it may be a little late to get into a 'aetheists as faith-based' argument.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> your views are not of the majority?


I could care less. You are putting yourself in the company of the "majority" who felt

The world was flat
The earth was the centre of the universe
Diseases came from "humours"
etc etc etc

Fitting company you keep Sinc.

••••



> a secular approach to separating government from religion does not mean no religion. It means no religion in government


:clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> I could care less. You are putting yourself in the company of the "majority" who felt
> 
> The world was flat
> The earth was the centre of the universe
> ...


Yep, insults again meaning you must feel you lost the point? While we don't agree on much, I don't resort to name calling or talking about the company YOU keep. Darn shame you have to go there.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I agree secularism isn't a religion by definition but I understand what SINC is getting at. 

secular |?seky?l?r| adjective 1 denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis : secular buildings | secular moral theory. Contrasted with sacred .

Secularism, much like religion has its own moral theory or dogma if you will, and adherents will defend them and promote them with the same vigor as those of faith would promote their principles or morality. Like people of faith, not all secularists may share the exact same moral theories but their is general concensus on many issues.

Example of secular moral consensus might be:
-gays should be able to marry and raise children
-abortion is a right and should never be restricted
-euthanasia should be legal
-Sexual activity should have no restrictions
-Public education only (its a stubbling block to secular ideology)
-Nobody but a secularist should have a voice in government
-shacking up is fine

Many secularists will grasp these concepts and promote them with the unshakeable zeal of Jimmy Swaggart. ie. MacDoc These values define them as a group much like religious principles may define people of faith.

So like people of faith you have your dogma, the only difference is is how it was conceived.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacGuiver said:


> I agree secularism isn't a religion by definition but I understand what SINC is getting at. Many secularists will grasp these concepts and promote them with the unshakeable zeal of Jimmy Swaggart. ie. MacDoc These values define them as a group much like religious principles may define people of faith.
> 
> So like people of faith you have your dogma, the only difference is is how it was conceived.
> 
> ...


Yep, you got it MacGuiver. :clap:


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacGuiver, you don't got it.



MacGuiver said:


> Secularism, much like religion has its own moral theory or dogma if you will, and adherents will defend them and promote them with the same vigor as those of faith would promote their principles or morality. Like people of faith, not all secularists may share the exact same moral theories but their is general concensus on many issues.


AGREE-gays should be able to marry and raise children
AGREE-abortion is a right and should never be restricted
PARTLY AGREE-euthanasia should be legal [only self-euthanasia of adults unrestricted]
PARTLY AGREE-Sexual activity should have no restrictions [adult and consenting only]
DISAGREE-Public education only (its a stubbling block to secular ideology)
DISAGREE-Nobody but a secularist should have a voice in government
AGREE-shacking up is fine

Not much of a consensus here.

None of these things really sound all that "secular" to me. Sounds like ordinary liberal values. For instance, Jean Chretien supported the right of gays to marry, but he was still a practicing Catholic. Is he secular?

I don't know why you picked these ideas, but missing might be decriminalization of victimless crimes, and greater freedom of speech. But again, those are liberal values, not secular ones.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yep, insults again meaning you must feel you lost the point? While we don't agree on much, I don't resort to name calling or talking about the company YOU keep. Darn shame you have to go there.


Uh, what name did he call you? I don't see any insults either. And you can tell how he feels, too?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well I assume he feels with his fingers lp, but you can draw your own conclusion in that regard. I don't get your reference to anything I stated about how he feels. How he thinks or posts is quite another manner.

Lumping me in with those who believe the world is flat for example is not exactly a compliment. That to me is an offset way of calling me something I am not, therefore names.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:



> MacGuiver, you don't got it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi LP

Actually LP if you read my statement more carefully I didn't claim secularists would be unanimous on these secular moral dogma. However, you did support 5 of my 7 statements where I don't support any. MacDoc would easily score a 7. See my point? I agree these are liberal party values but the liberal party takes its marching orders from secularism.

Chretien's support for gay marriage certainly isn't rooted in his religion but secularism. Again its a case of the guy shooting seals from the bow of the rainbow warrior phenomena I spoke of earlier. Chretien, Martin and many other sudo catholics fall in this group. They're really just a cross breed of secular and Catholic ideology. Adherents to the gospel of Hippy Jesus who is a blend of both ideologies. 1 part christianity to 50 parts secularism. Hamburger stand owners that like to sit and drink the coffee at PETA meetings.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

The main difference between a secularist and a person of faith is that the secularist doesn't believe he is holding on to any dogma.

As to secularism being a religion, Dictionary.com, in their 4th definition of religion states:

"A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

by this definition, secularism could easily be defined as a religion.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Excellent point GWR! 

Got to go get the kids ready. Me and the other farmers have a PETA meeting at 10:30 every Sunday.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GWR said:


> The main difference between a secularist and a person of faith is that the secularist doesn't believe he is holding on to any dogma.
> 
> As to secularism being a religion, Dictionary.com, in their 4th definition of religion states:
> 
> ...


I rest my case.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I rest my case.


the big difference is that the "Church of Securalism" pays taxes.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

GWR said:


> The main difference between a secularist and a person of faith is that the secularist doesn't believe he is holding on to any dogma.


But A person of faith is equally likely to believe that he or she is not holding to any dogma. Alas, there is that crucial difference between what one would like to believe and what one believes... and other gaps exist, as well - between, say, what one what one proclaims to believe and what one privately believes.

This is seriously messy stuff. Defining these terms is as simple or as treacherous a task as you wish to make it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

There is an interesting rebroadcast on the second hour of the pseudo-Sunday Morning with an interview of Jimmy Breslin, and his views about the Catholic Church.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the big difference is that the "Church of Securalism" pays taxes.


 and they have a monopoly on determining law and policy in our government and our courts. Any voice outside the "Church of Secularism" loses its right to be heard if it doesn't agree with them. 
We've made progress though. The secularists are realizing they have dogma of their own.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I read in this morning's paper that Martin's parish priest will give him communion. What consequences, if any, might be brought onto the head of this priest?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GWR said:


> The main difference between a secularist and a person of faith is that the secularist doesn't believe he is holding on to any dogma.
> 
> As to secularism being a religion, Dictionary.com, in their 4th definition of religion states:
> 
> ...


That definition is the 'loosest' definition that can be, and is, applied to almost anything. 'Hockey is his religion' etc...It is using the term to emphasize someone's connection with something clearly non-religious. It's similar in my Oxford, with the first definitions relating to the supernatural and worship of said supernatural, and then also the more casual use you've referred to.

Either way, that's hardly meaningful and serves to muddy the waters and shift the debate to definitions. The difference, for many, is faith versus proof. There are significantly greater complexities where there isn't enough or any science ('value judgements'), and that is where you often see a great deal of diversity amongst secularists. 

All people choose individually, whether they choose to have faith in their religion's interpretation of the bible (and which part), choose to oppose what they have faith in for the cause of social order/justice, choose based on another ideology or choose based on no specific ideology (some people actually don't have all their opinions fit into a single ideology  ). 

In Catholocism/Christianity, there has always been debate (right from the start on which books went into the bible) and, in modern times, I don't know if anyone seriously believes that after much discussion the resulting doctrine is divine, but more us poor mortals trying to muddle through complex issues...thus changes in the church's opinion. People who don't follow current doctrine are not neccessarily less Catholic or casual observers, they just don't agree with all the mortal interpretations.

A more secular view, although I wouldn't ascribe it to all secularists, is that no matter what an individual believes, the rule of law must be supreme (and amendable) for a nation precisely because everybody has different beliefs. In other words, there is a path of logical reasoning with the underlying goal of 'fairness' or 'peace' or 'liberty'. This is different from a 'religious' approach, although both require a starting point -- the assumed goal. Secular assumed goals are more generally desired across numerous religions (although not a given person's primary goal) whereas 'religious' goals (God's prescription) are sometimes more exclusive to a given religion. 

But, like I posted a while back, I thought it was too late to get into an 'aetheists as faith-based' argument.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sink and MakGuiver...

You two are living in a world with blinders on. Speaking of secularism as a religion is a delusion. Secularism is a sociological requirement of polytheistic cultures.

I think that your own "faith" blinders have been flipped down. Sorry boys your faith is not the only one around. Secularism is needed in societies where there is more than one faith. At issue here is that one faith is trying to impose its values and beliefs on a collection of other faiths. 

This is wrong and cannot be tolerated.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

BTW... MacGuiver

You never did answer my previous question... 

Is Jesus's (nee God) love unconditional?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> Sink and MakGuiver...
> 
> At issue here is that one faith is trying to impose its values and beliefs on a collection of other faiths.
> 
> This is wrong and cannot be tolerated.


Yep, and it is called secularism.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I've started to believe in a God who is not all-powerful but loving, who is with us, helping us to cope, sometimes disappointed in us, not able to prevent tragedies from happening to us -- a God who weeps with us."
Rabbi Sally Priesand, the first female Rabbi in the United States.

I personally like this view of God.

Still, I wish all of the rock-throwing about who is correct and who is wrong in this thread would stop.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Yep, and it is called secularism.


Look I'm not going down the... is not, is too argument.

Face it outside of your own faith you cannot substantiate your argument. You then attempt to reverse the position by attacking a rational social outlook of respecting many faiths and beliefs at the same time.

I'm sorry but it boils down to respect and tolerance... your position shows neither, and that is exactly why it cannot be used to influence society as a whole.

Canada is a pretty accommodating place as it goes. We allow multiculturalism (and by default polytheism) in almost every facet of our society. Our constitution allows guarantees for a public and separate (Catholic) school system.

You are entitled to your faith... your beliefs are NOT entitled to impinge on mine.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Still, I wish all of the rock-throwing about who is correct and who is wrong in this thread would stop.


But here is the problem... 

A religious organization is trying to affect political/societal decisions of a sovereign nation. This is wrong.

If we do not stand up and defend our society, our culture, our families then who will?

I find it offensive. I'm bringing up my children in my wife's faith. It is not based in Christianity. In order to protect my family from living under the fear of having another faith's beliefs imposed on them I have to argue against it.

Jesus said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"... by the arguments on this board we have some pretty righteous sin free people posting here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> You are entitled to your faith... your beliefs are NOT entitled to impinge on mine.


I have stated many times I am not a religious person and I have no wish to impinge my beliefs on anyone.

I just wish the secularists showed the same courtesy, but they don't. They continue to hammer away at society until it suits them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I have stated many times I am not a religious person and I have no wish to impinge my beliefs on anyone.
> 
> I just wish the secularists showed the same courtesy, but they don't. They continue to hammer away at society until it suits them.



OK great and wise Sinc you tell me how you satisfy this breakdown of religion...

Total population 29,639,035	

Catholic 12,936,905	
Protestant 8,654,850	
Christian Orthodox 479,620	
Christian (Other) 780,450	
Muslim 579,640 
Jewish 329,995	
Buddhist 300,345	
Hindu 297,200	
Sikh 278,410	
Eastern religions 37,550	
Other religions 63,975	
No religious affiliation 4,900,090

C'mon what's the answer? If you don't think that a secular view point is required by our society and our government than what is your solution?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I did not ever say a secular viewpoint was not required.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I did not ever say a secular viewpoint was not required.


I am at a loss as to what your point is then my friend. So we need a secular viewpoint, however we also don't need rampant foaming at the mouth secularists from jamming their views down your throat?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I am at a loss as to what your point is then my friend. So we need a secular viewpoint, however we also don't need rampant foaming at the mouth secularists from jamming their views down your throat?


Close, but _any_ religious viewpoints would be better, including those who choose no beliefs as a religion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Close, but _any_ religious viewpoints would be better, including those who choose no beliefs as a religion.


An either/or argement, it appears. 'No beliefs' is, in fact, a belief? It is what it isn't? No religion is religious?

This could use some clarification.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> An either/or argement, it appears. 'No beliefs' is, in fact, a belief? It is what it isn't? No religion is religious?
> 
> This could use some clarification.


Max, I guess what I am saying is that some secularists are as fanatic about their views as are those of some extreme religions. You're right that it is a murky area, but that is a clear as I can make it.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, good enough, Sinc. I'm sure I've met the sort you're talking about... the one who wants to stridently ram his proud (insecure?) non-beliefs down everyone's throat.

Hapilly, these types are balanced by gentle non-believers who don't mind sharing viewpoints and can take the concept of disagreement without flipping out.

I am just not sure how a non-secular, non-religious government system would work. In fact, I don't see how it could even begin. Too many no's, not enough pro's.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Max, I guess what I am saying is that some secularists are as fanatic about their views as are those of some extreme religions. You're right that it is a murky area, but that is a clear as I can make it.


 Amen. Sometimes it's almost embarrassing how some want to go out and cleanse any public display of religion from existence. It's highly complex, but a smattering of perspective on degree would be good. It doesn't need to be all or nothing in every way. But that's so easy to type and so hard to do. 

I can't recall ever being personally offended by a city hall with a modest baby-Jesus display at Christmas; maybe a pure libertarian approach would rightly oppose that, but a mixed society that accepts various directed government spending that doesn't help everybody equally should be able to accept some passive relgion. Again, easy to type, hard to do. Everybody has their own line.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> I am just not sure how a non-secular, non-religious government system would work. In fact, I don't see how it could even begin. Too many no's, not enough pro's.


Nor do I, Max.

But an all secular agenda has drawbacks too. Where's the balance is the question in my mind.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nor do I, Max.
> 
> But an all secular agenda has drawbacks too. Where's the balance is the question in my mind.


I'm curious as to what those drawbacks are? I'm also curious as to what/how you would suggest we replace it?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I agree an all-secular agenda has its drawbacks. We've all seen how unwieldy and clumsy it can be. It just looks to me like the least offensive approach among many... consituting yet one more arm of well-intentioned but flawed government - and the bloat of bureaucratic administration which arises quite naturally from it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> I'm curious as to what those drawbacks are? I'm also curious as to what/how you would suggest we replace it?


See Max's post above. And I admit I have no solution. Just questions.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Amen. Sometimes it's almost embarrassing how some want to go out and cleanse any public display of religion from existence.
> 
> 
> I can't recall ever being personally offended by a city hall with a modest baby-Jesus display at Christmas;


And are you a Christian? If so what a lame comment.
{sarcasm}I'm not offended by public displays OF MY FAITH{/sarcasm}

Interestingly enough I was talking about this very issue with my aunt. She is an American born Jew. She feels that Christmas is pushed down her throat and has felt that it really negatively impacted her childhoood. No one is saying there shouldn't be public displays of faith. What they are saying is displays of faith shouldn't be publicly funded. I agree with this.
Displays of the ten comandments and nativity scenes shouldn't be part of publicy funded events as this only makes those of other faiths feel excluded from society and people shouldn't have to pay to be proseletized against their will. Like prayer in public schoools I think that these displays are wrong.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej


> a city hall with a modest baby-Jesus display at Christmas;


Would you find that same display very odd and out of place in a Sihk temple, would you remove your shoes in a Mosque to show respect.....?? Of course to both.

Churches are religious spaces and the concept is if you enter you respect that space
Public spaces in a secular government are secular spaces, *non-religious spaces.*
A statue of blind justice is most appropriate.

ALL are as one there under the law, under the charter regardless of race, religion, sex......
You wish to celebrate your particular religion, you have religious spaces to do so and under the Charter have protections.

Putting any one "display" in a public space casts doubt on "ALL are as one ".
Judges robes are plain and unadorned. Justice wears a blindfold.

Displays such as those on Parliament Hill on the Parliament buildings themselves that celebrate the vast variety or cultures and religions that are the mosaic of Canada I take no issue with.

Displays such as you mention I do take issue with in public spaces especially things like City Hall........had it a cross section of cultural/religious/family content reflecting the population as a whole.....that's very different.

In my mind it is important for every citizen that the public space and all that it implies about fairness, egality and equality to SEEN to be inclusive.

Any one display, cultural or religious, sends the opposite message.
The religious spaces have there own celebratory capacity for a specific marking event.

In my mind public spaces are not for display of specific religious images unless they are part of a wide scope and even then juxaposition can be perilous to how the display is viewed.
Far better in my mind specific images/displays be left to the various religions in their own spaces.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

martman said:


> Displays of the ten comandments and nativity scenes shouldn't be part of publicy funded events as this only makes those of other faiths feel excluded from society and people shouldn't have to pay to be proseletized against their will. Like prayer in public schoools I think that these displays are wrong.


Yep. Either fund _all_ of the religious displays as they occur throughout the year (yikes, what a zoo that would be) or stop funding them all. Let's at least try to rid ourselves of hideous favoritism.

Fat chance. Until such time a more secular approach is warranted, we should stop with publicly-funded religious favoritism. Maybe in a society far less polyglot than contemporary Canada, one religion for all makes sense. I don't know. Certainly, in decades past when our nation was younger and far more WASPy in its roots (and even then there was the indigenous tribes and the French, each with their own ideas of religious observation and custom), religious intolerance wasn't as much of an issue... but now, especially in our largest cities, makes little sense to put baby Jesus in that manger at City Hall... unless it's but one part of a larger ensemble aspects of public devotion... all competing with the eyesores of electronic billboards already glaring at us.

I would rather we tell the government to get out of that sorry business altogether.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I would rather we tell the government to get out of that sorry business altogether.


 = secular.

Exactly. Governments may indeed fund cultural and religious celebrations on a completely equal basis but as you say it is fraught with potential conflict.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Which raises the question of the phrase, "Merry Christmas" and the hundreds of thousands who publicly display Christmas trees and lights on their homes. I know non Christians who get caught up in the decorating thing, and my bet is secularists do too.

See what I mean about, where does it end?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I guess the diversity of secular opinion is alive and well and, mostly, so are manners.
It's good to see how the discussion has developed. I don't agree on the 'all or nothing' approach, but I can see validity in it. Hopefully some of the more religious types will comment on the kind of practical balance that is needed, or do they too support all or nothing?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Which raises the question of the phrase, "Merry Christmas" and the hundreds of thousands who publicly display Christmas trees and lights on their homes. I know non Christians who get caught up in the decorating thing, and my bet is secularists do too.
> 
> See what I mean about, where does it end?


Hold up, Sinc. What does hanging displays of _anything_ in one's home have to do with signs and symbols of public devotion in or on public land?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A cautionary if somewhat funny tale......



> National prestige collides with good taste in gifts to the U.N.
> By Terrence Murray
> 
> In a remote corner of the sprawling garden of the United Nations headquarters in New York, a majestic elephant stands erect. The beast, a bronze replica of an African bull elephant, seems serene amid the lush garden. The serenity, however, belies the tempest that was created by its display. The controversy centers on a certain part of the elephant, that all in all is about two feet long.
> ...


http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-07-07/712.asp


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Which raises the question of the phrase, "Merry Christmas" and the hundreds of thousands who publicly display Christmas trees and lights on their homes. I know non Christians who get caught up in the decorating thing, and my bet is secularists do too.
> 
> See what I mean about, where does it end?


 In most provinces power is subsidized, so must people take down their 'holiday' lights? Should cities have no holiday lights (power subsidies aside)? If I feel left out, is that relevant for public policy? Tough questions, and I hope this thread continues along those lines.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Throw in the publicly paid for street lighting that thousands of Canadian communities hang during the Christmas season. While many of them are Santas, bells, candle sticks, wreaths and candy canes, they certainly would appear to promote the Christian holiday. My bet is this practice will not stop any time soon either.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And consider this from the Edmonton Transit Service web site:

ETS Christmas Lights Tours 
For a limited time in December, ETS offers a pre-booked two-hour tour of Edmonton's Christmas lights. Three tours a night are offered. Reservations are required. Maximum group size is ten.

Seems to leave little doubt how those lights are viewed as directly tied to Christmas, does it?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> In most provinces power is subsidized, so must people take down their 'holiday' lights? Should cities have no holiday lights (power subsidies aside)? If I feel left out, is that relevant for public policy? Tough questions, and I hope this thread continues along those lines.


This answer is easy. Yes the power is subsadised but it is subsadised equally among all the faiths represented by our population so it can be used in displays of several religions ie electric candls often used by Jews or light displays used by Christains and some Hindus etc.

Really though this argument seems to me to be an extreme form of nit picking.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Throw in the publicly paid for street lighting that thousands of Canadian communities hang during the Christmas season. While many of them are Santas, bells, candle sticks, wreaths and candy canes, they certainly would appear to promote the Christian holiday. My bet is this practice will not stop any time soon either.



I find this parctice highly offensive peresonally. I love people's private displays but resent paying for the city to put this crap up and power it every year. I think the money would be far better spent maintaining our roads. As an asside in my neighbourhood they now leave the lights up all year. Same with the last neighbourhood I lived in.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> And consider this from the Edmonton Transit Service web site:
> 
> ETS Christmas Lights Tours
> For a limited time in December, ETS offers a pre-booked two-hour tour of Edmonton's Christmas lights. Three tours a night are offered. Reservations are required. Maximum group size is ten.
> ...


 Change the name to 'Holiday Lights' and the problem is still there, especially for large families of over 10  .

The use of a libertarian-style argument for relgion-specific costs, while internally consistent, has weaknesses. I find the lights wasteful and tacky, but many people seem to enjoy them and $ for $ there's a hell of a lot more government waste in trying to help people and bring people together; I'm ok with the lights. If I claimed to be personally offended as a non-Christian would my opinion suddenly hold more weight? Not attacking you SINC, just quoting your post as a springboard for my own rambling. Sorry to use you in such a manner but, c'est la vie.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> This answer is easy. Yes the power is subsadised but it is subsadised equally among all the faiths represented by our population so it can be used in displays of several religions ie electric candls often used by Jews or light displays used by Christains and some Hindus etc.
> 
> Really though this argument seems to me to be an extreme form of nit picking.


The subsidy inherently favours forms of religion that express their celebration with more lights. And yes, it's nitpicking (in my opinion), but that's the 'line' for which everybody has a different standard that I mentioned in my initial post. And, $-wise, I wouldn't be surprised if it amounted to a hell of a lot more than a few little Jesus scenes put up once a year. Maybe I just enjoy stirring things up...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Change the name to 'Holiday Lights' and the problem is still there, especially for large families of over 10  .
> 
> The use of a libertarian-style argument for relgion-specific costs, while internally consistent, has weaknesses. I find the lights wasteful and tacky, but many people seem to enjoy them and $ for $ there's a hell of a lot more government waste in trying to help people and bring people together; I'm ok with the lights. If I claimed to be personally offended as a non-Christian would my opinion suddenly hold more weight? Not attacking you SINC, just quoting your post as a springboard for my own rambling. Sorry to use you in such a manner but, c'est la vie.


The issue about being a Christian came up because you said that nativity dsiplays don't offend you. Well why would it if you are a Christain?
Why would a Star of David display offend you if you were Jewish? 
If you can't see the point I am making it is because you are trying desperatly not to.

PEOPLE ARE RARELY OFFENDED BY PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF THEIR OWN RELIGION! This is what made your earlier comment lame in my opinion.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> Not attacking you SINC, just quoting your post as a springboard for my own rambling. Sorry to use you in such a manner but, c'est la vie.


No problem Beej. I am only pointing out common practices and I try never to take others views on this board personally. I just think noting common practices adds to the depth of the discussion. And complicates it as well


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

> The subsidy inherently favours forms of religion that express their celebration with more lights


How are holiday lights strung up at christmas time religious?? Maybe for those that pray at the alter of Commercialism.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Carex said:


> How are holiday lights strung up at christmas time religious?? Maybe for those that pray at the alter of Commercialism.


If holiday lights were strung up on Canada Day, I would call them patriotic, not religious, but the timing of holiday lighting and the Christmas holidays leave me suspicious religion is involved.


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

A few years ago I visited the Texas State Capitol Building in Austin. It's an impressive building and it has a spectacular circular atrium in the middle of the building underneath a vaulting rotunda. While taking the guided tour I commented that it must be a fantastic place for a Christmas tree. The guide wistfully commented that it did indeed look magnificent when decorated for Christmas... but that they hadn't decorated in several years because some people had complained that it showed favouritism to Christianity.

While I understand and have sympathy for MacDoc's position, I would counter by saying that the Judeo-Christian tradition is a foundation of our western society. Rightly or wrongly it forms the basis of our government, our legal system and much of our culture. Remove it and we are left with paper mache institutions and values than anyone can poke holes in... for example:



> ALL are as one there under the law, under the charter regardless of race, religion, sex......


I agree... but the Enlightenment ideal did not spring from Athenian democracy or any secular concept but from Protestant Christianity generally and Quaker theology in particular. 

Secularization is a process in which much is lost for little gain. It begins with the loss of Christmas trees in the Texas Capitol, progresses to French Muslims being forbidden to wear headscarves to school and where does it end? Perhaps here:



> Displays such as those on Parliament Hill on the Parliament buildings themselves that celebrate the vast variety or cultures and religions that are the mosaic of Canada I take no issue with.


How could anyone take issue with them? They are as generally as colourful and meaningless as advertisements for 'The Gap'... with all the same empty platitudes. What a soul destroying place (for want of a better term ) you would have us live in.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> The subsidy inherently favours forms of religion that express their celebration with more lights. And yes, it's nitpicking (in my opinion), but that's the 'line' for which everybody has a different standard that I mentioned in my initial post. And, $-wise, I wouldn't be surprised if it amounted to a hell of a lot more than a few little Jesus scenes put up once a year. Maybe I just enjoy stirring things up...


Well again I think this is an extreme bit of nitpicking on your part but here goes:
Yes in reality electricity is subsadised so you do have an argument but it is one I have never heard of anyone relying on. Ultimaly we shouldn't be subsadising electricty (except for the poor to heat their homes) so in a way I agree but not the way you lay it out. 
AGAIN I DON'T EVER HEAR SECULARISTS SYING PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DISPLAY THEIR FAITH! EVER!

You may want to paint it this way but it is not true. Just because in a round about way we all end up paying some for private displays of faith doesn't justify City Hall or Parliment or whatever, giving defacto state approval of some relirgions while ignoring others in a multicultural society.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> The issue about being a Christian came up because you said that nativity dsiplays don't offend you. Well why would it if you are a Christain?
> Why would a Star of David display offend you if you were Jewish?
> If you can't see the point I am making it is because you are trying desperatly not to.
> 
> PEOPLE ARE RARELY OFFENDED BY PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF THEIR OWN RELIGION! This is what made your earlier comment lame in my opinion.


Not Christian, not Jewish. Those symbols still don't offend me. Part of my point is that feeling offended or left out is not a good basis for policy, that just favours the squeaky wheel. Libertarian arguments are valid, but no society has ever (that I've heard of) run itself off strictly libertarian arguments, reality requires/wants/lends itself to more complexity.

If my earlier comment was lame based on the assumption of me being Christian, hopefully I've established that it is no longer lame  . But to clarify: I am not Christian. Why that was necessary is for another thread...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> Secularization is a process in which much is lost for little gain. It begins with the loss of Christmas trees in the Texas Capitol, progresses to French Muslims being forbidden to wear headscarves to school and where does it end? Perhaps here:
> 
> 
> 
> How could anyone take issue with them? They are as generally as colourful and meaningless as advertisements for 'The Gap'... with all the same empty platitudes. What a soul destroying place (for want of a better term ) you would have us live in.


I dissagree. With secularism what is gained is equality and what is lost is bigotry. People who defend nativity scenes etc. Always talk about Jeudeao/ Christian values and history but NEVER EVER actually mention things Jewish only Christian. These people are almost always Christians who do thier best to REFUSE to see that these practises are inherantly discriminatory in their application.

The private sector rams Christmas down everyones' throats. That is their right. We don't need the public sector doing it too.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a) People houses are their property and short of the hate laws they can turn them into Klingon Battle cruisers if it turns they're crank.

That's NOT public space.

b) The Edmonton comment simply reflects insensitivity. Why am I not surprised.

Holiday Season, festive season call it what you will if it's inclusive or non sectarian - if it bugs you take it up with City Hall about wasting tax payers money.

Winter Solstice is a part of our planet and something to brighten the shortest days in the Northern Hemisphere is generally welcome. Cultural and religious festivals and celebrations are part of our diversity and provide understanding.
I really enjoy seeing the wider diversity now.

It's only in the purview of specific government spaces and schools and libraries that in my mind caution needs be exercised so that the "appearance" of all inclusive and welcoming is clearly maintained.
Colourful lights dressing up a public building - even a tree as it goes well back beyond the roots of "adopter" religions.
Tack a star up - fine - tack a cross up on top - marginal. Tack a bit of all the cultures and religions that celebrate in December.....fine tho I wonder how some would view the Wiccan or even more the Dionysian "symbols"  Priapus n all.

Public spaces keep inclusive - it's celebration...as for Santa Claus - we likely get enough in the stores tho that's not material to this discussion....pardon the pun

I like the fact that various cultures and religions are able to get time off for their own celebrations.

Sinc.... bells and candles and wreaths go far back into human history ..as I said, adoptive., you are bringing your own associations to them.....and THAT is as it should be for public displays.

•••••



> The private sector rams Christmas down everyones' throats. That is their right. We don't need the public sector doing it too.


Good point but even the private sector is exercising some caution and Happy Holidays is quite often heard.
My Merry New Year suffices me. Best wishes of the season.
All those are inclusive and I'd say in multi-cultural towns are more the norm than the exception.

I sorta like the idea that the "Holiday season" is getting oh some 40+ days in length  So do the merchants.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Sinc.... bells and candles and wreaths go far back into human history ..as I said, adoptive., you are bringing your own associations to them.....and THAT is as it should be for public displays.


As it turns out, I live directly across the street from two elderly Muslim ladies. When we put up our Christmas lights complete with a nativity scene in the window, I often wonder if my display is public or private, although they have been gracious and never complained in spite of the fact they see it for four weeks. While I am not religious, nor do I attend church, these things are a holdover from my childhood and the teachings of my parents and Sunday School teachers in the late 40s and early 50s. Call it nostalgia, I guess.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> People who defend nativity scenes etc. Always talk about Jeudeao/ Christian values and history but NEVER EVER actually mention things Jewish only Christian. These people are almost always Christians who do thier best to REFUSE to see that these practises are inherantly discriminatory in their application.


I acknowledge that you used 'almost always' Christians. I don't mind modest displays (again, degree matters) because they can make a lot of people truly happy and connected for a bit, versus a small number of people who go on treasure hunts finding ways to feel offended or left out by anything they don't agree with. It's not easy to distinguish the two approaches, but that doesn't make it unimportant or not worth trying--some people just whine a lot and martyr themselves (I probably could have picked a less controversial choice of words). 

There are many government policies that strongly favour much smaller groups of society than Christians. I think the key is in the degree (thus annoyingly repeating my lack of support for all or nothing doctrine) and that it must be passive, not prescriptive.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> As it turns out, I live directly across the street from two elderly Muslim ladies. When we put up our Christmas lights complete with a nativity scene in the window, I often wonder if my display is public or private, although they have been gracious and never complained in spite of the fact they see it for four weeks. While I am not religious, nor do I attend church, these things are a holdover from my childhood and the teachings of my parents and Sunday School teachers in the late 40s and early 50s. Call it nostalgia, I guess.


And I would never complain about such a display. I (believe it or not) love really good light displays around Christamas. I just don't think they belong on publicly owned buildings.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I just don't think they belong on publicly owned buildings.


Exactly.

Beej.......I think you miss the point of a public square or building "being seen" to be inclusive.

YOU may find a single display as you mention in a public space harmless, I assure you others do not. 

I DO find it encouraging that the sensitivity to "inclusive" is spreading rapidly and in my mind in no small part to the "gay marriage" issue which has made people think about minority rights and egalitarian principles.

I'm proud of Canada leading the way for the world in many of these areas :clap:

Bottom line tho is ALL our responsibilities, not just the gov to be inclusive....and your concern about your neighbours thoughts speaks well to that Sinc.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Beej.......I think you miss the point of a public square or building "being seen" to be inclusive.
> 
> YOU may find a single display as you mention in a public space harmless, I assure you others do not.


I understand the point, and find that the idea of 0 religion is exclusive and that degree and passivity matters. Again, I find the argument for all or none weak. I guess I'm in the minority...but do I feel excluded?

If others feel differently, that is as expected. If others argue that this feeling MUST dictate policy, then no. It is a consideration amongst many others that have, to date, led to the ongoing development of this wonderful and imperfect country.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The great thing about such a display is that it would be a reminder that the women across the street, or any others, are free to set up such displays themselves, as small or as large as they wish, at any time of year they wish, with practically no fear of retribution, persecution or some breach of their personal security. That may not be true in every community across Canada, but it is true for most.

Now there's a reason to smile at the Chrismas displays, the huge lit menorahs, and all the other religious symbols or arguably secular ones (e.g., Santa Claus).

Some Muslim families, btw, celebrate the secular aspects of Christmas, the exchange of presents, the tree setup and decoration, the lights, and so on, with all due respect to those for whom it is a religious observance, although 'God knows' that the commercial aspects were not a large part of the celebration in the past.





SINC said:


> As it turns out, I live directly across the street from two elderly Muslim ladies. When we put up our Christmas lights complete with a nativity scene in the window, I often wonder if my display is public or private, although they have been gracious and never complained in spite of the fact they see it for four weeks. While I am not religious, nor do I attend church, these things are a holdover from my childhood and the teachings of my parents and Sunday School teachers in the late 40s and early 50s. Call it nostalgia, I guess.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Fink-Nottle said:


> A few years ago I visited the Texas State Capitol Building in Austin. It's an impressive building and it has a spectacular circular atrium in the middle of the building underneath a vaulting rotunda. While taking the guided tour I commented that it must be a fantastic place for a Christmas tree. The guide wistfully commented that it did indeed look magnificent when decorated for Christmas... but that they hadn't decorated in several years because some people had complained that it showed favouritism to Christianity.


I wanted to re-vist this because it has been gnawing away at my psyche.

So we lost all the beautiful lights lighting up this impressive structure in Austin because people felt excluded (or what ever) by it being about Christmas. So why not have a lights festival in January or June?
It is not like this has to be the end of artistic lighting on this building. 
Seems to me the carboard is in between the ears of folks who can't immaging colourfull lights anytime but Christmas.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

But what of that Christmas tree? It was the centerpiece of the display. What do we substitute? A willow? An Oak? A tropical tree?

Seems to me Christmas still figures in the display. Won't cut it in June, and will look like a bike with one wheel in January.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> But what of that Christmas tree? It was the centerpiece of the display. What do we substitute? A willow? An Oak? A tropical tree?
> 
> Seems to me Christmas still figures in the display. Won't cut it in June, and will look like a bike with one wheel in January.


There doesn't seem to be a tree infront of this Legislature. Lots of trees on the sides however. Look at the photo.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> There doesn't seem to be a tree infront of this Legislature. Lots of trees on the sides however. Look at the photo.


I refer to the tree FN mentioned:


> It's an impressive building and it has a spectacular circular atrium in the middle of the building underneath a vaulting rotunda. While taking the guided tour I commented that it must be a fantastic place for a Christmas tree. The guide wistfully commented that it did indeed look magnificent when decorated for Christmas... but that they hadn't decorated in several years because some people had complained that it showed favouritism to Christianity.


The picture has nothing to do with "that" tree.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sinc, decorated trees at the solstice is a common symbol threaded through many cultures and religions- depends much on the nature of the decorations themselves as to whether it become ecumenical and inclusive.

People understand the power of symbols









Here's an entire website just on the use of the two shown here for relief that have been in use since the 19th century.

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/emblem

Look at the debate over the Canadian flag.
Australia and NZ have similar issues.

Symbols in or on public buildings carry different messages than those of private citizens or commercial spaces or religious spaces.

There are all sorts of restrictions on advertising in schools, libraries and certain public buildings. Similar principle involved.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> BTW... MacGuiver
> 
> You never did answer my previous question...
> 
> Is Jesus's (nee God) love unconditional?


Sorry to put you off on an answer but here it is. 

Unconditional Love: Hippy Jesus, yes. Scriptural Jesus, no. 

John Chapter 3

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
18
Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
19
9 And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.
20
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.
21
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God. 

Notice the extensive use of the word "might". Even if you believe in Jesus, your salvation would seem to still be conditional.

Its a tough pill to swallow but the words of Biblical Jesus no less. His love is unconditional in the sense that he will not deny his love and forgiveness from a truly repent person no matter how grave the sin. 

Hope that answers your question.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Fink-Nottle (Feb 25, 2001)

> I dissagree. With secularism what is gained is equality and what is lost is bigotry. People who defend nativity scenes etc. Always talk about Judeao/ Christian values and history but NEVER EVER actually mention things Jewish only Christian. These people are almost always Christians who do thier best to REFUSE to see that these practises are inherantly discriminatory in their application.


Your initial statement equates religiosity with bigotry... which is well, rather bigoted. Your follow up statement doesn't really address my point; you just say that it's usually Christians who talk about Judeao-Christian values... hardly surprising given the difference in numbers between the two groups.



> Seems to me the carboard is in between the ears of folks who can't immaging colourfull lights anytime but Christmas.


You're missing the point here; why would we want to strip the meaning and raison d'etre from a religious celebration to create a secular one? It wouldn't mean anything to anybody.

I think this is an issue that has to be resolved anew every time to get it right. I can well understand that non Christians may resent a Christmas tree in the halls of their government... but I also feel that enforced secularization is misguided and often results in less rather than more freedom, the French ban on student headscarves being a good example. Generally a compromise route is always best... a Christmas tree at Christmas and other symbols for other faiths at appropriate times, perhaps. The French government I feel is mistaken though, and the students should be allowed to wear their headscarves... anyone disagree with that?


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

*The Popes latest words.*

Taken from : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4301762.stm

"A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life... is not tolerance but hypocrisy," the Pope said in the homily.

"When man makes himself the only master of the world and master of himself, justice cannot exist." 

I know that this isn't going to convince all of you secularists out there, but I thought you might find it interesting to read what many of us actually believe. Wether you like it or not your private beliefs will impact your public life. That goes for all of us, including politicians. To say, as many secularists have said on this thread, that religion should be a "private" matter is to belittle all religious beliefs and to make the secular viewpoint the only valid viewpoint. If one truly *believes* in his religion then he will try to live it out in private and in *public*. Including politicians. To treat religion as a private matter only makes sense if one believes in no religion at all (ie. the secularists). The only way a Roman Catholic (as well as many other persons of Faith) can accept that proposition is if he doesn't truly *believe* what his religion teaches.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Its a tough pill to swallow but the words of Biblical Jesus no less. His love is unconditional in the sense that he will not deny his love and forgiveness from a truly repent person no matter how grave the sin.


So it is pretty much that God only loves those who believe or repent? What of the billions of people who are not aware and never will be of what is available to them?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> So it is pretty much that God only love those whobelieve or repent? What of the billions of people who are not aware and never will be of what is available to them?


Whew, glad I don't have to answer that question!


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> So it is pretty much that God only love those whobelieve or repent? What of the billions of people who are not aware and never will be of what is available to them?


Well, I certainly don't want to presume to answer for MacGuiver, but why do you think the Church has always been missionnary? Exactly for the reasons you state. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. "(Mark 16:14, biblical Jesus speaking again). That is His actual teaching, and that is why the Church has always had such a missionary zeal, to try and save as many as possible.
Repentance is open to all, however, and even a pagan knows in his heart when he sins, and he can repent.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> Well, I certainly don't want to presume to answer for MacGuiver, but why do you think the Church has always been missionnary? Exactly for the reasons you state. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. "(Mark 16:14, biblical Jesus speaking again). That is His actual teaching, and that is why the Church has always had such a missionary zeal, to try and save as many as possible,


So God's love is pretty much conditional on the "you have to believe" in him.

Now if God is, well God... and is the Omnipitent, all powerful, creator of the universe. Why would he let all those people suffer and die when they have no chance of ever being saved because they never have heard of him or his teachings?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I've started to believe in a God who is not all-powerful but loving, who is with us, helping us to cope, sometimes disappointed in us, not able to prevent tragedies from happening to us -- a God who weeps with us."
Rabbi Sally Priesand, the first female Rabbi in the United States.

I personally like this view of God.

Still, I wish all of the rock-throwing about who is correct and who is wrong in this thread would stop.

.......but I repeat myself. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> So God's love is pretty much conditional on the "you have to believe" in him.


If a person doesn't believe in God, how can they love Him? If a person doesn't love Him, how can they expect to be saved by Him?



> Now if God is, well God... and is the Omnipitent, all powerful, creator of the universe. Why would he let all those people suffer and die when they have no chance of ever being saved because they never have heard of him or his teachings?



Every man has sinned and is deserving of hellfire (doctrine of "Original sin") salvation is not owed us, however repentance is open to all, even a pagan knows when he has sinned and can repent.


----------



## GWR (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> I wish all of the rock-throwing about who is correct and who is wrong in this thread would stop.


I, personally, do not see it as rock-throwing about who is correct. I see it as an attempt to explain what many Christians believe. I certainly don't expect to convince everyone that I am correct, but I would like to attempt to explain the basis for many of our beliefs. It's not as though we believe in "Fairy-tails" and nonesensical stories, as many seem to think.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

GWR, I see your point. I guess I am reacting to some of the postings made by certain people that seem to be more than explaining the basis of one's belief. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> GWR, I see your point. I guess I am reacting to some of the postings made by certain people that seem to be more than explaining the basis of one's belief. Paix, mon ami.


I know your pointing the finger at me Dr.G.

But I am trying to make a point here. At issue is a doctrinized dogma based on the writings of men from hundreds to a thousand years ago being used to guide my society into forming rules based on their belief system.

It is wrong. You know it, and I know it. If this is not the forum to have these discussions then I ask forgiveness from the Doxie Pack (at least we aren't having this debat in the Shang). I think however this is exactly the appropriate forum for this type of debate.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GWR said:


> If a person doesn't believe in God, how can they love Him? If a person doesn't love Him, how can they expect to be saved by Him?


MacGuiver used the example that God's love is like a parent. Not the Hippy Hug all encomapssing love... but the parental love of someone who is concerned.

What kind of parent abandons their children when they do not receive affection from them?

I would not use the word love in the example you give. Fealty, yes. Love, no.



GWR said:


> Every man has sinned and is deserving of hellfire (doctrine of "Original sin") salvation is not owed us, however repentance is open to all, even a pagan knows when he has sinned and can repent.


So your saying that when God created everything, including us... that he condemed us to burn in hell from the get go? So why would someone who loves us do such a thing?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It's not as though we believe in "Fairy-tails" and nonesensical stories


Well the dialogue so far has hardly been a reason to change minds on that point. Matter fact you've made a good case FOR separation of church and state in just a few exemplary exchanges here.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> MacGuiver used the example that God's love is like a parent. Not the Hippy Hug all encomapssing love... but the parental love of someone who is concerned.
> 
> What kind of parent abandons their children when they do not receive affection from them?
> I would not use the word love in the example you give. Fealty, yes. Love, no.


Hi Da-jonesy

Christ never abandons us, we abandon him. God gave us the gift of free will and allows us to choose our own path.
Like a loving parent, Christ has guidelines and rule to prevent us from hurting others or ourselves. Like a loving parent, Christ respects our choices. If we choose to deny him, to hate him, to rebel against him he will still long for us to return, but he will respect the choice we made and we will reap what we sow. Like a concerned parent, Christ will seek us out when we're far from him but we still make the ultimate decision. A parent can't force a child to love them nor can God. A child that runs away from home can not be bound and gagged and forced off the street. They'll just return to the street as soon as possible.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> A parent can't force a child to love them nor can God. A child that runs away from home can not be bound and gagged and forced off the street. They'll just return to the street as soon as possible.


No that's not true and you know it. That's why we have interventions and 12 step programs, etc... 

A loving parent should never abandon a child. And your argument doesn't address those people who have never heard the "word" of Jesus and never will. What about them? What about the over a billion people who are either Hindu's or Buddhist. They've never heard the "word" of Jesus. They have no way of knowing that they "must" accept him to be saved. That isn't a very fair arrangment for them is it?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm on my way now to New York to meet with some bankers now...

I'll try and get back on this evening after my meetings and respond to anything that might come up. 

I am of course thoroughly enjoying this thread. Probably more than I should.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

What the bleep do we know? 

Interesting film with a new take on "God."


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> If your basing your statement on Angus Reid Polls your probably right but on what biblical basis do you think they should marry people of the same sex? Also, if we shouldn't listen to 80 year old men that have devoted their entire lives to the study of scripture for our Christianity, who do you propose is better qualified or educated in biblical teaching to lead us? I'm all ears.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I don't think that there is a biblical basis. However everyone is entitled to the same rights. Be it marriage or otherwise. These men may have devoted their lives to scripture their whole lives, but who says the scriptures truly apply to today's world when they were made up hundreds of years ago? Religion has no place in government especially with so many divided socities. Faith doesn't create problems, religion does. And if you don't agree with that, I encourage you to take a trip to one of the countries currently in the media that are at civil strife or at war with another country over religious beliefs and claims.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions just as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But the government is not forum for religious conviction.

For teachings of the bible, obviously the leaders are the priests. But when it comes to a country, rule for the people, not for a majority belief system that is severley dated and flawed in current times.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

digitalmatty said:


> Faith doesn't create problems, religion does.



Well said 


Just popped on while waiting for the rest of the boys here at the Millenium Hilton. Right across from Ground Zero... it is kind of humbling and exactly why religion and faith are not necessarily the same thing.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

digitalmatty said:


> I don't think that there is a biblical basis. However everyone is entitled to the same rights. Be it marriage or otherwise. These men may have devoted their lives to scripture their whole lives, but who says the scriptures truly apply to today's world when they were made up hundreds of years ago? Religion has no place in government especially with so many divided socities. Faith doesn't create problems, religion does. And if you don't agree with that, I encourage you to take a trip to one of the countries currently in the media that are at civil strife or at war with another country over religious beliefs and claims.
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinions just as everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. But the government is not forum for religious conviction.
> 
> For teachings of the bible, obviously the leaders are the priests. But when it comes to a country, rule for the people, not for a majority belief system that is severley dated and flawed in current times.


Hi Marty

How unshakeable is your belief that we all should have the same rights?
I can't get a tax free card or a free university education like a status indian.
A man can't marry 2 or more women if they so choose.
A 13 year old can't have sex with a 40 year old but a 14 year old can.
An 18 year old can vote but a 17 year old can't?
Why do we have special laws to prosecute hate crimes against homosexuals yet we don't for fat people, skinny people, ugly people, immigrants etc. etc. 
So if its equality for all what do you feel about these inequalities?

Claiming societies are divided because of religion is being intellectually dishonest. 
Do street gangs in LA kill each other feuding over scripture passages? Are Americans in Iraq because the country is full of Muslims or is it oil? Did Hitler invade every country in Europe based of religious tensions? Yes religion can be divisive but if we had no religion we'd still be divided based on things like skin color, language, culture or class. Sadly its part of the human condition but your foolish if you think a world without religion is a world united.

Yes it would seem that ancient moral principles seam to have outlived their "shelf life" in our current generations. The commitment of marriage is no longer required. Sex is packaged as the ultimate recreational activity from the earliest years, devoid of commitment and completely benign. If it gives you an orgasm then fill your boots. 
This bleeding edge morality has replaced the severely dated and flawed concepts of purity, virginity, committed marriage and monogamy and has resulted in a whirlwind of benefits to humanity:

-A marriage failure rate of almost half
-Millions of unwanted babies and abortions 
-Millions of children that bounce between mom and dad or have no dad at all.
-Growing demand for social housing and social support for broken families
-Deadly sexually transmitted diseases killing or afflicting millions. etc. etc.
-The Jerry Springer Show

So who needs these tired old morals when we can have all that instead.

On the "no religious influence on political decisions dogma" I have this to say. What do you say if said convictions influenced the forgiveness of 3rd world debt, the allotment of tax dollars to starving children in Africa, the betterment of care for seniors? A vote against capital punishment? A vote not to go to war? I have a feeling nobody would be screaming foul due to religious interference.
But you can't have your cake and eat it too. You would have to demand that the politician be discredited for his religious beliefs are tainting his policy choices.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



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

MacGuiver, correct me if I'm wrong, but the hate laws in Canada are not selectively for the protection of homosexuals (see, for example, here and here). They can be used in any case where an individual or individuals is found to have abused the rights of a fellow person based on some form of discrimination - including sexuality. The fact is, aside from school bullying, etc., "fat" people do not find themselves being being up, whereas, all too often, gay-bashing is a Friday night exercise for some idiots. Your other examples are not examples of inequalities, but are based on clearly understood lines and for good reasons. Occasionally these are questioned and sometimes they are changed for very good reasons. Same-sex marriage being a good example even if you have a hard time agreeing with it.

I also think that while the ethics and morals of some religious teachings are admirable and that many, many devout believers are truly wonderful people, that one cannot generalize. There are many, many wonderful human beings who do not believe in God and there are sectors of society whom no one would wish to be acquainted with. You may claim that believing in God helps you do the "right thing" but believers do not have a monopoly on righteousness nor is there much evidence to support the argument that we are better off as a society because of the actions of religious groups. We live in a country where one is free to practise one's religion or not without fear of discrimination.

There is, of course, friction between believers and non-believers. It's not hard to see why (as GWR has explained). Christians are compelled to try to convert/save the non-believers, as are several other religious denominations. That can prove rather grating to non-believers..... In a pleuralistic society, our strength is in our diversity. We owe it to ourselves to be gracious and forgiving of others and to try to understand multiple points of view.

Separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of modern society. The theocracies of the world are excellent reminders of the consequences of blending the two.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Hi Marty
> 
> How unshakeable is your belief that we all should have the same rights?
> I can't get a tax free card or a free university education like a status indian.
> ...


Just a few quick things...cause honestly, I didn't bother reading your novel.

Your list of inequalities is well researched, however dumbfoundly mentioned in this discussion.

Fat people don't get beat up for being fat by groups of people who purely hate fat people. I mean skinny people are a minority the way society gorges itself. Do you think that a gay person has a choice of their sexual orientation? NO. But a fat person can go on a diet, or a skinny person can eat some red meat. They do punish hate crimes against immigrents, pretty sure that's called racial hate crimes...marrying more than one women? Do you REALLY need more than one women? I think that's just greedy...just go have recreational sex if you need more than one vagina. And finally...about Indians...you're pretty much an asshole if you don't think they deserve that. When colonizing North America the Indian populations faced such hate, discrimination and brutal ends that I feel we owe them MORE. I mean wouldn't you want justice if someone came into your house, murdered your entire family, took over your house and let you live in a closet in the basement?

Hitler wasn't jewish, he was christian....so uh...I think those are seperate religions?
As for gangs in LA? Are you kidding? That's hardly something I would say pertains to our topic. What some group of uneducated, testosterone driven children do for kicks on a saturday night is of no relevance to homosexual marriage, Martin or religion. Simply an out of context statement.

I said nothing about Americans in Iraq, they are there to protect their people...to give them tanks upon tanks of fuel. I am talking REAL wars here...most recently you could try this link. Intellectually dishonest? Please, you're trying too hard to force your wordy 'intelectual honesty' onto us. If you think the world with many religions is a well-functioning and peaceful place, you truly need to read more CURRENT writings for an idea of what is going on.


And another thing; the world is already divided by skin color, language, culture or class, all of which CAN (but not all) relate to religion.

That's it, I'm done, I really can't handle such a closed mind.

peace OUT.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

digitalmatty said:


> Just a few quick things...cause honestly, I didn't bother reading your novel.
> 
> Your list of inequalities is well researched, however dumbfoundly mentioned in this discussion.
> 
> ...


Who has the closed mind? Although just snippets of a longer post that itself would just be snippets of your thoughts, you've built a good case for it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> -A marriage failure rate of almost half
> -Millions of unwanted babies and abortions
> -Millions of children that bounce between mom and dad or have no dad at all.
> -Growing demand for social housing and social support for broken families
> ...


A few comments on these specific examples, in order.
-Stable marriages in the past hid abuse and a very different gender balance than most would be comfortable with now (not all marriages, but I don't have stats)

-Abortion stats weren't 'complete' before the second half of the twentieth century, some unwanted pregnancies were dealt by ostracising the mother, abortions are down from the early 1980s (U.S. data) and, that abortions are inherently a bad thing is a very large and complex debate.

-Not a good thing, made worse by the legal system. Many factors are at play here but less god-fearing is probably one of the factors.

-Many many factors at play here, not sure how significant the religious factor is.

-Stupid entertainment has always been around. I would like to know if that show is more popular in the bible belt of the U.S. or the major urban centres...I suspect education is a bigger factor than religion.

Interesting points though, and worth further thought (googling).


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

Beej said:


> Who has the closed mind? Although just snippets of a longer post that itself would just be snippets of your thoughts, you've built a good case for it.


?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

digitalmatty, very few of those issues are new, they are simply better reported, easily acknowledged and widely known now. The fact that you are aware of more gun deaths or killer diseases doesn't mean more people are dying from them.

What isn't more widely known is when these stats decrease, as has been stated above.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

digitalmatty said:


> Just a few quick things...cause honestly, I didn't bother reading your novel.


Sorry for the length but you brought up all the questions.



> Fat people don't get beat up for being fat by groups of people who purely hate fat people. I mean skinny people are a minority the way society gorges itself. Do you think that a gay person has a choice of their sexual orientation? NO. But a fat person can go on a diet, or a skinny person can eat some red meat.


That was sensitive. Its open season on fat people because they can be thin with Jenny Craig?



> They do punish hate crimes against immigrents, pretty sure that's called racial hate crimes...marrying more than one women? Do you REALLY need more than one women? I think that's just greedy...just go have recreational sex if you need more than one vagina. And finally...about Indians...you're pretty much an asshole if you don't think they deserve that. When colonizing North America the Indian populations faced such hate, discrimination and brutal ends that I feel we owe them MORE. I mean wouldn't you want justice if someone came into your house, murdered your entire family, took over your house and let you live in a closet in the basement?


I never argued against those inequalities. I'm simply saying they exist. You said everyone is and should be equal. Clearly you don't believe that yourself.



> Hitler wasn't jewish, he was christian....so uh...I think those are seperate religions?


And the rest of Europe was Jewish too I suppose? The Poles, the French, the Netherlands?



> As for gangs in LA? Are you kidding? That's hardly something I would say pertains to our topic. What some group of uneducated, testosterone driven children do for kicks on a saturday night is of no relevance to homosexual marriage, Martin or religion. Simply an out of context statement.


You claimed religion was the root of all division, I agree it can be divisive. But its absence doesn't end division. We have numerous other factors that divide us with no correlation to religion.



> I said nothing about Americans in Iraq, they are there to protect their people...to give them tanks upon tanks of fuel. I am talking REAL wars here...most recently you could try this link.


Wow! So the war in Iraq isn't real? I think some dead Iraqis and dead Americans might contest that fact. Again it was just another example of conflict for the sake of something other than religion.



> Intellectually dishonest? Please, you're trying too hard to force your wordy 'intelectual honesty' onto us. If you think the world with many religions is a well-functioning and peaceful place, you truly need to read more CURRENT writings for an idea of what is going on.


I never claimed the world was well functioning and peaceful, and yes religion can and has been a source of conflict. Its just naive to think if you eliminate religion utopia will be achieved. History shows we'll fight each other for just about anything and that won't change.



> And another thing; the world is already divided by skin color, language, culture or class, all of which CAN (but not all) relate to religion.


Yes the world is divided on other grounds, my point exactly. But how do explain these divisions in atheistic countries then if its all based on religion?



> That's it, I'm done, I really can't handle such a closed mind.
> peace OUT.


Pot, what was that you said about kettle?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Chris said:


> Frankly, ALL religious institutions should have their tax-free status revoked. Why should I, a non-believer, subsidize their particular superstitions? This meddling in political affairs may will rebound severely on the Vatican *and all churches/synagogues/mosques/insertyourfavouriteplacehere.*
> 
> Perhaps that is the silver lining.....


So much to say in this topic, I'm not sure I'm going to even try. When I heard about this on the news I knew there'd be a big topic for me to catch up on here, but I don't think I can read all this, and respond to everything I want to. Let me just point to the highlighted part above. That continues to be my overarching problem with the response to religion I have encountered from some here. ALL RELIGIONS ARE NOT THE SAME. ALL CHRISTIANS (AND DENOMINATIONS) ARE NOT THE SAME. Call me when you get that point, then maybe it will be worth having a discussion.

Meh. On second thought, I'm not going to try and read and respond, I'll just post my opinion, and you can correlate it with the previous pages if you wish 

On the actual subject of the thread, I am not even remotely surprised. I said when he was elected that this pope is a scary, scary man, and I believe that was clear from his opening statement about ecumenism. It would appear he wants to tackle the secular world, too. Well, I take some solace that at least we liberal Protestants aren't the only ones who are going to have to contend with his power plays for the next decade. 

As far as paying taxes goes, I agree that religious institutions should pay taxes. For those of you who don't know (which, since I'm still new, is probably most of you), I'm a minister in the United Church of Canada. If property tax were charged on churches, my three churches would probably close, and I would lost my job. BUT I still think it's a good idea, and I think that for theological reasons. The churches are still caught in the Christendom era, when they ruled the western world, and it has made them lazy and complacent. Suddenly having to pay taxes would certain deal the death blow to that misguided view of reality.

As far as separation of church and state goes, I would remind everyone that that is actually a part of the American constitution, not the Canadian. We have no such clause. What we do have, are a variety of protections against descrimination. Faith can be spoken of and used as a guide in politics in this country *so long as it does need lead to discrimination*. 

As for the churches being involved in politics, it has already been pointed out that that happens. The actual opinion of the Supreme Court, as recently expressed about gay marriage, is that churches are free to do what they wish within the confines of their own practice, *so long as the local application is consistent with the behaviour of the denomination*. That would likely be qualified if any faith group had a practice that endangered life or limb, but for now, that's the understanding as my church's lawyers explain it. As for a church lobbying politically, let me just make this point. Several churches, including my own, the largest Protestant denomination in the country, made application to, and were granted the right to speak to the supreme court during their discussion about the new marriage law. If the Supremes say it's OK, then I suspect the individuals who think that churches should be silent on matters of politics need to listen to the courts, and not let their own prejudices blind them.

Personally, I believe that to be Christian REQURIES political action. That does not mean that I want the world to be ruled by Christianity - see above. But it does shape my own actions.

As for the theological thread about Jesus and the Roman Catholic Church, I'm staying out for now. Suffice it to say that I don't agree with much of what has been said on that score.

edit - added paragraph breaks, when I realised how long this ended up being.


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

HowEver said:


> digitalmatty, very few of those issues are new, they are simply better reported, easily acknowledged and widely known now. The fact that you are aware of more gun deaths or killer diseases doesn't mean more people are dying from them.
> 
> What isn't more widely known is when these stats decrease, as has been stated above.


I didn't say those issues are new. I am not really sure what you're saying here...


----------



## digitalmatty (Mar 2, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Sorry for the length but you brought up all the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am glad you agree with me.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Actually RevMatt I agree with you. 
If the government wants to collect taxes from churches then have at it. The church that runs a homeless shelter or a food bank may feel the crunch or even have to close down but the abusers will be stopped in the process. Sadly, there are many faith organizations and groups that are abusing the tax laws for personal wealth. Thats just wrong. 

But I think the same could be said for thousands of secular groups. I believe donations to organizations like Greenpeace or World Wildlife Fund enjoy nice tax breaks too yet nobody is talking of stripping tax breaks because of their direct attempts to influence politics. If a religious institution has no right to speak on political issues simply because of tax breaks, why is it OK for secular interest groups to have them? Homosexual lobby groups receive millions of government dollars yet nobody here is demanding their silence since they are in the public trough? How about Planned Parenthood? If political influence is off limits to organizations that get tax breaks or government handouts, I think we need to take a hard look outside the faith groups as well.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I think some of the distinction is in tax breaks for donors versus tax breaks for the organisations themselves, such as property tax breaks. 

Does anyone know the details on how religious organisations are treated differently than run-of-the-mill non-profit organisations, and if charities are treated differently than lobbyist organisations such as Greenpeace?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> I think some of the distinction is in tax breaks for donors versus tax breaks for the organisations themselves, such as property tax breaks.
> 
> Does anyone know the details on how religious organisations are treated differently than run-of-the-mill non-profit organisations, and if charities are treated differently than lobbyist organisations such as Greenpeace?



Don't know about charities versus lobby groups, although Greenpeace is a registered charity. As for charities versus religious institutions, the difference is the one you site. Both give receipts to individuals who donate so that the individuals can get a miniscule tax deduction. Religious groups, however, also don't have to pay property tax for property they own, unless that property is used for explicitly money-making operations - housing projects, senior's homes, etc. Charities are the same as any other business in terms of their property tax.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The issue heats up State versus Religion



> > Oct. 4, 2005. 12:19 PM
> >
> > *Top U.S. Catholic urges church vs. state debate*
> > NICOLE WINFIELD
> ...


----------



## mikemchugh (Feb 21, 2001)

RevMatt said:


> Don't know about charities versus lobby groups, although Greenpeace is a registered charity.


Actually, I don't think Greenpeace IS a registered charity - they certainly don't give out tax receipts. AFAIK their position is that part of their mandate is political lobby work, and a charity can't do that.

Mike McHugh


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

mikemchugh said:


> Actually, I don't think Greenpeace IS a registered charity - they certainly don't give out tax receipts. AFAIK their position is that part of their mandate is political lobby work, and a charity can't do that.
> 
> Mike McHugh


I could have sworn they gave out tax receipts. I'm willing to be corrected on this one, though . But charities can and do lobby. Maybe they don't formally, and maybe that's a distinction that matters in some minds. But lots of charities do write letters, hand out petitions, and such like things. If that's not lobbying, what is?

Besides, if it's really a problem, then I would be ECSTATIC to get the same tax break for my charitable donations as political donations get.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So God's love is pretty much conditional on the "you have to believe" in him.


If you look at most religions with a bit of detachment, most of it is praising God. Why does God need so much positive reinforcement if he/she/it is so powerful and omnipotent? Smacks of insecurity to me. 

I think Paul Martin is best off leaving the church for more liberal pastures if they compel him to carry out their orders. Seriously, do even the most devoted Catholics want their prime minister acting as an agent of the Vatican? His job is to serve the Canadian people of every religion (and no religion), not the white male Roman power structure.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap:


----------



## We'reGonnaWin (Oct 8, 2004)

As long as he doesn't have to face the wrath of Khan, he should be fine.


----------

