Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

Gay-Straight Alliance Club

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, betsy said:

Sorry, but I think it's not for you to correct me about that.  There's nothing to correct, anyway.  I used "his," and that's how it'll be. 

 

Btw, as a last note - I think - it's time to wake up and  smell the coffee.  People are so tired of political correctness.

Just because you used it then that is how it will be!!!!! Says a lot about you. So be it. I will have no more debates with you.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anthony said:

I am curious, what example are you referencing of a "religious government (or conservative religious right)" in Canada or the US that has "imposed their moral values on others" through their system of governance Citizen_2015? Specifically one that has been seen as unacceptable by the majority of the country governed by this conservative/right religious government.

I wasn't specifically referring to Canada or US but throughout history we have had many religious governments of more than one religion which made the life like hell for people. If I wish to be an example in Canada I would pick Harper government as one example of conservative religious right. He was of course voted out by 70% of participating voters.

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Well I never pointed my finger to muslims in Canada or any other religion in Canada (the islamic state overseas in my comment was just a recent example but I could have given many Christian state examples too) but to respond to your question I don't think that taxman who is posting about returning to moral things and decency and normal again in Canada is a muslim (neither was Harper which I pointed out in my post) in fact I am sure taxman is not muslim and my post was quoting him. Btw, I am sure the majority of muslim population in canada would also not wish a religious state. So lets not unnecessarily scare people of certain group or minority (who is scary here?). My issue is with religious right who wish to impose their moral values on others no matter what religion.

My comment was more tongue in cheek even though Islam is far more "conservative" than your typical Canadian Christians - you'd have to search far and wide to find any of those fanatics you are speaking of. I hope you are right about Muslims who have come to Canada. Islam demands that faith be intertwined with the State. Hopefully, most of our Canadian Muslims came here to escape that type of oppression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I wasn't specifically referring to Canada or US but throughout history we have had many religious governments of more than one religion which made the life like hell for people. If I wish to be an example in Canada I would pick Harper government as one example of conservative religious right. He was of course voted out by 70% of participating voters.

I agree there have been many forms of governance in history where church and state have been intertwined. I would doubt such a system would exist in the future of Canada unless the population drastically accepted only one religion that demanded church and state become intertwined. 

What example would you pick where the Harper government "imposed their moral values on others" through their system of governance, specifically one that was not shared by the majority of the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

My comment was more tongue in cheek even though Islam is far more "conservative" than your typical Canadian Christians - you'd have to search far and wide to find any of those fanatics you are speaking of. I hope you are right about Muslims who have come to Canada. Islam demands that faith be intertwined with the State. Hopefully, most of our Canadian Muslims came here to escape that type of oppression. 

I know that there is an expectation that Islam direct every part of a Muslim's life, including in areas where secular law takes over in other countries.  I don't think it is required to be intertwined with the State per se, since plenty of Muslims live in non-Islamic countries and they are enjoined by their religion to follow the laws of the country in which they are living.  I do think most Muslims have more in common with the Conservative Christians of the world than those Christians would like to admit.  But as a secular nation we have become gradually more socially progressive despite pushback from Conservative and fundamental Christians and I don't see Muslims changing that.  I think that most of them will follow suit, even if they don't like it, just as Christians have done since the 50s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Anthony said:

I agree there have been many forms of governance in history where church and state have been intertwined. I would doubt such a system would exist in the future of Canada unless the population drastically accepted only one religion that demanded church and state become intertwined. 

 

 I agree with that.  That "Muslims are going to turn us into a Sharia State" seems pure hysteria to me.  Sure, it *could* happen but I think we'd become a "Christian State" before we'd become a Muslim State and I think the chances of that are pretty much non-existant.  And if anyone thinks living under Christian rule would be better than living under Muslim rule, they haven't been paying attention.  

Quote

What example would you pick where the Harper government "imposed their moral values on others" through their system of governance, specifically one that was not shared by the majority of the country?

I would point to the example of the Harper Government suspending aid to third world agencies that offered abortions along with other family planning and health care.  Sure, he said his reason was to avoid offending local governments but other governments didn't seem concerned about that

By the same token I don't think Trudeau should have forbidden people who are pro-life from running as Liberals.  

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dialamah said:

 I agree with that.  That "Muslims are going to turn us into a Sharia State" seems pure hysteria to me.  Sure, it *could* happen but I think we'd become a "Christian State" before we'd become a Muslim State and I think the chances of that are pretty much non-existant.  And if anyone thinks living under Christian rule would be better than living under Muslim rule, they haven't been paying attention.  

I would point to the example of the Harper Government suspending aid to third world agencies that offered abortions along with other family planning and health care.  Sure, he said his reason was to avoid offending local governments but other governments didn't seem concerned about that

By the same token I don't think Trudeau should have forbidden people who are pro-life from running as Liberals.  

 

I am not entirely sure that is a good example, if this was a moral imposition just pulling funding for abortions then yes I would agree. But because it also included family planning and healthcare. By that frame of logic one could speculate that the Harper government wanted certain people to die by pulling funding for also the healthcare. I am not sure one can make a case that the Harper government pulled funding just because of the funding for abortions. This may be true, but there also may be other reasons, both are speculative. By no means am I interested in defending the Harper government, but I would prefer direct factual information rather than speculation.

Trudeau on the other hand forbid people who were pro life from running as liberals is a direct moral imposition onto others within the country. But then again it was not enforced through the government but through the party. One could discuss the problem with requiring a certain morality to join a party, especially if that party leads to governance of the people. But I think inherently all parties require certain morals and ideologies to become commonplace within the party members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Just because you used it then that is how it will be!!!!! Says a lot about you.

That's how it will be for me.

 

Quote

So be it. I will have no more debates with you.

Good.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dialamah said:

 

By the same token I don't think Trudeau should have forbidden people who are pro-life from running as Liberals.  

 

Nor should've refused  fundings for summer jobs to those who support pro-life!   The nerve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait..."pro-life" means one who is for the life here and now, right? Why are those supporting this all doing it in the name of "pro-after-life" (== "pro-death") concerns regarding religion? 

I'm for expanding consideration to both partners in the potential decision making that go into having babies....like if a mother opts to keep her baby that she purposely avoided contraception for selfish concerns only to hold the father accountable when they have no EQUAL choice to choose abortion. But this argument against abortion is odd when the same supporters of the Evangelical Christian community most significantly also would not think twice of sacrificing thousands of people in wars to save their beloved religious monuments. 

Why the big concern to 'save' zygotes rather than the older people who've learned to recognize real pain and suffering? Why have compassion for ONLY the conceived up to the age of adulthood? And, for Betsy, did you not agree that Trump was correct in separating the children at the Mexican border? Isn't this counter to the affection you hold more for the zygote?

[I'm guessing this has digressed away from the topic.? I have to go back to read to determine the connection.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the O.P., Yes, I understand the concern but don't know what can be done to optimize this without harming one set of people over others. The Constitution DOES protect religion with more emphasis than the U.S. version. For those opting to go against the parents, the Constitution needs to be addressed first. 

My CFI (Center for Inquiry) skeptic group in Canada wanted to fight the right of Catholic schools to be permitted to be set up in place of secular schools given they can and wanted to assert the right to decree limitations of non-Catholics ...and most specifically, non-Christians. I agree this is 'wrong' but knew the effort was moot without challenging the Constitution. This was ignored and the Constitution was later argued (as I predicted it should) to assert their rights within it. 

If we disagree to some of these factors such as this topic, we need to go back to amend or re-constitute the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Wait..."pro-life" means one who is for the life here and now, right? Why are those supporting this all doing it in the name of "pro-after-life" (== "pro-death") concerns regarding religion? 

I'm for expanding consideration to both partners in the potential decision making that go into having babies....like if a mother opts to keep her baby that she purposely avoided contraception for selfish concerns only to hold the father accountable when they have no EQUAL choice to choose abortion. But this argument against abortion is odd when the same supporters of the Evangelical Christian community most significantly also would not think twice of sacrificing thousands of people in wars to save their beloved religious monuments. 

Why the big concern to 'save' zygotes rather than the older people who've learned to recognize real pain and suffering? Why have compassion for ONLY the conceived up to the age of adulthood?

Create a thread for that.   This thread isn't really about abortion.

 


 

Quote

 

And, for Betsy, did you not agree that Trump was correct in separating the children at the Mexican border? Isn't this counter to the affection you hold more for the zygote?

[I'm guessing this has digressed away from the topic.? I have to go back to read to determine the connection.]

 

 

 

 

I support that a country has every right to enact its own policies against illegal aliens.  Take note, that these people are in the USA, ILLEGALLY!

If the country want to change its policy - they have every right to do so.   And, Trump did just that.

 

In Canada, Goodale is setting thousands of asylum seekers loose with the public.....free to go anywhere in this country.   We hardly deport anyone - maybe they can't find them.   That's our policy.  

I suppose, if we are truly appalled by what we see at the USA border, we can always do the "right" thing and  invite all those people to Canada.  Anyone who can't enter the USA - please, come to Canada.  Let's put a detour sign at the Mexican border to the USA.  

 

Furthermore, separating children from parents who'd entered the USA illegally (which can be likened to Children's Aid Society removing kids from their parents),  isn't comparable to wily-nilly murdering children (even for no reason at all).

Let's get a grip here.  Separation isn't comparable to cold-blooded murder.

 

 

If you want to pursue this farther - please create your own thread for it.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, betsy said:

Create a thread for that.   This thread isn't really about abortion.

...

If you want to pursue this farther - please create your own thread for it.

I noted that in that post already. The 'digression' wasn't started by me and you responded to others on that. I know you can erase content that I speak if it is in your own space (as you have) but if you want sincere responses, mine was in appropriate context to your own diversion to abortion. The same goes for other extra points you add in support.

But recognize that I'm technically on your side on your posted opening post. I think you are 'wrong' intellectually but to the letter of the law, this may be valid. Don't censor me or you risk proving you're only preaching, not arguing.

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I noted that in that post already. The 'digression' wasn't started by me and you responded to others on that. I know you can erase content that I speak if it is in your own space (as you have) but if you want sincere responses and mine was in appropriate context to your own diversion to abortion. The same goes for other extra points you add in support.

But recognize that I'm technically on your side on your posted opening post. I think you are 'wrong' intellectually but to the letter of the law, this may be valid. Don't censor me or you risk proving you're only preaching, not arguing.

Sometimes I respond - and I touched what you brought up.  I gave my response.

But if you want to take it farther, then create a thread for it.  What you brought up will definitely derail my thread!

 

 

 

Quote

I think you are 'wrong' intellectually but to the letter of the law, this may be valid. Don't censor me or you risk proving you're only preaching, not arguing.

You're free to think what you like.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me.....but that doesn't mean I'm wrong just because someone says so.

 

You've got to support your claim why you think I'm wrong.  That's where the debate will go - and you need a separate thread for that!

And no, I'm not trying to censor you.     I don't think that's hard to fathom, intellectually....huh?

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, betsy said:

Sometimes I respond -but what you brought up will definitely derail my thread!

As if you don't do this. 

So, to the point of the thread, you ARE arguing for a Constitutional right for parents to know what associations they join that counter their religious beliefs imposed from home, correct? If so, why do you think the Constitution SHOULD support your beliefs in contrast to kids who want privacy? ..."legally" isn't enough if it is established. Pot is about to be legal. And if you had something against this would it be appropriate for those then to just say shut up, its 'right' because it is 'legal'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

As if you don't do this. 

So, to the point of the thread, you ARE arguing for a Constitutional right for parents to know what associations they join that counter their religious beliefs imposed from home, correct?

WRONG!

 

  I'm arguing for parental rights, period.  

It doesn't necessarily have to be about religious belief.   I'm sure there are atheist parents who would mind to have their parental role usurped by someone else.  

Had it been reversed, like a religious school trying to impose its religious values on an atheist kid (secretly, behind his parent's back).....I'm sure atheist parents would be up in arms!   Boy, that doesn't need any stretch of the imagination.

 

heck, we already see it here with some alt-left atheists going all nuts just because of religious doctrines that are taught to the RELIGIOUS. 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, betsy said:

Not exactly.  I'm arguing for parental rights, period.   It doesn't necessarily have to be about religious belief.   I'm sure there are atheist parents who would mind to have their parental role usurped by someone else.   Had it been reversed, like a religious school trying to impose its religious values on an atheist kid.....I'm sure atheist parents would be up in arms!   heck, we already see it here with some alt-left atheists going all nuts just because of religious doctrines! 

But the Atheists and non-Christian parents of the concern about the CFI group I just mentioned DID argue this and were dismissed BECAUSE the Constitution protects the Catholic Separate School system uniquely. They can also exclude the non-Catholic Protestants if they choose BY  LAW. If you support the parents rights absolutely, is this right protected universally to all for children wanting to associate that also coincide with parents for an Atheist group (that may also include gay-straight alliances)? Do the parents who may support the right of children to associate without their knowledge for personal concerns count?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

But the Atheists and non-Christian parents of the concern about the CFI group I just mentioned DID argue this and were dismissed BECAUSE the Constitution protects the Catholic Separate School system uniquely. They can also exclude the non-Catholic Protestants if they choose BY  LAW.

What's an atheist doing in a Catholic school?   Secondly, if you choose to go to a Catholic School, then the onus is on you to go by their rules!

 

 

Quote

If you support the parents rights absolutely, is this right protected universally to all for children wanting to associate that also coincide with parents for an Atheist group (that may also include gay-straight alliances)?

I just told you in my previous post!   Read what I posted above - and UNDERSTAND what is written.   I don't want to keep going on the same thing!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, betsy said:

What's an atheist doing in a Catholic school?

A town in Saskatchewan had opted to alter the public system to a Catholic system because of the law that allows them to by the numbers. They then wanted to prevent those non-Catholics from going to that school as a new minority. It would require either for them to bite the bullet and abide by pretending they were Christian along with their children or have their kids go to some a school too far away (or home school by FORCE)!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

A town in Saskatchewan had opted to alter the public system to a Catholic system because of the law that allows them to by the numbers. They then wanted to prevent those non-Catholics from going to that school as a new minority. It would require either for them to bite the bullet and abide by pretending they were Christian along with their children or have their kids go to some a school too far away (or home school by FORCE)!

I don't know anything about that.  

Are you sure you understood all the details???   Well, I have to question that since you seemed to have not understood what I wrote previously.

Cite your source.  Can't take your word for it.  have to read for myself.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, betsy said:

I don't know anything about that.   Are you sure you understood all the details???   Well, I have to question that since you seemed to have not understood what I wrote previously.

Cite your source.  

I was about to do just that. I DID only pay a cursory attention to it at the time because I knew it was Constitutional. 

Here, (I believe), is a part of that story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4079718

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

I was about to do just that. I DID only pay a cursory attention to it at the time because I knew it was Constitutional. 

Here, (I believe), is a part of that story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4079718

That's about funding by the government!   :lol:

 

Quote

In a written judgment released Thursday, Saskatchewan Justice Donald Layh ruled that the provincial government must stop paying for non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools in the province.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4079718

 

You're now into this entitlement bulls###!   Go to a Public School!

 

I don't want to waste anymore of my time with you, Scott!  

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, betsy said:

That's about funding by the government!   :lol:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4079718

 

I don't want to waste anymore of my time with you, Scott!  

Don't try to bullshit me. The school changed TO a Catholic School to which they then had the right to DENY students NOT 'Catholic' by the nature of them not requiring to divert the public tax dollars of those non-Catholic parents from going to that school. In essence, this forces those non-Catholics to either LEAVE the school or opt to support the new Catholic taxes that divert it away from the secular school system. This IS precisely meaning that IF parents don't FAKE being Catholic by officially giving to the church, they are not permitted to go. 

The courts said they were correct. The minority of those non-Catholic parents had to be FORCED to lie as being Catholic (and certainly 'Christian') OR be refused.

 

And so, as it relates to your thread, you claim that the 'parents' rights to choose is paramount regardless of the situation in general. This is why you support the right of parents to know what 'trivial' associations the children opt into. If you care about ALL parents, you have to be non-hypocritical and explain why, 'morally' the parents of these non-Christians are being FORCED to comply to the religious minority rights granted to them by the Constitution.

Edited by Scott Mayers
misspelled 'students' as 'stundents'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Don't try to bullshit me. The school changed TO a Catholic School to which they then had the right to DENY stundents NOT 'Catholic' by the nature of them not requiring to divert the public tax dollars of those non-Catholic parents from going to that school. In essence, this forces those non-Catholics to either LEAVE the school or opt to support the new Catholic taxes that divert it away from the secular school system. This IS precisely meaning that IF parents don't FAKE being Catholic by officially giving to the church, they are not permitted to go. 

The courts said they were correct. The minority of those non-Catholic parents had to be FORCED to lie as being Catholic (and certainly 'Christian') OR be refused.

 

And so, as it relates to your thread, you claim that the 'parents' rights to choose is paramount regardless of the situation in general. This is why you support the right of parents to know what 'trivial' associations the children opt into. If you care about ALL parents, you have to be non-hypocritical and explain why, 'morally' the parents of these non-Christians are being FORCED to comply to the religious minority rights granted to them by the Constitution.

 

Quote

  you claim that the 'parents' rights to choose is paramount regardless of the situation in general.

Don't put words in my mouth.  Where did I say that?  Cite.

 

 

Here's what it says:

 

 

Quote

 

2005 lawsuit

Layh's decision stems from a 2005 lawsuit filed by the Good Spirit School Division No. 204 (GSSD) against the Christ the Teacher Roman Catholic Separate School Division No. 212.

At issue was the creation in 2003 of a Catholic school in the village of Theodore, Sask., and the subsequent attendance of provincially-funded non-Catholic students at that school. 

The GSSD argued that the constitutional protection of Catholic schools does not include the right for those schools to receive government funding for non–Catholic students.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4078955

 

This is not about parental rights.   This is about government funding.  It's irrelevant to this thread.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, betsy said:

Here's what it says:

 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-catholic-student-funding-1.4078955

 

 

This is about funding.

I was absolutely correct in my explanation of what this implies. Parents are forced to FUND the religious school against the freedom of the parents. The article even mentioned that the 'minority' of that community was Catholic but were permitted to alter it regardless because our Constitution has a lower limit requirement for the Catholic numbers. They take precedence over non-Catholics. 

And NOTE, they can also, literally by LAW prevent ANY non-Catholic from going if they so choose. Those signing in their students are required to assert they are Catholic. Though this is rarely enforced, it CAN be done!! The actual case prevents non-Christian parents from rights of their children's education in that community secularly. This forces them to go elsewhere or home school their kids. 

POINT: if you don't understand this, pretend you do for the sake of argument. If what I say is 'true', then (a) would you support this law? and (b)would you not see this as hypocritical about SOME parent's freedoms to resist school policy from imposing unfavorable ideals?

Edited by Scott Mayers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...