Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A capital "G" god is mentioned in the first line of the Charter and his/its supremacy is explicitly acknowledged, and you're trying to argue that isn't a clear and unambiguous acknowledgement of Judeo-Christian tradition and the respect/deference to the God of Abraham that the drafters of the Charter had in mind? You do know that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was ga-ga for God and for Catholicism/Christianity, don't you? I'd imagine that the same was true of more than a few of the people who hammered out the Charter.
No I don't make a connection between the supremacy of god and Judeo-Christian tradition. Does a belief in god entail an automatic connection to Christianity. No! Aside from that first reference to god which is more a timeless reference to god - not a timeless commitment to Christianity - what else in the charter screams Christianity? I don't see a lot of religious connotations in the document. The only connection to religion I see is the part where it says everyone has a fundamental right to freedom of religion. I see nothing about the fundamental necessity to practice Christianity. It looks like a pretty timeless document actually. I see a lot of every person has the right to..... It is a good document and quite secular in substance. I think if written in 2018 it is still entirely relevant though I think the reference to the supremacy of god would have been omitted and replaced. It was written at a different time, we must factor that into the equation.
As for PET's personal connection with god or religion - the charter itself grants him that freedom. Something I think he probably knew all too well that applied to everyone. I also see nothing in the charter that prevents one the freedom of no religion. Something again PET would have known, accepted and supported regardless of his personal religion or ga-ga for god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock
I swear you'd argue that it isn't dark at night if you thought for a moment that doing so might result in you prevailing or getting in the last word.
Unnecessary nasty turn in you that doesn't warrant further discussion tbh. If you don't want to have a civil discussion with me than feel free to disengage.
No I don't make a connection between the supremacy of god and Judeo-Christian tradition. Does a belief in god entail an automatic connection to Christianity. No! Aside from that first reference to god - what else in the charter screams Christianity? I don't see a lot of religious connotations in the documents. It looks pretty timeless actually.
Believe whatever you want. You asked for proof, and I offered some proof. Pretty good proof, actually -- I offered an unambiguous example that the God of Abraham is mentioned, and his/its supremacy is explicitly acknowledged, in the very first sentence of the most important law of the land. Despite that, you dismiss it cavalierly because it doesn't suit your narrative. As mentioned, I'm not a God guy -- very far from it, actually -- but I can accept that plenty of Christians created the systems, the laws, and the institutions that shape this country to this very day. It's just the way it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
Unnecessary nasty turn in you that doesn't warrant further discussion tbh. If you don't want to have a civil discussion with me than feel free to disengage.
Nah, I'll still chime in every now and then. Your occasionally combative and dismissive nature hasn't gone unremarked or unnoticed by other posters here on City-Data. Don't think for a moment that I'm going to let you characterize what I said as nasty because you've been caught mistaken about something again. Avert yourself to the truth if you want, but on those occasions when you do so, you should be prepared to be called on it by others.
Believe whatever you want. You asked for proof, and I offered some proof. Pretty good proof, actually -- I offered an unambiguous example that the God of Abraham is mentioned, and his/its supremacy is explicitly acknowledged, in the very first sentence of the most important law of the land. Despite that, you dismiss it cavalierly because it doesn't suit your narrative. As mentioned, I'm not a God guy -- very far from it, actually -- but I can accept that plenty of Christians created the systems, the laws, and the institutions that shape this country to this very day. It's just the way it is.
I'm sorry - you provided no proof other than a reference to god that absolutely has no timeless connection to a Judeo Christian god. I think the authors of that document purposefully omitted any reference to a Judeo Christian god specifically because they knew that if they had mentioned any reference to Christianity, it would have nullified what was written beyond that, specifically granting one the right to freedom of religion - all religions. I'm not denying Christians created many things in this country but they didn't create everything and Christians just like a lot of individuals linked to other religions, don't blindly allow matters of state to conflate with their own religion. In that regard, I do appreciate how many Judeo Christian countries have figured that out. So again, aside from one reference to god that is not connected in word to a Judeo Christian god - please detail where in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it say anything about Christianity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock
Nah, I'll still chime in every now and then. Your occasionally combative and dismissive nature hasn't gone unremarked or unnoticed by other posters here on City-Data. Don't think for a moment that I'm going to let you characterize what I said as nasty because you've been caught mistaken about something again. Avert yourself to the truth if you want, but on those occasions when you do so, you should be prepared to be called on it by others.
You can say what you want but the fact is the comment you made was not warranted given the discussion. Am I surprised coming from you, not at all. Does it bother me, nope. It is part of your make up which may seemingly be some sort of connection to what you see as an arbiter of what is just and right. As for other posters on here remarking about my combative nature - hey, I've seen MANY examples of that by MANY posters in these forums including the CAD forums. I've seen someone make reference to wishing the TAR Sands would just blow up so don't tell me that I am the only human being in here that speaks with some passion. You are far from a docile poster and I get that your inflammatory comment to me was calculated. If you want to single me out for unknown reasons though, go ahead - I can take it. I can take it all hun
Combative or not - with me what ya see is what ya get.. No dissonance zone here so if that means having the Scarlett Letter on me than sign me up with a BIG A..
I'm sorry - you provided no proof other than a reference to god that absolutely has no timeless connection to a Judeo Christian god. I think the authors of that document purposefully omitted any reference to a Judeo Christian god specifically because they knew that if they had mentioned any reference to Christianity, it would have nullified what was written beyond that, specifically granting one the right to freedom of religion - all religions. I'm not denying Christians created many things in this country but they didn't create everything and Christians just like a lot of individuals linked to other religions, don't blindly allow matters of state to conflate with their own religion. So again, aside from one reference to god that is not connected in word to a Judeo Christian god - please detail where in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does it say anything about Christianity?
You do understand the significance of the capitalization of the word God, don't you?
You can say what you want but the fact is the comment you made was not warranted given the discussion. Am I surprised coming from you, not at all. Does it bother me, nope. It is part of your make up which may seemingly be some sort of connection to an arbiter of what is just and right. As for other posters on here remarking about my combative nature - hey, I've seen MANY examples of that by MANY posters in these forums including the CAD forums. I've seen someone make reference to wishing the TAR Sands would just blow up so don't tell me that I am the only human being in here that speaks with some passion. You are far from a docile poster and I get that your inflammatory comment to me was calculated. If you want to single me out for unknown reasons though, go ahead - I can take it. I can take it all hun
I'm pretty easy-going, man, but I'll call nonsense when I see it. When it comes to the two of us, it's you who ends up in controversies on here quite regularly, not me.
Thanks. This new found knowledge will get me a lot further along in life now
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclock
I'm pretty easy-going, man, but I'll call nonsense when I see it. When it comes to the two of us, it's you who ends up in controversies on here quite regularly, not me.
Nonsense is relative though - isn't it.. As for ending up in controversies i'm A OK with that. As much as some may think i'm nuts about some things - if they knew the whole story they might start to think mmmmmmaaaybe not... Anyway, This is a discussion forum here. There are going to be times things get heated and stuff happens. What I find however is that some individuals never let things go - they hold onto things forever. Ultimately I think they lose sight that as much as I like having substantive discussion and also to learn, i'm also having a bit of fun too. Nothing wrong with combining the two.
I'm not saying you aren't easygoing Maclock - what I am saying is that I find it singularly curious that you focus on me in here. I don't know maybe you remind others of their trespasses but I haven't seen it. I don't see you posting much in the CAD forums either. You pop in here and there but you aren't a regular. Not a bad thing just an observation. Anyway don't worry about me daddy - let me frolic about with the boys and I promise not to get in too much trouble
The cities with the highest crime rates in Canada are almost all in western Canada where there are almost no blacks.
You do know that in the west there's a very significant Native population and a number of Native gangs right? They're responsible for the majority of the crime and violence in the west and it ain't even close. The sad thing is that no one can or wants to do anything about it. The Natives certainly don't give a crap that their people are committing so much crime and violence. Any measures taken by police and government will probalby generate cries of racism and bigotry much like it does with blacks in the GTA, all the while other mostly peaceful Canadians have to live and suffer in silence and are almost powerless to do anything on their own.
Most people living in cities have it lucky in that usually when a call goes out for help, police will likely get there in a timely fashion, but if you live in rural areas you're pretty much on your own and you risk having your own Gerald Stanley/Colten Boushie incident where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either confront these thugs and possibly put your life in danger and/or face the wrath of Natives who don't give a damn about actual justice or simply let them run wild and get ever increasingly bolder knowing that no one will stop them.
Just a sad state of affairs where a couple of groups of people are responsible for a vast percentage of crimes and violence in Canada. If you removed those groups, Canada's crime rates would drop so far down it might even rival some Asian countries.
You do know that in the west there's a very significant Native population and a number of Native gangs right? They're responsible for the majority of the crime and violence in the west and it ain't even close. The sad thing is that no one can or wants to do anything about it. The Natives certainly don't give a crap that their people are committing so much crime and violence. Any measures taken by police and government will probalby generate cries of racism and bigotry much like it does with blacks in the GTA, all the while other mostly peaceful Canadians have to live and suffer in silence and are almost powerless to do anything on their own.
Most people living in cities have it lucky in that usually when a call goes out for help, police will likely get there in a timely fashion, but if you live in rural areas you're pretty much on your own and you risk having your own Gerald Stanley/Colten Boushie incident where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Either confront these thugs and possibly put your life in danger and/or face the wrath of Natives who don't give a damn about actual justice or simply let them run wild and get ever increasingly bolder knowing that no one will stop them.
Just a sad state of affairs where a couple of groups of people are responsible for a vast percentage of crimes and violence in Canada. If you removed those groups, Canada's crime rates would drop so far down it might even rival some Asian countries.
White + presumably Judeo Christian = good/ideal
Black/Muslim/Native = very bad/deport them to ummm I dunno anywhere else... Alpha Centauri mmmaybe...
Black/Muslim/Native = very bad/deport them to ummm I dunno anywhere else... Alpha Centauri mmmaybe...
Anything new Max - How bout dem Jays?? :/ ...!!??
Or how about simply decent, peaceful people regardless of their race/ethnicity = good and very welcomed
Violent, criminal and troublesome people regardless of their race/ethnicity = bad and need to be dealt with
I don't know why any normal, sane person who isn't blindly loyal to their own tribe wouldn't agree with that and why saying it would be in any way controversial other than the fact that different groups of people commit different rates of crime and violence and people get angry when you mention that its always the same groups who consistently cause the most trouble.
Hypothetically if white people had the highest rates of violence and crime, somehow I seriously doubt that if I was constantly discussing and criticising white people for it that blacks, natives or anyone else for that matter would tell me to stop being so racist towards white people and complaining about how violent they are. If anything they'd probably be happy to jump on that train since whites would be the guilty party.
But because that isn't the case and its the other way around, all of a sudden these people want to suppress anyone who talks about it and play the race card as often as they can without acknowledging that if they would just stop their violent and destructive behavior, people would have a different view of them.
So I'll say again I don't have a problem with ANY groups of people as long as they're peaceful, non-violent and aren't causing trouble, BUT because its ALWAYS the same people who are causing the most problems, instead of them getting their crap together for the good of themselves and the people around them, they chose the 'blame everyone else for their problems route' which is sad and is what has caused so much division between people over the years.
Yes in the most extreme examples like with ISIS. They do a lot of abhorrent and disgusting things as a whole. I'm not surprised gays were targeted. I don't think they are a reflection of the majority of the Islamic world though - do you?
.
I don't know what the exact proportions are but judging from a number pf studies I've seen they're likely a lot higher than what I would be comfortable seeing take root in Canada.
Actually, Judeo-Christian tradition informs and shapes much of modern Canada, laws included. Again, religion isn't my cup of tea, but it's hard to ignore that the laws and the institutions that built this country and that shape it to this very day were profoundly Judeo-Christian in orientation, if not in origin.
You and I have fought a lot on a number of topics here but on this I totally agree.
I've had the exact same argument you're having right now with other people in other fora, and my sense is that for them it's kinda like a fish not knowing that water is wet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
