Canada taking steps to mind control?

[emprworm]

freedom of religion fading in Canada. :( :-[

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31080

[TMA_1]

yeah, that is sad. the minority seems to spite christians, muslims, and jews. The three middle eastern religions. We are hated and spat upon because we follow ancient scriptures. Of course if you call those scriptures hate crimes. You should go through every historical manuscript and throw them away too. We still use them now in many cases. You will notice that more and more, that history is destroyed in the western world. books that are controversial are not allowed in libraries. Like mine komphf and others. Studies on ancient battles against other countries because of religion are destroyed and forgotten. We seem to forget though that we judge those who judged. That makes us just as guilty as them. About christianity though, since when is it wrong to hold a view about something we see as evil? Only a few decades ago, even the scientific community involving biology and psychology and others. They saw homosexuality as deviant. it has been turned though out of fear from reprisal from the militant "minority". C.S. Lewis talked about this in The Screwtape letters. That democracy has a horrible tendancy to turn evil. that satan uses it in order to take the minority view, and so zealously strengthen it, that all others who worship christ will be pushed down. Even if they are lawful and do not hurt others. We are a hunted people. Though many see this as a joke, we have been branded as haters and murderers. The World's propaganda will not last. Christ will avenge himself and us.

[Vanguard3000]

It's not exactly fading religious freedom. Canadian law dictates that everyone has the right to practise religion (or any belief, for that matter), as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

The way I see things is this: If the Christian God exists, and this God does not like homosexuality, then He'll be the to judge them.

TMA: There's a copy of Mein Kampf in my school somewhere. I used it to smush a fly once. Never got to reading it though.

[Caid Ivik]

I can say, that when I see posters of eastern meditational sects or satanistic cults, I am being harmed psychically. What then?

I've read Mein Kampf with a very good explanation. I recommend to read it in this way. It will quickly show you, what was all WW2 about. For Hitler, of course.

[Acriku]

Then prove it Caid. It is a court of law after all. ::)

I think this is a great law, and readdresses the "believe what you want, as long as it doesn't affect me, my children, and my children's children."

[Dante]

I think this is a great law, and readdresses the "believe what you want, as long as it doesn't me, my children, and my children's children."

In which case, shouldn't all expression of religious belief be banned? Any leaflets, speeches, etc etc that advocate religion effects other people (I assume there is meant to be a word in between 'doesn't' and 'me') in some way or another, positive or negative. In which case all religious practices should be kept out of job, relations with others, etc. And everyone would have to practice their religion not in secret, but in private.

This is not to say that this is a good thing. But I'm not saying it's exactly bad either...

[Acriku]

Yeah forgot 'affect' :) Anyways, in what way do speeches affect me or my children? They don't have to watch it, I don't have to watch it. And you know what I mean when I say 'affect,' not the affect like seeing a pamphlet at the mall, I mean religious folk knocking on my door, walking up to me at the store, etc, for the purpose of their religious efforts.

[Dante]

But what about the religions which actively instruct their believers to try and convert everyone else?

[Acriku]

I despise them and hope they mend their intruding ways.

[Dante]

Then that's not believing in religious freedom, is it?

[TMA_1]

dude, acriku we have talked about this issue before. you are agreeing with this law out of spite and I know it.lol Anybody can say any damn offensive thing in a matter of legal disputes. It is a matter of individuals or communities to reject the opinion, not a government system. I cannot speak for canada, but I think that this is typical of how athiestic and humanistic hostilities are growing. Acriku, you know how it feels to be shunned. You yourself have told me about how people would castigate you for your athiest beliefs. How about us? why are they so unfair to us in return? These docterns are thousands of years old, and suddenly, they are offensive? Its progressive idealistic ideals that are doing it to western nations. I hope that the western nations are destroyed. I really will pray for vengence.

[Acriku]

I agree with religious freedom, keeping in mind the "believe what you want, as long as it doesn't affect me, my children, and my children's children."

[Dante]

Just because they're ancient doesn't mean they're right, TMA-1.

Alright, Acriku. I agree with you anyway, I'm just being stubborn :) .

[TMA_1]

not true dust. THe reason why is, they have been accepted by various cultures all over the world since times past a time. Now, they are somehow "heretical" towards our culture? I hear empr saying that france is a decadent culture, well how about every other western nation? we are full of bologna.

[Dante]

What's bologna?

[Acriku]

TMA, society evolves over time, what was once accepted is now illegal, what was once not accepted is done by all the teenagers... and so on. Such as governments evolve. Ancient it doesn't make something right or wrong. Just makes it old. And also, the scriptures were written in that society, this isn't the same society, and the scriptures surely do not work in every society.

[TMA_1]

that is a carbon copy of anton levay. So many people agree with you acriku. If you are right though, democracy is wrong. Military stratagy is wrong. Dance is wrong. Music is wrong. Everything we ever do is based on ancient traditions. Religion is one of them. Because you wish to take away only one thing from the massive spectrum of things used from historical creation, I tend to think that you have a certain bias towards religion.

[nemafakei]

I'm not necessarily in favour of the ruling, by the way.

It's one thing to believe in the idea that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, another to preach it, and quite another to publish literature condemning it in newspapers. (NB slander/libel difference in UK and possibly other countries)

This is the essence of the case.

If, say, the bible said 'Arabs are evil and must be punished', and people started quoting it in the newspapers as reasons against arabs, would it not be the same sort of crime?

The fact that people consider the bible to be a sacred book should have no bearing on whether or not it should be used to condemn sections of society.

[Acriku]

Wrong tma, any one of those can work in this society because they don't have scrict guidelines influenced by the society of that time. Dance is a system of steps, random or not, and they may be influenced by the society at that time - but they do conflict with the societies today. Neither does military strategy, or democracy (unless it's a communist state, then remove communism and then democracy can work). So your accusation of my alleged bias towards religion is foul.

[emprworm]

of course acriku would agree with this law. ultimately he is not in favor of seperation of church and state, but eradication of church from the state.

its so ironic given that he once had a quote in his tagline about a time when it was illegal to not be religious being the "dark ages" yet he wants to shove humanity into another dark age of atheism and oppress people.

Muslims oppress people for not being Muslims in every muslim nation. Acriku is no different. Having things his way, Christianity would be banned.

That is how I perceive his statements.

If I had things my way, however, Acriku would be free to hate xians all he wants and be free to espouse atheism to his hearts content.

David Koresh could preach his bizzare messianic nonsense as well.

as long as people are not threatened. being "affected" is utter poppycock. anyone can say "oooh...I'm soooo hurt by this!" to someoone who is so intolerant that would say that to a bunch of words on a piece of paper: what a whiny baby.

[Acriku]

Quit your yapping emprworm, if you know more about what I feel than I do, then by all means change your name to Acriku-!

[emprworm]

Quit your yapping emprworm, if you know more about what I feel than I do, then by all means change your name to Acriku-!

"I agree with religious freedom, keeping in mind the "believe what you want, as long as it doesn't affect me, my children, and my children's children."

this isn't freedom. this is intolerance. What the heck does "affect" mean? It is legal to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia. Did you know this? So long as you don't speak a word of it to any Muslim- or you risk imprisonment/death. Does that match your definition of religious freedom Acriku? Answer that please.

[Acriku]

How about you read all of my posts in this thread? I do to yours, so you should return the favor.

[emprworm]

How about you read all of my posts in this thread? I do to yours, so you should return the favor.

i did and you didn't answer my question. but now I have another question. This will put two unanswered quesitons at your doorstep. ;)

" And you know what I mean when I say 'affect,' not the affect like seeing a pamphlet at the mall, I mean religious folk knocking on my door, walking up to me at the store, etc, for the purpose of their religious effort"

So a guy walks up to me in a store and says "I dont like President Bush. True Americans should be against Bush". Now I am deeply affected by this. This statement interferres with my happy day. I am even wearing a red-white-and blue T shirt (popular in Europe :D ) I am insulted and my pro-Bush children are emotionally injured. This is a hate crime...is it not?

And now back to the other quesiton:

It is legal to be a Christian in Saudi Arabia. Did you know this? So long as you don't speak a word of it to any Muslim- or you risk imprisonment/death. Does that match your definition of religious freedom Acriku?

[nemafakei]

I find it interesting that the judgement is being perceived as discrimination against religion, when it was in fact passed to stop discrimination against sexuality - a point which is continually being overlooked.