Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 11  Next

Hey, if Canada bans the Burka, can I petition the government to ban the Pope's silly hats? Those things are fricking HUGE god only knows what he has under there.

Just asking.

   

Well, I don’t think I’m asking you to, “prove a negative,”----- that is to prove there isn’t some reason other than blind prescription to religious authority to account for the Burka custom. I already accept as a transparently understood “given” that another reason exists beyond blind prescription (for the wearing of the Burka).

The force of religion and religious tradition, by its very nature, is about far more than just blind submission to religious prescription. Religious tradition also encompasses an individual’s search for meaning in the universe---meaning which conversely expresses itself through religious tradition.

To make the issue even more complex, the counter-point one might raise is that religious authority often, as well, casts a psychological influence of repressive conditioning and self-censorship over the lives of its adherents. And that repressive conditioning can exert negative coercion to follow tradition. In the context of a Muslim culture, the conditioning might be about an attempt to denigrate women and deny them equality----or it might not.

Religious tradition, whether one refers to the Burka or some other custom, carries with it the dual implication of spiritual meaning and a religious authority which is sometimes repressive. So, to say that women necessarily must be wearing the Burka only because they lack the will to resist coercive authority half misses the whole picture.

So also, obviously, there is no “one size fits all” cookie template of law which can be made to apply to all of a religion’s followers. To varying degrees, depending on the individual, Muslim women wear the Burka also because they derive meaning from Islam and its traditions.

Religion ultimately pivots on the experience of the individual in a deeply personal and unique way. So, what motive might be true for one Muslim woman who wears the Burka might not be true for another. One woman might observe the custom out of conformity, and one woman might observe the custom as a facet of her religious faith. Religion is so wrapped up in the nuance of individual perception and inclination.

I’m sorry to say that I see no easy and glib answers to the question of the Burka. If you ban the practice, you run the very real risk of violating a person’s religious faith, even as you liberate those women who may joyfully throw the custom away. I suspect the real answer lies in a growth of natural maturity over which we have no control

Our religious perspectives expand to match expanded dimensions of human understanding concerning the universe in which we live. And that expanded understanding helps religious followers grow in their mature perspective and self-awareness so that they realize the importance of making their own choices in life.

Moreover, a free society has no right to dictate religious values and customs to its citizens. It only has the right to ask those citizens to dispense of their customs at the point where those customs harm the public interest.

Glenn Fitzgerald.

   

You say, ex-wives, in the plural---which implies divorce.

Somehow I don't think it was a smooth divorce.

Glenn Fitzgerald.

   

The economy would collapse. We need a steady flow of workers to keep it going and sadly even if we were to have a baby bonus and free child care it we still would not be able to get the numbers needed to keep the country from grounding to a halt. Besides that would take a full generation to take effect so we have to deal with the reality of immigration.

That being said our immigration laws are in a sad state and the people processing claims are woefully understaffed to the workload. Neglect has been caused because immigration is a political hot potato and any attempt at reform is doomed to get sidelined at best and unseat the government that attempts such folly.

It's a topic that should have more screen time by the media but no one wants to deal with it and everyone wants to say stuff like we are a Jedao/Christian country and everyone must deal with that. The problem is that we have never dealt with a changing world and it is long passed time we grew up as a country to deal with it on our terms.

   

I agree with your sentiments, Patrick.

Glenn Fitzgerald.

   

tritium writes:

Well, the only problem there is that the population in Canada isn't growing.

So, if we ban immigrants, we also need to compensate for the population deficit.

So, I propose that if we do ban immigration that we create the Ministry of Procreation.

The Ministry might set up quotas for certain Canadians to have babies. We might even hire "night patrol procreation officers," to make sure the quotas are being met. Each officer would be on-call to raid homes suspected of harboring condomns and birth control pills.

I volunteer myself to run the new Ministry. I'd put up new bill-boards in which the caption ",Safe Sex," becomes replaced by the caption, "Much Sex."

Glenn Fitzgerald.

   

Just imagine if we didn't allow abortions of convenience there would be a lot more living Canadians today.

Trudeau changed the law in 1969 with average of 110K a year that’s 4 million dead Canadians, and the Liberals have the nerve to bitch about what’s going on with the brave troops in Afghanistan.

That’s the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

With modest numbers the Liberals are to blame for 6-9 million less Canadians in Canada. But that’s for another thread.

   

Actually it was. My first ex-wife is back living with me temporarily.

I am still friends with both. It's just that commitment factor, and I like women, a variety of women. Just not the kind of guy that should be married.

   

Why is female circumcision mutilation and male circumcision not?

   

We already have that.

Quebec's Baby Bonus: Can Public Policy Raise Fertility? ... In 1988, Quebec introduced the Allowance for Newborn Children, a pro-natalist child benefit that ...

http://www.econ.ubc.ca/kevinmil/researc ... cdhowe.htm

o.k. if not restrict immigration, at least do as the United States has done.

In Canada citizenship is granted with 2 to 3 years in many cases.

Extend that to 10 years.

In the United States you can buy your citizenship for $1,000,000 dollars under an economic investment.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/citizen/green.htm

Canada offers the same economic investment strategy but for far less. You can buy your Canadian citizenship for $250,000 CDN. (about $200,000 USD)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/press/98/9865-pre.html

^ oh good they raised the cost to $500,000 in 1999.

I would like to think my citizenship was worth a little more, however it's for sale, and for real cheap.

The folks buying into Canada are Asians primarily. Go take a drive in British Properties to see 4 story homes.

They come into Canada buying up all the property, which drives up the cost of land for others.

No I don't think if we stop immigration the economy will fall.

I think if we cancel welfare, we would have a whole new workforce available.

Reform Canada's social programs, and get people off the streets and back to work!!

   

So buy the land first, that is ecconomic prosperity and it is free enterprise.

   

Better explaination here.

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/circumcision/female/

   

Is that all you got from what I said?

   

Liberals, have destroyed Canada, now they are working on the United States.

Merry Christmas coolaid drikers.

   

For the immigration issue, perhaps we could ban certain countries? As in have immigration only from places like Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Japan. All I know is that we have put ourselves in a very difficult position with the absurd amount of immigration.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 ... 11  Next