CanPol: Conservative Platform

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kucinich


That's my point, BK. That I find them immensely distasteful.

Good for you. Here's a lollypop and instructions on how to hold an election.

[Ben Kenobi]

How about the fact that it's tyranny of the majority?

The Jews were a minority in Nazi Germany.

Take that a step further Skywalker.

How does one protect the rights of the minority, at the same time allowing for the democratic process to operate?

[Kuciwalker]

like this, duh

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No, I would not. Neither would I want a policy of forced conscription that has happened in many states, and has forced Mennonites to leave for another country.

If the majority of the people vote for Sharia, than under what grounds can they be denied?

Grounds that religion does not form our public policy. If we prevent christians from doing it, then we have a leg to stand on if another sect became dominant. We might also have established traditions of leaving our churches beside our bedrooms when it came time to come together for public discourse, so it might never be tried.

Yes, I do. But it is not merely 'religion' that has forced these problems. Some of the most staunchly secular governments have faced similar problems. One need only look at the current policies of China and the Former Soviet Union towards religion to see this truth.

RED herring. HARR HARR.

You are using anti-religious states as examples of why religious states are OK.

They all end in blood, Ben. That is what is wrong.

Actually, the only thing a seperation between the church and state entails, is the preventation from the establishment of any one church over another. It has nothing to do with religion informing public policy.

Ahh, bull! And you know it.

Disagree. It is possible for someone who is a believer to speak out on issues of public policy and to articulate how the policy ought to work in society without being immediately harassed for doing so. We ought not force the believer to separate 'religion' from secular causes.

To this I agree. It is entirely possible for christians to argue against something like abortion based on non-religious grounds. However, it is when 'the pope said so' (or the bible) enters into it that you go into a field that most Canadians will not follow because we have more sense than to make our country a battleground for religious strife.

It's not that you are wrong for saying it. It's just that you shouldn't hold your breath till you turn blue waiting for the rest of us to applaud you. You'll suffocate that way.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kucinich
like this, duh

Like Florida, DUH!

Damn I hate doing this, but you just beg for it.

[Kuciwalker]

WTH does Florida have to do with anything?

[notyoueither]

Dunno. WTF does the Yankee Bill of Rights and God Given Right to Blow Away Intrudrers on Your Lawn have to do with Canada?

[notyoueither]

I may have missed an x-post there, but it was fun anyways.

[Kuciwalker]

Ben asked how protecting the rights of the minority could be consistant with democracy.

[notyoueither]

I saw that after I blew away the intruder.

[notyoueither]

Oops.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So, the only ones who should have a say are those who fit into the majority? Sounds awfully tolitarian to me.

No, it's called a democracy. If 95% of the population don't want something then why should the 5% be allowed to create policies that deny people freedom.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There are plenty of people in Canada who agree with the Christian Heritage party. Ergo, the party adds balance since they provide a different perspective than the major parties.
Call me a crazy, but I would say the same for a Fascist party.

Okay, you're crazy.

A few extremists does not balance things out. They're just a meaningless fringe talking to themselves. The existance of neo-nazis doesn't make our lives better.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just because one disagrees with their sentiments does not mean that they have nothing to contribute. A blind horse can find water, and can often point out things that everyone else is unwilling to see.
Remember the Emperor's clothes? We have a naked emperor, but everyone has to keep quiet to avoid offending him.

Of yes, the vast majority of us are blind. Only you know the truth.

Maybe if you got down off your high horse you might realise that the reason everyone disagrees with you is because you're wrong.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Just because one speaks for few does not mean that one speaks for none.

Yes, and just because you speak for the fringe few does not mean you speak the truth or speak for many.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is the mark of a tolitarian government that denigrates the few to the benefit of the majority.

Jesus, you don't get it. You're free to speak your ideas, but the rest of us are free to say your ideas are crazy.

Freedom of speech does not mean that everyone has to agree with you.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So the Christian heritage party would make religion compulsory? I do not see that in any of their manifestos, and you have yet to provide any evidence of their policies.

One of their main principles is that the government must create laws based on the Christian bible. That means creating laws that force others to live their lives based on the tenats of Christianity. Sure, we might not have to worship your god, but we will have to live our lives according to your rules.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As opposed to a Canada where Christians are second-class citizens? We are already there, Tingkai. A party that advocates the restoration of this balance can hardly be faulted for their focus.

Bull. You are free to live your lives the way you see fit. You are free to worship your god. In no way are you denied freedom of worship.

What you denied is the power to tell other people to live according to your rules.

The CH wants to change that. They want a Christian nation where people's lives are governed by the bible.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I know why it is important to keep government above the grasping hands of any given religion, but at the same time I question the Canadianess of suggesting that people shut up and sit quiet on the sidelines because their views may not be popular.

We need religious people to speak up and step forward. We need to address them as to why we believe their dogmatic views should not be the basis of policy. We should not abuse them and thereby drive them into a sullen resistence.

No one is denying them freedom of speech or freedom of association.

But if someone stands up and starts preaching, they better be ready for people say they're wrong regardless of whether they are a fundamentalist, a conservative, liberal of NDPer.

Politicians put up with abuse all the time. Comes with the territory.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

[Wezil]

...and the Liberal bleeding continues...

Lib - 35
Con - 26
NDP - 18

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1085192931349_49/?hub=TopStories

36 day campaign starting tomorrow and it only gets worse.

My gut hurts from laughing at Martin. What an oaf. It is good to see him being beaten about the head with Dalton McGuinty (another Liberal that has a problem telling the truth).