[DerbyX]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But the one thing a tolerant country cannot tolerate is intolerance.

Really? I think we should be tolerate of intolerance or is that intolerate of people who are aren't tolerate enough of other peoples intolerance.

Tell you what. If you tolerate my intolerance I'll promise to be less tolerate of other peoples intolerance.

[Zipperfish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But the one thing a tolerant country cannot tolerate is intolerance.

Really? I think we should be tolerate of intolerance or is that intolerate of people who are aren't tolerate enough of other peoples intolerance.

Tell you what. If you tolerate my intolerance I'll promise to be less tolerate of other peoples intolerance.

Ummm...I'm going to have to get back to you on that one...

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Of course not. I never said anything remotely like that.

But that is what is happening, no? The "erosion" of Christianity, which is being replaced by a fundamentalist Islam within Canada.

$1:

But all religions ARE equal...they're equally bullshit.

But not all religions are equal. It's impossible. Saying they're all equal because you dislike all religion is ignoring the reality that some religions are more powerful, more violent, and more expansionary than others.

$1:

Christianity only seems more moderate than Islam because fewer people follow it in a fundamental way than used to.

And by they "used to", you mean 500 or so years ago? Christianity IS more moderate, no matter what sorts of moral equivalency you provide.The fact not as many people follow a more "fundamentalist" version of Christianity makes it more moderate.

$1:

Change takes time. Over time, devotion to ALL relgions will decrease. We're better now than 50 years ago. 50 years from now we'll be better still.

Is this is some atheist manifesto or something? Religious devotion grows and shrinks throughout time. The fact it's waning now does not predict what will happen 50 years from now. Unless you're either extremely optimistic, or have some time machine, the trends are rarely easy to see.

$1:

I don't fear Muslims-Canadians because, in a few generations, they're more likely to become non-Muslim by virtue of living in Canada. Muslims in Canada are a lot more likely to be cured of their delusions over the generations than if they'd stayed in Syria or Pakistan or whereever. If you want to get rid of Islam, bring 'em all over for a taste of modern, western prosperity and democracy.

Yeah. That works well when members of the Toronto 18 were well educated and wealthy, and the 9-11 terrorists stemmed from well off families. You might be optimistic that Western values and secular/atheism will stop the "delusion", but the track record is quite poor, so far.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The reason Canada is a just society is despite Christinaty, not because oif it. We emerged from the era we now call the Dark Ages when free-thinking people--starting with the Protestants--wrested power from the Catholic Church.

As you said, it was Christians who caused Christianity to reform, so I don't think it's right that our current "enlightenment" is despite Christianity. I think the ideas of Christianity helped to propel us to a place where we recognize the worth of the individual. But there are dark strains within every religion, including Christianity, and looking at the US, they seem to have a large following. Heck we've got it running our government as well. We seem hellbent of moving backward from the Deism of the American founding fathers.

Unfortunately, secularism doesn't satisfy a need to believe in something greater than ourselves. Atheism gets pretty dry, and people like Dawkins and Hutchins are as fanatic as some of the Christians. And if we don't have a strong belief system to counter Islam, I do worry that it will become dominant - there's a reason it's spread so rapidly throughout the world.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

As you said, it was Christians who caused Christianity to reform,

This is kind of a tautological statement. Those that stood against the Catholic Church were considered heretics, not Christians. And I think that the desire to be free of tyranny is a human one, not a Christian one.

$1:

I think the ideas of Christianity helped to propel us to a place where we recognize the worth of the individual.

I'm not so sure about that either. The early Christians and the Jews were famous for their casual disregard for their own lives. The idea that people would submit to torture and death rather than recant their faith perplexed the Romans, a very practical people.

I'm not sure when the sanctity of life thing came along, but it certainly wasn't evident in the church in the Middle Ages. The common view then was that life was a necessary miserable struggle to get to Heaven.

$1:

Unfortunately, secularism doesn't satisfy a need to believe in something greater than ourselves. Atheism gets pretty dry, and people like Dawkins and Hutchins are as fanatic as some of the Christians. And if we don't have a strong belief system to counter Islam, I do worry that it will become dominant - there's a reason it's spread so rapidly throughout the world.

Atheism, by it's very definition, isn't a belief in and of itself--it's the rejection of deity. But I do grant you that Hitchen's screeds grate on my ear the same as any PTL preacher.

Even if what you imply is true--that we must all become Christians as it is the strong belief system required to counter Islam--I still couldn't become a Christian. I simply don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god. Apart from divine intervention I don't see what else could change that.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Even if what you imply is true--that we must all become Christians as it is the strong belief system required to counter Islam--I still couldn't become a Christian. I simply don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god. Apart from divine intervention I don't see what else could change that.

Whoa, hold your horses. I implied no such thing, or at least didn't mean to. I don't believe in how most monotheists (can't forget those Muslims) see God - tho each of those religions has produced sophisticated seers and thinkers who saw God as something far different than a guy in the sky.

But people do need something to believe in to counter the extremists in any religion. Fundamentalism is just so comforting, and materialism just doesn't satisfy. (Because it contradicts most people's experience).

I don't know what the way out of this conundrum is, really. Even with multiculturalism we're being sold a bill of goods of moral relativism, and so we import people who believe in no such thing, know that their way is the only way.

As for the tautology - I was really just parroting other people's thoughts - the idea that there is something inherent in Christianity that gave rise to the reformation and renaissance the ideas of individual liberty that grew out of that. Do you see a different primary cause?

[Faye]

I don't think scanning bearded moslims with moslim names will help. Read who planned the bombing on the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit in December? Did have the name though. They will just find someone else to do it.

It's not right to ban a certain group of people because of some rotten apples, so to speak. However, if they do not accept these new procedures: sod it. Then they have to travel by car.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Whoa, hold your horses. I implied no such thing, or at least didn't mean to. I don't believe in how most monotheists (can't forget those Muslims) see God - tho each of those religions has produced sophisticated seers and thinkers who saw God as something far different than a guy in the sky.

But people do need something to believe in to counter the extremists in any religion. Fundamentalism is just so comforting, and materialism just doesn't satisfy. (Because it contradicts most people's experience).

Yes, it's reminescent of Yeats's lines from The Second Coming:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

We're sitting here pondering what it is the fundy Muslims could possibly be so enraged about while they vehemently seek our death. My response--and its just my opinion--is the response to fundamentalism is rationality. Assess the risk, analyze it, mitigate it. My own risk assessment is that Muslims--fundamentalist or otherwise--do not pose an existential threat to Canada at this time or in the forseeable future. That's not to say there isn't a risk; it is. It's a small risk, capable of being dealt with through smart domestic policy, in my opinion.

$1:

I don't know what the way out of this conundrum is, really. Even with multiculturalism we're being sold a bill of goods of moral relativism, and so we import people who believe in no such thing, know that their way is the only way.

I don't see moral relativism as a weakness, I see it as a strength. I understand your last point though. I think one thing we could do is stop bending over backwards at every challenge to accomodate religions. Sikhs wanting to wear their kirpans in jail. Orthodox Jews wanting to be protected from having to see women exercising through a window. I'd probably limit Muslim immigration too, seeing as what has happened in England and France.

As for the tautology - I was really just parroting other people's thoughts - the idea that there is something inherent in Christianity that gave rise to the reformation and renaissance the ideas of individual liberty that grew out of that. Do you see a different primary cause?[/quote]

Yes I do. I would replace the Christianity in your sentence with humanity.

[Choban]

$1:

Canada USED to be a Christian country. It also used to be a racist country. Why are we erasing Christianity? Because Christianity is bullshit. We're erasing it because we're becoming smarter. Most of what was said in that piece you posted makes a lot of sense, but erasing Christianity is a good thing.

Didn't write it, just posted it, I myself an a non-thesist with strong morals and values that reflect a christian past/upbringing, weather I'm religious or not has no bearing on the subject. Personally I could care less if Christianity disappeared, though I'm worried about what would replace it. I don't think humanity's moral decay has anything to do with a decline in christianity though.

[Lemmy]

Choban Choban:

Didn't write it, just posted it, I myself an a non-thesist with strong morals and values that reflect a christian past/upbringing, weather I'm religious or not has no bearing on the subject. Personally I could care less if Christianity disappeared, though I'm worried about what would replace it. I don't think humanity's moral decay has anything to do with a decline in christianity though.

Yes, I'm aware that you didn't write it. I liked the piece, except for the section I commented on. Sorry for the confusion.

[andyt]

I agree that Islam is actually less of a threat than people make out. The terrorists have been effective in that. Terrorism can't destroy our nation unless we let it. And I doubt we'll see Islam becoming a militarily conquering force again soon.

Yep we should stop bending over backwards. That's what I meant by moral relativism, not in the sens usually used by Christians. I think we should be far prouder of our European intellectual and moral heritage. You can cast all kinds of stones against it, but I don't see anything better around anywhere. And if it was humanity that gave rise to it, vs the influence of Chrisitianity, why in Europe, not Asia? It's the same question I would as the guns germs and steel guy - Asia had all the prerequisites for dominance, but it didn't happen that way. What made a group of people living on a pimple of the ass of Asia decide to throw off their intellectual chains and kick so much ass.

Not that it means much for the future - whitey seems about done. I just don't see anybody coming up with anything better, but them I'm biased.

[Choban]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Choban Choban:

Didn't write it, just posted it, I myself an a non-thesist with strong morals and values that reflect a christian past/upbringing, weather I'm religious or not has no bearing on the subject. Personally I could care less if Christianity disappeared, though I'm worried about what would replace it. I don't think humanity's moral decay has anything to do with a decline in christianity though.

Yes, I'm aware that you didn't write it. I liked the piece, except for the section I commented on. Sorry for the confusion.

It's cool, some good angles and thoughts about religion on here. One differnece I notice between the western world and Muslims is the fact that our educations aren't centered around our religions whereas theirs are, indoctrination by religious states will stick and has stuck with these people for 1000's of years and change will be slow, though I'm sure it will come though probably not in my lifetime.
I for one was raised and educated in Canada by people that encouraged me to question what was going on around me, not just follow it blindly, that is the fundamental difference.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I don't accept that Muslims are inherently more violent than Christians. Or Jews for that matter. If you look at the death toll the Christian-founded countries have racked up much more of a death toll than the Muslim ones, even in the last twenty years or so.

The reason Canada is a just society is despite Christinaty, not because oif it. We emerged from the era we now call the Dark Ages when free-thinking people--starting with the Protestants--wrested power from the Catholic Church.

That said, we are not protecting Christianity in Canada. We are protecting our culture--Canada's culture. And the Christian ethos is a part of that. Another fundamental part of that culture is tolerance. But the one thing a tolerant country cannot toleate is intolerance. So we should limit immigration froim cultures that are intolerant, and we should take action against Canadians that are intolerant.

You cannot have it both ways. If you said Canada, and certainly Europe and the United States is a just society despite of Christianity, how can you then say Christian founded countries are inherently more violent when they turned away from their Christian roots?

Also, which I'm sure you realize, considering how some people have told you time and time again. This is not a conventional war. Terrorists, like those who committed the acts on 9-11, were not operated by Western standards of nationality, but rather ideology and religious faith. They didn't attack the United States for Saudi Arabia, but for their view of Islam. So of course "Christian-founded" countries will have a higher death toll than Muslim-countries. We're not combating conventional military forces of Muslim countries, we're fighting Muslim terrorists/partisans/freedom fighters, what have you. They don't identify themselves with their nationality but their religious faith.

Also, just to add a bit, without wanting to make this into a full discussion on European history...we didn't emerge from the Dark Ages because of the Protestants or free thinkers. The Reformation happened maybe...500 years after the Dark Ages (which, I would say, happened between the fall of Rome and the start of the first Crusades, where Western Europe was in shambles). On top of this, the Catholic Church during the Dark Ages was one of the very few places even conducting scientific research during those times, as well as they're responsible for preserving ancient texts. The Reformation occurred, or more precisely had its roots in the Renaissance, which both had some involvement of the Catholic Church, and happened after the end of the major Crusading eras.

However, I do agree with your last paragraph. I don't want Canada as a Christian theocracy (nor will I, ever). I strongly identify with Canada's Christian roots, but I am able to keep my religious faith and my politics MOSTLY separate (some examples, I disagree with because of my morals, but that's no different if you're against the war due to your ethics and morals). People have every right to practice their faith, or lack of faith freely. I don't care if you're a Jew, Hindu, Protestant, Muslim, Wiccan, Jedi, whatever, as long as you are peaceful with said beliefs, and as long as you don't expect accommodation to every single aspect of your faith in public life.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

And if it was humanity that gave rise to it, vs the influence of Chrisitianity, why in Europe, not Asia? It's the same question I would as the guns germs and steel guy - Asia had all the prerequisites for dominance, but it didn't happen that way. What made a group of people living on a pimple of the ass of Asia decide to throw off their intellectual chains and kick so much ass.

Not that it means much for the future - whitey seems about done. I just don't see anybody coming up with anything better, but them I'm biased.

Well, I think it did happen in Asia. The Renaissance wasn't the only period of human "enlightenment." There was Mesopatamia, Greece, Rome, China--even the Arabs had a brief time as the enlightenment leaders of the world. We're the current contenders. The fundamentalist Muslims are the barbarian hordes. You say that "One day, whitey will be defeated." I'll defer to the Klingon response: "Perhaps. But not today."

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

andyt andyt:

And if it was humanity that gave rise to it, vs the influence of Chrisitianity, why in Europe, not Asia? It's the same question I would as the guns germs and steel guy - Asia had all the prerequisites for dominance, but it didn't happen that way. What made a group of people living on a pimple of the ass of Asia decide to throw off their intellectual chains and kick so much ass.

Not that it means much for the future - whitey seems about done. I just don't see anybody coming up with anything better, but them I'm biased.

Well, I think it did happen in Asia. The Renaissance wasn't the only period of human "enlightenment." There was Mesopatamia, Greece, Rome, China--even the Arabs had a brief time as the enlightenment leaders of the world. We're the current contenders. The fundamentalist Muslims are the barbarian hordes. You say that "One day, whitey will be defeated." I'll defer to the Klingon response: "Perhaps. But not today."

At the same time Zip, I believe the hordes still had to come
through the borders, walls and lines of troops til they got to the cities.

The Romans werent dumb enough to invite them in and then
bend over backwards to accomodate them.