[PublicAnimalNo9]

Thanos Thanos:

The natural trade off should be that the preachers can make their hate-sermons all they want as long as they leave others alone. But they're not going to do that because they're a pack of Christian supremacists with a long tradition of never ever leaving anyone else alone. Zero-sum game. All for them, none for anyone else. As such it's perfectly legitimate for the state to go after them because they've never hesitated in using their influence over the state to go after others. Kind of a basic quid pro quo, but by referencing some kind of Latin phrase I'm clearly showing that I'm some kind of Jaaaaaaayzus-hating Communist or something.

I'm not arguing that the state shouldn't go after religious groups who have demonstrated an unappealing zeal in persecuting others and violating basic human rights. I'm arguing against the idea that all religious institutions should be subject to 24/7 surveillance. Especially when the notion comes from someone who gets all squeamish at the thought of some criminal's Charter rights being violated.

[raydan]

Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

raydan raydan:

Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

It never really existed

[raydan]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

raydan raydan:

Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

It never really existed

See WW1...

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

It's about time that govt started monitoring what gets said in religious institutions. Too many anti-social messages being freely promulgated. We probably need laws that force places of worship to be open to the public and have govt monitors there at all times. Preferably with video cameras to make sure we have solid evidence if anti-social ideas are being preached.

For someone who whines as much as you do about Charter and Constitutional rights, you sure are quick to toss them by the roadside when they don't suit your personal POV.
Should we do the same for left-wing groups as well? Considering that extremist left-wingers are pretty much the only ones responsible for successfully carrying out terrorist attacks on Canadian institutions and infrastructure.

We already do. Not sure how many left wing groups practicing violence are active right now, but we know for sure the govt keeps a close eye on the environmentalists. And the G20 type protesters, including preventative incarceration.

So you want to respect constitutional rights? Does that apply to Muslims preaching jihad but not advocating specific attacks on Canada as well?

[andyt]

xerxes xerxes:

$1:

The lesson they will draw from the episode is this: If you want to avoid trouble, don’t make politically-charged statements about religious convictions that the government doesn’t approve, even if you’re at a private meeting in your own church. In fact, don’t revise or retain such statements. Otherwise, who knows? You may one day have to lawyer up.

It's been advocated that the state go after Muslims calling for sharia law. OK, but then it seems to me, other politically-charged statements about religious convictions are fair game to0. Including variations of dominion theology, anti-gay preaching, advocating for teaching creationism alongside evolution, etc. As I say, by far the greatest threat to a secular state (such as it is) in the US aren't the Muslims but the Christian fundamentalists. They have the numbers, they have the elected officials and people at the levers of power. If you only go after the Muslims you're turning this into a witch hunt. But then christians are no strangers to those.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm not arguing that the state shouldn't go after religious groups who have demonstrated an unappealing zeal in persecuting others and violating basic human rights. I'm arguing against the idea that all religious institutions should be subject to 24/7 surveillance. Especially when the notion comes from someone who gets all squeamish at the thought of some criminal's Charter rights being violated.

Well if you're not squeamish about charter rights, what's your problem with surveillance? If you are, we are facing more and more attacks on charter rights in the name of fighting terror. Hard to find that line where we have the tools to fight it, but still respect rights as best we can. If you draw that line at "let's only abrogate Muslim charter rights" you're way way off.

There's a lot of "let's get those Muslims anyway we can" on this forum. When it gets turned around to also bite the odd Christian, the squeals of pigs rise to the heavens. No doubt pleasing God, at least the Christian one, who seems to have no problem with eating pork.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

So you want to respect constitutional rights? Does that apply to Muslims preaching jihad but not advocating specific attacks on Canada as well?

It should apply to people calling for attacks on Canada too.

Actions should be criminal not words. The US standard of only making speech that is likely to cause imminent serious harm to another is acceptable to me.

Censorship almost always fails to achieve it's goal.

~

The actions in Houston look to be harassment ordered by their new homosexual Mayor who is opposed to the beliefs of the churches.

I have little time for theists of any sort but less for bullies. Using the fiscal resources of the city to put legal pressure on groups you don't like is immoral at best.

The claim that the non profit status of a church requires it to be politically neutral is a very weak point to take. So long as the church isn't using funds directly to influence politics I don't see the collision between the two.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

It's about time that govt started monitoring what gets said in religious institutions. Too many anti-social messages being freely promulgated. We probably need laws that force places of worship to be open to the public and have govt monitors there at all times. Preferably with video cameras to make sure we have solid evidence if anti-social ideas are being preached.

For someone who whines as much as you do about Charter and Constitutional rights, you sure are quick to toss them by the roadside when they don't suit your personal POV.
Should we do the same for left-wing groups as well? Considering that extremist left-wingers are pretty much the only ones responsible for successfully carrying out terrorist attacks on Canadian institutions and infrastructure.

We already do. Not sure how many left wing groups practicing violence are active right now, but we know for sure the govt keeps a close eye on the environmentalists. And the G20 type protesters, including preventative incarceration.

So you want to respect constitutional rights? Does that apply to Muslims preaching jihad but not advocating specific attacks on Canada as well?

Well tell ya what andy, you point me to the relevant section of the Constitution or Charter that gives Canadians the right to incite violence and I'll answer your question. Until then, it's a crap question.

[andyt]

charter is very clear that you can advocate fighting for your religion. Hell, sikhs are allowed to wear daggers symbolically advocating just that. We get incitements to violence against various countries and groups of people all the time on this forum - seems to be a right people take for granted.

But it sounds like you aren't squeamish about charter rights - as long as a group you have no use for is the one being denied the rights. If it's a group you favor, different story. You don't think we should be monitoring what goes on in mosques? I bet you do. But heave forbid we do it to Christians. How will you know what they're up to unless you do monitor them?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm not arguing that the state shouldn't go after religious groups who have demonstrated an unappealing zeal in persecuting others and violating basic human rights. I'm arguing against the idea that all religious institutions should be subject to 24/7 surveillance. Especially when the notion comes from someone who gets all squeamish at the thought of some criminal's Charter rights being violated.

Well if you're not squeamish about charter rights, what's your problem with surveillance?

Nice try andy, don't try and turn this back around on me. It's you who wants to stomp all over ingrained rights in your anti-religion crusade, while you constantly defend the rights of even the worst types of criminals.

Our rights are already being seriously infringed upon, particularly the right to privacy, and you want to open that door even wider? Gee, maybe we should make them all get micro-chipped too, that way we can track them and know what they're up to when they're not at a church/temple/mosque. If that goes well, we can all get one.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

charter is very clear that you can advocate fighting for your religion.

In DEFENCE OF. Not to incite violence. I asked for relevant sections, not your personal assurance.
C'mon andy, if it was truly that clear, then every muslim in Canada that's been busted and convicted for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act would have had their Charter rights grossly violated.
The Sikh who was ultimately convicted of bombing the Air India flight also must have had his rights grossly violated.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'm not arguing that the state shouldn't go after religious groups who have demonstrated an unappealing zeal in persecuting others and violating basic human rights. I'm arguing against the idea that all religious institutions should be subject to 24/7 surveillance. Especially when the notion comes from someone who gets all squeamish at the thought of some criminal's Charter rights being violated.

Well if you're not squeamish about charter rights, what's your problem with surveillance?

Nice try andy, don't try and turn this back around on me. It's you who wants to stomp all over ingrained rights in your anti-religion crusade, while you constantly defend the rights of even the worst types of criminals.

Our rights are already being seriously infringed upon, particularly the right to privacy, and you want to open that door even wider? Gee, maybe we should make them all get micro-chipped too, that way we can track them and know what they're up to when they're not at a church/temple/mosque. If that goes well, we can all get one.

So then I take it no surveillance of mosques for you?

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

charter is very clear that you can advocate fighting for your religion.

In DEFENCE OF. Not to incite violence. I asked for relevant sections, not your personal assurance.
C'mon andy, if it was truly that clear, then every muslim in Canada that's been busted and convicted for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act would have had their Charter rights grossly violated.
The Sikh who was ultimately convicted of bombing the Air India flight also must have had his rights grossly violated.

You're arguing with your own strawman here. Have fun.

Hint: you should re-read and ponder what I actually said that's got you in such a huff.


It's really fun to watch people who want all sorts of things done about Muslims that may breach their civil rights start twisting like mad when the logic is applied to other religious groups. Personally I think we should know what's being said in mosques, but then we should also concern our selves with what's being said in other religious institutions, not give them a bye because "oh, they're OK."

I mean let's check on those Buddhists. WTF secret code are they transmitting here:

Avalokiteshvara
while practicing deeply with
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore,
suddenly discovered that
all of the five Skandhas are equally empty,
and with this realisation
he overcame all Ill-being.

“Listen Sariputra,
this Body itself is Emptiness
and Emptiness itself is this Body.
This Body is not other than Emptiness
and Emptiness is not other than this Body.
The same is true of Feelings,
Perceptions, Mental Formations,
and Consciousness.

“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing.

“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities.

The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena
which are the six Sense Organs,
the six Sense Objects,
and the six Consciousnesses
are also not separate self entities.

The Twelve Links of Interdependent Arising
and their Extinction
are also not separate self entities.
Ill-being, the Causes of Ill-being,
the End of Ill-being, the Path,
insight and attainment,
are also not separate self entities.

Whoever can see this
no longer needs anything to attain.

Bodhisattvas who practice
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
see no more obstacles in their mind,
and because there
are no more obstacles in their mind,
they can overcome all fear,
destroy all wrong perceptions
and realize Perfect Nirvana.

“All Buddhas in the past, present and future
by practicing
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
are all capable of attaining
Authentic and Perfect Enlightenment.

“Therefore Sariputra,
it should be known that
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
is a Great Mantra,
the most illuminating mantra,
the highest mantra,
a mantra beyond compare,
the True Wisdom that has the power
to put an end to all kinds of suffering.
Therefore let us proclaim
a mantra to praise
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore.

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!”

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

charter is very clear that you can advocate fighting for your religion.

In DEFENCE OF. Not to incite violence. I asked for relevant sections, not your personal assurance.
C'mon andy, if it was truly that clear, then every muslim in Canada that's been busted and convicted for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act would have had their Charter rights grossly violated.
The Sikh who was ultimately convicted of bombing the Air India flight also must have had his rights grossly violated.

You're arguing with your own strawman here. Have fun.

Hint: you should re-read and ponder what I actually said that's got you in such a huff.


It's really fun to watch people who want all sorts of things done about Muslims that may breach their civil rights start twisting like mad when the logic is applied to other religious groups. Personally I think we should know what's being said in mosques, but then we should also concern our selves with what's being said in other religious institutions, not give them a bye because "oh, they're OK."

Know what's even more fun? Seeing how pathetic your comprehension skills are while you flail about claiming "strawman". I have no idea where you got the sub-moronic idea that I'm all for surveilling mosques 24/7 but not churches.
What I said was I'm against the 24/7 surveillance of every religious institution.
How you interpreted that to mean, "except for mosques" is beyond me.
Talk about your fucking strawmen.