Comments on: Reply from an M.P. http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/ When you just need to put pen to parchment Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:49:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Victor http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-119 Victor Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:55:34 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-119 I'm right there with you on that one. I’m right there with you on that one.

]]> By: Noah http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-118 Noah Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:15:26 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-118 You bring up the HRC's cases, but as you can probably tell by my blog I feel that the HRC has overstepped it's bounds by becoming a censor. The ability to question and critique is, I feel, a central right to a democratic country. And Ed. You're cut off. If you can't engage in civilized discourse with someone you disagree with then you won't be posting on this blog. You bring up the HRC’s cases, but as you can probably tell by my blog I feel that the HRC has overstepped it’s bounds by becoming a censor.

The ability to question and critique is, I feel, a central right to a democratic country.

And Ed. You’re cut off. If you can’t engage in civilized discourse with someone you disagree with then you won’t be posting on this blog.

]]> By: victor http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-117 victor Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:21:19 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-117 Eddie: Syntax seems to be yours.... Bottom line is thus: you are entitled to your ridiculous belief(s), but they convey no special status nor are they above critique. For example, the Sikh fellow who says that the Highway Traffic Act violates his rights to freely practice his religion when it requires him to wear a helmet when riding his motorcycle: Too f**king bad. One law for all, no exceptions, especially for supposedly 'religious' reasons. The very fact that the HRC is seeing this case is a slap in the face to every reasonable citizen of this country. He should be told that sure, go ahead and ride your motorcycle without a helmet, if that is what your so-called 'god' intended for you-- but you have to pay the fines when you get caught, because that's the law of the land, and that law applies to all. What a joke. Eddie: Syntax seems to be yours….

Bottom line is thus: you are entitled to your ridiculous belief(s), but they convey no special status nor are they above critique. For example, the Sikh fellow who says that the Highway Traffic Act violates his rights to freely practice his religion when it requires him to wear a helmet when riding his motorcycle: Too f**king bad. One law for all, no exceptions, especially for supposedly ‘religious’ reasons. The very fact that the HRC is seeing this case is a slap in the face to every reasonable citizen of this country. He should be told that sure, go ahead and ride your motorcycle without a helmet, if that is what your so-called ‘god’ intended for you– but you have to pay the fines when you get caught, because that’s the law of the land, and that law applies to all. What a joke.

]]> By: Ed http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-116 Ed Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:20:01 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-116 Victor ? What other voices do you hear when you READ words ? Religion ! may not be your biggest problem Victor ? What other voices do you hear when you
READ words ?
Religion ! may not be your biggest problem

]]> By: Victor http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-115 Victor Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:21:54 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-115 Ed, thanks for that insightful reply, with its unique use of commas. I, look, forward, to, reading, more, of, what, you, have, to, say. I take it you are trying to sound like William Shatner? Noah, I agree 100% that it's people that are the problem-- but you need to be able to criticize the intent/instigation for their deeds. The religious texts are quite clear on what to do with homosexuals/sinners/witches/apostates/thieves etc. Already the HRC has landed a hate speech decision against the pastor that ran the bits from Leviticus that appeared in a (Calgary was it?) newspaper because it might incite people to perform hateful acts/deeds towards homosexuals. This decision essentially states that the bible is hate literature. In this case, it IS the religion that is the problem, because it states, clear as day, that homosexuals are abhorrent in the eyes of god and should be thrown in the fire. The Koran quite explicitly tells its followers what to do with apostates-- kill them. There is no 'misunderstanding' the texts-- the fundamentalist has his instructions from god himself. To say that it's not the religion, it's the people who believe it, is denying the facts. Ed, thanks for that insightful reply, with its unique use of commas. I, look, forward, to, reading, more, of, what, you, have, to, say. I take it you are trying to sound like William Shatner?
Noah, I agree 100% that it’s people that are the problem– but you need to be able to criticize the intent/instigation for their deeds. The religious texts are quite clear on what to do with homosexuals/sinners/witches/apostates/thieves etc. Already the HRC has landed a hate speech decision against the pastor that ran the bits from Leviticus that appeared in a (Calgary was it?) newspaper because it might incite people to perform hateful acts/deeds towards homosexuals. This decision essentially states that the bible is hate literature. In this case, it IS the religion that is the problem, because it states, clear as day, that homosexuals are abhorrent in the eyes of god and should be thrown in the fire. The Koran quite explicitly tells its followers what to do with apostates– kill them. There is no ‘misunderstanding’ the texts– the fundamentalist has his instructions from god himself. To say that it’s not the religion, it’s the people who believe it, is denying the facts.

]]> By: Ed http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-109 Ed Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:09:43 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-109 I can tell, that , sex ,is victors religion and i bet he takes it at the drop of a hat. I can tell, that , sex ,is victors religion
and i bet he takes it at the drop of a hat.

]]> By: Noah http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-108 Noah Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:04:35 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-108 I don't know. I think that discrimination against people for anything from the colour of their skin to the colour of their t-shirt is wrong. I don't know about enshrined in law, but I still feel it is wrong, regardless of what the government might say. "These tomes have instigated rape, looting, torture, slavery, and murder throughout our history — and still do today" Though that is true, it is also true that the same acts have been instigated by every single form of government, religion, and philosophical concept ever thought up. The problem isn't the religion or the system of government or thought, the problem is people. Whatever type of system (religious, governmental, or social) that is set up, there is a very high likelihood of it being misused. I don't know about the "bible and the Koran as hate literature", but I would be wary of censoring any book from the Koran to Mein Kampf. I agree with you though, that all belief systems (or political systems for that mater) should be open to criticism. I don’t know. I think that discrimination against people for anything from the colour of their skin to the colour of their t-shirt is wrong. I don’t know about enshrined in law, but I still feel it is wrong, regardless of what the government might say.

“These tomes have instigated rape, looting, torture, slavery, and murder throughout our history — and still do today” Though that is true, it is also true that the same acts have been instigated by every single form of government, religion, and philosophical concept ever thought up. The problem isn’t the religion or the system of government or thought, the problem is people. Whatever type of system (religious, governmental, or social) that is set up, there is a very high likelihood of it being misused.

I don’t know about the “bible and the Koran as hate literature”, but I would be wary of censoring any book from the Koran to Mein Kampf.

I agree with you though, that all belief systems (or political systems for that mater) should be open to criticism.

]]> By: Victor http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-107 Victor Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:40:58 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-107 Nobody is telling anybody to discriminate. The point is that something that is a choice (like religion) and something that you have no choice in (sex, when/where you were born, race) are two totally different fruit, and it is ludicrous to suggest that these two different fruit deserve equal recognition. You can change your religion at the drop of a hat. You can't change your race. Religion is dogma. Sex is not. Religion is arrogant ignorance. Your place of birth is a stone cold fact. If you think that these things are equal, then you need to do a little bit of reading. People are entitled to their ridiculous belief systems-- but that also entitles them to open ridicule. Catholicism and Islam both call for the death of homosexuals in their holy books. This fact alone classifies both the bible and the koran as hate literature, according to the charter itself. As such, these books need to be removed from our shelves and the authors brought before the commission to answer for their crimes. These tomes have instigated rape, looting, torture, slavery, and murder throughout our history -- and still do today. So remind me again, how is it that the modern 'humanitarian' can sit by and ignore this history of mayhem and suggest that discriminating against someone because they believe that 'adulteresses' should be stoned to death by a mob while they are buried in the sand up to their shoulders is equivalent to discriminating against someone because they are 65 years old? Nobody is telling anybody to discriminate. The point is that something that is a choice (like religion) and something that you have no choice in (sex, when/where you were born, race) are two totally different fruit, and it is ludicrous to suggest that these two different fruit deserve equal recognition. You can change your religion at the drop of a hat. You can’t change your race. Religion is dogma. Sex is not. Religion is arrogant ignorance. Your place of birth is a stone cold fact. If you think that these things are equal, then you need to do a little bit of reading. People are entitled to their ridiculous belief systems– but that also entitles them to open ridicule. Catholicism and Islam both call for the death of homosexuals in their holy books. This fact alone classifies both the bible and the koran as hate literature, according to the charter itself. As such, these books need to be removed from our shelves and the authors brought before the commission to answer for their crimes. These tomes have instigated rape, looting, torture, slavery, and murder throughout our history — and still do today. So remind me again, how is it that the modern ‘humanitarian’ can sit by and ignore this history of mayhem and suggest that discriminating against someone because they believe that ‘adulteresses’ should be stoned to death by a mob while they are buried in the sand up to their shoulders is equivalent to discriminating against someone because they are 65 years old?

]]> By: Noah http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-106 Noah Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:37:02 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-106 Personally I think that discriminating against someone because they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is as wrong as discriminating against them because they happen to be a different skin colour, or happen to be in love with someone of the same sex as they are. Being human is all about choices. If someone chooses a choice that we may not consider to be rational, that's still their choice, and as long as it does not hurt anyone it should be fine. Of course this gets us into the definition of hurt, but I think we can all agree that having sex with young boys and believing that Aliens created the world and are in a conspiracy with the British Royal Family are on two very different levels. Personally I think that discriminating against someone because they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is as wrong as discriminating against them because they happen to be a different skin colour, or happen to be in love with someone of the same sex as they are.

Being human is all about choices. If someone chooses a choice that we may not consider to be rational, that’s still their choice, and as long as it does not hurt anyone it should be fine. Of course this gets us into the definition of hurt, but I think we can all agree that having sex with young boys and believing that Aliens created the world and are in a conspiracy with the British Royal Family are on two very different levels.

]]> By: Victor http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-105 Victor Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:16:43 +0000 http://www.noaharney.com/2008/02/reply-from-an-mp/#comment-105 The biggest problem with the section that describes discrimination is that it includes religion. This is the only thing in the line up (age, sex, country of origin, colour, etc) that involves a personal choice to engage in a bronze age system of beliefs that have no evidence to support them. Why the hell should someone have their irrational 'beliefs' protected in any way, or given any special status? Does this mean that we cannot critique someone who believes that is their 'human right' to marry their cousins, cut off the hands of thieves, have sex with young boys, or stone adulterers to death? Any person who 'believes' stuff like this needs to be made a fool of, and the more publicly, the better. It is only because of religious criticism that western civilization managed to advance out of the dark ages that religion imposed upon it. There is a process that most people are familiar with, it's called "learning"-- we are now learning that certain things that were created for the better good were created less than perfect, and as such we can learn from our mistakes and make corrections where necessary. This is one of those times where we need to learn from our mistakes, and make the necessary changes. The biggest problem with the section that describes discrimination is that it includes religion. This is the only thing in the line up (age, sex, country of origin, colour, etc) that involves a personal choice to engage in a bronze age system of beliefs that have no evidence to support them. Why the hell should someone have their irrational ‘beliefs’ protected in any way, or given any special status? Does this mean that we cannot critique someone who believes that is their ‘human right’ to marry their cousins, cut off the hands of thieves, have sex with young boys, or stone adulterers to death? Any person who ‘believes’ stuff like this needs to be made a fool of, and the more publicly, the better. It is only because of religious criticism that western civilization managed to advance out of the dark ages that religion imposed upon it. There is a process that most people are familiar with, it’s called “learning”– we are now learning that certain things that were created for the better good were created less than perfect, and as such we can learn from our mistakes and make corrections where necessary. This is one of those times where we need to learn from our mistakes, and make the necessary changes.

]]>