"In late April of 2004, a poster asks the forum members to share their impressions of what makes Canada unique. Nada's answer is straightforward."Who cares? We hate Canada."
Yep and so does the right-wing, both share a knee jerk reaction to liberal social democracy.
"Are you accepting a system that separates religion and state?" she asks. "Are you gonna give your pledge of allegiance to a party that puts secular laws above the laws of Allah? Are you gonna worship that which they worship? Are you going to throw away the most important thing that makes you a muslim?" Ms. Jamal's list of forbidden institutions goes beyond politics. Banking, membership in the United Nations, women's rights and secular law are all aspects of Canadian society she finds unacceptable."
Sounds like she is a member of Real Women, or a columnist for the Western Standard. In fact her hatred of the UN is shared by the ultra-right in the US.
All patriarchical monotheistic religions are bigots they hate the laws of man since they only believe in the laws of their God.
Women are the backbone of most churches, synagogs, temples, etc. Religious women are conservative in politics, they are the root base of the movements against choice be it abortion, childcare, same sex marriage, etc. They are the real force behind not only the veil but the bigotry of religious extremism.
The reason is simple, while women on the whole are more spiritual than men as studies show, politically the number of women who are liberal in social attitudes out numbers their more fundamentalist sisters.
Those that lead these right wing movements are a minority whose screeching is out of proportion to their number. Hence the vehemence and hatred they show their opponents; real or imagined.
The Globe and Mail series merely exposes that fundamentalist muslims share much in common with their contemporary conservative religious fundamentalists of other patriarchical monotheistic faiths.
http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2006/07/religious-hate-in-canada.html
Note: http://plawiuk.blogspot...
Religious Hate In Canada
Posted on Saturday, July 01 at 15:12 by eugeneContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche
No one would give a damn about the literalists if they didn't try to ram their ideas down other peoples throats. Saying that we are "hateful" towards them is like saying we are hateful toward the Nazis or any other group of bullies.
And I say this as a social libertarian, and an atheist to boot. I believe in same-sex marriage, and I believe in the right of religious groups to oppose it. And if opposing "liberal social democracy" is a sin, then feel free to cast the first stone my way.
It's ironic that the author of the original post started off his anti-hatred article by taking cheap swipes at Protestants and monarchists (once again, neither being a group that can claim my membership). Well, allow me to respond in kind (i.e. with an overgeneralization). Socialists and social democrats are infamous for their hypocrisy, and their "nice guy" facade and constant harping about diversity mask a viciousness and deep-seated intolerance towards those who think and believe differently from them.
And no, I don't hate socialistst. I simply oppose them.
As a Christian (far from the best example sadly) I am appalled at some of the dogma pumped out by pastors who lean to the right politically.
Some of the vitriol I have heard "preached" in my time has had me agreeing with the atheists concerning the amount of hatred pouring out from behind the pulpit.
Those who think that the cause of Christ can be served by force of arms, or by hatred, are sadly deluded.
The cause of Christ is served by service to one's fellow human beings, by generosity to the poor and disenfranchised, and by standing against those who would abuse or take advantage of others for their own gain.
Those Christians here who suscribe to the belief that the political Right is always the correct choice should examine how closely to Christ's actions and teaching correspond to those of their Right wing political "messiahs".
It was just such an examination that caused me to abandon the political Right several years ago.
It is my firm belief that any Christian who is truly in favour of truth and justice will come to the same conclusions as I did.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
Your experience with Christianity is very different than mine. I grew up in the United Church, which was very incompatible with my emerging political views. I often joked that the United Church considered Karl Marx the 13th apostle. My minister seemed to side with the Soviets in the Cold War, or at least was a strong advocate of appeasement of the Soviets. And he was anti-American in a way that would have made Robin Mathews blush.
One of the problems of turning the words of a figure who lived 2000 years ago into a way to guide morality in the very different world of today is that it requires a lot of interpretation and filling in of blanks. Christ's teachings can be spun right or left. Promoters of social conservatism and those of social democracy can both find scriptural evidence for their positions.
You sound more like the apostle Paul than you may realize.
He also taught that people should be self-sufficient and responsible for their own upkeep, as is evidenced by his saying "if anyone shall not work, neither shall they eat".
There is a huge difference between a "hand up" and a "hand out".
The former is helping people back onto their feet by various means: education, the giving of one's time, and/or resources,food assistance if required, helping rebuild their homes, lives, etc until such time as they are able to stand on their own feet again. That the people being helped in this way also contribute to the process in whatever way they can is implied. There is NO such thing as a free lunch.
The latter is an invitation to become non-productive, and in effect, a parasite without motivation.
Like I said, a huge difference between the two.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush
Sometimes people cannot, by circumstances they cannot control, do anything beyond simply accepting help.
Like I said, it's important to note that.
---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
"The Weapon" - Rush