News   Nov 12, 2024
16 Storey Tower Proposal South of Warden Station Grows to 27 Storeys
 310     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
News Roundup for November 12, 2024
 432     0 
News   Nov 12, 2024
Financial Core Nightlights
 506     0 

Does Faith Goldy et al have a point???

Admiral Beez said:
You answered your own question. No need to involve the rest of us.
Click to expand...
You involved yourself.

Here's the context you find so baffling:
Fresco said:
^^ LOL

I dunno, if that were a Christian or KKK meeting who were banning women all hell would break loose in the mainstream media (and rightfully so).

But why do muslims get a free pass??
Click to expand...
To which I answered:
Why do Catholics get special treatment?
Click to expand...
The intent, since it eludes you, is to point out that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Seventh Day Adventurists are all discriminatory.

And further to that, as posted:
UN says funding of Catholic schools discriminatory
And further still to that is that *you have to be Catholic in good standing* to teach there. Tie those dots together...Taxpayer funded, and discriminatory.
 
EDITORIAL
Globe editorial: By defending a crucifix, Quebec crosses the line into hypocrisy


PUBLISHED 4 HOURS AGO UPDATED OCTOBER 11, 2018
Open this photo in gallery
The crucifix is shown inside the National Assembly in Quebec City in November, 2013. The coming Coalition Avenir Québec government says it has no intention of removing the crucifix that hangs behind the Speaker's chair.

JACQUES BOISSINOT/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The incoming Coalition Avenir Québec government in Quebec said this week it will not remove the crucifix that hangs in the province’s legislature, even as it intends to move ahead with its controversial plan to ban some public servants from wearing religious symbols at work.

The crucifix, a spokesman argued, is nothing but a “heritage object” that is “part of our history” and, as such, it should not be included in the larger argument about religious symbols in the public sphere.

It would be difficult to hold a more hypocritical position than that. The image of Jesus Christ on the cross is one of the most potent religious symbols in the world. Furthermore, its existence in the National Assembly "suggests that a very special closeness exists between legislative power and the religion of the majority,” as the Bouchard-Taylor commission on reasonable accommodation said 10 years ago.


It is simply too convenient to dismiss the crucifix as a mere artifact of Quebec’s past, with no more significance than an old wooden snowshoe hanging on the wall of a ski chalet, while simultaneously arguing that personal displays of religious faith represent a menace to secularism. Consistency would require the CAQ to take down the crucifix tomorrow, a move many francophones support.

But in Quebec’s complicated identity politics, the only thing parties dedicated to secularism have consistently done is defend the presence of the crucifix while vowing to curtail the expression of the small minority of its public employees whose most notable trait, other than their desire to wear religiously symbolic clothing items, is that they aren’t Christians.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...ding-a-crucifix-quebec-crosses-the-line-into/

PTL! (Praise the Loud)
 
Avenue said:
Oh dear. Socially conservative gay guys strike again!

If you have to side with an open neo-Nazi to state a position on an issue, that's pretty horrific. She only started with the brown people because it's a low hanging fruit - please be assured her camp will eventually come for the gays too.
Click to expand...

Really? Standing up for gay rights, women's equality and gender equality is socially conservative? Islam goes against almost every form of equality we all fought so hard to obtain.

I'm sure she will go after the gay community. All religious alt right nuts do attack us.
 
gabe said:
Really? Standing up for gay rights, women's equality and gender equality is socially conservative? Islam goes against almost every form of equality we all fought so hard to obtain.

I'm sure she will go after the gay community. All religious alt right nuts do attack us.
Click to expand...

Generalizing and trying demonize an entire group of people based on your limited knowledge IS socially conservative. This is no different than "Mexicans are rapists"

I definitely do not assume you necessarily stand up for women's equality or gender equality, those are just likely convenient throw-ins.
 
gabe said:
I'm sure she will go after the gay community. All religious alt right nuts do attack us.
Click to expand...
"She" = Goldy?

An addendum, a Heretic's Parable as it were:

I have some very serious issues with some Muslims. Case in point: When they swear at my dog (see note * at end) for being 'unclean' for instance, when they are in a public place, *our* public place. And yet other Muslims I speak to say that's ridiculous. They have dogs, and claim it's nothing to do with the Koran, just uptight, nasty people.

You find as many zealouts in Christianity, you find them in all religions, as religion is often an identity, not a sharing of higher values. And many Muslims *welcome* the conversation on who they are, what they believe, and why they aspire to the same ideals others do.

And I'm able to tell them that "I'm a Born Again Heretic"...but I still believe in Good. Most Muslims can respect that and share in the belief of a higher calling, no matter how it's spelt.

Why so many have such a problem with that is indicative not of a shortcoming of Muslims, but of a shortcoming of themselves.

Note*:
Dog spelled backward is God
“Is Dog just God spelled backwards?” Before you answer too quickly, let us look at the role Dog has played in Man's religious history and evolution. In the King James Version of the Bible, the word dog appears 41 times and only in limited ways does it refer to the animal, the dog.
Click to expand...
DOG SPELLED BACKWARDS: THE GOD MYTH EXAMINED ...

www.thedogplace.org/HEALTH/Dog-spelled-backwards.asp
 
Last edited:
Avenue said:
Generalizing and trying demonize an entire group of people based on your limited knowledge IS socially conservative. This is no different than "Mexicans are rapists"

I definitely do not assume you necessarily stand up for women's equality or gender equality, those are just likely convenient throw-ins.
Click to expand...

I haven't demonized an entire group. I criticized the ideology. Mexican is not a religion. If Christianity and other religions are open to criticism, so should Islam.

Name one majority Muslim nation on earth that is not misogynistic, homophobic, anti-Semitic and hostile to minorities? Muslim leaders of these countries believe that violence is an acceptable solution to punish speech, religions and lifestyles they don't agree with.

Liberal views (civil rights, human rights and freedom of speech) on are the side which would be very much opposed to Islamism and sharia etc in the west and elsewhere.
 
'People say you can’t be gay and Muslim. They are incredibly ignorant,' says LGBT business leader
Click to expand...
Suki Sandhu argues couching religion and sexuality in mutually exclusive terms pushes people further into the closet
The Independent

Since it was claimed the first same-sex Muslim marriage had taken place in Britain last week, the question of gay marriages within the community has dominated headlines.

Asifa Lahore, the country’s first Muslim drag performer, openly rebuffed the assertion, saying the UK’s gay Muslim community is “thriving” with “countless” same-sex marriages having taken place in recent years.

Suki Sandhu, who married his male partner, echoed the sentiments expressed by Lahore. The 36-year-old LGBT business leader, who is sikh, said he knew a number of people within both the Muslim and wider south Asian community who had either been married or were on the brink of tying the knot.

“I agree with Asifa and she definitely knows what she is talking about because I would say she is quite connected to that community,” he told The Independent.

But Mr Sandhu insisted it was important not to overlook the deeply-entrenched prejudices faced by LGBT Muslims.

He condemned those who argued that it was not possible to reconcile the Muslim faith with being LGBT. Last week, LBC presenter, Maajid Nawaz, was left shocked after a caller told him one could not be both gay and a Muslim while discussing the case of the UK’s so-called first same-sex marriage involving a Muslim partner.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-gay-marriage-maajid-nawaz-lbc-a7851731.html

Now name me an officially Christian nation that recognizes gay rights.

Meantime:
Faith Goldy - Homosexuality Is A SIN
 
gabe said:
Really? Standing up for gay rights, women's equality and gender equality is socially conservative? Islam goes against almost every form of equality we all fought so hard to obtain.

I'm sure she will go after the gay community. All religious alt right nuts do attack us.
Click to expand...


Ok, so I haven't been around because I've been binge watching Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Peterson*, Tyson, and Kaku and I'm ready to say with confidence that I am fully done with organised religion. It's a force for evil in the world and a barrier to the progress of humanity.
Religious apologists will make absurd claims to support their position. For example, calling you socially conservative as an out-of-hand dismissal of you views on Islam. Straight rubbish as an argument. It's not socially conservative to point out the dangers of organised religions. In fact, it's quite the opposite, if anything. Criticising religion is a social good if and where it leads to the neutering of the dangers of religion.
Followed, of course, by a rubbish equivalency with the orange president's claim of Mexicans being rapists.

The fact of the matter is that Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc are outdated anthropological relics and a net detriment to humanity especially when and where they impose inhumane conditions on their adherents (ie, genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam) and where they are the direct cause of death and human misery (ie, Daesh, Burma).

PS: @gabe ...I'm telling you man....go check out some Christopher Hitchens videos. It's good for a laugh.

*-- Jordan Peterson is actually a theist, I think....I don't really understand his arguments on religion. Something about god being whatever moral foundation one follows or something. So, kinda not about a god, really? Though he is well cognisant of the dangers of moral absolutism so I wouldn't call him a religionist.
 
steveintoronto said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-gay-marriage-maajid-nawaz-lbc-a7851731.html

Now name me an officially Christian nation that recognizes gay rights.

Click to expand...

The UK.

Now, this is predicated on the argument that as Her Majesty is the head of the Anglican Church, it is an officially Christian nation.

Because it's the only one. (Ok, fine....the Vatican, big deal).

Unlike Islamic ones of which there are a few (ie, Iran and Saudi Arabia).

Anyway, what was your point?
All religions have it wrong, so it's not exactly much sport trying to distinguish between them in this context.
 
RE: the OP,

Faith Goldy is a joker (like, in a bad way, not like how Jimmy Carr is a joker), but so are these event organisers. Her and her colleague should take a page out of the moral relativists' book and take it to the Human Rights Tribunal.

I don't know why people are so afraid of hearing her speak. Her ideas are easily refutable and she doesn't incite any crimes (in spite of some people's wishes, it's not a crime to offend anyone, thank the universe!).

The best way to fight someone's argument is to hear it first.
 
MTown said:
Ok, so I haven't been around because I've been binge watching Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Peterson*, Tyson, and Kaku and I'm ready to say with confidence that I am fully done with organised religion. It's a force for evil in the world and a barrier to the progress of humanity.
Religious apologists will make absurd claims to support their position. For example, calling you socially conservative as an out-of-hand dismissal of you views on Islam. Straight rubbish as an argument. It's not socially conservative to point out the dangers of organised religions. In fact, it's quite the opposite, if anything. Criticising religion is a social good if and where it leads to the neutering of the dangers of religion.
Followed, of course, by a rubbish equivalency with the orange president's claim of Mexicans being rapists.

The fact of the matter is that Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc are outdated anthropological relics and a net detriment to humanity especially when and where they impose inhumane conditions on their adherents (ie, genital mutilation in Judaism and Islam) and where they are the direct cause of death and human misery (ie, Daesh, Burma).

PS: @gabe ...I'm telling you man....go check out some Christopher Hitchens videos. It's good for a laugh.

*-- Jordan Peterson is actually a theist, I think....I don't really understand his arguments on religion. Something about god being whatever moral foundation one follows or something. So, kinda not about a god, really? Though he is well cognisant of the dangers of moral absolutism so I wouldn't call him a religionist
Click to expand...
Religion is a crock of shit. If you really want to understand the universe and the meaning of life I highly recommend you read this book by Adrian Cooper:

https://www.amazon.ca/Ultimate-Reality-Universe-Destiny-Mankind/dp/0979910609

.pdf: http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Adrian Cooper - Our Ultimate Reality.pdf
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top