D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
Your argument is a strawman, ie an oversimplification. The issue is the law on self-defence, not rape, and not handguns.
Kevin
Kevin
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
I'm not sure you're entirely correct drunknsubmrnr. In Canada, the force used in self-defence must be proportional. Your assailant would actually have to be trying to kill you (or perhaps someone else in your presence) to be justified in using deadly force. This is very different from the U.S. where, in some cases, you can shoot someone for trespassing.
The problem with the States is that there aren't really separate liberal and conservative areas, at least at a scale bigger than individual cities. Seattle is one of the most liberal places in the U.S., but go to Spokane and you'll meet people as conservative as any in Mississippi. A college town in the deep South might be as liberal as San Francisco, but it's surrounded by, well, the deep south. It really messes everything up with their electoral vote system. I suppose Canada's pretty much the same. Without Quebec, we're not much different from the U.S. in terms of liberalism and conservatism.
The problem with the States is that there aren't really separate liberal and conservative areas, at least at a scale bigger than individual cities. Seattle is one of the most liberal places in the U.S., but go to Spokane and you'll meet people as conservative as any in Mississippi. A college town in the deep South might be as liberal as San Francisco, but it's surrounded by, well, the deep south. It really messes everything up with their electoral vote system. I suppose Canada's pretty much the same. Without Quebec, we're not much different from the U.S. in terms of liberalism and conservatism.
B
bizorky
Guest
1. Technically speaking, I was not making an argument. Rather, I was outlining the severe limitations of your scenario as some kind of global rationale for hand guns.
2. As I was not making an argument, it fails to serve as a strawman, as such.
3. If you mean by oversimplification that I neglected to more fully describe the short-comings of your scenario as a rationale for allowing people to arm themselves (all in the name of some nebulous reference to self-defense against crimes that "could" rather than necessarily "would" happen) then I am guilty. I simply did not want to belabour the point.
2. As I was not making an argument, it fails to serve as a strawman, as such.
3. If you mean by oversimplification that I neglected to more fully describe the short-comings of your scenario as a rationale for allowing people to arm themselves (all in the name of some nebulous reference to self-defense against crimes that "could" rather than necessarily "would" happen) then I am guilty. I simply did not want to belabour the point.
S
spmarshall
Guest
Yeah, interesting points Unimaginative.
Austin, Texas is a liberal city in the heart of Bush Country. There are parts of Colorado which are as liberal as New England. Democratic, Blue states like Michigan also have organizations like the Michigan Militia (like I said, the kooks that start north of Flint).
There are parts of Ontario too that are traditionally conservative - the so-called Ontario bible belt that stretches from Grey/Bruce, through Simcoe County and through to Renfrew and Lanark Counties - contrast to cities like Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor, which can be contrasted to more conservative cities like London.
Though I think in Canada, I think overall we are to the left of the States. Even Alberta versus Texas, Alberta as a whole is more liberal comparatively.
Austin, Texas is a liberal city in the heart of Bush Country. There are parts of Colorado which are as liberal as New England. Democratic, Blue states like Michigan also have organizations like the Michigan Militia (like I said, the kooks that start north of Flint).
There are parts of Ontario too that are traditionally conservative - the so-called Ontario bible belt that stretches from Grey/Bruce, through Simcoe County and through to Renfrew and Lanark Counties - contrast to cities like Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor, which can be contrasted to more conservative cities like London.
Though I think in Canada, I think overall we are to the left of the States. Even Alberta versus Texas, Alberta as a whole is more liberal comparatively.
D
drunknsubmrnr
Guest
In Canada, the force used in self-defence must be proportional. Your assailant would actually have to be trying to kill you (or perhaps someone else in your presence) to be justified in using deadly force. This is very different from the U.S. where, in some cases, you can shoot someone for tresspassing.
I can't say for the entire US, but that Florida staute seems to be mnore restrictive than Canada's equivalent. I checked, and the "duty to retreat" only counts in Canada if you've already provoked the person threatening you. There's nothing I've seen in the Florida law that provides for protecting someone under your care.
Technically speaking, I was not making an argument. Rather, I was outlining the severe limitations of your scenario as some kind of global rationale for hand guns.
If I had been justifying handguns, you'd be correct.
Kevin
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
I am curious - all we have talked so far is the letter of the law; what about the context from which this piece of legislation arises? Is it really as simple as defining the circumstances whereby the use of lethal force in self-defense is justified, or is it something more "sinister", if I may use the word?
Personally, I found examining the circumstances to be far more illuminating. I suspect in the end, such formalization has nothing to do with the law, but everything to do with the general theme of the right to firearms and revenge.
GB
Personally, I found examining the circumstances to be far more illuminating. I suspect in the end, such formalization has nothing to do with the law, but everything to do with the general theme of the right to firearms and revenge.
GB
A
Archivistower
Guest
Big difference in Florida is that you have the right to carry your weapon anywhere. Idiots who think that carrying guns everywhere actually prevent crime never seem to be able to explain the prevalence of violent crime in the USA. Anyways, whatever, same old same old arguments, some people can't be convinced, but Florida is a disaster of a state no matter how you look at it. On some level, I look forward to having most of it wash away within my lifetime.
A
afransen TO
Guest
I recall several years back a decidedly creepy fellow from the NRA being interviewed for one of the morning shows. He was trying to make the argument that gun control increased gun crime, arguing that states closer to the Canadian border had higher gun crime rates... I think it was Valerie Pringle conducting the interview. She has a few "Oooh.... kay" moments. I remember thinking how unbelievably alien that guy's thinking was to Canadian popular thought.
A
Archivistower
Guest
I've always thought that the central cultural problem of Americans, one that renders their popular culture flat and predictable, and the foreign policy ridiculous, is that they believe that people are either evil or good. In big budget films, there are pretty much always some evil people who can be killed off at will. There might be evil people who come around to good, or good-seeming people who in the end are evil, but at any given moment it's pretty clear that someone is one or the other. In their foreign policy, too, you have this oversimplistic division into good or evil - if they were against the commies in th 1970's they were all good and needed to be supported, however noxious they really were. To invade Iraq they basically undertook a campaign to vilify their former ally so that the invasion would be supported. People have seen this in movies - "oh my God, he's really a bad guy!" - and so it's easy to bring off in real life.
This is why I think they differ so much on gun control. My theory is that every individual American believes that they are the "good guy" in their own personal movie and cannot under any circumstances imagine themselves switching over. So they ought to have a gun because any use they put it to will be just and the right cause.
I don't want to have a gun because I'm afraid I'll use it. That's my bottom line. We're all a mix of good and evil at any given time.
As for Americans, I think the only event that will ever shock them enough to bring them to the point where they can view themselves and their culture as the mixture of good and evil that it is, is when they do something so horribly catastrophic that the conflict with themselves becomes unavoidable. I hope I'm not around to see it.
This is why I think they differ so much on gun control. My theory is that every individual American believes that they are the "good guy" in their own personal movie and cannot under any circumstances imagine themselves switching over. So they ought to have a gun because any use they put it to will be just and the right cause.
I don't want to have a gun because I'm afraid I'll use it. That's my bottom line. We're all a mix of good and evil at any given time.
As for Americans, I think the only event that will ever shock them enough to bring them to the point where they can view themselves and their culture as the mixture of good and evil that it is, is when they do something so horribly catastrophic that the conflict with themselves becomes unavoidable. I hope I'm not around to see it.
B
BrianHawkins1
Guest
unimaginative2:
You're right about much, though not all, of the US being 'purple' rather than purely blue or red, but this...
"Without Quebec, we're not much different from the U.S. in terms of liberalism and conservatism."
...is most certainly untrue, imo, unless you are talking strictly in terms of social conservatism, and even then there are significant differences, both historical and contemporary. Because the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are more slippery and confusing than ever, it's difficult to get a handle on what's what anymore, but it's very probably still safe to say that your average/median Canadian is considerably more 'liberal' than your average/median America. Like, a lot more, especially concerning such issues as: individualism vs. collectivism; health care; weapons and the use of violence to solve problems; crime and punishment; and our respective countries' role in the world and foreign policy.
Archivistower:
"As for Americans, I think the only event that will ever shock them enough to bring them to the point where they can view themselves and their culture as the mixture of good and evil that it is, is when they do something so horribly catastrophic that the conflict with themselves becomes unavoidable. I hope I'm not around to see it."
I also hope not to be around to witness this likely eventuality (though I strongly suspect that we all will be), but I don't think it'll have the effects that you envision, unfortunately: the persistently obstinate half of Americans still consider the atomic bombs dropped on Japan to have been justified, for instance:
"Overall, 47 percent of those surveyed approved of dropping the bombs on Japan while 46 percent disapproved, according to the poll of 1,000 conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs from March 21-23 (2005)"
( 24hour.startribune.com/24...8945c.html )
If you can rationalize a nuking, you can rationalize anything, and I expect that any future atrocity, no matter how horrific, will be similarly supported, apparently endlessly, by the same old half-or-so of the population that is always on board with this kind of thing, and all in the enduring name of 'freedom', 'national defense', 'we're at war', etc.
Imo, it's gonna happen again, sooner rather than later - the groundwork is being laid right now. All they're really waiting for in the current climate is a pretense in the form of a major crisis or apparent terrorist incident (especially one involving something described as a WMD), or even the perceived/alleged threat thereof, which are hardly unlikely scenarios in the near future.
from www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-...0502a3.htm ...
"The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."
"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.
The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use.
Allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks would effectively contradict a "negative security assurance" policy declared 10 years ago by the Clinton administration during an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Creating a treaty committing nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime."
Also see: www.reason.com/links/links050405.shtml
The following does a good job of expanding on your observations re the infantile and extremely dangerous good/evil dichotomy all too common in the American mind...
(from “A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of Americaâ€, by Wendell Berry, Orion online, Mar/Apr 2003)
"The new National Security Strategy published by the White House in September 2002, if carried out, would amount to a radical revision of the political character of our nation. Its central and most significant statement is this: While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists... (p. 6).
Much of the obscurity of our effort so far against terrorism originates in this now official idea that the enemy is evil and that we are (therefore) good, which is the precise mirror image of the official idea of the terrorists. The epigraph of Part III of The National Security Strategy contains this sentence from President Bush's speech at the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001: "But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." A government, committing its nation to rid the world of evil, is assuming necessarily that it and its nation are good. But the proposition that anything so multiple and large as a nation can be "good" is an insult to common sense. It is also dangerous, because it precludes any attempt at self criticism or self correction; it precludes public dialogue. It leads us far indeed from the traditions of religion and democracy that are intended to measure and so to sustain our efforts to be good...
...Thomas Jefferson justified general education by the obligation of citizens to be critical of their government: "for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence." An inescapable requirement of true patriotism, love for one's land, is A Vigilant Distrust of any determinative power, elected or unelected, that may preside over it.
It is no wonder that the National Security Strategy, growing as it does out of unresolved contradictions in our domestic life, should attempt to compound a foreign policy out of contradictory principles. There is, first of all, the contradiction of peace and war, or of war as the means of achieving and preserving peace This document affirms peace; it also affirms peace as the justification of war and war as the means of peace and thus perpetuates a hallowed absurdity. But implicit in its assertion of this (and, by implication, any other) nation's right to act alone in its own interest is an acceptance of war as a permanent condition. Either way, it is cynical to invoke the ideas of cooperation, community, peace, freedom, justice, dignity, and the rule of law (as this document repeatedly does), and then proceed to assert one's intention to act alone in making war.
One cannot reduce terror by holding over the world the threat of what it most fears. This is a contradiction not reconcilable except by a self righteousness almost inconceivably naive. The authors of the strategy seem now and then to be glimmeringly conscious of the difficulty. Their implicit definition of "rogue state," for example, is any nation pursuing national greatness by advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors -- except our nation. If you think our displeasure with "rogue states" might have any underpinning in international law, then you will be disappointed to learn on page 31 that We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. The rule of law in the world, then, is to be upheld by a nation that has declared itself to be above the law. A childish hypocrisy here assumes the dignity of a nation's foreign policy.
Since the end of World War II, when the terrors of industrial warfare had been fully revealed, many people and, by fits and starts, many governments have recognized that peace is not just a desirable condition, as was thought before, but a practical necessity. But we have not yet learned to think of peace apart from war. We wait, still, until we face terrifying dangers and the necessity to choose among bad alternatives, and then we think again of peace, and again we fight a war to secure it.
At the end of the war, if we have won it, we declare peace; we congratulate ourselves on our victory; we marvel at the newly-proved efficiency of our latest weapons; we ignore the cost in lives, materials, and property, in suffering and disease, in damage to the natural world; we ignore the inevitable residue of resentment and hatred; and we go on as before, having, as we think, successfully defended our way of life..."
You're right about much, though not all, of the US being 'purple' rather than purely blue or red, but this...
"Without Quebec, we're not much different from the U.S. in terms of liberalism and conservatism."
...is most certainly untrue, imo, unless you are talking strictly in terms of social conservatism, and even then there are significant differences, both historical and contemporary. Because the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' are more slippery and confusing than ever, it's difficult to get a handle on what's what anymore, but it's very probably still safe to say that your average/median Canadian is considerably more 'liberal' than your average/median America. Like, a lot more, especially concerning such issues as: individualism vs. collectivism; health care; weapons and the use of violence to solve problems; crime and punishment; and our respective countries' role in the world and foreign policy.
Archivistower:
"As for Americans, I think the only event that will ever shock them enough to bring them to the point where they can view themselves and their culture as the mixture of good and evil that it is, is when they do something so horribly catastrophic that the conflict with themselves becomes unavoidable. I hope I'm not around to see it."
I also hope not to be around to witness this likely eventuality (though I strongly suspect that we all will be), but I don't think it'll have the effects that you envision, unfortunately: the persistently obstinate half of Americans still consider the atomic bombs dropped on Japan to have been justified, for instance:
"Overall, 47 percent of those surveyed approved of dropping the bombs on Japan while 46 percent disapproved, according to the poll of 1,000 conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs from March 21-23 (2005)"
( 24hour.startribune.com/24...8945c.html )
If you can rationalize a nuking, you can rationalize anything, and I expect that any future atrocity, no matter how horrific, will be similarly supported, apparently endlessly, by the same old half-or-so of the population that is always on board with this kind of thing, and all in the enduring name of 'freedom', 'national defense', 'we're at war', etc.
Imo, it's gonna happen again, sooner rather than later - the groundwork is being laid right now. All they're really waiting for in the current climate is a pretense in the form of a major crisis or apparent terrorist incident (especially one involving something described as a WMD), or even the perceived/alleged threat thereof, which are hardly unlikely scenarios in the near future.
from www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-...0502a3.htm ...
"The U.S. military is considering allowing regional combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations paper.
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect considerations."
"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about 30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set conditions.
The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use.
Allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and chemical attacks would effectively contradict a "negative security assurance" policy declared 10 years ago by the Clinton administration during an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Creating a treaty committing nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime."
Also see: www.reason.com/links/links050405.shtml
The following does a good job of expanding on your observations re the infantile and extremely dangerous good/evil dichotomy all too common in the American mind...
(from “A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of Americaâ€, by Wendell Berry, Orion online, Mar/Apr 2003)
"The new National Security Strategy published by the White House in September 2002, if carried out, would amount to a radical revision of the political character of our nation. Its central and most significant statement is this: While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists... (p. 6).
Much of the obscurity of our effort so far against terrorism originates in this now official idea that the enemy is evil and that we are (therefore) good, which is the precise mirror image of the official idea of the terrorists. The epigraph of Part III of The National Security Strategy contains this sentence from President Bush's speech at the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001: "But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." A government, committing its nation to rid the world of evil, is assuming necessarily that it and its nation are good. But the proposition that anything so multiple and large as a nation can be "good" is an insult to common sense. It is also dangerous, because it precludes any attempt at self criticism or self correction; it precludes public dialogue. It leads us far indeed from the traditions of religion and democracy that are intended to measure and so to sustain our efforts to be good...
...Thomas Jefferson justified general education by the obligation of citizens to be critical of their government: "for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence." An inescapable requirement of true patriotism, love for one's land, is A Vigilant Distrust of any determinative power, elected or unelected, that may preside over it.
It is no wonder that the National Security Strategy, growing as it does out of unresolved contradictions in our domestic life, should attempt to compound a foreign policy out of contradictory principles. There is, first of all, the contradiction of peace and war, or of war as the means of achieving and preserving peace This document affirms peace; it also affirms peace as the justification of war and war as the means of peace and thus perpetuates a hallowed absurdity. But implicit in its assertion of this (and, by implication, any other) nation's right to act alone in its own interest is an acceptance of war as a permanent condition. Either way, it is cynical to invoke the ideas of cooperation, community, peace, freedom, justice, dignity, and the rule of law (as this document repeatedly does), and then proceed to assert one's intention to act alone in making war.
One cannot reduce terror by holding over the world the threat of what it most fears. This is a contradiction not reconcilable except by a self righteousness almost inconceivably naive. The authors of the strategy seem now and then to be glimmeringly conscious of the difficulty. Their implicit definition of "rogue state," for example, is any nation pursuing national greatness by advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors -- except our nation. If you think our displeasure with "rogue states" might have any underpinning in international law, then you will be disappointed to learn on page 31 that We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. The rule of law in the world, then, is to be upheld by a nation that has declared itself to be above the law. A childish hypocrisy here assumes the dignity of a nation's foreign policy.
Since the end of World War II, when the terrors of industrial warfare had been fully revealed, many people and, by fits and starts, many governments have recognized that peace is not just a desirable condition, as was thought before, but a practical necessity. But we have not yet learned to think of peace apart from war. We wait, still, until we face terrifying dangers and the necessity to choose among bad alternatives, and then we think again of peace, and again we fight a war to secure it.
At the end of the war, if we have won it, we declare peace; we congratulate ourselves on our victory; we marvel at the newly-proved efficiency of our latest weapons; we ignore the cost in lives, materials, and property, in suffering and disease, in damage to the natural world; we ignore the inevitable residue of resentment and hatred; and we go on as before, having, as we think, successfully defended our way of life..."
C
cdl42
Guest
North Carolina church purged of Democrats
Baptist pastor expelled congregants who didn't share his zeal for Bush
TheStar.ca Link
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WAYNESVILLE, N.C. — Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP.
Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.
"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out,'' said Selma Morris, the church treasurer who was among those voted out. "He's real negative all the time.''
Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated.
The station also reported that 40 others in the 100-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday's vote.
During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.
Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.
George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.
"Membership is a local church issue," he said. "It is not something the state convention would enter into.''
He added that the nine members were not legally terminated because Monday's meeting was supposed to be a deacons meeting, not a business meeting. They have a lawyer looking into the situation, he said.
The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.
"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law,'' Chairman Jerry Meek said.
Doris Wilson, one of Chandler's neighbors and a member of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, said God doesn't play partisan politics.
"I hate to see the church suffer like that," she said. "God doesn't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. It just hurts to see that going on.''
Baptist pastor expelled congregants who didn't share his zeal for Bush
TheStar.ca Link
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WAYNESVILLE, N.C. — Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP.
Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who didn't support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town, about 120 miles west of Charlotte.
"He's the kind of pastor who says do it my way or get out,'' said Selma Morris, the church treasurer who was among those voted out. "He's real negative all the time.''
Chandler didn't return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated.
The station also reported that 40 others in the 100-member congregation resigned in protest after Monday's vote.
During the presidential election last year, Chandler told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent, said former member Lorene Sutton.
Some church members left after Chandler made his ultimatum in October, Morris said.
George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.
"Membership is a local church issue," he said. "It is not something the state convention would enter into.''
He added that the nine members were not legally terminated because Monday's meeting was supposed to be a deacons meeting, not a business meeting. They have a lawyer looking into the situation, he said.
The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party sharply criticized the pastor Friday, saying Chandler jeopardized his church's tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president.
"If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law,'' Chairman Jerry Meek said.
Doris Wilson, one of Chandler's neighbors and a member of First Baptist Church in Waynesville, said God doesn't play partisan politics.
"I hate to see the church suffer like that," she said. "God doesn't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. It just hurts to see that going on.''
U
unimaginative2
Guest
it's very probably still safe to say that your average/median Canadian is considerably more 'liberal' than your average/median America.
No doubt about it, because My Canada Includes Quebec.
Seriously, though, you should meet some of the people in rural Canada. Certainly it might not be as prevalent as in some American regions, but rural Albertan attitudes are not much different from rural Montanan attitudes. Likewise, Vancouver attitudes aren't much different from Seattle's.
A
Archivistower
Guest
"values" aren't really that interesting, because the only method of assessing them is polls, which are generally not that informative. Fact is, whatever the common values of the USA and Canada on social issues, the legislated environment in which we live is quite different. The official experience of being gay, for instance, is radically different in the two countries, even while a visitor from Europe could easily not notice anything different. I don't think talking and measuring "values" in and of themselves is very interesting - it's more how those get translated into law that is more revealing.
G
GeekyBoyTO
Guest
Interesting piece that is relevant to the "values" issue we're talking about, from the Globe:
Cross-border amity eroding: poll
But Canadians, Americans hold similar views on many core issues, survey finds
By MICHAEL DEN TANDT
Monday, May 9, 2005 Page A1
OTTAWA -- Canadians' and Americans' national regard for each other is rapidly eroding even as, somewhat paradoxically, their core values are rapidly converging, according to a new Ipsos-Reid poll.
Just 53 per cent of Canadians now cite the United States as Canada's closest friend and ally, down from 60 per cent in 2002. And only 14 per cent of Americans believe Canada is their country's closest ally, compared with 18 per cent three years ago.
"It has a lot to do with the war in Iraq," said Paul Cellucci, who recently completed four years as U.S. ambassador in Ottawa. "Americans look upon Great Britain as their best friend because the British put troops on the ground."
Sixty per cent of Americans now say that Britain is the United States' best friend, up from 56 per cent in 2002.
The poll of 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians, taken early last month, is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
But alongside the decline in cross-border regard, the survey -- done for the Canada Institute of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Toronto-based Canada Institute on North American Issues -- shows a marked convergence in deeper social values.
"This theory that the two countries are drifting apart, it's just not true," Mr. Cellucci said after examining the poll results.
Despite some high-profile disagreements on issues such as the war, softwood lumber duties and missile defence, "there are more differences within the countries than between the countries," he said.
Attitudes toward marijuana possession, often cited as a point of divergence, are almost identical. Fifty-seven per cent of Americans and 59 per cent of Canadians disagreed with the statement that a conviction for possession always should result in a criminal record.
Similarly, a nearly identical proportion in both populations -- 40 per cent of Americans and 41 per cent of Canadians -- think the expansion of police powers to fight terrorism has gone too far, and threatens the "fundamental civil rights of all citizens."
Overwhelming majorities in both countries -- 78 per cent of Americans and 87 per cent of Canadians -- agree that the government "has a responsibility to protect the poor."
And 88 per cent of Americans and 93 per cent of Canadians believe caring for the elderly is a government duty.
Ed Broadbent, elder statesman for the nationalist-leaning New Democrats, said he took some comfort from the notion that Americans appear to be moving toward the centre on key social issues. However, he questioned whether the sentiments expressed in the survey would translate into a willingness to pay higher taxes.
"I'd like to know how deep that runs," Mr. Broadbent said.
Frank McKenna, Canada's newly installed ambassador to Washington, said he found the points of convergence no surprise. "My travels in this country have reinforced to me the many similarities in the challenges our two nations face on the social front," he said.
"Both are multiethnic, both have a baby-boom generation that is on the cusp of retirement, both have highly sophisticated health-care systems and rising health-care costs," Mr. McKenna said.
Other experts on cross-border affairs, however, noted that the data on values are starkly at odds with conventional wisdom in Canada, which holds that the two countries are on divergent social tracks and that this process is accelerating.
"I don't believe that as a cultural or value issue there is much meaningful divergence between Americans and Canadians," said Gordon Giffin, who served as U.S. ambassador to Canada from 1997 to 2001. "In some respects, I think this poll validates my view."
Mr. Giffin blamed the political leadership in both countries for the deterioration in the two populations' regard for each other, despite similar values.
"What tends to happen right now is that the issues being debated between the two countries are all that gets attention," he said.
In his 2003 book Fire and Ice, pollster and author Michael Adams advanced the thesis that Canada and the United States were on sharply diverging tracks because of fundamental differences in values.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the re-election of President George W. Bush last year are widely believed in Canada to have accelerated the trend, which many now accept at face value.
In the political, and, to some extent, the economic sphere, the Ipsos-Reid poll bolsters that view.
Although 73 per cent of Canadians still believe that Canada is a "friend and ally" of the United States and its policies, that number is down sharply from 85 per cent last November.
And although 60 per cent of Canadians surveyed agree that they like and admire Americans, in July, 2004, 73 per cent of Canadians were saying the same thing.
Since 2002, the percentage of Canadians who back further economic integration has slipped to 38 per cent from 44 per cent.
"It's clear the differences between the Bush administration and many Canadians has caused some downward shift in our perceptions of the United States," said John Wright, who carried out the survey for Ipsos-Reid.
That said, the poll will likely shake some Canadians' preconceptions about U.S. social values versus their own.
Asked whether people from different ethnic backgrounds "would be better off if they became like the majority," nearly half of Canadians -- 44 per cent -- said yes. But only 37 per cent of Americans agreed.
"I think that would stun Canadians," Mr. Giffin said. "They believe themselves to be infinitely more tolerant [than Americans]."
Likewise, similar proportions of Americans and Canadians -- 64 per cent and 57 per cent, respectively -- say they don't want economic growth to take priority over the environment.
And although more Americans than Canadians agree that their faith determines which political candidate they vote for, a solid majority in both countries -- 76 per cent of Canadians and 62 per cent of Americans -- disagree.
"I think this survey suggests that we have more breathing room than we thought," said Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute, a Toronto-based think tank. "It's not as though we're staring eye to eye with this wounded, paranoid Hobbesian kind of America. Instead there's an interlocutor that, on a lot of issues, is very similar to ourselves."
Canada-U.S. poll
A new survey gave 1,000 Canadians and 1,000 Americans the opportunity of agree or disagree with statements on key issues.
I like and admire Canadians/Americans Agree Disagree
CANADA 60% 37%
UNITED STATES 85% 11%
How do you view Canada as a force in world affairs? Strong force Weak force Neither
CANADA 40% 56% 4%
UNITED STATES 25% 68% 4%
My religious faith often determines which political leader I vote for. Agree Disagree
CANADA 22% 76%
UNITED STATES 36% 62%
Conviction of possession of marijuana should always result in a criminal record. Agree Disagree
CANADA 39% 59%
UNITED STATES 42% 57%
If a family member was hospitalized, I would be worried about how to pay for it. Agree Disagree
CANADA 36% 63%
UNITED STATES 62% 37%
I feel I have the personal freedom to say anything I want to about the government Agree Disagree
CANADA 87% 12%
UNITED STATES 81% 19%
The government has a responsibility to take care of the poor. Agree Disagree
CANADA 87% 12%
UNITED STATES 78% 20%
The government has a responsibility to take care of the elderly Agree Disagree
CANADA 93% 6%
UNITED STATES 88% 12%
People of different racial and cultural backgrounds would be better of if they became more like the majority. Agree Disagree
CANADA 44% 52%
UNITED STATES 37% 59%
SOURCE: IPSOS -REID
As mentioned by Archivis, there is a difference between how one feels, and how these values translate into public policy. The masses can see possession of weed as harmless, and it doesn't necessarily means the regime doesn't have a beef with that (think the "War on Drugs"). Ditto religion, universal medicare, gay rights, etc. Nor does it tell you anything about how one goes about achieving those values. Canadians believe in government, publically funded and provided healthcare, whereas in the States, my hunch is they'd fall for the public funding only for the extreme end of the poverty scale (if that).
In fact, I have to say, if the poll is remotely accurate, there is a huge disconnect between the stated values and policy results in the US. Smells like trouble to come.
GB
Cross-border amity eroding: poll
But Canadians, Americans hold similar views on many core issues, survey finds
By MICHAEL DEN TANDT
Monday, May 9, 2005 Page A1
OTTAWA -- Canadians' and Americans' national regard for each other is rapidly eroding even as, somewhat paradoxically, their core values are rapidly converging, according to a new Ipsos-Reid poll.
Just 53 per cent of Canadians now cite the United States as Canada's closest friend and ally, down from 60 per cent in 2002. And only 14 per cent of Americans believe Canada is their country's closest ally, compared with 18 per cent three years ago.
"It has a lot to do with the war in Iraq," said Paul Cellucci, who recently completed four years as U.S. ambassador in Ottawa. "Americans look upon Great Britain as their best friend because the British put troops on the ground."
Sixty per cent of Americans now say that Britain is the United States' best friend, up from 56 per cent in 2002.
The poll of 1,000 Americans and 1,000 Canadians, taken early last month, is considered accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
But alongside the decline in cross-border regard, the survey -- done for the Canada Institute of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Toronto-based Canada Institute on North American Issues -- shows a marked convergence in deeper social values.
"This theory that the two countries are drifting apart, it's just not true," Mr. Cellucci said after examining the poll results.
Despite some high-profile disagreements on issues such as the war, softwood lumber duties and missile defence, "there are more differences within the countries than between the countries," he said.
Attitudes toward marijuana possession, often cited as a point of divergence, are almost identical. Fifty-seven per cent of Americans and 59 per cent of Canadians disagreed with the statement that a conviction for possession always should result in a criminal record.
Similarly, a nearly identical proportion in both populations -- 40 per cent of Americans and 41 per cent of Canadians -- think the expansion of police powers to fight terrorism has gone too far, and threatens the "fundamental civil rights of all citizens."
Overwhelming majorities in both countries -- 78 per cent of Americans and 87 per cent of Canadians -- agree that the government "has a responsibility to protect the poor."
And 88 per cent of Americans and 93 per cent of Canadians believe caring for the elderly is a government duty.
Ed Broadbent, elder statesman for the nationalist-leaning New Democrats, said he took some comfort from the notion that Americans appear to be moving toward the centre on key social issues. However, he questioned whether the sentiments expressed in the survey would translate into a willingness to pay higher taxes.
"I'd like to know how deep that runs," Mr. Broadbent said.
Frank McKenna, Canada's newly installed ambassador to Washington, said he found the points of convergence no surprise. "My travels in this country have reinforced to me the many similarities in the challenges our two nations face on the social front," he said.
"Both are multiethnic, both have a baby-boom generation that is on the cusp of retirement, both have highly sophisticated health-care systems and rising health-care costs," Mr. McKenna said.
Other experts on cross-border affairs, however, noted that the data on values are starkly at odds with conventional wisdom in Canada, which holds that the two countries are on divergent social tracks and that this process is accelerating.
"I don't believe that as a cultural or value issue there is much meaningful divergence between Americans and Canadians," said Gordon Giffin, who served as U.S. ambassador to Canada from 1997 to 2001. "In some respects, I think this poll validates my view."
Mr. Giffin blamed the political leadership in both countries for the deterioration in the two populations' regard for each other, despite similar values.
"What tends to happen right now is that the issues being debated between the two countries are all that gets attention," he said.
In his 2003 book Fire and Ice, pollster and author Michael Adams advanced the thesis that Canada and the United States were on sharply diverging tracks because of fundamental differences in values.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the re-election of President George W. Bush last year are widely believed in Canada to have accelerated the trend, which many now accept at face value.
In the political, and, to some extent, the economic sphere, the Ipsos-Reid poll bolsters that view.
Although 73 per cent of Canadians still believe that Canada is a "friend and ally" of the United States and its policies, that number is down sharply from 85 per cent last November.
And although 60 per cent of Canadians surveyed agree that they like and admire Americans, in July, 2004, 73 per cent of Canadians were saying the same thing.
Since 2002, the percentage of Canadians who back further economic integration has slipped to 38 per cent from 44 per cent.
"It's clear the differences between the Bush administration and many Canadians has caused some downward shift in our perceptions of the United States," said John Wright, who carried out the survey for Ipsos-Reid.
That said, the poll will likely shake some Canadians' preconceptions about U.S. social values versus their own.
Asked whether people from different ethnic backgrounds "would be better off if they became like the majority," nearly half of Canadians -- 44 per cent -- said yes. But only 37 per cent of Americans agreed.
"I think that would stun Canadians," Mr. Giffin said. "They believe themselves to be infinitely more tolerant [than Americans]."
Likewise, similar proportions of Americans and Canadians -- 64 per cent and 57 per cent, respectively -- say they don't want economic growth to take priority over the environment.
And although more Americans than Canadians agree that their faith determines which political candidate they vote for, a solid majority in both countries -- 76 per cent of Canadians and 62 per cent of Americans -- disagree.
"I think this survey suggests that we have more breathing room than we thought," said Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute, a Toronto-based think tank. "It's not as though we're staring eye to eye with this wounded, paranoid Hobbesian kind of America. Instead there's an interlocutor that, on a lot of issues, is very similar to ourselves."
Canada-U.S. poll
A new survey gave 1,000 Canadians and 1,000 Americans the opportunity of agree or disagree with statements on key issues.
I like and admire Canadians/Americans Agree Disagree
CANADA 60% 37%
UNITED STATES 85% 11%
How do you view Canada as a force in world affairs? Strong force Weak force Neither
CANADA 40% 56% 4%
UNITED STATES 25% 68% 4%
My religious faith often determines which political leader I vote for. Agree Disagree
CANADA 22% 76%
UNITED STATES 36% 62%
Conviction of possession of marijuana should always result in a criminal record. Agree Disagree
CANADA 39% 59%
UNITED STATES 42% 57%
If a family member was hospitalized, I would be worried about how to pay for it. Agree Disagree
CANADA 36% 63%
UNITED STATES 62% 37%
I feel I have the personal freedom to say anything I want to about the government Agree Disagree
CANADA 87% 12%
UNITED STATES 81% 19%
The government has a responsibility to take care of the poor. Agree Disagree
CANADA 87% 12%
UNITED STATES 78% 20%
The government has a responsibility to take care of the elderly Agree Disagree
CANADA 93% 6%
UNITED STATES 88% 12%
People of different racial and cultural backgrounds would be better of if they became more like the majority. Agree Disagree
CANADA 44% 52%
UNITED STATES 37% 59%
SOURCE: IPSOS -REID
As mentioned by Archivis, there is a difference between how one feels, and how these values translate into public policy. The masses can see possession of weed as harmless, and it doesn't necessarily means the regime doesn't have a beef with that (think the "War on Drugs"). Ditto religion, universal medicare, gay rights, etc. Nor does it tell you anything about how one goes about achieving those values. Canadians believe in government, publically funded and provided healthcare, whereas in the States, my hunch is they'd fall for the public funding only for the extreme end of the poverty scale (if that).
In fact, I have to say, if the poll is remotely accurate, there is a huge disconnect between the stated values and policy results in the US. Smells like trouble to come.
GB
B
bizorky
Guest
No doubt about it, because My Canada Includes Quebec.
Seriously, though, you should meet some of the people in rural Canada. Certainly it might not be as prevalent as in some American regions, but rural Albertan attitudes are not much different from rural Montanan attitudes. Likewise, Vancouver attitudes aren't much different from Seattle's.
Go outside Montreal and you can find some pretty conservative attitudes as well.
Urban regions tend to be much more "liberal." This would include the US as well - including the southern US.