Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-21-2017, 10:23 AM
silverdoctor silverdoctor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
You sure about that sport?
Yep, I'm sure about it.

Scheer voted with his conscience in the past - using his religious morals. Are we going to see it again if he ends up being prime minister? I can't see how we won't.

He voted against abortion. I'm not for abortion, but I do support a persons right to choose. Planned parenthood performs some 300,000+ abortions per year in the USA, and I find that disturbing but my morals and ideals shouldn't come into play. Neither should any politicians.

He voted against same sex marriage. I couldn't care less if people are gay or lesbian, if they want to adopt and get married. It makes no difference in my life, no impact at all. I see no reason why 2 people can't enjoy the benefits of marriage.

He voted against bill c-14 - the medical assistance of ending your own life - freedom of choice to go out the way you want - to end misery. If and when I get to the point where sickness makes my life unbearable, I want choices. Scheer doesn't want that - because suicide is a sin.

Do we really need religious morals in politics? But people want to talk loss of rights?
  #32  
Old 11-21-2017, 07:26 PM
raab raab is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Yep, I'm sure about it.

Scheer voted with his conscience in the past - using his religious morals. Are we going to see it again if he ends up being prime minister? I can't see how we won't.

He voted against abortion. I'm not for abortion, but I do support a persons right to choose. Planned parenthood performs some 300,000+ abortions per year in the USA, and I find that disturbing but my morals and ideals shouldn't come into play. Neither should any politicians.

He voted against same sex marriage. I couldn't care less if people are gay or lesbian, if they want to adopt and get married. It makes no difference in my life, no impact at all. I see no reason why 2 people can't enjoy the benefits of marriage.

He voted against bill c-14 - the medical assistance of ending your own life - freedom of choice to go out the way you want - to end misery. If and when I get to the point where sickness makes my life unbearable, I want choices. Scheer doesn't want that - because suicide is a sin.

Do we really need religious morals in politics? But people want to talk loss of rights?
They're not called religious morals, they're just called morals. Something most people in this country used to have. Apparently thats gone with the wind.

And for the record Ive noticed that everyone who's pro abortion has already been born. These babies dont have any rights in the matter? If you wait until 23 weeks, to have an abortion that kid has a chance at life. Whats completely appalling is that Canada has NO abortion laws whatsoever. A women can wait until 40 weeks and have her boyfriend/husband leave her her and abort the baby. Totally disgusting and should be outlawed. They got laws for using the washroom outside(like people have done forever), but killing a 40 week old baby is ok. Where's the morality in that? No country is moral who allows something like this to happen.

As for marriage, the state doesn't decide who gets married. It really should be a non issue. If two people of the same sex want to live their lives together call it what it is, a civil union. Marriage is performed as a religious ritual. So the two are mutually exclusive in my eyes.


As for C-14 that bill could open up a lot of legal problems. Especially in regards to those with mental health issues. I dont think its a path we should be pursuing.
__________________
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
  #33  
Old 11-21-2017, 09:50 PM
Glion Glion is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
They're not called religious morals, they're just called morals. Something most people in this country used to have. Apparently thats gone with the wind.

And for the record Ive noticed that everyone who's pro abortion has already been born. These babies dont have any rights in the matter? If you wait until 23 weeks, to have an abortion that kid has a chance at life. Whats completely appalling is that Canada has NO abortion laws whatsoever. A women can wait until 40 weeks and have her boyfriend/husband leave her her and abort the baby. Totally disgusting and should be outlawed. They got laws for using the washroom outside(like people have done forever), but killing a 40 week old baby is ok. Where's the morality in that? No country is moral who allows something like this to happen.

As for marriage, the state doesn't decide who gets married. It really should be a non issue. If two people of the same sex want to live their lives together call it what it is, a civil union. Marriage is performed as a religious ritual. So the two are mutually exclusive in my eyes.


As for C-14 that bill could open up a lot of legal problems. Especially in regards to those with mental health issues. I dont think its a path we should be pursuing.
This^
  #34  
Old 11-22-2017, 06:13 AM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Yep, I'm sure about it.

Scheer voted with his conscience in the past - using his religious morals. Are we going to see it again if he ends up being prime minister? I can't see how we won't.

He voted against abortion. I'm not for abortion, but I do support a persons right to choose. Planned parenthood performs some 300,000+ abortions per year in the USA, and I find that disturbing but my morals and ideals shouldn't come into play. Neither should any politicians.

He voted against same sex marriage. I couldn't care less if people are gay or lesbian, if they want to adopt and get married. It makes no difference in my life, no impact at all. I see no reason why 2 people can't enjoy the benefits of marriage.

He voted against bill c-14 - the medical assistance of ending your own life - freedom of choice to go out the way you want - to end misery. If and when I get to the point where sickness makes my life unbearable, I want choices. Scheer doesn't want that - because suicide is a sin.

Do we really need religious morals in politics? But people want to talk loss of rights?
There are overwhelming, secular arguments against all of the the points you have made.

All you need to do is have respect for life and the nuclear family, and you would not be pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, and pro-suicide.
  #35  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:59 AM
silverdoctor silverdoctor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
There are overwhelming, secular arguments against all of the the points you have made.

All you need to do is have respect for life and the nuclear family, and you would not be pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, and pro-suicide.
The nuclear family for one is disappearing, people are separating, messy divorces, having children out of wedlock, or simply choosing not to have children at all.

Secondly, I'm not pro-abortion - I'm pro choice, there is a difference. I don't have to like what people do with their own body, nor should anyone inflict their own morals - religious or otherwise - on their choices.

Thirdly, I've watched too many people finish their lives in a way they didn't want to go out. Eaten by cancers, dementia, aftermath of a stroke etc. People spend years in old age homes with no real quality of life. It's not a way I want to go, and I would like human beings to have a choice on how they finish their life. I would choose assisted suicide rather than spending years rotting away in a bed. It's a difficult conversation to have, but it's one that needs to be had.
  #36  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:25 PM
raab raab is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
The nuclear family for one is disappearing, people are separating, messy divorces, having children out of wedlock, or simply choosing not to have children at all.

Secondly, I'm not pro-abortion - I'm pro choice, there is a difference. I don't have to like what people do with their own body, nor should anyone inflict their own morals - religious or otherwise - on their choices.

Thirdly, I've watched too many people finish their lives in a way they didn't want to go out. Eaten by cancers, dementia, aftermath of a stroke etc. People spend years in old age homes with no real quality of life. It's not a way I want to go, and I would like human beings to have a choice on how they finish their life. I would choose assisted suicide rather than spending years rotting away in a bed. It's a difficult conversation to have, but it's one that needs to be had.
And as I said we're seeing the decay of morals in society. This post proves it.
__________________
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” John Stuart Mill
  #37  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:39 PM
Trochu's Avatar
Trochu Trochu is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 7,577
Default

Post No. 32, great post raab.
  #38  
Old 11-22-2017, 01:45 PM
mediumrare mediumrare is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
Post No. 32, great post raab.
X2
  #39  
Old 11-22-2017, 03:45 PM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Yep, I'm sure about it.

Scheer voted with his conscience in the past - using his religious morals. Are we going to see it again if he ends up being prime minister? I can't see how we won't.

Harper held the same positions before he became Prime Minister. But he pretty much left it all alone once in power, power being more important than personal principle.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
In this case Oki has cut to to the exact heart of the matter!
  #40  
Old 11-22-2017, 05:21 PM
silverdoctor silverdoctor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
Harper held the same positions before he became Prime Minister. But he pretty much left it all alone once in power, power being more important than personal principle.
Really... So Harper did nothing untoward when it came to his religious values? You might want to do some research on that one.

He wouldn't touch any of the social issues like abortion, assisted suicide or the like - cause he would have had to vote with his conscience and morals. He did increase funding to christian charities and christian schools while decreasing funding for sciences and environmental. And why did he remove the Liberal universal daycare and opt for tax credits instead? The list is long.
  #41  
Old 11-22-2017, 05:51 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,850
Default

To the subject of the original post ...... who the NDP chooses to represents them is their business. If that person is a doctor or trash collector gay or straight really should be irrelevant, as none of those qualify or disqualify that person from representing their constituency and their party.

As far as the gender neutral bathrooms in that school - the fact that some kids feel uneasy is understandable. Likely just like the kids prior to these changes that felt uncomfortable. The plan should be to make an environment with choices with some bathrooms a gender neutral to reasonably accommodate some, while leaving others alone (gender specific) to accommodate others (which is likely the majority). This problem should be easy to solve with a little intelligent planning and some input from the student body.

My last comment is food for thought. My religious, moral, or opinionated views, whatever they are, should not impose/mandate my perspective onto others. We should accommodate, understand and tolerate. We should not enforce, mandate and dictate.

Pushing my views onto you is hypocrisy. I'd suggest many conservative views do just that, seek to impose "morals and values" and restrict and impede reasonable accommodation and choice of others.

Sometimes I think these people fail to see their own gross hypocrisy as they live in hysteria and fear thinking society will crumble to perverse fornication, corruption and intemperance despite the people you see committing these acts are often living the lie of moral superiority and piety.
  #42  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:15 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Really... So Harper did nothing untoward when it came to his religious values? You might want to do some research on that one.

He wouldn't touch any of the social issues like abortion, assisted suicide or the like - cause he would have had to vote with his conscience and morals. He did increase funding to christian charities and christian schools while decreasing funding for sciences and environmental. And why did he remove the Liberal universal daycare and opt for tax credits instead? The list is long.
And is it better to outright attack Christianity like the left continues to do? Keep in mind, Western society is largely built on Christian principles. Once we move away from those principles, we can expect to lose our prestigious position.
  #43  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:35 PM
silverdoctor silverdoctor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
And is it better to outright attack Christianity like the left continues to do? Keep in mind, Western society is largely built on Christian principles. Once we move away from those principles, we can expect to lose our prestigious position.
I'm not attacking religion - I'd like to see a complete separation of church and state.

Prestigious position? Define please.
  #44  
Old 11-22-2017, 07:44 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
I'm not attacking religion - I'd like to see a complete separation of church and state.

Prestigious position? Define please.
Yeah, you are right. Our position is not as great as it once was now that morals are flushed down the drain.

As for separating church and state, you are asking people in politics who are religious to ignore their conscience. Hence you are telling them their religion is only applicable to certain aspects of their life.
  #45  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:05 PM
silverdoctor silverdoctor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Yeah, you are right. Our position is not as great as it once was now that morals are flushed down the drain.

As for separating church and state, you are asking people in politics who are religious to ignore their conscience. Hence you are telling them their religion is only applicable to certain aspects of their life.
It is ONLY applicable to their personal life - don't make it part of mine.

I believe in freedom of choice - and sometimes you have to hold your nose and take the dose of cold water. I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to stand outside an abortion clinic shouting murderer at anyone that enters - I don't like their choice, but it's their choice.

Vote what's right. Vote for the sake of the population. Don't vote because of your personal ideals. That's not too much to ask.
  #46  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:24 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
It is ONLY applicable to their personal life - don't make it part of mine.

I believe in freedom of choice - and sometimes you have to hold your nose and take the dose of cold water. I don't like abortion, but I'm not going to stand outside an abortion clinic shouting murderer at anyone that enters - I don't like their choice, but it's their choice.

Vote what's right. Vote for the sake of the population. Don't vote because of your personal ideals. That's not too much to ask.
Do you know anyone who does not vote in line with their personal ideals?

Your logic is making my brain hurt.
  #47  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:31 PM
takeiteasybird's Avatar
takeiteasybird takeiteasybird is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 283
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Do you know anyone who does not vote in line with their personal ideals?

Your logic is making my brain hurt.
His personal belief is freedom of choice
  #48  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:49 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochu View Post
I wonder if the division has anything to do with calling people names of whose opinion we disagree?


You may be on to something
  #49  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:50 PM
silverdoctor silverdoctor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Alberta
Posts: 10,937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Do you know anyone who does not vote in line with their personal ideals?

Your logic is making my brain hurt.
Why is it so hard to understand?

We have a firearms act that trumps the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why? Because a group of individuals voted with their own morals or ideals - Liberals - because of a shooting in Quebec.

Was that fair? Is that what you want? To live your life under rules created by someones morals?
  #50  
Old 11-22-2017, 08:59 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
I'm not basing my choice on religion. But many will. I don't care what a persons religious values are, just don't bring it into politics - and Scheer is guilty of that.
Scheer promises that his religion won't come into play - but unfortunately that hasn't been the case in the past. The left isn't going to let it go, that's a guarantee. Many on the right won't either. I'm not a religious person, and I wouldn't call myself left - and I don't want someone running this country to inflict his/her religious values on me.
For someone who does not base choice on religion you sure seem to talk a lot about religion? I also do not see how talking about choice applies to one who claims not to vote?
  #51  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:10 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

I have no problem with morals in politics.
  #52  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:13 PM
HowSwedeItIs HowSwedeItIs is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Out on the Edge of the Prairie
Posts: 1,089
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Why is it so hard to understand?

We have a firearms act that trumps the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why? Because a group of individuals voted with their own morals or ideals - Liberals - because of a shooting in Quebec.

Was that fair? Is that what you want? To live your life under rules created by someones morals?
I don't really think you can completely divorce policy from morality. Everyone operates from within some sort of moral framework, religious or not. Vote for people that most closely match yours
  #53  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:16 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Why is it so hard to understand?

We have a firearms act that trumps the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why? Because a group of individuals voted with their own morals or ideals - Liberals - because of a shooting in Quebec.

Was that fair? Is that what you want? To live your life under rules created by someones morals?
While I obviously disagree with the results of that situation, I most certainly do not want to deprive people of the right to vote with their conscience. You comments are definitely leaning that way.
  #54  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:17 PM
EZM's Avatar
EZM EZM is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 11,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
Yeah, you are right. Our position is not as great as it once was now that morals are flushed down the drain.

As for separating church and state, you are asking people in politics who are religious to ignore their conscience. Hence you are telling them their religion is only applicable to certain aspects of their life.
This statement, with all due respect, is precisely how radical religious groups view religious laws in the caliphate.

Yes, there are many differences, but there are far more similarities with these ideologies.

I agree with Silver's position on a clear and concise separation of church and state.

I also agree/acknowledge that modern society has forgotten good manners, basic morals, etc... but this does not mean people are anti religion. There are as many people today who prescribe to faith based religions as there was, say, 40 years ago.
  #55  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:23 PM
Newview01 Newview01 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 5,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EZM View Post
This statement, with all due respect, is precisely how radical religious groups view religious laws in the caliphate.

Yes, there are many differences, but there are far more similarities with these ideologies.

I agree with Silver's position on a clear and concise separation of church and state.

I also agree/acknowledge that modern society has forgotten good manners, basic morals, etc... but this does not mean people are anti religion. There are as many people today who prescribe to faith based religions as there was, say, 40 years ago.
I am not calling for religion to dictate the laws of the land, as happens in “the caliphate”, but rather I am mocking silver’s disgust with Scheer, who votes with his conscience.

I agree with separation of church and state, full stop. But to require that politicians are not religious people (because their vote could potentially align with their morals) would be discriminating against religion.
  #56  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:24 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Why is it so hard to understand?

We have a firearms act that trumps the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why? Because a group of individuals voted with their own morals or ideals - Liberals - because of a shooting in Quebec.

Was that fair? Is that what you want? To live your life under rules created by someones morals?
Is your signature line meant to be funny?
  #57  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:27 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HowSwedeItIs View Post
I don't really think you can completely divorce policy from morality. Everyone operates from within some sort of moral framework, religious or not. Vote for people that most closely match yours
agree
  #58  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:30 PM
covey ridge's Avatar
covey ridge covey ridge is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: N. E. of High River
Posts: 4,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Newview01 View Post
While I obviously disagree with the results of that situation, I most certainly do not want to deprive people of the right to vote with their conscience. You comments are definitely leaning that way.


I find it strange that I agree with you.
  #59  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:32 PM
CNP's Avatar
CNP CNP is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: WMU 303
Posts: 8,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silverdoctor View Post
Really... So Harper did nothing untoward when it came to his religious values? You might want to do some research on that one.

He wouldn't touch any of the social issues like abortion, assisted suicide or the like - cause he would have had to vote with his conscience and morals. He did increase funding to christian charities and christian schools while decreasing funding for sciences and environmental. And why did he remove the Liberal universal daycare and opt for tax credits instead? The list is long.
You can't win this. Morals are a behaviour that defines what is acceptable or not acceptable. But you believe that your morals are better morals than a Christian's morals. You believe that no Christian should be in Government, because of their "religious" morals. You have said so much. This is indefensible. But I'm sure you'll try............and fail. Many secular citizens do not agree with abortion/assisted suicide or "the like". Their morals are ok? Explain it to us so we can understand how your moral code is good, Sheers and Harpers is bad. Do it in such a way that it implies that YOU are of good moral character.
  #60  
Old 11-22-2017, 09:39 PM
densa44 densa44 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North of Cochrane
Posts: 6,638
Default I started all this

One distinguished member told me that I was trolling. That was never my intent. But from the look of some of the posts, I'm amazed that you can govern this country at all.

The educational component of the post was to gently point out that the government has a plan to win the next election, and if you read all these posts you will be able to figure it out.

I'm going to close this post, it has IMO run its course but feel free to start another one.
__________________
"The well meaning have done more damage than all the criminals in the world" Great grand father "Never impute planning where incompetence will predict the phenomenon equally well" Father
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.