| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:40 pm Secularism, Europe, Canada, and the US |
|
Alright folks, this will be a continuing thread for debates on Secularism, etc. I will eventually have a cause/effect essay on Secularism and a speech on it, but until then here is an article on Bill O'Reilly's website, his latest collumn:
| Bill O'Reilly wrote: | Take Your Christmas and Stuff It
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Dec 09, 2004
"Christmas with the Kranks" is not only the name of a holiday movie this year, it is also a national trend. Once again, Christmas is under siege by the growing forces of secularism in America. Put these facts in your stocking:
Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy's, has suggested that managers avoid displaying "Merry Christmas" banners and have ordered employees not to talk about it.
In Denver, a church was banned from the "Festival of Lights" parade because it wanted a religious theme to its float.
The Maplewood, New Jersey school board has banned all religious music from "holiday" concerts. (Would somebody please tell me exactly what holiday this is?)
And New York City Mayor Bloomberg insists that the lighted tree outside City Hall is not a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree." (What holiday, Mr. Mayor?)
Surveys show that more than 90% of Americans celebrate the Federal holiday of Christmas, signed into law by President Grant in 1870. Despite that overwhelming number, the tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.
The anti-Christmas forces say it's all about diversity, protecting the sensitivities of those Americans who get offended by the mere mention of the birth of Jesus. Somehow, I haven't been able to locate any of these people--folks who find a baby in a manger so off-putting, it ruins their day.
So the diversity excuse is a bunch of bull. What's really going on here is a well-organized movement to wipe out any display of organized religion from the public arena.
The secular-progressive movement understands very well that it is organized religion, most specifically Christianity and Judaism, that stands in the way of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized narcotics, euthanasia, and many other secular causes. If religion can be de-emphasized in the USA, a brave new progressive society can be achieved.
It has happened in Canada. Once a traditional religious country, Canada has become like Holland in its embrace of the secular movement. Some facts: In 1980, 79% of Canadians said that religion was important to the country. That number has now fallen to 61%, according to an Environics Focus Canada poll.
In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion whatsoever; now that number has risen to 16%.
The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to a change in public policy. Unlike Americans, Canadians have legalized gay marriage and any kind of abortion. Also, the age of consent for sex up north is just 14 years old. Can you imagine American adults being allowed to fool around with children that age? I can't.
Even drug legalization is close to being a reality, as the city of Vancouver is developing a heroin give-away policy, and pot has been largely decriminalized across the country.
The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for, and so religion must be dealt with. Since Christmas is the most demonstrative display of organized religion, the strategy of minimizing the birth of Jesus makes perfect sense.
I know this sounds kind of conspiratorial, but it really isn't. Most of those marginalizing Christmas have no idea about the big picture I've just presented. They simply think they're looking out for the minority of Americans who don't celebrate the birth of Christ.
But committed secularists in the media, in the courts, and in the education system know exactly what's going on. And now so do you. Merry Christmas!
## |
[url="http://www.billoreilly.com/currentarticle?JSESSIONID=B1V3l5XuzIZgdiPb2wZizWmd5DS5jpnxDr6BFG1l3B9L1xvyMwH2!973767000"]Source[/url]
Outrageous. He speaks the truth. Oh, and did you know that in Secular Canada the age of consent for sex is FOURTEEN, and in Secular Holland the age of consent is TWELVE? THAT shows SOME of impact that secularism could have, and more will be coming in my coming pieces...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:47 pm |
|
consent for sex at TWELVE!! that is the most incredibly stupid thing i have ever heard 
-------signature-------
At Least In Vietnam, Bush Had An Exit Strategy
It was Bush, not Clinton, who ignored the warning signs for 9/11.
|
|
|
Superman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 06 Dec 2003
Posts: 10220
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:49 pm |
|
| Janeway_74656 wrote: | | consent for sex at TWELVE!! that is the most incredibly stupid thing i have ever heard |
That is totally wrong. No twelve year old can consent to sex, it's perverted. What bothers me personally is that I was unaware of this until I read this post.
Everything should be done to protect young folk under the age of consent - in ANY country.
|
|
|
memyselfandI
Commodore
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1948
Location: Michigan
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:50 pm |
|
Why not make that a rule, if they're dumb enough to have sex that young in the first place, they should pay the consequences, plus, if you just raise the age bar, it's just going to make those younger than it want to do it (no pun intended) more.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:53 pm |
|
| Starfleet Dentist wrote: | | Janeway_74656 wrote: | | consent for sex at TWELVE!! that is the most incredibly stupid thing i have ever heard |
That is totally wrong. No twelve year old can consent to sex, it's perverted. What bothers me personally is that I was unaware of this until I read this post.
Everything should be done to protect young folk under the age of consent - in ANY country. |
EXACTLY.
| memyselfandI wrote: | | Why not make that a rule, if they're dumb enough to have sex that young in the first place, they should pay the consequences, plus, if you just raise the age bar, it's just going to make those younger than it want to do it (no pun intended) more. |
Yeah, completely HORRIFIC and secular idea. In the US it is 18. And it works and is good. Also, 12 year olds don't know enough and can't make the judgements. Plus, if I raped a 12 year old, it would be consent, and that is HORRIBLE. You have a HORRIFIC and SICK mind, not to mention perverted!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:54 pm |
|
On that sex age issue, the way O'Reilly stated it, it's saying anyone can have sex with a 14 year old... Not true.
Anyone 18 or older who has sex with someone younger than them can be charged for "Statutory Rape" if the younger so wishes to do so. We still consider old people who do it to be pedifiles, but two 14 year olds, yes, can have sex and buy birth control.
I do think that a lot of this anti-religous stuff is stupid though. I have no religion, but it's the Christmas season, Christmas music, Christmas tree (Not holiday tree). The mention of Jesus doesn't send me to the bathroom puking or put me into an angry rage. I'm all for people being religous if they so choose to be.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:58 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | On that sex age issue, the way O'Reilly stated it, it's saying anyone can have sex with a 14 year old... Not true.
Anyone 18 or older who has sex with someone younger than them can be charged for "Statutory Rape" if the younger so wishes to do so. We still consider old people who do it to be pedifiles, but two 14 year olds, yes, can have sex and buy birth control.
I do think that a lot of this anti-religous stuff is stupid though. I have no religion, but it's the Christmas season, Christmas music, Christmas tree (Not holiday tree). The mention of Jesus doesn't send me to the bathroom puking or put me into an angry rage. I'm all for people being religous if they so choose to be. |
Even if it's two 14-year-olds. I don't think that 14 is near old enough to make that decision. Sounds horrific, from where I sit.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:08 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | Valathous wrote: | On that sex age issue, the way O'Reilly stated it, it's saying anyone can have sex with a 14 year old... Not true.
Anyone 18 or older who has sex with someone younger than them can be charged for "Statutory Rape" if the younger so wishes to do so. We still consider old people who do it to be pedifiles, but two 14 year olds, yes, can have sex and buy birth control.
I do think that a lot of this anti-religous stuff is stupid though. I have no religion, but it's the Christmas season, Christmas music, Christmas tree (Not holiday tree). The mention of Jesus doesn't send me to the bathroom puking or put me into an angry rage. I'm all for people being religous if they so choose to be. |
Even if it's two 14-year-olds. I don't think that 14 is near old enough to make that decision. Sounds horrific, from where I sit. |
Exactly. However, you are somewhat wrong, Val. NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) which pushes for men and boys to be allowed to have sex has moved to Canada BECAUSE of their laws. Maybe those rape laws can occur, but a 14-year-old can "consent" to having sex with a 42-year-old.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:19 pm |
|
And then the parents will sue them. The parents are the legal guardians and can charge them if they want. 
And I haven't heard of NAMBLA moving up here as far as I know.
And how am I wrong just because apparently NAMBLA thinks it will be easier to get away with in Canada, when if they tried, the cops would destroy them.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:19 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | And then the parents will sue them. The parents are the legal guardians and can charge them if they want.
Either way around it, it's wrong.
And I haven't heard of NAMBLA moving up here as far as I know.
Well, they have, and that's a fact.
And how am I wrong just because apparently NAMBLA thinks it will be easier to get away with in Canada, when if they tried, the cops would destroy them. |
Uh, sure.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:22 pm |
|
Wrong in your opinion. I couldnt really care less if 2 consenting 14 year olds go at it. I used to joke around with my friends:
"HA! IM THE FIRST ONE TO BE LEGAL SEX AGE!"
lol
Mhm, a fact. You always seem to know the negative things about Canada but never the good things.....I still haven't heard of this.
Uh, yeah.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:25 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | Wrong in your opinion. I couldnt really care less if 2 consenting 14 year olds go at it. I used to joke around with my friends:
"HA! IM THE FIRST ONE TO BE LEGAL SEX AGE!"
Yeah, great... But no, no, you don't understand NAMBLA, especially in secular Canada. I'm sure that few parents would be successful in suing.
lol
Mhm, a fact. You always seem to know the negative things about Canada but never the good things.....I still haven't heard of this.
Uh, yeah. |
Trust me, it's true. But of course, perhaps it's your media?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:27 pm |
|
I know what NAMBLA is and I think those people are disgusting, but it doesn't mean that Canada is a country where you look in every house and see little children having sex with old men and such or having pre-pubecent orgies. It's very rarely practices at 14.
And what is wrong with our media? On every topic you seem to think Canadian media is crap that hates everything you believe in and supports bad things....
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:38 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | I know what NAMBLA is and I think those people are disgusting, but it doesn't mean that Canada is a country where you look in every house and see little children having sex with old men and such or having pre-pubecent orgies. It's very rarely practices at 14.
Sorry, I wasn't implying that. Just that it would be much easier, because of the secularization and 4-year younger laws.
And what is wrong with our media? On every topic you seem to think Canadian media is crap that hates everything you believe in and supports bad things.... |
Biased. yes, they don't like America, and that is obvious.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:42 pm |
|
Its not really easier. It's pretty under control in Canada.
Our media doesnt hate America. :S
Yes, though, most news channels do have a bias... a liberal one as most of Canada is liberal, but they are not anti-american.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:44 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | Its not really easier. It's pretty under control in Canada.
Our media doesnt hate America. :S
Yes, though, most news channels do have a bias... a liberal one as most of Canada is liberal, but they are not anti-american. |
Read Hating America: The New World Sport by John Gibson. I haven't, but I've seen him host a FOX News special, which unravels anti-Americanism accross the world, including in Canada.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:49 pm |
|
Im not denying there is no anti-americanism. Ever since Bush went to Iraq, it has never been higher in Canada... But not everyone hates America or Bush, and I'm pretty sure our news stations dont hate America.
Why would we hate our biggest trading partener, ally, and friend? I dont hate america at all. I dislike your government but I don't hate America. Many people I know are the same. I know a few Bush supporters in Canada (1 of them I turned against Bush  ) but for the most part Canadians dislike Bush, not America.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:51 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | Im not denying there is no anti-americanism. Ever since Bush went to Iraq, it has never been higher in Canada... But not everyone hates America or Bush, and I'm pretty sure our news stations dont hate America.
Why would we hate our biggest trading partener, ally, and friend? I dont hate america at all. I dislike your government but I don't hate America. Many people I know are the same. I know a few Bush supporters in Canada (1 of them I turned against Bush ) but for the most part Canadians dislike Bush, not America. |
1. Yes, but it is HUGE. Not quite like France, but huge. And I do think that some of your media probably hates America.
2. I don't consider Canada the best of friends...
3. Maybe you don't, but MANY in your country do.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:53 pm |
|
Well, maybe it's not so much HATE as it is anti-American sentiment...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:56 pm |
|
1) Once again, most of it is against Bush, not America as a whole
2) Well I consider the US, Canada's closest friend. Just look at our history
3) How do you know? Do you live here? No... I do though. There will be people who do not like a country in every country. I bet there are Americans who hate America. It doesnt mean Canada is the spawning pool for American hatred. Have we attacked you in any way or such? No. Most of my friends really like America, just not Bush.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:57 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | 1) Once again, most of it is against Bush, not America as a whole
2) Well I consider the US, Canada's closest friend. Just look at our history
3) How do you know? Do you live here? No... I do though. There will be people who do not like a country in every country. I bet there are Americans who hate America. It doesnt mean Canada is the spawning pool for American hatred. Have we attacked you in any way or such? No. Most of my friends really like America, just not Bush. |
But many Canadians DON'T LIKE AMERICA, just like around the world. If you just look at some things, you will SEE THAT THAT IS SOOOOOOO true. Seriously, read the book...if you can find it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:59 pm |
|
However, thank you for enlightening me that according to you the vast majority of Canadians like America. I now believe that many do.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:06 pm |
|
Hey no prob! I do know where you are coming from with the anti-americanism, but it's just no where near as bad as some people think it is. Carolyne Parrish is not our representative.
|
|
|
jbering69
Lieutenant
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 137
Location: Canada
|
| Tue Dec 21, 2004 10:35 am |
|
Bill O'Reilly should do a little more research on his facts before picking up his pen. Any good journalist could tell you that. For instance;
1. Canadians have NOT legalised gay marriage, it is just out of the Supreme Court now. The S.C. ruling that the gov't has the right to define 'marriage' as it sees fit.
2. Any kind of abortion is NOT legal in Canada. Prior to the 2nd trimester is legal.
3. Regarding the age of consent; persons between the ages of 14 and under 18 can consent to having sex (ie. a 15 yr. old and a 14 yr. old), but NOT a 50 yr. old and a 14 yr. old, nor an 18 yr. old and a 14 yr. old.
4. Pot decriminalisation for small amounts has not yet been through the House of Commons and has certainly not been decriminalised yet ANYWHERE across the country.
5. Heroin Give Away? Try needle - exchange, BIG difference.
Should Mr. O'Reilly wish to maintain ANY credibility as a journalist whatsoever maybe he should check facts before speaking.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:11 pm |
|
Forgive me, but I trust O'Reilly more than you.
| jbering69 wrote: | Bill O'Reilly should do a little more research on his facts before picking up his pen. Any good journalist could tell you that. For instance;
1. Canadians have NOT legalised gay marriage, it is just out of the Supreme Court now. The S.C. ruling that the gov't has the right to define 'marriage' as it sees fit.
I notice that he may have been wrong there, that it is legal in 6 provinces and is going to the House of Commons now.
2. Any kind of abortion is NOT legal in Canada. Prior to the 2nd trimester is legal.
However, here you are wrong.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/Canada.html#intro
An ACTUAL "pro-choice" site discusses this there, and so it HAS to be true! Check it out.
| Quote: | | Canada is one of the very few countries in the world that has NO criminal law restricting abortion at all. We first liberalized our law against abortion in 1969; then our Supreme Court threw it out completely in 1988. And we've been doing just fine without it. In the 11 years since we began our great experiment, we've found that doctors and women exercise the right to abortion responsibly, without the need for any legal restrictions. We don't need gestational limits. We don't need waiting periods. We don't need parental or spousal consent laws. And we don't need restrictions on certain types of abortions. |
3. Regarding the age of consent; persons between the ages of 14 and under 18 can consent to having sex (ie. a 15 yr. old and a 14 yr. old), but NOT a 50 yr. old and a 14 yr. old, nor an 18 yr. old and a 14 yr. old.
I could disagree with that, and I do.
4. Pot decriminalisation for small amounts has not yet been through the House of Commons and has certainly not been decriminalised yet ANYWHERE across the country.
I'm not so sure about that...
5. Heroin Give Away? Try needle - exchange, BIG difference.
Same thing.
Should Mr. O'Reilly wish to maintain ANY credibility as a journalist whatsoever maybe he should check facts before speaking. |
O'Reilly has MUCH credibility, and in pretty much ALL of these cases, I agree with HIM NOT YOU on.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
