Trudeau handing election to Scheer - Toronto Sun

[The Green Barbarian]

Actually, that isn't "big brother". It is just common sense that if the groups are doing things in a secular fashion, no problem.

Sorry but this is complete garbage. You can't pull out the term "common sense" to defend a policy that suddenly denies religious groups funding for summer jobs. That's just lazy and pretty silly.

It is a simple line, any group that is conducting lawful secular activity is eligible.

But why? You give no support for this at all. If you are conducting lawful religious activity, why can't you access government grants for summer jobs? This makes no sense, and unfairly punishes groups who (gasp!!) dare to believe in something that conflicts with your belief system. Shame on them eh???

There is no "slippery slope" to that at all. Nobody is forcing anyone to apply for the grants.

This is a horribly slippery slope, and a pretty dumb one as well. Who are you, or anyone, to just arbitrarily determine who is eligible for government funding? You are no one special. What's next? Like-minded simpletons in the Liberal government have now banned Jews from getting government grants for summer jobs, what else are you going to ban them from? If they are Jewish they can't own property? Or get a tax deduction for RRSP contributions? Where does this nonsense end?

Where the "slippery slope" exists is in funding any organization that advocates against the law of the land and/or for authority extending into governance.

Nope. You've already slid pretty far down the slope with this anti-religious garbage. Shame on you HG. You really are disappointing me with this partisan Liberal stance. It's so anti-thought and open-mind.

[rustled]

You have to give JT points for consistency. Everything he does seems calculated to focus our attention squarely on our differences. Under his leadership, too many Canadians are now all about measuring who is getting what, and why.

Personally, I find this utterly reprehensible. But that aside, it's also a sure-fire recipe for dividing your constituents, a practice that generally proves disastrous for any community. Any government committed to this tactic is not putting the needs of its constituents first. Instead of serving its constituents, it serves itself.

JT is such a destructive force that although I generally try to support the best local candidate, I really can't see myself voting Liberal again while he's at the helm.

[The Green Barbarian]

I really can't see myself voting Liberal again while he's at the helm.

Rustled - just be like me, and never START voting for the Liberals federally. Especially if the leader's name starts with a "T" and ends in DOH!!!

[hobbyguy]

Actually, my stance is based not on any partisanship whatsoever.

Theocracy (like we see in Iran) is antithetical to democracy.

There is an entirely obvious divide between religion and organized religion. I am not anti-religion, but I have little use for organized religion. Not a simple argument, but even a cursory study of the history of organized religion will make a person skeptical of organized religion - but the underlying principles that attract people to those religions.

To conflate religion with organized religion is "some dogs have spots, therefore all dogs have spots".

Religion per se can be a positive force, but many times throughout history it is perverted through organized religion to other ends, ofttimes nefarious.

In this case we are talking about organized religion - not religion.

Religious freedom only exists within democracies. Secular governments are expressly, as in the US constitution as a good example, forbidden from promoting religions. Religions in that context should keep their noses out of secular government business.

Organized religions don't, as organized religions all have power structures (generally hierarchical) and those power structures all play political (= power) games. When organized religion sticks their noses in too far - you get theocracy like Iran. Then there is only "religious freedom" for 1 religion, and in most cases only one sect (cult) of that religion (e.g. Catholicism and the Spanish inquisition).

The end result is that democracy requires that governments not support organized religion. Religious freedom depends on that.

There is always some overlap, and politicians playing divisive games love to exploit that overlap. Yes, politicians using (in the worst sense of the word) religion for their own benefit. How surprising. Yet if those pols actually supported religious freedom, they would not do so as religious freedom is, as I said before, dependent on secular democracy.

[The Green Barbarian]

Actually, my stance is based not on any partisanship whatsoever.

Theocracy (like we see in Iran) is antithetical to democracy.

This isn't about theocracy. It's about some Jewish and Muslim people in Canada accessing government grants for summer students. Like they've been doing for decades. And suddenly a brainless government bent on dividing and angering people decides to deny them funding. Why? Because they are Jewish and Muslim. And you don't have a problem with this. Just so freaking sad. When they are being marched to the gas chambers, I hope that you will wake up and realize the slippery and stupid slope you've advocated for has finally hit rock bottom.

[rustled]

I really can't see myself voting Liberal again while he's at the helm.

Rustled - just be like me, and never START voting for the Liberals federally. Especially if the leader's name starts with a "T" and ends in DOH!!!

LOL. I've voted both Liberal and Conservative in the past, generally depending on local candidate and party platform. To me, voting for the leader makes it too much like a popularity contest.

I'd like our leaders to be presentable and able to conduct themselves in a way that doesn't create chaos and uncertainty (in terms of federal leadership, for our nation). But I very much dislike being wooed with charm and flowery promises.

To me, there's been very little about this government that shows any real understanding of good governance. It's all about grand gestures that are worse than empty: expensive, theatrical and counterproductive. Blech.

Scheer's appealing to me more and more. He seems to take his job seriously while maintaining a more humble attitude about his role. Still, at the end of the day, it's not about him, personally. It's about which leader is better focused on building a better country.

Changing the rules to make it impossible for church groups to access the grants? Not making the country better, IMO. Just blech.

[The Green Barbarian]

Changing the rules to make it impossible for church groups to access the grants? Not making the country better, IMO. Just blech.

That's just it Rustled. I struggle to understand the reasoning behind this logic the Liberals are using to block religious groups from obtaining funding. Especially at this stage of the game where their budgets would already be set. It just seems mean-spirited, with no gain to anyone. If these groups did get their funding, despite their stance on abortion, would one woman who be denied an abortion in Canada this year anywhere? If so, why? What possible reasoning is there to change a system that has been in place for decades, other than spite? It is just so stupid, for lack of a better word. It makes me wonder if JT even wants to be re-elected.

[rustled]

There's clearly absolutely no need to change this "rule". It's beyond silly to pretend it's necessary to protect our secular democracy since we've only become more secular with church groups already accessing that funding.

Like you, I'm surprised and disappointed to see posters undermine their own credibility by defending this nonsense.

And again, it makes absolutely no sense for this government to impose rule changes around grants "to protect secular democracy" while they ignore laws that are non-secular.

[hobbyguy]

Any time any government makes any changes that affect religious or other charitable organizations, it becomes divisive.

Harper and crew got roasted for questioning the United Church's charitable status due to political activity. And so it goes.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/why-the-cras-crackdown-on-charities-may-be-reasonable

http://nationalpost.com/holy-post/faith-and-politics-not-separate-united-church-tells-conservative-senator

It will always be a fuzzy line - and the opposition will always try to exploit it.

When does an organized religion cross a line, and where should that line be is subjective. I have no problem in making that line stricter, because I am not a fan of organized religions, while maintaining a sense of the value of religion itself.

[rustled]

Any time any government makes any changes that affect religious or other charitable organizations, it becomes divisive.
...snip

When does an organized religion cross a line, and where should that line be is subjective. I have no problem in making that line stricter, because I am not a fan of organized religions, while maintaining a sense of the value of religion itself.

The groups targetted by this rule change are doing nothing differently than what they've ever done. They have not up and "crossed a line".

Our secular democracy evolved under the old rule. Why change the rule to shut out the churches at this point in time? It serves no positive purpose.

It's not benign, though, as this change also diminishes opportunity, and emphasizes division. It's a solution looking for a problem and creating one to justify its own existence. The worst kind of government b.s.

An extraordinarily hypocritical move while allowing a law which does the exact opposite, treats a single religion as deserving of a special exemption, to stay on the books. A law which, I might add, is purportedly there to protect the safety and well-being of those to whom it does apply, and rationally should therefore apply strictly to all. This law, instead of applying strictly to all, flies in the face of a secular democracy, a democracy in which the law applies to all regardless of their faith (or lack thereof).

To propose that this rule change protects our secular democracy is bizarre. For any government to advance this pretense while ignoring non-secular law is beyond bizarre.

Leading us back to: Yet again, JT's actions have focused us on our differences. This rule change does nothing positive for our nation, so what is the motivation here? I'd suggest it's a distraction, but it's too destructive to be merely that. I'm leaning toward those who suggest he's exploiting fear and divisiveness for a reason.

In my books, that is wrong no matter who is doing it. And it is particularly wrong when the leader of our country is creating divisiveness. Just. Plain. Wrong.

[The Green Barbarian]

Harper and crew got roasted for questioning the United Church's charitable status due to political activity. And so it goes.
.

and if all of these groups suddenly morphed into political organizations I could see the Liberals' point. But they didn't do that. There is no basis whatsoever for this nonsense. It is just plain mean-spirited, and wrong. I hope in 2019 when Scheer wins he puts things back to the way they should be. And all the nuts and loons that want to make up fake news about how this somehow is a "pro-abortion" move can stick it.

[normaM]

whoa. Greenie is disagreeing with HobbyGuy
Checks calendar .. nope, April Fools over
I don't think Scheer would make it but seriously Boytoy needs to go back to teaching. Or Yoga. Or what he doesn't when he isn't running the show.
Can't wait til he goes to Holland, I have wicked memes for that trip :)

[burnedatstake]

trudeau is awesome. and a shot across the bow of evangelicals is wonderful. seeing the church squirm like they make everyone else do is fun to see.

[hobbyguy]

whoa. Greenie is disagreeing with HobbyGuy
Checks calendar .. nope, April Fools over
I don't think Scheer would make it but seriously Boytoy needs to go back to teaching. Or Yoga. Or what he doesn't when he isn't running the show.
Can't wait til he goes to Holland, I have wicked memes for that trip :)

Ah no, we have disagreed often, and the debates are quite good.

Nothing like a good debate to learn something, even if it results in agreeing to disagree.

Where we seem to really converge is in a serious distaste for the NDP. But that's an easy point of agreement for anyone who really thinks about it.

We are only "all right wingers" to the far left orange t-shirt crowd - who don't seem to realize that when there is nobody to your left, you are out there, and the rest of country all look like "right wingers".

[The Green Barbarian]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/2 ... in-Kelowna

He's here!! Our next PM is here!!