“Homa Arjomand, who lives in Toronto and headed Canada’s successful campaign of the International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, says like Kanwar, she too once embraced the idea of multiculturalism.
(…)
“‘I thought how wonderful, but not anymore,’ she declares.
“‘I came here for Canadian values, not sharia values. I fled Iran on horseback because the values there threatened my very life. If people want to live under sharia or the way they lived back home, let them go back,’ she said.
“Kanwar agrees. He says the time has come for the Canadian government to tell new immigrants ‘once you’re in Canada we expect you to be totally devoted to Canada — no divided loyalties.’
“‘This country,’ added Kanwar, ‘is a democracy and democracy is founded on Christian principles.
“‘Canada is — like it or not, take it or leave it — a country founded on Christian principles where the vast majority of citizens are Christians,’ said Kanwar.
“‘Yes, there’s separation of church and state but even that was a principle founded by Christians and Christianity. If Muslims, or anyone else, doesn’t like living in a land filled with Christians or in a democracy they should get the hell out.”
It’s heartening to hear a Muslim state a clear and simple fact: that Canada is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Further, it is encouraging to hear him say that immigrants who aren’t happy with this reality, should reconsider their residency here.
Judeo-Christian values, in fact, are the foundation of all Western democracies, and are the reason why countless millions of people of other faiths and cultures have left, and are leaving, their countries to live in Europe, Britain, and North America.
One simple litmus test of which values provide a more open and democratic life for its citizens–those based on the Judeo-Christian tradition or those based on other faiths–is to look at the traffic flow of immigrants: Is it from Christian countries to countries where the vast majority of people are non-Christian, or is it from non-Christian countries to those whose laws are based on Judeo-Christian values?
Overwhelmingly, it is the latter.
“…anyone else, doesn’t like living in a land filled with Christians or in a democracy they should get the hell out.”
That means every card-carrying NDPer and Librano.
Right, steveduh?
Guess, what? If they all did in fact leave, Canada’s birth rate would triple overnight.
What an enlightenend viewpoint. Too bad more folks don’t adopt this attitude.
Mike in White Rock
Carved in stone above the Parliament Buildings of Canada it is written: “He shall have Dominion from sea to sea”. This passage from the Psalms was viewed by our Christian founders as a reference to the coming reign of Christ. And the thousands of historic churches sprinkled throughout this nation bear witness to the fact that Canada was not founded on some broad or nebulous concept of multiculturalism; it was founded on Christian principles and values.
Amen!! We are a Constitutional Monarchy founded by Christians. It is because of these values that people were welcomed from all over the world. The parable of the Good Samaritan shows we must treat all justly and with compassion and mercy.
“…anyone else, doesn’t like living in a land filled with Christians or in a democracy they should get the hell out.”
As a third (maybe 4th) generation Canadian who is a non-Christian, where exactly would you like me to go?
As a “non-believer”,I have never been threatened by Harper’s “God Bless”comments,it is easier to trust a man who wears something so personal on his sleeve.
As long as church is separated from state it is wholly acceptable behavior,given our history.As long as people are free to have their own beliefs,it honors us to respect and protect the heritage that has made this country great!
While it is true that we are blessed to live in a land where Christianity is the basis for law and practice I do have concerns that Christianity itself is being undermined often by those who intellectually accept the Christian influence in the resultant culture. Having sat through untold sermons where this or that is lopped off or omitted from the traditional understanding of Christianity I often wonder if what now passes as Christianity can be considered Christianity in a historical context.
Perhaps the Prime Minister should, as one says, listen up.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060620.HARPER20/TPStory/Front
Or perhaps he might consider being honest.
Mark
Ottawa
Little bit thick in the head are ya, Lew?
The quote was: “”…anyone else, doesn’t like living in a land filled with Christians or in a democracy they should get the hell out.”
So Lew, are you a “(maybe 4th) generation Canadian who is a non-Christian” or are you someone who “doesn’t like living in a land filled with Christians or in a democracy”?
Well, which are you? I haven’t heard anything about any Christian jihad in Canada to force you to become a Christian, so what are you, a non-Christian or a Christian-hater?
I would argue that Judeo-Christian principles are Islamic principles. It’s just some states and some people pervert those principles in terrible ways, making it necessary for some citezens to want to flee to countries like Canada.
“‘Canada is — like it or not, take it or leave it — a country founded on Christian principles where the vast majority of citizens are Christians,’ said Kanwar.
“‘Yes, there’s separation of church and state but even that was a principle founded by Christians and Christianity. If Muslims, or anyone else, doesn’t like living in a land filled with Christians or in a democracy they should get the hell out.”
Well of course this is true of Canada’s origins, but the Lord’s Day Act was ruled unconstitutional back in 1985, and the preamble in the Constitution which refers to the supremacy of God has no legal force as ruled in some abortion clinic cases.
So one cannot be totally one sided and say Canada is a “Christian” land; when people such as Henry Morgentaler are awarded honorary doctorates from universities who are signatories to the secular Humanist Manifesto.
Recent polls in the news have suggested about 75% believe in God, but the percentage of weekly church attenders is much smaller.
This would be known as the theory/practice gap. We talk a good Christian game; but practice is hardly a strong point when looking at a broad societal cross section. On an individual basis however, you can still find many ‘good Christians’.
On the latter point I would agree that the objective for most Christians is to get the “HELL” out of their lives. Which is why Christians were a little distressed when Paul Martin suggested that he was going to root out corruption, “Come HELL or HIGHWATER” and that this was not a slogan.
MEMO TO PAUL MARTIN:
If you are a church goer and say you believe in God, it is poor form to summon HELL and HIGHWATER when its not a slogan. In any event, it not my job to judge Paul Martin’s soul, I will leave that in much bigger hands than mine.
Now of course the latest, is the flap about Ryerson awarding an honorary doctorate to Dr. Margaret Sommerville who as an ethicist has come down on the ‘politically incorrect’ side of the same sex marriage debate. So if one is for SSM one is enlightened and progressive, if one is against one is a religious bigot, homophobe, yada, yada, yada.
Why one needs the state’s blessing on SSM escapes me in any case? Christian teaching on the homosexuality score has been pretty clear for about 2 millenia, one need only consult the teaching of the twelve apostles or the Didache’, society just wants to find a way to wiggle room around the issue.
If the homosexual lobby doesn’t believe, they can and do as they will; which is their right, if one truly believes in religious freedom. By the same logic those who don’t share the homosexual lobby values have the right to express their views without being hammered by reflexive ideological slogans.
I mean really, if one is a dedicated atheist, agnostic, secularist do they really care a tinkers’ damn what God thinks or whether society grants them ‘inclusion’ about their behaviour if in their mind God doesn’t exist? What pray tell is the problem? Why look for societal approval if you don’t care what Christians think in the first place? Seems a little contradictory to me, in any event when SSM, is clearly contrary to Judeo-Christian values.
When Paul Martin started talking about Canadian values and SSM; he wasn’t talking about any intelligible values I recognize. But of course, I’m just a dumb Christian bastard.
James: I’m an agnostic, who used to be a very devout Christian. I know the foundations of Christianity better than most people, including its primary source docuements, and reformative moments. And, I can assure you, that Christianity of the New Testament and Islam have nothing in common other than monotheism. The Koran and the “traditional” teachings that make up Islam are completely unreformed and completely locked into 1400 year old modes of viewing god, sin, crime, and punishmen, and life on earth. Islam has not had a reformation that has made it compatible with pluralistic society.
“Moderate” Muslims are struggling to come to terms with this, but usually they do so by ignoring their own foundational teachings. Since so much of Islam is not Koran based, but based on traditional teachings that came after, they have a very difficult job ahead of them.
Making the New Testament Bible fit with liberal democracy is a cake-walk compared to Islam. And, let’s not forget that most early immigrants to North America were Christians who were seeking freedom from Catholic and Protostant states and pursecution in Europe… the American constitution is a wonderful testament of Christian New Testament values entrenched in a way that keeps those values from being hijacked by the state. They took the core values yet separated church and state… brilliant.
Whaddya talking about, James Godamn Whittingham?
If “Judeo-Christian principles are Islamic principles,” as you state, then why are Muslim countries so democratically challenged, why are women in these countries treated like chattel, why do their judicial systems not operate on the principle that one is innocent until proven guilty, and why are these countries run by fanatical, (fundamentalist, Islamist) clerics, none of which can be said about Western democracies founded on Judeo-Christian principles?
You’re way off base with this comment, and I challenge you to substantiate it with facts.
As to your statement “It’s just some states and some people pervert those principles in terrible ways, making it necessary for some citezens to want to flee to countries like Canada,” that’s exactly my point.
Western democracies, though imperfect because humans are imperfect, do NOT “pervert those principles…making it necessary for…citizens..to flee.” And why not? Because the Christian faith and the laws and principles for living which are based on this faith sustain the building of community and enshrine and ensure human rights for all citizens. That can’t be said for Muslim countries and most other non-Christian countries.
Yes James, if you “would argue” it, humour us and do so.
I look forward to your little essay on the sameness of Judeo-Christian principles and those of Islam.
The separation of Church and Stae is an American concept, it was meant to stop any British Royalty member from living in the USA and having a child that would become King and declare the nation
as a Kingdom ruled by Britain.
I’d like to see this Declaration from our Constitution, the “Innocent until proven guilty” rant is another myth.
Roger: You are partially correct. The concept was meant to forstall a lot more than British royalty. It’s author’s made that clear in their views on many other issues, and based it on a collective belief in Christianity, yet a distrust of “State Christianity”. Simply put, it was brilliant.
James, which Judeo-Christian principle states that all infidels must be despised and/or killed?
I would argue that Judeo-Christian principles are Islamic principles
James, I’m trying real hard to fit my mind around that statement. Sorry, but I’m not seeing Jesus of “turn the other cheek” and “render unto Caesar….” versus Mohammed’s directive of jihad, dhimmitude, the subugation of women, anti-secular and all things war-like as a role model having similar “principles’.
Perhaps you could expend upon that.
It’s just some states and some people pervert those principles in terrible ways, making it necessary for some citezens to want to flee to countries like Canada.
“Some states”? “Some people”? Please point to us the Islamic state alternatives vs fleeing west where Muslims are secular, tolerant, at peace with their non-Islamic neighbors and women have full and equal rights. In other words, if I were a secular, agnostic Muslim whose Christian wife(mixed marriage)is a feminist and the breadwinner, where is a safe and comfortable state for us and the kids in the Islamic ME?
Let me go a step further. If I were that family’s ME real estate agent, I’d be showing them only Israel or caves to hide in. “Some” denotes a miniscule problem. It falls very short of the reality.
To the uneducated or willingly ignorant it could be argued that on the outside Christianity and Islam look similar. At their root however there is a chasm that can not be spanned. Islam is predicated upon man a sinner trying to please a god who is unchangable. christianity in its purest is an all powerful God recognizing man’s shortcomings and out of love meeting those needs in the form of a gift. In Islam man must constanty try to work into a state of rightstanding with god by doing works such as killing non believers. Christianity in its purest is man receiving the Gift and sharing that Gift with non believers. Unfortunately those that come closest to apostacy in Islam are likely to be the most peaceful whereas those who are the farthest from the Truth in Christianity are the most violent.
Thanks, Ms Arjomand: my sentiments exactly.
But look what’s happened to the Judeo-Christian foundation of this country. Ironies abound.
Here’s a copy of recent post I made in response to a Native Person in Canada bemoaning the fate of his people:
‘And Beardy Cree, my cultural heritage, British, Christian–which built a democratic Canada and granted to your people many rights, rather than desecration (this is better than most conquered people received)–has now been almost completely erased from the public square in Canada. (Trudeau had LOTS to do with this cultural annihilation. Yes, Beardy, it’s really happened to my “tribe”: but–unlike the obeisance paid to your tribe in 2006–without the lingering respect or gigantic fiscal pay-offs. I sort of feel your pain.)
In modern day Canada, while the Francophones and First Nations of this country have all kinds of entitlements, via the BNA [British North America Act] and multiculturalism, the descendents of those enlightened British Christian gentlemen, who granted many rights to the inhabitants of Canada, now have diminished entitlements. E.g., Quebec has Napoleonic Law, French language rights,and Catholic education (appreciated or not), while British Common Law and Protestantism have been completely eclipsed by the Charter and, with the arrival of immigrants of many faiths, the arid secularism of the public school system. But we, British Christians, who–unlike our Francophone or Native People confreres–are allowed none, or only scant, public respect or recognition, are compelled to pay for your entitlements over and over. Now isn’t that ironic? (To say the least.)
Beardy Cree: The FN people are welcomed at official publc celebrations all over Canada. Our public schools pay for all kinds of your cultural performances–drum and dance, etc. Dream catchers are made in public school classrooms. Now, when was the last time you heard of broad reference or respect given to any British or Christian observance–and I don’t mean Frosty or Rudolf–in the public schools of Canada? And remember that the Liberal government forbade Christian clergy to pray specifically Christian prayers at the services for the 1998 Swissair disaster, although other faith groups were not muzzled by such restrictions.
I think you need to broaden your horizons and realize that you’re not the only conquered group in this country. Culturally, my “tribe”–responsible for democracy in much of the Western world and, therefore many of your freedoms, sir–has lost a lot.’
Not all religions and cultures are equal–the false doctrine of multiculturalism has altogether undermined the true heritage of this country. Unless Canada wakes up, and cherishes and acts upon its unique, robust, and “living tree” Judeo-Christian foundation, it won’t be a country with any integrity left.
New kid on the block, you are guilty of quite the logical fallacy. Can we really determine that it is Judeo-Christian values that bring people from non-Christian countries to western Christian ones? What about the role of poverty, opportunity, and safety in this? Africa does not have corrupt dictatorships because it is not overwhelmingly Christian. What the high level of immigration from Central and South America where the populations are the majority Christian? They move to escape poverty and find opportunity. Can we really say that those from non-Christian countries only leave for different values or is it rather something else?
I think you need to back up your case because right now you do not have one. It does not stand up to any form of logical tests in its current form.
Christian principles? No, try common sense principles… and before too many people start quoting various and sundry commandments please do keep in mind that the majority of those “common sense” principles cross multiple faiths.
Opposition to state multiculturalism is not racist, or anti-immigrant in the slightest. To use the “nation as house” metaphor — unfortunately associated with Pim Fortuyn, who did not coin it — opposing multiculturalism means nothing more than “come down and join us at the table. Eat with us”. It’s hardly an insult to say “If you stay in your room praying ‘Oh, God, protect us from the infidels, who pollute us with their vile ways’, we consider it a bit standoffish.”
Our founding values came from immigrants who came from Christian Europe, particularly Great Britain and France, but Canada did not become a great modern nation until immigrants from the rest of the world stepped onto that foundation. We’re now a nation of many religions with no small number of atheists thrown into the mix.
This debate over the merits of LPC-style multiculturalism is not a dispute between recent immigrants and second or third or eighth generation Canadians, it is a dispute between those — including recent immigrants — who appreciate where Canada’s foundational values have taken us, relative to the rest of the world, and those — primarily on the Left — who view our history as a march of offense, a wrecking ball of colonial horror, ripe to be replaced posthaste with some indeterminate piece of craft modeled with addled, post-60’s platitudes propelled by a prurient focus on the suffering of our collective corporeal form.
Ultimately, the SMALL percentage of recent immigrants with anti-social, anti-Canada views only have such absurd leeway because of the big-hearted excuses made for their like by the Left who walk among us. When you consider how tiny the number of troublesome immigrants are compared to the number of Canadians who, ah, dress left, its easy to see where the problem lies. Hint: It’s not immigrants. We’re all immigrants.
EBD:
“We’re all immigrants”
Partially correct, except for the Natives, unless of course you go back to paleontology times and count the proposition that the Natives migrated across the Bering Strait, long before the Fathers of Confederation were a twinkle in anybody’s eye.
Of course even the Natives have the concept of the Great Spirit; ie God, which was later expounded upon during missionary times.
I would have some doubt as to the veracity of Chirstian principles, as expounded most recently by the LPC.
Doug
Canada and Canadians are big enough for everyone.
We take pride in our tolerance and ability to welcome everyone. We have after all been founded as a country on a religion whose principle message is love, not just for those within but also those coming in. We make no preconceived judgements on anyone but accept them as they are with the hope that they can become even more than they already are. Our greatest strength are our immigrants who bring hope, energy, ideas and passion with them.
While nothing in this world is perfect, we are mere mortals after all, there are some similarities between Islam and Christianity.
Let me explain before I get flamed. I happened to work with a devout Egyptian Muslim once and as per usual some of our discussions were about Egypt and religion. This was early 90s so things were relatively quiet on the terrorist front. He wrote down seven words that he said are fundamental beliefs. I still have them at my desk today. Looking at them I see a lot in common with most major religions in the world.
Generosity
Tolerance
Kindness
Forgiveness
Humility
Honesty
Integrity
I don’t pretend to be a student of theology but I think Islam has been hijacked by the same kind of people that were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, the David Koresh, Jim Jones and other dark chapters of Christian history.
Maritime Liberal and stageleft: Grow up, guys. Better yet, SMARTEN UP!
1) “They [Christians in S. America] move to escape poverty and find opportunity.”
2) “Christian principles? No, try common sense principles… and before too many people start quoting various and sundry commandments please do keep in mind that the majority of those “common sense” principles cross multiple faiths.”
Utter poppycock.
1) and 2): Try BRITISH Judeo-Christian principles, e.g., Magna Carta (1215), where the ruler is not placed above the rule of law. This is the founding principle of BRITISH democracy and that of all its former colonies: Canada, the United States, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Millions of immigrants have headed to the British Isles and these countries over the last century.
1) Would the fact that South America has a DEMOCRACY DEFICIT (no Magna Carta imperative) have anything to do with the fact that its people “move to escape poverty and find opportunity”?
2) “Common sense” principles? Which ones would those be, stageleft? For which countries are such principles the founding principles? Please describe the principles (including the documents in which they’re enshrined), name the countries that subscribe to them, and provide the number of immigrants who flood to their polities.
I’m interested in what you both have to say.
texas canuck:
Well here is an oversized hijacking of Christianity, you can insert radical jihadist as necessary, courtesy of Adolf:
“Today (Mulims) Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy (Islam) Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the (Muslim) Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press – in short, we want to burn out the *poison of immorality* which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of *liberal excess* during the past … (few) years. [The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872]
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator.
By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]”
Meanwhile 40 million people later we have had quite enough of “burning out”.
You are quite right though the Koran has many references to mercy, justice, and peace; it is just the theological spin doctoring one does with it.
No Christian would ever say that Hitler was a fellow Christian especially when they know that Hitler used Christian expressions to advance his own vile agenda. Yet every Muslim commentator I have heard has said that the terrorists are devout Muslim even though the commentators state their personal disagreement with the terrorists.
….” based it on a collective belief in Christianity, yet a distrust of “State Christianity”. Simply put, it was brilliant.
Debris Trail – you nailed it. Jefferson was the genius and principle writer of our Constitution. He was a Renaissance man in the truest sense, an agnostic, but sympathetic to religion; a man who carried the principles of the Greeks and the Enlightenment that came before him. He understood the value of religion in the lives of people and the tyranny of religion at the hands of the state. Our Constitution was not incompatible with our Judeo-Christian religious heritage as immigrants. We had been given permission to be secularized by our Judeo-Christian faiths beforehand.
Islam has not and would never be comfortable with that dichotomy.
Despotic forms of government in any society have always pursued an agenda of using religions or even secular ideologies to prop up corrupt regimes. Interestingly, the West has been seen to be persistent in its support for autocratic and repressive regimes including the Shah’s Iran, Saddam’s Iraq in 1980 and now Islam’s Uzbekistan, where democratisation would raise the likelihood of the “client states being transformed into … less predictable nations which might make Western access to oil less secure”.
70% of the worlds oil, First pick for a operation name, Operation Iraqi Liberation. O.I.L.
Re Maritime Libreal (sic?): You said to NKOTB, “I think you need to back up your [pro Judeo-Christian] case because right now you do not have one. [sic] It does not stand up to any form of logical tests in its current form.” [utter poppycock again]
Well ML, just read my latest post: NKOTB and I stand together on this one. From my reading of NKOTB’s posts I’d say that this person would probably be willing to add the adjective “British”, which would altogether vindicate NKOTB’s thesis. The addition of this modifier also demolishes your juvenile and facetious objections.
As I said before–I think it would suit you–grow up and smarten up!
Neutralsam:
In the international arena there is no morality; you can ask Gen. Lewis Mackenzie.
Ideology is the smokescreen, the real action is happening on the balance sheet.
Hence the massive UN Food for Oil scam, from an organization ostensibly whose raison d’etre is human rights.
Darfur, its just business. Sudan ships the oil and the government can go and do what it wants.
Also, don’t forget the reading in of Cold War political support as part of the greater global ambition game. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan after all and turned the place into a pile of rubble. No wonder a few got radicalized when the West pulled the pin on the mujahadeen after the Cold War ended. Some just said a pox on all your houses whether formerly Soviet or Western. In some senses you can understand why they would feel that way.
You could make the same argument from the point of view of the former Soviet satellites. ie East Germany where a secular ideology propped up a corrupt East Germany. ‘Shoot first and ask questions later Honnecker’ will long be remembered for the voluminous Stasi files on local inhabitants.
It is not just the oil, though that is undoubtedly part of the grander equation.
It is fundamentally ideas that move people to action. The Christian foundation of faith is the cornerblock of Western civilization; this is a simple fact.
So called modern democracies, as others have pointed out, have less and less congruence with what one would identify as classical/orthodox Christian thought; if not outright hostility.
So I guess using Marx and Monty Python we should form the following Party:
The Judeo-Christian Peoples Front?
Crucifixtion now! Get yours today!! Timely and efficiently brutal service. Call now.
neutralsam: context please… or are you just trying to wow everyone with a game of “let’s name a fact”.
please, anyonone, name me a country that is not Judaeo-Christrian that people flee to and claim refugee status. Muslims are murderers and the slime of the earth. Fuck them and their pig fucking mothers.
please, anyonone, name me a country that is not Judaeo-Christrian that people flee to and claim refugee status. Muslims are murderers and the slime of the earth. Fuck them and their pig fucking mothers.
Seems some people are a little off topic. I’ll bring it back. This is Canada. We have Canadian values, laws, and a rich culture of our own. If people coming to Canada to live and become citizens can’t adhere to the above then stay the fuck out. Don’t try to change us because it isn’t going to happen. Believe me there are millions of the silent majority who think like this and are willing to uphold it. So for all you lefties and commies out there who think that you are winning your extreme left causes think again because this country is starting to see the light. Too much tolerance usually leads to pain and when enough of us start to feel that pain then watch out for the backlash.
Rick
You live in Canada, don’t pretend you know about pain.
There you do again, steve d, appropriating the suffering of others.
You assume that referring to the suffering of others makes your point. It doesn’t, it’s prurient and appropriating.
You can’t just point to another event in the violent theatre that is this earth, then turn to your interlocutor and say “See?” as if you just scored a point. No pain cred for you, my man.
Right wing Jew,Right wing Muslim or Right wing Christian all equally and morally wrong. To me all religion is a crock. I liked the christian music I heard as a kid. I don’t believe in god but the music brings back memories of my childhood. I went to church with my Grandma but decided religion was misguided at the age of 14. I could argue against it quite well. The Christian bible is based on the Jewish bible which has a lot in common with the Koran. All that said it’s still written by men in the name of some god. This god gives people a purpose and false hope. It gives believers a feeling of superiority to non-believers but it’s to me but a fairy tale. You’ll never make me feel guilty by quoting the bibles or Koran. You right wingers scare me. The Nazis,The Japenese and the Italians in WWII thought they were meant to rule the world by Devine rights. Bullshit is all that is. Knowledge and reason are the best religion.
marion boyd tried to sell this in ontario recently.
I urged the powers that be to reconsider fearing muslim immigrant women would be kept isolated and ignorant of their other rights in canada and instead be presented by their male masters with the factoid that da gubbamint endorsed sharia so they best shut up and comply.
ok4ua…..”Knowledge and reason are the best religion.”
*Whose* knowledge, and *whose* reason, are the best religion?
And the knowledge and reason they have today…or two weeks down the road?
As the saying goes “when in Rome, do as the Romans do”. However, that doesn’t quite seem to fit many who seem to be showing up on Canadian soil, who seem to ascribe to the saying “when in Rome, do as you’ve always done”.
If I were a cowboy, I’d probably wear a hat…if I chose to go to a restaurant, I’d certainly take the hat off…if I chose to go to a Synagogue, I’d wear a yamulka(sp?). It’s a simple thing to do and it is called respect for others. This is NOT to say that we should do things that are against our conscience out of a sense of “respect”…if I couldn’t, in good conscience, abide by the rules or customs of a place I chose to go to, I would leave.
Carrying the silly “hat” metaphor further, if I were a patron in a restaurant and a cowboy entered wearing a hat, I’d be offended (ever so slightly) that he didn’t take it off. If a devout Jew or Sikh were to enter, I would understand and “tolerate” their headress (they have a good reason and it’s not a big deal).
I think many of our immigrants are seemingly “intolerant” and may lack “respect of others”.
I think we can at this point rethink one aspect of our immigration policy. That sacred cow of dual citizenship.
Removing the option of DC does not mean refusing a visa or a work permit, what it would mean is that once someone decides they want to become a citizen they must revoke the one they came from.
There is no free lunch.
Multiculturalism is enforced by Human Rights Commissions which are now Western civilization’s “Sharia Law Courts”. Human rights, blah, blah, is an integral dogma of multiculturalism.
Conservative Prime Minister Harper has announced the appointment of a human rights enforcer as the new Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia.
Conservatives need to know about this. …-
From the Prime Minister’s website:
June 20, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario
Prime Minister Stephen Harper was pleased to announce today the appointment of Mayann E. Francis as Nova Scotia’s newest Lieutenant Governor. “In her roles as public speaker, columnist, and senior-level public servant, Mayann Francis has demonstrated the knowledge and insight needed for this position. As Lieutenant Governor, she will continue to serve her province and country well,” said the Prime Minister.
Ms. Francis is currently the Chief Executive Officer of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, a position she has held for eight years. She is also the former Nova Scotia Ombudsman, the first female to hold the position.
Serving the public good has driven Ms. Francis throughout her career. In the early 1970s, she served as a human rights officer in Nova Scotia. …
I’m going to backtrack on my earlier posts: Although the term “British” Judeo-Christianity certainly suits many of today’s democratic countries, it doesn’t cover Europe, which is also largely democratic. (So, NKOTB’s thesis holds up very nicely, minus the word “British”!)
What do all the democracies have in common? A common Judeo-Christian heritage, based on the ideas of justice and the inherent worth of each individual. Those, like ok4ua, who have decided to turn their backs on this heritage have a right to do so. What they don’t have a right to do is deny its importance in shaping the DEMOCRATIC history of much of the West. ok4ua, just where do you think the rights and freedoms you have to dissent come from? (Just try living in a Muslim state, where freedoms are severely curtailed: Your apostasy would cost you very dearly–maybe even your dhimmi head. ok4ua, look up “dhimmi” if you don’t know what it means.)
It’s interesting: In every country where Christianity is in decline–replaced by multiculturalism and secularism (don’t see much “knowledge and reason” there, ok4ua, but a lot of “dhimmi” thinking)–these countries are much less free than they used to be. Kangaroo courts, like the HRCs in Canada, keep dissenters in line. Rules and regulations abound. (Check out the EU’s ludicrous “Big Brother” regulations for just about everything: talk about mindless and soul-destroying micro-management!)
ok4ua says “knowledge and reason are the best religion. (sic)” stageleft says countries don’t need Judeo-Christian principles, just “common sense” principles? What wishful thinking! First of all, whatever you two think now, J-C principles happen to BE those on which the world’s democracies are founded. That’s a FACT. And as I said above, as the J-C heritage is replaced by PC muticulturalism and secularism, I notice considerably LESS common sense, knowledge and reason.
Stageleft and ok4ua, please be specific: “Common sense”, “knowledge and reason” are all very well–and, BTW, have all been well represented in much of the J-C dispensation over the centuries (universities, hospitals, orphanages, great art and music, “innocent until proven guilty” etc.)–but which democratic countries have sprung, fully formed, from such principles, minus the moral grounding and infrastructure of the Judeo-Christian heritage and its institutions?
P.S. “Common sense, knowledge, and reason” are all good things. But they leave out the heart of the matter.
Warning to stageleft: I’m about to disobey you! I’m going to quote a commandment. (Feel free to avert your eyes.)
The second great commandment is “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, in other words, the Golden Rule. It is the democratic countries of the world which have taken that as a core principle.
Do either stageleft or ok4ua have a quibble with this? If either can point to a non-democratic country that’s animated by this altruistic principle, I’d be very interested to know about it.
Thanks, lookout, for your refining of the point I was making: adding British to the mix certainly clarifies my argument. If you look at many of the South American countries claiming large segments of their population to be “Christian” you can also point to the utter corruption and degradation of their political leadership (sic), which is largely the reason why so many of their citizens, who live in poverty, their safety threatened every day, immigrate to Canada and the U.S, both countries whose governments and laws are based on Judeo-Christian values, not “common sense” and “reason” as some allege. Would the same number of Canadians be welcome in these countries and find that their human rights were respected, with health care, housing, language lessons, and job opportunities provided the minute they arrived?
Maritime Liberal asks “What about the role of poverty, opportunity, and safety [in bringing] people from non-Christian countries to western Christian ones”? I’d posit, ML, that where Judeo-Christian principles and laws are for the most part upheld (as in Canada and the U.S.) as opposed to nominally Christian countries where civilized society–safety, security, opportunities to make a living–is decimated by totally corrupt dictatorships, these become the countries to which poverty-stricken, disenfranchised people immigrate.
Check out Canadian history, ML, not the recent revisionist crap, which has all but erased any references to the considerable British influence in our heritage (not always negative as alleged by revisionist versions) and the role that Christianity played (“Love your neighbour as yourself”), in the sense of informing the consciences of most of our Fathers and Mothers of Confederation.
That’s my challenge to you. And then defend your thesis that the Judeo-Christian foundations of our judicial system, which is a far cry from the kangaroo courts of many Central and South American (not to mention African and Asian) countries, are not at the root of why it is immigrants flock from these countries to Canada and the U.S..
Many years ago trudeau said canada needed official Multiculturalism to help the people of Quebec maintain their identity.
Then he forced immigrants from all over the world as well as multiculturalism on the rest of the country because english canada deserved to die a cruel death.
the liberals all cheered,