CRT: Whiteness is Inherently Evil

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Lol I know the feeling, fellas. New guy comes along and all the locals get excited over the fresh meat. Then he leaves, and you're back to arguing with each other again.

Don't flatter yourself. I'd thought you'd been around for years

[Immanuel Can]

To Henry and IC anyone who disagrees with them politically is a 'commie'.

Believe me, Veg, I'm as surprised as anyone that you and I seem to agree over CRT. That comes as a pretty big surprise. But I guess nobody's wrong about absolutely everything, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm sure you'll go back to the usual round of spite and rage as soon as the CRT thread is done. And I'll disagree with you then. But I don't feel the need to do it about this.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

To Henry and IC anyone who disagrees with them politically is a 'commie'.

Believe me, Veg, I'm as surprised as anyone that you and I seem to agree over CRT. That comes as a pretty big surprise. But I guess nobody's wrong about absolutely everything, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm sure you'll go back to the usual round of spite and rage as soon as the CRT thread is done. And I'll disagree with you then. But I don't feel the need to do it about this.

It's the religion that gets in the way. If that didn't factor into the equation then we would probably agree about most things. Sad really. I always go with logic and reason, and they have no political or religious persuasion.

[Immanuel Can]

It's the religion that gets in the way. If that didn't factor into the equation then we would probably agree about most things.

That's interesting.

[Scott Mayers]

Note to the topic for those with access to cable or to CBS network or to other sources: Dr Phil Show today (Jan 5, 2022) has this as a topic. ["Critical Racer Theory: A Nation Divided (S:20, Ep:73), Dr. Phil, CBS]

I still have to finish watching it but it might be interesting for others here to at least look at it. He brings on different people's views to express and debate the concerns with relative fairness.

Anyways, given I lost the 'thread' of the present thread, I'll just leave this as a suggestion for now. What I think is not realized by the American's amplication of this concern is that the politics there is actually more of a problem due to non-American Western countries, especially Canada. Our policy here in Canada is actually a real example of imposed racial beliefs BY LAW, whereas the U.S. are fortunately NOT 'official' in supporting ANY impositions in culture by contrast.

Any system that believes in having laws regarding special privilege to particular religious lawmaking, are the major set of influences that are affecting the American's response. Technically, they are correct in raising the issue given their First Amendment as its own 'critical' limitations against such lawmaking that imposes cultural beliefs to children. But noting how those here who argue vehemently against this AND who are nevertheless a believer in systems that permit laws regarding religion, those people are being hypocritical and more likely than not to actually propose COUNTER Critical Race Theory laws in the same way Canada does. As such, take note how non-American systems USE laws that DO actually place the concerns of the Americans' in practice even though they may only be relatively less needing of the concern. To me, it is 'our' fault (non-American systems that permit laws regarding religious conservation) that America is even having this issue as extreme as it is today. But the American Right and Left extremes both WANT some form of this. The Right-wing position though is to favor a PARTICULAR ideal 'culture' as truly American where the Left-wing extreme is to favor MULTIPLE 'cultures'. Both extremes do not favor NO 'culture' laws and to this is what we should be paying attention to significantly. The average inbetween crowds regarding no particular political biases on this issue should be the focus.

[Scott Mayers]

It's the religion that gets in the way. If that didn't factor into the equation then we would probably agree about most things.

That's interesting.

And thus, see my comment above, if you get this. The laws that favor religious intervention in politics is where the main problems lie. Divorce yourself from the political arguments or recognize how any political 'side' has the same biases in its relative extremes. [Even the middle has such 'extremes' where they pick and choose beliefs based upon their own familiar backgrounds (such as the Trudeaus' here.)]

[Immanuel Can]

The laws that favor religious intervention in politics is where the main problems lie.

There are none, that I know of, where you live.

Where are "religions" invited to "intervene" in politics? What are you thinking of? And what "problem" do they cause?

[Scott Mayers]

The laws that favor religious intervention in politics is where the main problems lie.

There are none, that I know of, where you live.

Where are "religions" invited to "intervene" in politics? What are you thinking of? And what "problem" do they cause?

PART I
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

This is Canada's 1982 introduction to our Constitution. It (in)dic(t)ates that 'we' are at minimal a system WITH religious conditions that take precedence.

Futhermore, we support the Catholic PRIVATE system of schools as an option for all parents to REDIRECT their taxes to specifically and our system protects ANY fault against the Church or to those other religions that they alone get the significant right to pass (or not pass) as 'legitimate'.

We are a religious state here and do NOT have a First Amemdment type clause that demands an isolation of church from state.

Note for example how our system has granted all Natives a compensation package for the supposed abuses of the Residential School System WITH the Supreme Court denying any right of them to literally POINT to particular people at fault. As such, the buy out of the faults agsinst Natives due specifically to the Catholic and Anglican churches but are intentionally BLOCKED from actual charges of abuse. As such, our system absolutely protects the Catholic (and Anglican 'catholic') churches and any religion in general. Instead, they dictate that the problems are due ONLY to some generic 'colonialism' of ANYONE from the Old World. It is a tactic meant to pass on the debt to the whole regardless of lack of religion and makes it a religious law.

[Immanuel Can]

The laws that favor religious intervention in politics is where the main problems lie.

There are none, that I know of, where you live.

Where are "religions" invited to "intervene" in politics? What are you thinking of? And what "problem" do they cause?

PART I
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

This is Canada's 1982 introduction to our Constitution. It dicates that 'we' are at minimal a system WITH religious conditions that take precedence.

That's pretty thin, Scott. Many national constitutions give a tip-of-the-hat to God in the beginning, usually without even specifying which "god" is in view, and then bustle on into the real meat of the matter.

What I'm wondering is which Canadian laws and policies favour "religion," and why are they such a "main problem"?

Futhermore, we support the Catholic PRIVATE system of schools as an option for all parents to REDIRECT their taxes to specifically and our system protects ANY fault against the Church or to those other religions that they alone get the significant right to pass (or not pass) as 'legitimate'.

That's a provision of Confederation, actually. If you're going to live in a country that was constituted by negotiation with the French, you're going to end up with some compromises in values.

We are a religious state here

Canada's highly secular and overwhelmingly Leftist. Look at all their political parties.

and do NOT have a First Amemdment type clause that demands an isolation of church from state.

That's true. But outside of Quebec, where Catholicism still has special privileges, what "religion" dominates your landscape?

[Scott Mayers]

There are none, that I know of, where you live.

Where are "religions" invited to "intervene" in politics? What are you thinking of? And what "problem" do they cause?

PART I
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

This is Canada's 1982 introduction to our Constitution. It dicates that 'we' are at minimal a system WITH religious conditions that take precedence.

That's pretty thin, Scott. Many national constitutions give a tip-of-the-hat to God in the beginning, usually without even specifying which "god" is in view, and then bustle on into the real meat of the matter.

What I'm wondering is which Canadian laws and policies favour "religion," and why are they such a "main problem"?

The problem with asserting triviality of its opening statement is that is CONDITIONS what is minimally necessary in consideration of what follows. This is a Constitution, not something that you can pick and choose which words have value. They ALL have value or they wouldn't be there.

The intention of this preamble was a PRECONDITION because it later grants privileges specifically to the historical founders of this country and its 'distinct' status they grant to Natives and to Quebec (along with the arrogant Loyalists who hated the idea of the U.S. foundation against religious imposition of a set of 'superior' beings (the Royalty) who get to further add conditions if they so choose to in the future. That the Queen alive is not presently concerned to dictate is moot given the laws still reserves her right to actually stop a bill from being passed! She too represents the "Anglican" version of the catholic Pope.

Futhermore, we support the Catholic PRIVATE system of schools as an option for all parents to REDIRECT their taxes to specifically and our system protects ANY fault against the Church or to those other religions that they alone get the significant right to pass (or not pass) as 'legitimate'.

That's a provision of Confederation, actually. If you're going to live in a country that was constituted by negotiation with the French, you're going to end up with some compromises in values.

OR, we could start over and permit the PEOPLE to have a say in their own constitution that WE were not permitted! Historical precedence should no grant SPECIAL privilege that is ENTRENCHED IN PERPETUITY to some specific subset of people or it is definitely prejudiced against some people by virtue of nothing they can possibly do. I did not sign any fucking contract to assert some INFERIORITY to a Royal class nor to those people's of the past who utilized their power to recreate the laws to be 'free' at our 'enslavement' to their hopeful compassion.

We are a religious state here

Canada's highly secular and overwhelmingly Leftist. Look at all their political parties.

and do NOT have a First Amemdment type clause that demands an isolation of church from state.

That's true. But outside of Quebec, where Catholicism still has special privileges, what "religion" dominates your landscape?

What are you asking? If you are stating by implication some relative 'privilege' to other beliefs being permitted, this is ONLY at the auspicies of the government's UNFORMALIZED compassion. That is, there is no law that assures that all people are equal EXCEPT by those SPECIAL privileged rulers who still have the RIGHT in perpetuity to deny others their rights. And our system is NOT open to ALL religions either. We deny other non-Christian religions to practice where they are not in subserviance to accepting the superiority of Christianity and of the particular churches entrenched in that very Constitution.

That same constitution is what gave the very "multiculturalism" that you yourself seem to be against without recognizing that that very clause suffices to assure that all the special class rights presented take PRECEDENCE (an exception to the other rules)!

[Immanuel Can]

...Natives...Quebec...Loyalists...Royalty...the Queen

Okay, help me out here. How are any of these "religious" groups, and what "problem" have they caused you?

Historical precedence should no grant SPECIAL privilege that is ENTRENCHED IN PERPETUITY to some specific subset of people or it is definitely prejudiced against some people by virtue of nothing they can possibly do.

Okay, there's an example. The "bilingualism" requirement limits federal employees to about 18% of the population, mostly Quebeckers. That's prejudicial, I agree...but I don't see any "religious" element to it. That seems, if anything, ethno-favoritism if not outright racism.

That is, there is no law that assures that all people are equal EXCEPT by those SPECIAL privileged rulers who still have the RIGHT in perpetuity to deny others their rights. [/quote]
Well, the "Distinct Society" clause certainly does that.

We deny other non-Christian religions to practice where they are not in subserviance to accepting the superiority of Christianity and of the particular churches entrenched in that very Constitution.

That's obviously not true.

Canada nowadays is full of mosques, Buddhist and Sikh temples, synagogues, and a wide variety of other religious places of practice. Only the Muslims get designated prayer rooms in public institutions, and all major religious holidays have to be equally given consideration. Meanwhile, many of the traditions of Christianity are increasingly suppressed and removed from public view. So I don't know what you're imagining.

[Scott Mayers]

...Natives...Quebec...Loyalists...Royalty...the Queen

Okay, help me out here. How are any of these "religious" groups, and what "problem" have they caused you?

It wouldn't "help" me out here [...but would you for your attempt to divert away from the argument]. You are now accepting the very thing you deny of others simply because you think that you would be kind as a relative ruler? Are you accepting that Canada is an intolerant state but that 'we' should be so happy for whatever accidental freedoms that the LEGALLY religious persons have contingently permitted?

The abuser to his/her wife or children when someone complains about how 'unfair' they are being towards them:
"You have a roof over your head and food in your stomach, do you not? So why are you so selfish to not recognize the benefits you have in contrast to others that I sacrificed my all to give you? Maybe I should prove to you how cruel reality CAN sincerely be by kicking you out on the street and strip the very clothes off your back that I paid for so selfishly then?" [actual abuser's assertions and actions, likely atypical]

And why did you leave out Catholics and Anglicans here in asking me with your list? I put these there too and only added what you listed as supporting factors dependent upon the Constitution. Note for instance that the Queen is the POPE of the Church of England (Anglican) to which all references to Royalty is dependant upon. Thus that list is about the religious ideals that conserve them as meaningful at a minimal.

You also ignored the meaning of a preamble as a CONDITIONAL statement! In logic, the conditions' antecedent asserts that the consequential part is necessary where the condition is merely sufficient. This means that you CAN have the consequences that are true or false with respect to the antecedent but that when or where the antecedent is AFFIRMED, what follows MUST be accepted. That is, the rulers are permitted to enable consequent realities but IF or WHERE they disagree, they alone are permitted to overrule them.

I even gave the example of the Residential School benefits to Natives as proof of this preamble taking its lead: the Supreme Court ruled that no one accepting the benefit is allowed to press direct charges against any priest or other person involved in any abuses that occurred in these schools.

The fact that we have a voucher law that permits those wanting to place their kids in Separate schools based upon religious beliefs AND that transfers any money from the non-religious school system is another example of religious law making.

Okay, there's an example. The "bilingualism" requirement limits federal employees to about 18% of the population, mostly Quebeckers. That's prejudicial, I agree...but I don't see any "religious" element to it. That seems, if anything, ethno-favoritism if not outright racism.

That is, there is no law that assures that all people are equal EXCEPT by those SPECIAL privileged rulers who still have the RIGHT in perpetuity to deny others their rights.

Well, the "Distinct Society" clause certainly does that.[/quote]
IF one is racist or sexist, it is based ONLY on some anti-rational belief based SPECIFICALLY on one's religious beliefs. How can one argue they have some superior or inferior natural status if it isn't stating something religious? The reason the Americans are up in arms about this is precisely because it enables laws regarding such intrinsic beliefs about what is 'natural', when Nature itself could care less. That is, Nature doesn't dictate what is or is not 'superior' nor 'inferior'. As such, the latent racism or sexism that exist HAVE to relay that these persons believing these laws are using some religious belief.

We deny other non-Christian religions to practice where they are not in subserviance to accepting the superiority of Christianity and of the particular churches entrenched in that very Constitution.

That's obviously not true.

Canada nowadays is full of mosques, Buddhist and Sikh temples, synagogues, and a wide variety of other religious places of practice. Only the Muslims get designated prayer rooms in public institutions, and all major religious holidays have to be equally given consideration. Meanwhile, many of the traditions of Christianity are increasingly suppressed and removed from public view. So I don't know what you're imagining.

The reasoning behind accepting new people is due to the fact that people by default here are becoming LESS religious and more inclusive. This means that there is an increasing population demanding INTEGRATION. But, if one invites outsiders who also believe in Segregating their own, this actually EMPOWERS the established wealth who ARE Christian here because they can encourage everyone to embrace their identities based upon such genetic cultural beliefs of coinciding religions.

But as I already asserted to which you have to prove otherwise, is that our consitution permanently asserts some people as having superior 'rights' based upon their religious and cultural associations.

I also hold that countries such as Israel are also 'religious' because their consitution has the precedence to protect Judaism given its religion is the only thing that holds claim to territory they stole. They also permit Mosques there too as well as Chritians. ...but NOT without the precedence of respect of the Jewish authority with priority.

So your presumptions of relative variation is moot. The establishment also adapted the privilege of the Natives to be distinct NATIONS in the same way as Quebec precisely to DENY others they do not approve of in the general population by indirectly FAVORING those subpopulations. They don't care about the Natives in particular but only use them as a means to ISOLATE their representation among the poor whom their plurality here dominates. This acts as a means to PREVENT collectives of a non-religious nature to collect. By encouraging a variety of cultural beliefs IN POSITED LAWS, they are intentionally segregating them from other poor pluralities thus EMPOWERING those who are defaulted to the power that would otherwise wane.

[Immanuel Can]

...Natives...Quebec...Loyalists...Royalty...the Queen

Okay, help me out here. How are any of these "religious" groups, and what "problem" have they caused you?

You are now accepting...

I didn't "accept" anything. I just asked you a question. If you don't want to answer, okay.

..the Queen is the POPE of the Church of England...

Well, not really. She actually has no ecclesiastical functions anymore. What's more, she's not even more than a mere figurehead in Canada, and Anglicanism is a dying group there.

...the Supreme Court ruled that no one accepting the benefit is allowed to press direct charges against any priest or other person involved in any abuses that occurred in these schools.

That's routine. If you take a bribe and sign a non-disclosure agreement, then you can't disclose without losing the money. But the solution is simple: don't take the bribe. Then you can prosecute all those pedophiles to the full extent of the law.

The fact that we have a voucher law that permits those wanting to place their kids in Separate schools based upon religious beliefs AND that transfers any money from the non-religious school system is another example of religious law making.

Only the Catholics and the Aboriginals have that privilege. And yes, I agree it's discriminatory. The UN has twice condemned Canada officially for doing that, but Canada doesn't care.

But since the victims of that discrimination are religious people, I don't see that helps your case at all.

How can one argue they have some superior or inferior natural status if it isn't stating something religious?

Oh, very easily. You could claim to be racially, or culturally superior, superior in gender, superior in intellect, or superior in athleticism, or in many other ways. There's nothing inherently "religious" about discrimination.

The reasoning behind accepting new people is due to the fact that people by default here are becoming LESS religious and more inclusive.

Oh, not at all. Canada is officially fond of "multicuturalist" ideology, and pours billions into it every year. Canada prides itself on being "the Cultural Mosaic," instead of like America, "the Cultural Melting Pot." Canada has long been quite happy to let people retain their own beliefs and practices while remaining Canadian...favouring only the French, and more recently, Aboriginals.

But as I already asserted to which you have to prove otherwise, is that our consitution permanently asserts some people as having superior 'rights' based upon their religious and cultural associations.

Now, there's no implication of that in the quotation you gave. It could refer to the Christian God, or the Jewish, Muslim or other gods, or to the Aboriginal Great Spirit, for that matter. So that's a lame argument, Scott.