[Mustang1]

CanAm1 wrote:

But we also must stand firm when we feel something is wrong no matter how the dissenter feels.

Stand firm, but that doesn't mean you're "right" nor does it mean your view supersedes others.

Quote:

Otherwise we have anarchy

Please look up the proper definition of "anarchy" as i'm not playing the rhetoric game.

Quote:

Prior to the decision in 88 abortion was a crime. In those years Morgentaller was a jailed criminal.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court, it was a law the contravened Sec. 7. It was, in fact, one that wasn't demonstrably justifiable in Canadian law.

Quote:

It's too bad in my opinion that the death penalty wasn't around then.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.

Quote:

Back on point, so we have awarded to a known fellon a medal. Now that is ironic isn't it.

So, you'll be objecting to Nelson Mandela? Interesting.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish wrote:

This is what strikes me also about some anti choice/pro-life types. In every other areans they want to kill, kil, kill. If there's a whiff of war, they want in. Capital punishment--they want to string up everyone down to the jaywalkers. African starvation--no problem that going over and killing a few thousand bad actors wouldn't help. Torture--bring it on, baby, the more the merrier.

But then when the abortion debate comes up it's all about "killing the poor little babies." Gimme a break--now, suddenly, you're against killing?

That hypocritical stand is one of the main reasons that turned me off Christianity. Personally, I believe Jesus/God would be sickened by the so-called 'evangelicals' in the West.

[lily]

bootlegga wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

This is what strikes me also about some anti choice/pro-life types. In every other areans they want to kill, kil, kill. If there's a whiff of war, they want in. Capital punishment--they want to string up everyone down to the jaywalkers. African starvation--no problem that going over and killing a few thousand bad actors wouldn't help. Torture--bring it on, baby, the more the merrier.

But then when the abortion debate comes up it's all about "killing the poor little babies." Gimme a break--now, suddenly, you're against killing?

That hypocritical stand is one of the main reasons that turned me off Christianity. Personally, I believe Jesus/God would be sickened by the so-called 'evangelicals' in the West.

*sigh*

There are plenty of us pro-lifers that are just that.

Quit generalizing. It's not pretty from either side.

[Robair]

bootlegga wrote:

That hypocritical stand is one of the main reasons that turned me off Christianity. Personally, I believe Jesus/God would be sickened by the so-called 'evangelicals' in the West.

That's a very small offshoot of the religion. Southern Baptists etc... Ask the Pope how he feels about the death penalty or the war in Iraq.

[Mr_Canada]

Immature tools, all of them.

Get over it, losers.

[kenmore]

Cool.. all these people returning the medals will save us some $$$ .. we can recycle them.. any murders out there that would like one?

[bootlegga]

Robair wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

That hypocritical stand is one of the main reasons that turned me off Christianity. Personally, I believe Jesus/God would be sickened by the so-called 'evangelicals' in the West.

That's a very small offshoot of the religion. Southern Baptists etc... Ask the Pope how he feels about the death penalty or the war in Iraq.

Good for the Pope. I wasn't Catholic, I went to Protestant churches. Maybe that's the problem...maybe not.

lily wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

This is what strikes me also about some anti choice/pro-life types. In every other areans they want to kill, kil, kill. If there's a whiff of war, they want in. Capital punishment--they want to string up everyone down to the jaywalkers. African starvation--no problem that going over and killing a few thousand bad actors wouldn't help. Torture--bring it on, baby, the more the merrier.

But then when the abortion debate comes up it's all about "killing the poor little babies." Gimme a break--now, suddenly, you're against killing?

That hypocritical stand is one of the main reasons that turned me off Christianity. Personally, I believe Jesus/God would be sickened by the so-called 'evangelicals' in the West.

*sigh*

There are plenty of us pro-lifers that are just that.

Quit generalizing. It's not pretty from either side.

I'm glad you are, but the vast majority of the people who attended the same churches as I were not. Maybe it's worse here in Alberta than BC, but I've heard many conversions cheering nutjobs who killed abortion doctors and others wanting the death penalty brought back. Everything I heard flew in the face of everything Jesus taught. He never taught about vengeance, but about turning the other cheek. He praised the poor woman who gave 1 coin and chastised the rich man who gave 10.

The problem I've found is that people pick and choose what they like from the Bible. Despite Jesus' teachings, many still spout "An eye for an eye" and similar Old Testament crap. I'm surprised we've gotten past stoning adulterers...

[Robair]

It doesn't sound to me like you have a problem with Christianity...

[hwacker]

McGill ethicist refused OC because she was 'too controversial'
Margaret Somerville, who is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, was left off list

HENRY AUBIN
The Gazette


Tuesday, July 08, 2008
The appointment to the Order of Canada last week of Henry Morgentaler, the highest profile proponent of one side of Canada's most divisive social, religious and political issue of the last generation, is raising important questions about the Order.

Has the Order taken on a special political agenda? If so, what role does such a bias play when the Order decides which candidates to admit into its august ranks and which to reject?

In dealing with these questions, let's put aside our personal opinions on abortion and other sensitive issues. Those views are irrelevant to this discussion. The point is to understand what makes the Order tick. It's the business of you and me and all Canadians to know the answer because the Order is acting on our behalf in choosing - and refusing - to honour certain individuals for their contributions to society.

The Order's receptiveness to new, taboo-breaking social mores was evident well before the Morgentaler appointment. The Order last year approved the candidacy of Brent Hawkes, a Toronto cleric who performed Canada's first same-sex marriage. Also last year, the Order appointed writer Jane Vance Rule, lauding her specifically for "populating her novels with homosexual as well as heterosexual characters." And when it honoured Jean Chrétien, the Order put a curious emphasis on his support for same-sex unions.

Few people, even critics of gay rights, made a fuss. I think most Canadians thought the Order was making an effort to reflect a significant current of public opinion. It's hard to be against broad-mindedness.

Now, however, it suddenly turns out that the Order is not so broad-minded after all. It has refused admission to Margaret Somerville, the McGill University ethicist who is a leading critic of the social views that the Order welcomes.

An objective observer would say Somerville has unusually strong Order-worthy credentials. She breaks out of the ivory tower at every opportunity to contribute to legal and ethical debates over such issues as stem- cell research, euthanasia, biotechnology, animal research, nuclear-waste management and so on. Whether or not you agree with her, there's no denying that her calm and logical approach helps sharpen public debate.

Somerville did not, of course, apply for membership - no one ever does - but was nominated two years ago by a faculty member of the Toronto School of Theology, Carol Finlay. Finlay says the Order told her it had turned Somerville down because she's controversial.

That's hilarious. Morgentaler is many times more controversial.

It's hard to know who else the Order might have rebuffed since it keeps names of failed candidates confidential. And the rejection of one person does not make a trend. Still, the Somerville case says a lot about the Order's tastes. She has been critical of both abortion and gay marriage. In 2006, when the Order was weighing her candidacy, some 15 Ryerson University faculty members turned their backs to her when their school gave her an honourary degree.

"Political correctness operates by shutting down non-politically correct people's freedom of speech," she said in a speech in Vancouver in June. "Anyone who challenges the politically correct stance is automatically labelled as intolerant, a bigot or hatemonger." Or simply barred at the door, as this case suggests.

The contrasting treatments that the Order has accorded Morgentaler and Somerville reflects on more than the intellectual climate in that little organization. It hints at a far broader climate. The Order's 10-member advisory council, the body that screens candidates and makes recommendations to the governor-general for rubberstamping, is headed by Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin. The Globe and Mail reports she "drove" Morgentaler's candidacy.

Other members include the acting chair of the Canada Council, the chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the head of the Royal Society of Canada's academies of arts, humanities and sciences. These are the country's cultural gatekeepers.

Don't feel sad for Somerville. She has earned tons of honours around the world and doesn't need another one. Save your concern for the tarnished prestige of the Order itself. And think about what this says about the intellectual climate in the country's top court and scholarly bastions.

Read readers' comments on Henry Morgentaler's appointment at montrealgazette.com/soundoff

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008

[lily]

bootlegga wrote:

I'm glad you are, but the vast majority of the people who attended the same churches as I were not. Maybe it's worse here in Alberta than BC, but I've heard many conversions cheering nutjobs who killed abortion doctors and others wanting the death penalty brought back. Everything I heard flew in the face of everything Jesus taught. He never taught about vengeance, but about turning the other cheek. He praised the poor woman who gave 1 coin and chastised the rich man who gave 10.

The problem I've found is that people pick and choose what they like from the Bible. Despite Jesus' teachings, many still spout "An eye for an eye" and similar Old Testament crap. I'm surprised we've gotten past stoning adulterers...

I was raised in the United Church of Canada. We're more liberal-minded.

[CanAm1]

DerbyX wrote:

CanAm1 wrote:

Mustang1 wrote:

Welcome to the liberal democracy - it means your voice is heard, but it doesn't mean it's more important than your dissenter's.

here here! well said.
We should all take note of that fact on here, me first.

But we also must stand firm when we feel something is wrong no matter how the dissenter feels. Otherwise we have anarchy. Prior to the decision in 88 abortion was a crime. In those years Morgentaller was a jailed criminal. It's too bad in my opinion that the death penalty wasn't around then.
Then we wouldn't be discussing this award at all.
Back on point, so we have awarded to a known fellon a medal. Now that is ironic isn't it.

Nelson Mandela was jailed also. In fact how many civil rights advocates have gone to jail for their beliefs throughout history.


I guess "killing is killing" and "murder is murder" really means "whatever you justify as killing is OK and whatever you don't isn't".

We agree!
Also I knew Mandela was going to come up and I chose not to address it in my previous post.
Mandela was fighting for the freedom of a whole race of people against a great injustice.
Hardly compares to a person that just wants to take life. Hmmm...One is fighting for life one for death, doesn't seem like such a tough decision for me but for some of you it is.

[CanAm1]

beefcake wrote:

It's too bad ol henry wasnt in the dust bin of history!

He will be soon enough. Then he will get his just recompence. A day of reckoning indeed.

[CanAm1]

hwacker wrote:

McGill ethicist refused OC because she was 'too controversial'
Margaret Somerville, who is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, was left off list

Very revealing article! Not good. These intellectual treadmills have to go

[CanAm1]

Mustang1 wrote:

CanAm1 wrote:

But we also must stand firm when we feel something is wrong no matter how the dissenter feels.

Stand firm, but that doesn't mean you're "right" nor does it mean your view supersedes others.

Quote:

Otherwise we have anarchy

Please look up the proper definition of "anarchy" as i'm not playing the rhetoric game.

Quote:

Prior to the decision in 88 abortion was a crime. In those years Morgentaller was a jailed criminal.

Actually, according to the Supreme Court, it was a law the contravened Sec. 7. It was, in fact, one that wasn't demonstrably justifiable in Canadian law.

Quote:

It's too bad in my opinion that the death penalty wasn't around then.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's all it is.

Quote:

Back on point, so we have awarded to a known fellon a medal. Now that is ironic isn't it.

So, you'll be objecting to Nelson Mandela? Interesting.

I agreed with you on the first point.
The second point is semantics.
The third point you make is forgetting the fact that it still was a criminal offense.
The fourth point you just restated what I did. "My opinion."
And the fifth I addressed in another post, knowing that was going to come up.

Look I am not disagreeing with you on point of my voice vs others voices. But if a nation of people roll over everytime someone else has a dissenting view to yours we become a nation of wimps. If everyone waited to do something in this world only when a concensus was made of 100% of the people nothing would ever get done.

[Mustang1]

CanAm1 wrote:

The second point is semantics.

Nope. It's about the proper use of the term - you used it incorrectly suggesting that either it's empty rhetoric or a lack of knowledge.

Quote:

The third point you make is forgetting the fact that it still was a criminal offense.

Supreme Court disagreed with ya' hence my inclusion of the provisions.

Quote:

And the fifth I addressed in another post, knowing that was going to come up.

You addressed it poorly - if we take your logic, then ALL convicted criminals (and I'm claiming its hard to see Morgentaler as one since the law was deemed in violation of the Charter) should be turfed. Oh and just to counter your point, Canadians would argue that in some ways Morgenatler granted freedom to women under sec. 7.

Quote:

But if a nation of people roll over everytime someone else has a dissenting view to yours we become a nation of wimps.

You're erroneously assuming they're "rolling over". Perhaps they've been persuaded by a superior argument or perhaps they understand the complex nature of liberal democracies and can be conciliatory.

Quote:

If everyone waited to do something in this world only when a concensus was made of 100% of the people nothing would ever get done.

True. That's why we have a Charter and that's why Morgentaler has an Order of Canada.