Monday, December 12, 2005


Controversy is not what I intend to label myself against.But I am a firm believer that while life should not be taken serious all the time(yes,we all need to relax sometimes) there are some things that worth being given minutes of thoughts and analysis. One of my blog friends warned me not to believe everything I read. What he forgot to warn me about is what to do when believing or not believing is not a matter but just looking around and agree or not. Read this piece and look who is standing around you!


Bryan said...

That was quite an interesting article. Anywyas i saw that you were interested in joining a debate club.(i saw this at mandoras site I want to make you a team member but i first need your email addres. If you send me the adress then you can become a member.

Amelopsis said...

The article you link to is thankfully a personal opinion. Unfortunately there are many among us who would have their personal conservative opinions and values be the benchmark that we all must follow and be judged. A testament to our freedoms is how we, as a nation, protect the rights and freedoms of those who would harm no one, but who would act or do other than we might ourselves.
The author of the piece is no doubt a neoConservative supporter in my humble opinion.

The Intolerant One said...

Thank you for this article Jeff. I find it to be historically accurate. For those who do not believe in God (or would like to believe in a god who serve's their own self interests) it is much easier for them to dismiss it as "conservative" opinions.

However, that should not invalidate what has been stated. A truly open minded individual would take the time to consider what has been presented. I stand by what I have told to you in the past...weigh the evidence of what has been said(research if you must) and come to your own conclusions. I, personally, would support this article.

Moral relativism (everything is permissible) has proven thru out history time and again to be the downfall of many great nations. Canada is no different. We will suffer the same fate eventually.

Jeff Msangi said...

The intolerant One,(what is your other name?This one is too long to write) you have impressed me than usual with the comment you have written here.I admire and agree with what you have said here.
Our sister also makes a good point about "freedom".The question to ponder remains,how much freedom to grant?

The Intolerant One said...

The brothers in the motorcycle club I am in call me Q-TIP. I hope that is more convenient.

I agree about the "freedom" comment but only to a certain extent. Speaking as a parent, if I allowed my children the kind of freedom that the world seems to propose I would have utter chaos in my home. Society requires certain restrictions that prevent them from harming themselves.

Allow me to put this in perspective. When a child is drawn to the orange glow of a stove element naturally their curiosity is peaked and they want to touch it. What "appears" warm and inviting is actually quite a deceptive and harmful danger to them. As a loving parent you would warn your child to immediatly stop so they do not injure themselves. This is an act of love and protection, not of someone trying to impose or restrict freedoms.

Imagine, though, if your child turned and said to you "How dare you take away "my right" to exercise my fundemental freedom to touch the stove!" I am sure you would still try to prevent them from doing so, but unfourtantley some children need to learn the hard way. I see this as reflection of our current society.

After looking back on society failures over the course of history...the bigger and more important question becomes

"How many times do we want to learn the same lesson over and over again?"

This begins define insanity.

Not all "freedoms" are a good thing.

mandora said...

The problem that I have is who gets to decide which freedoms are or are not a good thing?

Personally, I have a problem with the way the Canadian system is set up, in that our elected representatives (ie- the ones who get to make the rules) can be elected by less than 1/3 of Canada's population. Unless the majority agrees, how can it be democratic? And, how can we then suggest that any laws/policies/restrictions imposed by this undemocratic system have any legitimacy? This then leads to the obvious question (as we witnessed in Quebec recently), to what extent does it need to be a majority for something to be legitimate if it affects everyone? Should my personal freedoms (or yours, or anyone elses) be restricted because 51% of the population suggest that whatever I want to do is a bad idea?

Case in point - gay marriage. Why can the government decide who can love one another? To speak of gay marriage as a voteable issue is obsurd. The only people that it impacts are those people IN a gay relationship... they should be allowed to make the decision to marry or not, the same as everyone else. I have yet to hear a solid arguement for how this will infringe on the rights of other people, and thus has any grounds of being restricted by the government/a legitimate referendum-type issue. Under the Charter there is no legitimacy to restrict marriage to a man and a woman and the charter is supposed to defend and define our freedoms. When arbitrary laws/policies are created to restrict freedoms without the consent of the nation as a whole, that's where I have an issue.

The Intolerant One said...

Mandora: Did you hack into my blogger dashboard? Or are you doing as I have suspected all along...drawing me into the same sex debate?(LOL)

Some of the things you mention I was addressing in my debate piece. If a solid arguement regarding on how this will infringe on the rights of other people is what you have yet to hear then stay tuned. I, personally, have already expeirenced religious discrimination on both Provincial and Federal levels due to this very legislation.

I will explain in my debate piece.

mandora said...

I can't wait. :)

But be warned, this is a hot topic for me, so be prepared for a good argument on my end.