Cultural Genocide

[nothing]

No one takes any notice of lunatics who talk about 'beasts' and quote genesis

...is that discluding yourself, who clearly read it, and responded? lol

you! you! you! <-*local collapse due to enmity

In any case: it's better people not notice me - flying under the radar serves much better than whiners and squealers piling on me.

By the way:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=27676

regarding 'lunacy': identifying by way of (ie. as) one's own thought process is 'lunacy'. The above thread (authored by myself) provides a solution that effectively severs one from their own thought-process thus:

I think, therefor I am (?)

the lunacy (?) of which becomes:

I think not, knowing I am willing not to think.

A proper "lunatic" would not have been able to find it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No one takes any notice of lunatics who talk about 'beasts' and quote genesis

...is that discluding yourself, who clearly read it, and responded? lol

you! you! you! <-*local collapse due to enmity

In any case: it's better people not notice me - flying under the radar serves much better than whiners and squealers piling on me.

By the way:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=27676

regarding 'lunacy': identifying by way of (ie. as) one's own thought process is 'lunacy'. The above thread (authored by myself) provides a solution that effectively severs one from their own thought-process thus:

I think, therefor I am (?)

the lunacy (?) of which becomes:

I think not, knowing I am willing not to think.

A proper "lunatic" would not have been able to find it.

You don't have to scan much of it to recognise the ravings of a complete fruitcake (there have been a few on here).

[Age]

You have already been informed and explained that if you do not quote the name "age" directly just once in your replies, then I do not get a notice, and then I might miss your replies and so will not respond. Some might infer that your continuation of doing this means you do not want me to see your replies and/or do not want me to respond to 'you'.

Lol
Lol
LOL

Is this how your ckiit will work to create World Peace?

How long do your propose World Peace will be the norm with that kind of attitude?

World peace doesn't depend on me - the fallibility of any being will be reached before CKIIT, because CKIIT is infallible (it is designed that way).

I ALREADY KNEW World Peace does NOT depend on 'you', "nothing". World Peace depends on Everything, OBVIOUSLY.

By the way, YOUR responses did NOT answer the simple clarifying question I asked you.

LOL the unknown and purposely kept secret, "ckiit" is infallible. Well we will NEVER know if it is infallible or not if we NEVER get informed of what it actually IS.

Would you like people to take you seriously?

No: they are better off taking truth seriously. Muhammad utilized Allah to satiate his own sexual lust.

Are you providing ANOTHER EXAMPLE here of when you say just how WRONG it is to look at the person, by doing the exact same and SHOWING how 'you' just look at the person?

Lol

Why do you invariably love muslim women?

A number of reasons - some are personal, some relate to A'isha being more right than Muhammad was. After all, she and Hafsa are alleged to have poisoned Muhammad in order to expedite his demise.

Are you at all aware that some of the female gender of 'you', human beings, say that muhammed was someone who fought very strongly for women's rights, and that this can be clearly seen in mohammed's writings?

Some authors suggest that Muḥammadʼs death was the result of the combined effect of the poison he was given on the two occasions. Al-Majlisī (d. 1110/1699), for example, states that the poisons given to him in the mutton and by the two women acted conjointly to bring about his martyrdom. 37 Similarly, Niʿmat Allāh al-Jazāʾirī (d. 1112/1700–1701) notes that once Abū Bakr and ʿUmar knew they would succeed the Prophet they ordered ʿĀʾisha and Ḥaf ṣa to give him poison in order to hasten his demise (taʿjīlan ʿalā itlāfihi). The daughters did as they were told,‘
and this was the cause of his death, in addition to the traces in (or: effect on) his noble body of the poison which the Jewish woman of Khaybar
had placed in the roast lambʼ

https://www.academia.edu/5323343/Sh%C4% ... =thumbnail

Sounds, to me, like a very evil or distorted reason why to "invariably love muslim women". But each to their own.

But, once again, 'you' are completely WRONG.

You OBVIOUSLY, once again, MISSED the point I was making.

My observations are invariably correct. They are confirmed by CKIIT (to which you are being subjected) and your POC (point-of-collapse) is already predicted.

If you make an assumption of what the thoughts are within this body and I tell 'you' that your assumptions are WRONG, but then you actually BELIEVE that your assumptions/observations are NOT wrong and are invariably CORRECT, then so be it. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Universe, which you SHOW 'you' thee actual Truth of things.

But I thank you for ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of someone STUCK in their own BELIEFS, no matter how DISTORTED and WRONG they ARE.

What 'adonishment'?

But 'you', "nothing", are the 'believer' here.

Did 'you' forget I do not believe any thing?

Genesis 2:17
I only believe in possibilities I know are possible - that is the only viability of "belief": still an acknowledgement of what is unknown(s).

But you have already proven that you do not believe in possibilities. 'you' do NOT even believe in the possibility that your own beliefs could be wrong.

You are certainly rooted in 'belief': it is entirely consistent with your own ignorance of the admonishment of Genesis 2:17.

And you are STILL INCAPABLE of clarifying what you BELIEVE is True and just defining the words you use, which says a great deal about what 'you' do NOT know.

WHAT "theorem"?

So, my very words, which you quote me here, which is where I am pointing out that you just re-repeat things without ever clarifying, nor elaborating on, your response to that is, to just re-repeat some thing AGAIN, without talking about or clarifying what it actually is.

I have absolutely NO idea what "the theorem" IS.

You're not supposed to know - nobody is.

Ah okay. Well that does explain this perfectly. Thank you.

The predictive power/potency of the theorem mandates that it be a controlled process. As already indicated: this process begins in 2020 and will have its own global platform that has nothing to do with these forums.

Oh, does the process only begin in the year known as 2020. When will the process, whatever that is, be finished?

But I do NOT believe that.

Are you saying that there is NOTHING that 'you' believe?

If yes, then great.

we have a lit in common. So, is that your answer?

It is your own "belief" that I am a "believer" hence: the accuser is the accused.

What part of the words, 'I do NOT believe any thing', can you NOT follow, and do you NOT understand? In case you are STILL UNCLEAR, this means that I do NOT have a "belief". Is this now understood?

When I ask 'you' to clarify whether 'you' BELIEVE any thing or NOT, then that is your chance to CLARIFY.

Some times you say you are a BELIEVER but other times you suggest that you are NOT.

So, what are we to make of this contradiction and confusion, which 'you' convey?

It's the same fascist pig Canaanite methodology of scapegoating one's own internal 'state' onto others. You are a "believer" who "believes" that I am a "believer". The "belief" begins (and ends) with you.

But I do NOT believe that you are believer, which can be obviously proven CORRECT. I have only EVER asked if you are a BELIEVER?

In case you are unaware this asking is NOT claiming, these are two VERY DIFFERENT things.

The Truth is 'you' calling me a "believer" shows who has the BELIEF here.

Lol 'you' could NOT be MORE wrong even if you wanted to be and tried to be.

The opposite is true: I could not be more right.

'you' BELIEVING that 'you' KNOW what is going on inside this body, which is NOT the body 'you' are in, SHOWS just HOW WRONG and DISTORTED 'you' REALLY ARE.

It is the reason you incessantly attempt to you! you! you! me and others.

Is it?

Of the hundreds of billions of galaxies, ours is but one (a tiny speck) within which our solar system is a tiny-tiny speck, within which our planet is a tiny-tiny-tiny speck, upon which you discard all of this and focus on a single being: you! you! you!

And this LOOKING AT 'you' is driving 'you' INSANE, correct?

The Truth IS, 'you' do NOT want to LOOK AT 'you', and instead 'you' want to LOOK AT and CONCENTRATE on "others" ONLY, correct?

This is how shallow and pathetic Canaanites are. Hence: the theorem maps a torus field such that it satisfies any condition in-and-of this cosmos.

Fair enough. I am excited and curious to SEE this "theorem" of yours. Only six or seven more days till the process begins, correct?

1. I have NO idea what your ideas/content are BECAUSE 'you' will NOT tell us what they are. Therefore I, obviously, can NOT touch what I have NIt been exposed to YET.

2. Can you provide one example of where I have supposedly "labeled/slandered/harrassed" ANY one?

3. Are you absolutely CERTAIN that it is CERTAINLY 'my nature'?

4. Are all of your observations the actual Truth if things and never just accusations?

1. There is plenty of content out there - pick any one of my threads and/or graphics.

But that so called "content" is just your OWN BELIEFS, which has NO bearing whatsoever on what is actually True, Right, and Correct.

I am as 'you' call it "touching" what is said in writings and graphics in your threads, but the absurdity and contradictions in them is not so easily "touched" because there is just so many of them.

Also, when I ask 'you' to clarify what some thing actually means, which is said in words or graphics, then that is as 'you' call it "touching" THE "content". If your are completely incapable of clarifying things, then that has NO bearing on my ability to "touch" your "content" or not. Asking 'you' to clarify clarifying questions is a way to better and more fully understand what your "content" actually IS, so as to then SEE what parts are worth "touching" and what are NOT.

The amount of "content" that you have revealed so far, by your own admission and acknowledgement is just about, like 'you', "nothing, as 'you' have said it will not come until 2020.

2. "'you' are that type of person who if grew up in another culture who be the one HATING the culture you are in now, and would want to be and probably would be "killing" them just because they have different views from 'you'. Your hatred and disgust of islam and muslims is blindingly obvious." literally from your last reply.

Yes that is literally from one of my replies. BUT, HOW is this labeling/slandering/harassing any one?

Obviously if 'you' are so fixated on another culture, which you are, and wants to ridicule and/or rid the world of that culture, which you appear to do, then it could be observed that that type of person, like 'you', if grew up in the other culture, then could be so strongly hating other cultures as well, one of which is the one that 'you' are in now.

3. At present: yes, certainly. I can't say what the future holds for you: it depends on what you "choose".

LOL so without doubt this one human being known as "nothing" actually says without doubt that they are CERTAIN they KNOW what 'my' 'nature' IS.

So, to verify if this CLAIM is True, then explain who and what 'I' am FIRST, then proceed to explain what 'My' 'nature' IS, and then 'you' can explain who and what 'you' are, then proceed to explain what 'you' 'nature' IS, so that we can SEE what the actual 'difference' IS, which 'you' propose exists.

I await your FULLY reply.

4. Accusations can be true, but are almost invariably not if/when rooted in enmity.

So, are you saying or suggesting that when the police are prosecuting the enemy, or the criminal, with accusations, in a state or feeling of active opposition or hostility, then the accusations the police are making on those human beings will almost invariably be NOT true?

If yes, then okay.

But if no, then what are you saying or suggesting here.

Such begins the process of drawing from ones own nature such to project the substance of ones own nature in the form of an accusation.

And what is one's own, supposed, 'nature' EXACTLY?

Is there as many different 'nature's' as there as many different human beings? You really need to clarify the terms you are using here, that is; if you Truly do want to be understood and/or accepted here.

If/when institutionalized, this would be things like "Islamophobia": the House of Islam criminalizing ridicule of Islam because they are themselves "Islamophobic" however blame others for their own internal state of being.

I have no interest in what you saying here, but just so you KNOW, I have absolutely NO idea what this is about nor in relation to.

And LOL what do 'you' think 'you' are doing right here and right now?

And point out where I have supposedly "attacked the person"

If you smack someone, and they smack you back, would you whine and squeal about them smacking you?
Very much like the Palestinians: they abuse others, get abused back such that they whine and squeal.

Did you SERIOUSLY MISS my clarifying question here?

If you BELIEVE or THINK I have "attacked a person", want to make the accusation that I have, like 'you' have done, then point out WHERE this supposedly happened. Surely, even 'you' could understand this, correct?

What you wrote here has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I said and SHOWED.

Are you proposing that I am incapable of hearing some thing?

If yes, then just say here now so at least "others" can then hear and see what it is that I am supposedly "incapable of hearing".

Until then NO ONE besides 'you' has absolutely any idea about what it that 'you' are going on about. Or, maybe "veritas aequitas" might 'you' "both" appear to have the exact same amount of HATRED for the sane thing/s.

Playing the hatred card again? Did we not move past that? Why must you beat a dead horse?

Because it is 'you' who keeps saying things like: Muhammad utilized Allah to satiate his own sexual lust. and posting graphics like:

So, to answer your three questions here.

'you', "yourself", are SHOWING your hatred.
We have not yet moved past your hatred.
Because you will NOT stop REVEALING your hatred.

Also, notice how easy it really is to just answer clarifying questions, Openly and Honestly also?

If this wlis what seems to 'you', then that is perfectly okay. But what exactly made it seem like that, to 'you'?

You can not engage in a single topic without your exhausting use of 'you! 'you! 'you!'

So, this is what you wrote in your very own word:
You can not engage in a a single topic without your exhausting use of 'you! 'you! 'you!'.

Now in case 'you' or "others" are unaware of just how contradictory this is, then let us LOOK AT 'your' use of the 'you' word here.

You start out by SAYING, " 'You' can not engage ", and then go on to say, "in a single topic without 'your' ". Therefore, even in the single topic of 'you' exposing your dislike for the word 'you', 'you', "yourself", use the 'you' word AND the 'your' word. Does this mean 'you' also can not engage in a single topic without your, to 'you', "exhausting" use of the 'you' and the 'your' word? Or, does it just mean you can not NOT talk about 'me', when 'you' want to REVEAL 'your' dislike of 'me' talking about 'you'?

From this some might infer that 'you' do not care LOOKING AT 'me' or "others" but Truly hate being LOOKED AT "yourself", correct?

such to make everything personal (then attempt to blame your own derailing on the other).

But what is there to actually dis-rail?

You have said some thing about some "ckiit" which you will NOT tell us what it is, and, you have said some thing about some "theorem", which you will NOT tell us what it is. What 'you' have also done here is SHOW a hatred of mohammed, Allah, and islam, on the pretense of World Peace, which is just what have wanted to point out and SHOW.

What do 'you' think or believe has been "derailed" exactly?

It is like a gravitational collapse: as a person has less and less ability to focus on substance, they focus on 'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Are you at all AWARE that 'you' have NOT yet once focused on what the actual substance of the so called "ckiit" and the "theorem" is, but have consistently focused on 'me', and my use of the word 'you' in single quotation marks.

Is this an example of the "gravitational collapse" 'you' speak of here?

The map of CKIIT clarifies this:[/quote]

Oh great, we are FINALLY going to get some CLARITY here.

+A = Cain (collapses) = enmity and desire to spill blood
-A = Abel (expands) = (inverse of ^^^)

LOL is this what 'you' call "clarity"?

Okay, so 'you' want us to KNOW that the ones who worship mohammed's dick are victims. Fair enough. Are the ones who kill non-believers and/ir westerners also victims?

If yes, then would they still remain victims if they killed your immediate family members? Would you still help them and support them the way you are making out you are doing now?

Yes and yes - that Muhammadans take the lives of others is their own victimhood trying to make others into victims. It is like their obsession with cutting people's heads off: they are trying to make others as brainless as they themselves are.

So, when people of all countries sentence people to death in the courts, then is this because they are trying to make others as brainless as they themselves are, as well?

It is deep-rooted and they have no conscious awareness of where such impulses come from:

From what I have observed 'you' have NO actual awareness of what goes on Truthfully. For example, HOW could cutting the head of a human body and that so called "obsession" relate to those one's with the "obsession" 'trying to' make "others" as brainless as they, "themselves", are?

After 'you' answer that clarifying question, who are the "others"?
Who thinks or believes they are brainless?
Who would think or believe that cutting heads of would make "others" brainless as well?

Just about everything 'you' said in that sentence does NOT make sense to what is Real and True.

it is precisely because they are victims they would commit such atrocities. You know the expression "share the love"? Well, "share the suffering" is the mark of the "believing" Muhammadan. The problem: they suffer their own ideology.

But the ideology of mohammed and/or islam is Peace.

Also, 'you' once again diverted away from answering my clarifying question.

Obviously my question was NOT in relation to those who what 'you' call "worship mohammed's dick" and them killing "themselves". My question was obvious in relation to those who what 'you' call "worship mohammed's dick" who are STILL ALIVE after they kill your immediate family members.

Could you REALLY NOT see the difference here? I hope you can SEE the difference now, can you?

If yes, then please just answer only the clarifying question asked?

('you' really do have a very bad habit of assuming my simple clarifying questions are asking some thing else, and then answering or replying from that assumed thing instead. But do not feel to left out. I am yet to meet another adult human being who does not do the exact same thing.)

If Satan had a dick, he'd have named it BELIEF
such that the BELIEVERS are suckers of it.

Okay, if 'you' say so.

Also, 'you' MUST KNOW satan pretty well to know this.

So, if ALL people are being exploited by some "house of pig" thing, then who or what gains politically/ideologically other than that "house of pig"?

And how could ANY house gain any thing politically or idealigically?

None - Muhammad's Islam served himself, just as the House of Pig serves the swine that run it, just as Muhammadan men are the sole beneficiaries of the ideology viz. patriarchal abuse of women/children.

VERY CONTRADICTORY. One moment 'you' are saying they are ALL victims, then next moment you are saying the men are NOT the victims.

Do 'you' think 'you' could improve on 'your' ideas here somewhat?

Women are being turned into men because the House of Pig doesn't want people to realize "real" women are disappearing off the face of the planet. They are treated as an expendable in Islam.

So, how do 'you' actually turn "women" into "men".

What is the process involved?

Also, there is a thread here about this very matter, and I think you will find it in many people who BELIEVE that this just is NOT possible.

Now that is a joke. Lol when would you know this?

After questioning the principle claim(s) upon which the 'state' is constructed: the Qur'an is (laughably) certainly not the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of any god. In reality, it is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns and was scattered in pieces all over Arabia. The opposite is clearly true: the Qur'an is imperfect, imitable, altered, errant etc. I'd know Islam is thus a product of the swinery of man, and would walk away for wishing not to be a pig.

But how could 'you' if you born into that religion and from birth were taught to BELIEVE that it is absolutely True? If you were taught to BELIEVE some thing, and 'you' did BELIEVE it, then obviously 'you' would NOT be open to any thing contrary to it.

Also, what 'you' have said here about the quran some people say about the bible. Why does it appear that you only mention the quran, islam, mohammed et cetera, and only LOOK AT them, and NOT the other religions?

Are you at all aware that the word 'Allah' is usually in reference to a God thing, and not to mohammed's dick thing?

I know exactly what the word is intended to mean: all-not.

What does 'all-not' actually mean, to you?

I know Muslims "believe" Allah is a god, but it certainly is not.

If Allah is not a God, then what IS 'Allah' then?

I know Muhammad used "Allah" to satiate his own sexual lust.

Does NOT every adult use their own BELIEFS and/or RELIGIONS to 'try to' "justify" their own WRONG doings?

If you think or believe the answer is "No", then name that one, and I will SHOW just HOW they actually do do this.

Could, would, some see this exact same behavior here from 'you', "nothing"?

Not everyone is as obsessed with 'you!' 'you!' 'you!' as you are.

Once again 'you' are obviously completely 'trying to' deflect away from the actual question asked.

I OBVIOUSLY NEVER talked about EVERYONE. I just asked you the very simple clarifying question; Would some see this exact same behavior here from 'you'? The answer is either "No", "Yes", or "I do not know".

Okay, then that is great I was of some assistance to you. Good luck in your endeavor, whatever it actually is. But I will supposedly see it soon enough, correct?

ts.

What does 'ts' mean, to you, here?

You did say it serves you well if I continue, so what do 'you' now suggest I DO?

Think long and hard about your obsession with 'you! 'you!' 'you!' and how it might being a blinding agency.

A blinding agency from WHAT, EXACTLY?

[Age]

No one takes any notice of lunatics who talk about 'beasts' and quote genesis

...is that discluding yourself, who clearly read it, and responded? lol

you! you! you! <-*local collapse due to enmity

In any case: it's better people not notice me - flying under the radar serves much better than whiners and squealers piling on me.

By the way:

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=27676

regarding 'lunacy': identifying by way of (ie. as) one's own thought process is 'lunacy'. The above thread (authored by myself) provides a solution that effectively severs one from their own thought-process thus:

I think, therefor I am (?)

the lunacy (?) of which becomes:

I think not, knowing I am willing not to think.

A proper "lunatic" would not have been able to find it.

So, were 'you' a 'proper lunatic' also before you found this?

Are 'you' still a 'proper lunatic' because you have not yet found other things?

Or, is it only "those" who do NOT yet know what 'you' have already found who are the 'proper lunatics'?

Also, is what 'you' found actually True, Right, and/or Correct? Or, just what you BELIEVE is True, Right, and Correct?

Could what 'you' found just be the findings of a 'proper lunatic', or is this NOT even a possibility, and therefore 'you' would NOT believe this could even be True anyway?

[Scott Mayers]

What do you mean by " 'supposedly' forced to be taken away "?

Do you not accept that native children were forcibly taken away?

No, not on an absolute scale the govenrment is asserting by faith alone.

Okay, but I thought that if more than one native child was forcibly taken away, then that would just simply mean that native children were forcibly taken away. I did not realize there are whole other variables involved here.

So, what is the "absolute scale" the government is asserting by faith alone, which you do not accept?

If ANY child is "TAKEN" by any standard, it is worth looking at with a clear definition of what it means to be 'taken'. What is meant by 'taken' by the Natives here is the government's set up of schools FOR Natives in places closer to population centers far from their remote and isolated 'Reserves'. Those Reservations are particularly isolated far away from most cities, lack economies because the concept of 'reserve' was intended to permit Natives here to live as they used to rather than as modernized citizens who favored formal ownership of landed settlements.

The nature of reserves treated them no different than we used reserves for wild animals, like nationalized parks may be used for. But many natives stopped their original tribal lifestyle and rightfully deserved to CHOOSE to integrate to modernism. This choice to integrate requires adapting to modern lifestyles that included learning to speak the official language(s) of the country and, like all children of all other races here in Canada, required them to go to school as everyone else does.

The government of the past handed over this responsibility most favorably to the Catholic Church and to Protestant ones where such population in Western provinces lacked the Catholic majority. So this is the first fault because it biases favor to religious institutes rather than public secular ones to teach. To religious people running these, their first internal beliefs about what is 'civilized' regards people's religious beliefs. As such, to them, teaching Christianity was paramount to become 'civilized'. Should any abuses be recognized, this factor SHOULD take the first notice. But because the power establishment favors religious separate schools and has constitutionalized this, any abuse claims would point directly to the Christian institutes conserved here in our Constitution formally.

Since our country is itself an accidental one made up of left over anti-American British Loyalists and the abandoned French Catholics, the Constitution formed was specific to save these two major groups justifying the SPECIFIC bias to them in perpetuity. This is irrational in light of the many variable peoples from all over. So to hide the bias, our country relabeled their bias "multiculturalism". This cannot hold without supporting favor to the Natives in part or risk being exposed for the fraud. They declare in the Constition favor for the bicultural groups of English Anglican and Quebec Catholics due to HISTORICAL first peoples. As such, since the Natives ARE more obviously 'first', they had to include them with priority.

Since 'culture' laws here permit exclsive powers to conserve special people, when today's Natives demand justice, it is in terms of this. Since language and religion are the major factors intended by the word, 'culture' here, when the Natives in isolation and poverty demand reparations, their major complaint is to point out that their own people were denied their right to their own language and religious preservation given these schools were designed to change them to fit with the then Christian dominance particularly of the past.

One example of this was to the adoptions that occurred of Natives to non-Native families. Since our government treats 'culture' as a genetic feature of people (versus something voluntary), they can't hide that their bias has to include the corollary belief that your genetics define who you are. That is, if one is born French Catholic, for instance, those people believe their children from all ancestors into the future OWN a right to BE 'French' AND 'Catholic'. This protection cannot be 'democratic' unless they declare it a sovereign truth that 'culture' by this arrogantly racist meaning is true by default. Thus, today, those in power here want to recognize this as true with Natives as well. So any adoptions (legal or not) of the past of mixed race families when "Aboriginal" (Native First Peoples) are deemed 'crimes'.

The purpose of the quick legal settlements is for those families who interited the powers within the Constitution, ....and who were actually the guilty 'cultures' who created reserves of the Natives AND imposed their Christianity, ....was to buy out the present Natives wholesale as a kind of bribe with the added LEGAL requirement that the Natives cannot ever point to those Catholic French and Anglican English wealthy inheritors as AT FAULT. Instead, the agreement forces all the taxpayers to pay for the debt (the buyout) and the Establishment thus wins twice. That is, they LOOK like the good guys for imposing that the whole of present Canadians take on the debt (even if they are NOT of the Established inheritors at fault) AND get to keep their 'supremacy' in the Constitional protection they desired.


This should suffice to answer the other questions. Note that this is not enough space to discuss the particular history of Canadian Multicultural Constitution. So, if you ask particular historical questions beyond this, I'll have to refer you to other places for your own interest to learn if you like. The point about this here is that 'cultural genocide' is a term meant to flip the meaning of racism to be those who DON'T favor a Nationalistic interpretation. This would be similar of what a Nazi might do if they existed today. Redefine hate and antipathy of a group as those who refuse to recognize the signficance of one's culture as inherent to ones' genes. In other words, those believing that this 'cultural genocide' is occurring is attempting to demand recognition that segregation of people by their genetic identity is actually a good thing.

[Edit: Fixed incorrect spelling.]

[nothing]

You don't have to scan much of it to recognise the ravings of a complete fruitcake (there have been a few on here).

'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Are you related to Age? I sure hope not.

You have already been informed and explained that if you do not quote the name "age" directly just once in your replies, then I do not get a notice, and then I might miss your replies and so will not respond. Some might infer that your continuation of doing this means you do not want me to see your replies and/or do not want me to respond to 'you'.

I do not want you to reply to me because the substance of your replies is only 'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Eg.

Once again 'you'...

Would some see this exact same behavior here from 'you'?...

Also, what 'you'...

But how could 'you'...

So, how do 'you'...

Do 'you' think 'you'...

Also, 'you'...

('you' really do have...

Also, 'you' once again...

Just about everything 'you'...

From what I have observed 'you'...

Are you at all AWARE that 'you' ...

What 'you' have also done here is SHOW a hatred of mohammed, Allah, and islam...

From this some might infer that 'you'

You start out by SAYING, " 'You' can not engage ", and then go on to say, "in a single topic without 'your' ". Therefore, even in the single topic of 'you' exposing your dislike for the word 'you', 'you', "yourself", use the 'you' word AND the 'your' word. Does this mean 'you' also can not engage in a single topic without your, to 'you', "exhausting" use of the 'you' and the 'your' word? Or, does it just mean you can not NOT talk about 'me', when 'you' want to REVEAL 'your' dislike of 'me' talking about 'you'...?

'you', "yourself"...

What you...

You really need to...

then 'you' can explain who and what 'you' are, then proceed to explain what 'you' 'nature' IS, so that we can SEE what the actual 'difference' IS, which 'you'...

The Truth IS, 'you' ...

'you' BELIEVING that 'you' KNOW...

The Truth is 'you' ...

When I ask 'you' to clarify whether 'you' ...

And you are STILL INCAPABLE of...

depend on 'you', "nothing"...

By the way, YOUR ...

ou have already been informed and explained that if you...

etc.

Being locked in enmity would predict such a collapse (see +A in the graphic below).

Very Youish. Concerning the women:

Are you at all aware that some of the female gender of 'you', human beings, say that muhammed was someone who fought very strongly for women's rights, and that this can be clearly seen in mohammed's writings?

It takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true. Believing Muhammad fought very strongly for women's rights is one such example.

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."
-A'isha

She had it more right than Muhammad did.

Now because your last post was limited to ten or less, I will happily address.

So, were 'you' a 'proper lunatic' also before you found this?

I never bothered to wonder until I started experiencing sound as shape (being a musician). I know I was told by a psychologist thereafter I was not: he told me that lunatics are unable to question whether or not they are themselves lunatics. He designated it as a rare form of synesthesia: sense perceptions communicating with one another and told me to enjoy it, thus I do.

It is how I 'know' Genesis 1:1 is a mapping of a torus field:





I very simply took this toroidal form and "mapped" it such to satisfy the 'form' of Genesis 1:1



such that the solution derived satisfies any/all possible context(s) related to Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

Are 'you' still a 'proper lunatic' because you have not yet found other things?

I am capable of severing from the thought-process, thus not a lunatic. What things did you have in mind?

Or, is it only "those" who do NOT yet know what 'you' have already found who are the 'proper lunatics'?

If one identifies as their own thought process, they are certainly a lunatic. Descartes is one example. Muhammad is another.

Also, is what 'you' found actually True, Right, and/or Correct? Or, just what you BELIEVE is True, Right, and Correct?

If it is, it will prove itself over time. Just as you pathologically focus on me (ie. 'you!' 'you!' 'you!') as predicted, so the truth simply manifests itself.

That you attempt to flip that around onto me, despite the pathology being your own, validates my designation of 'fascist pig': people who have a pig nature about them, are called for it, then resort to attempting to project it onto others. I am more than willing and capable to keep discussions on a content-only basis, but as you have demonstrated, you are incapable of this.

Knowing that belief inverts 'truth' allows one to understand first what truth is not. There is no truth in Islam: only inversion.

Could what 'you' found just be the findings of a 'proper lunatic', or is this NOT even a possibility, and therefore 'you' would NOT believe this could even be True anyway?

It's possible, but the theorem being technically infallible does not lend itself to such a notion.

If replying: ten or less, otherwise will be ignored.

[Immanuel Can]

Redefine hate and antipathy of a group as those who refuse to recognize the signficance of one's culture as inherent to ones' genes. In other words, those believing that this 'cultural genocide' is occurring is attempting to demand recognition that segregation of people by their genetic identity is actually a good thing.

I'm very impressed at this summary, Scott. It seems very accurate to me. And I would agree with all that you said, including the wrongness of according exclusive educational powers to any denominational or ideological group. And that might surprise you, coming from me, but it's sincere. I'm a big believer in the fundamental right to freedom of conscience.

The one point of departure I would take is this: I don't use "Catholic" as a synonym for "Christian." And it is over this fundamental conscience issue that the divide appears most clearly.

In Catholic theology, they have an axiom that goes, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" , meaning "Outside of the church, none is saved." What this means, as they interpret it, is that the Catholic Church is like a big omnibus or airplane, that takes people to the destination of salvation. One only gets there by "getting on the bus," so to speak. One joins the organization of the Catholic Church, follows its rituals and obeys its decrees, and one eventually gets to destination. In this, the Catholic Church is somewhat like Islam. Both regard submission to the hierarchy and procedures of their group as of much more importance than whatever one's conscience is saying.

This explains why the Catholics who were commissioned to "manage" the native children did not concern themselves much with the children's culture, autonomy or consciences. It would be enough to "discipline" them onto "the bus," and all that's necessary would have been done. They simply needed to be "made Catholic," and the rest would be fine...at least, so far as Catholic theology cared. Consequently, coercive and disciplinary measures became primary in their pedagogy.

Christ did not teach this. Nor do Christians in general believe that one can please God by merely joining an organization, let alone by being coerced or indoctrinated into compliance with one. The Church -- the real Church -- is a voluntary association. Everything depends on a person having a personal relationship with God by faith, and this cannot be done while someone is coercing or controlling the conscience. So a Christian would be rightly appalled by this conduct, and would detest the residential schools and their excesses. They would see the whole project as immoral, and ultimately as doomed; for as Locke pointed out, you cannot control a man's deep conscience, even if you try. "A man convinced against his will remains a unbeliever still."

This is a very important distinction to those of us who do not wish to be tarred with the broad brush used on Catholicism. We did not participate, and want no share in that history now. And today, we would applaud the stripping of all special privileges formerly accorded to institutionalized groups -- whether religious or secular. We would favour, instead, an open and unimpeded field of discourse on what beliefs a person might wish to have.

[Scott Mayers]

Redefine hate and antipathy of a group as those who refuse to recognize the signficance of one's culture as inherent to ones' genes. In other words, those believing that this 'cultural genocide' is occurring is attempting to demand recognition that segregation of people by their genetic identity is actually a good thing.

I'm very impressed at this summary, Scott. It seems very accurate to me. And I would agree with all that you said, including the wrongness of according exclusive educational powers to any denominational or ideological group. And that might surprise you, coming from me, but it's sincere. I'm a big believer in the fundamental right to freedom of conscience.

The one point of departure I would take is this: I don't use "Catholic" as a synonym for "Christian." And it is over this fundamental conscience issue that the divide appears most clearly.

In Catholic theology, they have an axiom that goes, "Salus extra ecclesiam non est" , meaning "Outside of the church, none is saved." What this means, as they interpret it, is that the Catholic Church is like a big omnibus or airplane, that takes people to the destination of salvation. One only gets there by "getting on the bus," so to speak. One joins the organization of the Catholic Church, follows its rituals and obeys its decrees, and one eventually gets to destination. In this, the Catholic Church is somewhat like Islam. Both regard submission to the hierarchy and procedures of their group as of much more importance than whatever one's conscience is saying.

This explains why the Catholics who were commissioned to "manage" the native children did not concern themselves much with the children's culture, autonomy or consciences. It would be enough to "discipline" them onto "the bus," and all that's necessary would have been done. They simply needed to be "made Catholic," and the rest would be fine...at least, so far as Catholic theology cared. Consequently, coercive and disciplinary measures became primary in their pedagogy.

Christ did not teach this. Nor do Christians in general believe that one can please God by merely joining an organization, let alone by being coerced or indoctrinated into compliance with one. The Church -- the real Church -- is a voluntary association. Everything depends on a person having a personal relationship with God by faith, and this cannot be done while someone is coercing or controlling the conscience. So a Christian would be rightly appalled by this conduct, and would detest the residential schools and their excesses. They would see the whole project as immoral, and ultimately as doomed; for as Locke pointed out, you cannot control a man's deep conscience, even if you try. "A man convinced against his will remains a unbeliever still."

This is a very important distinction to those of us who do not wish to be tarred with the broad brush used on Catholicism. We did not participate, and want no share in that history now. And today, we would applaud the stripping of all special privileges formerly accorded to institutionalized groups -- whether religious or secular. We would favour, instead, an open and unimpeded field of discourse on what beliefs a person might wish to have.

Thank you. I don't mean any offence of the Catholic Church by your description but lack the means to spell out all the details. I learned a long time ago that the root of "catholic" as a word, is just "of the whole". I'm not sure if it was just added once the Protestants formed but also treat the Anglicans as First-stage Protestants, catholic' (small 'c') in regards to its intended universality. The Anglicans (English) just redressed the authority of its 'papacy' that granted power to the Royalty as the church's authority. I am for the American's First Amendment and don't agree with the history of Canada's stance against that clause. We reformed (or 'domesitcated') the Constitution in 1982 by Trudeau's Liberals (Pierre Elliot, Justin's father, that is) in which they desired to embrace 'culture' to permit laws that go against ALL freedoms otherwise guaranteed. Thus we DO assert freedom of conscience but only as secondary to the three major groups mentioned in general. This also conserves other Christians where they are permitted to have their children go to the Separate Catholic School system (a type of 'voucher' that permits your own tax dollars to go to either that Church OR to the default public system.)

Either way, I think religion is fine if it is not utilized politically. It is too powerful of a convenient mechanism of manipulation. Where such beliefs can exist in law, those running the country can basically justify anything. [I used this argument before: If you have the power to push a button to destroy the world, you can argue it wise to even 'sacrifice' your own soul for all the future children you'd save by doing so. Such behavior would be sincerely a sacrifice knowing that you'd have to suffer an eternity in hell. AND, as Jesus represents, given his own 'sacrifice' as being virtuous, such a suicidal maniac in power able to utilize this justification, (s)he might even do so with confidence that (s)he'd be saved for such an act regardless!]

[Sculptor]

Cultural Genocide
There are two ways in which cultural genocide may be and is being perpetrated.
Firstly, by tyrannical racism, in which a minority culture is suppressed and the culture in power imposed through forced re-education. As is reportedly happening in China.
The second is by misused human rights that treat everyone and every society universally, not as equal, but as the same. And every part of the world open by right to all people.

You are a racist, and in rebuke against racism.
You should chose the better of the two.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You don't have to scan much of it to recognise the ravings of a complete fruitcake (there have been a few on here).

'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Are you related to Age? I sure hope not.

You have already been informed and explained that if you do not quote the name "age" directly just once in your replies, then I do not get a notice, and then I might miss your replies and so will not respond. Some might infer that your continuation of doing this means you do not want me to see your replies and/or do not want me to respond to 'you'.

I do not want you to reply to me because the substance of your replies is only 'you!' 'you!' 'you!'

Eg.

Once again 'you'...

Would some see this exact same behavior here from 'you'?...

Also, what 'you'...

But how could 'you'...

So, how do 'you'...

Do 'you' think 'you'...

Also, 'you'...

('you' really do have...

Also, 'you' once again...

Just about everything 'you'...

From what I have observed 'you'...

Are you at all AWARE that 'you' ...

What 'you' have also done here is SHOW a hatred of mohammed, Allah, and islam...

From this some might infer that 'you'

You start out by SAYING, " 'You' can not engage ", and then go on to say, "in a single topic without 'your' ". Therefore, even in the single topic of 'you' exposing your dislike for the word 'you', 'you', "yourself", use the 'you' word AND the 'your' word. Does this mean 'you' also can not engage in a single topic without your, to 'you', "exhausting" use of the 'you' and the 'your' word? Or, does it just mean you can not NOT talk about 'me', when 'you' want to REVEAL 'your' dislike of 'me' talking about 'you'...?

'you', "yourself"...

What you...

You really need to...

then 'you' can explain who and what 'you' are, then proceed to explain what 'you' 'nature' IS, so that we can SEE what the actual 'difference' IS, which 'you'...

The Truth IS, 'you' ...

'you' BELIEVING that 'you' KNOW...

The Truth is 'you' ...

When I ask 'you' to clarify whether 'you' ...

And you are STILL INCAPABLE of...

depend on 'you', "nothing"...

By the way, YOUR ...

ou have already been informed and explained that if you...

etc.

Being locked in enmity would predict such a collapse (see +A in the graphic below).

Very Youish. Concerning the women:

Are you at all aware that some of the female gender of 'you', human beings, say that muhammed was someone who fought very strongly for women's rights, and that this can be clearly seen in mohammed's writings?

It takes a "believer" to "believe" the opposite of what is true. Believing Muhammad fought very strongly for women's rights is one such example.

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."
-A'isha

She had it more right than Muhammad did.

Now because your last post was limited to ten or less, I will happily address.

So, were 'you' a 'proper lunatic' also before you found this?

I never bothered to wonder until I started experiencing sound as shape (being a musician). I know I was told by a psychologist thereafter I was not: he told me that lunatics are unable to question whether or not they are themselves lunatics. He designated it as a rare form of synesthesia: sense perceptions communicating with one another and told me to enjoy it, thus I do.

It is how I 'know' Genesis 1:1 is a mapping of a torus field:





I very simply took this toroidal form and "mapped" it such to satisfy the 'form' of Genesis 1:1



such that the solution derived satisfies any/all possible context(s) related to Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

Are 'you' still a 'proper lunatic' because you have not yet found other things?

I am capable of severing from the thought-process, thus not a lunatic. What things did you have in mind?

Or, is it only "those" who do NOT yet know what 'you' have already found who are the 'proper lunatics'?

If one identifies as their own thought process, they are certainly a lunatic. Descartes is one example. Muhammad is another.

Also, is what 'you' found actually True, Right, and/or Correct? Or, just what you BELIEVE is True, Right, and Correct?

If it is, it will prove itself over time. Just as you pathologically focus on me (ie. 'you!' 'you!' 'you!') as predicted, so the truth simply manifests itself.

That you attempt to flip that around onto me, despite the pathology being your own, validates my designation of 'fascist pig': people who have a pig nature about them, are called for it, then resort to attempting to project it onto others. I am more than willing and capable to keep discussions on a content-only basis, but as you have demonstrated, you are incapable of this.

Knowing that belief inverts 'truth' allows one to understand first what truth is not. There is no truth in Islam: only inversion.

Could what 'you' found just be the findings of a 'proper lunatic', or is this NOT even a possibility, and therefore 'you' would NOT believe this could even be True anyway?

It's possible, but the theorem being technically infallible does not lend itself to such a notion.

If replying: ten or less, otherwise will be ignored.

It's a bit difficult to address someone without ever using the word 'you'. What would you prefer? Woul you be happier if I put ' ' around the offending word, as 'you' do? Would 'you' prefer me to say 'nothing' is a lunatic, or 'you' are a lunatic? Clearly 'you' are not literally 'nothing' so I can only assume that 'you' have a massive inferiority complex.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Cultural Genocide
There are two ways in which cultural genocide may be and is being perpetrated.
Firstly, by tyrannical racism, in which a minority culture is suppressed and the culture in power imposed through forced re-education. As is reportedly happening in China.
The second is by misused human rights that treat everyone and every society universally, not as equal, but as the same. And every part of the world open by right to all people.

You are a racist, and in rebuke against racism.
You should chose the better of the two.

Stock response by the Politically Correct. Humans are 'racist'. Get over it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No, not on an absolute scale the govenrment is asserting by faith alone.

Okay, but I thought that if more than one native child was forcibly taken away, then that would just simply mean that native children were forcibly taken away. I did not realize there are whole other variables involved here.

So, what is the "absolute scale" the government is asserting by faith alone, which you do not accept?

If ANY child is "TAKEN" by any standard, it is worth looking at with a clear definition of what it means to be 'taken'. What is meant by 'taken' by the Natives here is the government's set up of schools FOR Natives in places closer to population centers far from their remote and isolated 'Reserves'. Those Reservations are particularly isolated far away from most cities, lack economies because the concept of 'reserve' was intended to permit Natives here to live as they used to rather than as modernized citizens who favored formal ownership of landed settlements.

The nature of reserves treated them no different than we used reserves for wild animals, like nationalized parks may be used for. But many natives stopped their original tribal lifestyle and rightfully deserved to CHOOSE to integrate to modernism. This choice to integrate requires adapting to modern lifestyles that included learning to speak the official language(s) of the country and, like all children of all other races here in Canada, required them to go to school as everyone else does.

The government of the past handed over this responsibility most favorably to the Catholic Church and to Protestant ones where such population in Western provinces lacked the Catholic majority. So this is the first fault because it biases favor to religious institutes rather than public secular ones to teach. To religious people running these, their first internal beliefs about what is 'civilized' regards people's religious beliefs. As such, to them, teaching Christianity was paramount to become 'civilized'. Should any abuses be recognized, this factor SHOULD take the first notice. But because the power establishment favors religious separate schools and has constitutionalized this, any abuse claims would point directly to the Christian institutes conserved here in our Constitution formally.

Since our country is itself an accidental one made up of left over anti-American British Loyalists and the abandoned French Catholics, the Constitution formed was specific to save these two major groups justifying the SPECIFIC bias to them in perpetuity. This is irrational in light of the many variable peoples from all over. So to hide the bias, our country relabeled their bias "multiculturalism". This cannot hold without supporting favor to the Natives in part or risk being exposed for the fraud. They declare in the Constition favor for the bicultural groups of English Anglican and Quebec Catholics due to HISTORICAL first peoples. As such, since the Natives ARE more obviously 'first', they had to include them with priority.

Since 'culture' laws here permit exclsive powers to conserve special people, when today's Natives demand justice, it is in terms of this. Since language and religion are the major factors intended by the word, 'culture' here, when the Natives in isolation and poverty demand reparations, their major complaint is to point out that their own people were denied their right to their own language and religious preservation given these schools were designed to change them to fit with the then Christian dominance particularly of the past.

One example of this was to the adoptions that occurred of Natives to non-Native families. Since our government treats 'culture' as a genetic feature of people (versus something voluntary), they can't hide that their bias has to include the corollary belief that your genetics define who you are. That is, if one is born French Catholic, for instance, those people believe their children from all ancestors into the future OWN a right to BE 'French' AND 'Catholic'. This protection cannot be 'democratic' unless they declare it a sovereign truth that 'culture' by this arrogantly racist meaning is true by default. Thus, today, those in power here want to recognize this as true with Natives as well. So any adoptions (legal or not) of the past of mixed race families when "Aboriginal" (Native First Peoples) are deemed 'crimes'.

The purpose of the quick legal settlements is for those families who interited the powers within the Constitution, ....and who were actually the guilty 'cultures' who created reserves of the Natives AND imposed their Christianity, ....was to buy out the present Natives wholesale as a kind of bribe with the added LEGAL requirement that the Natives cannot ever point to those Catholic French and Anglican English wealthy inheritors as AT FAULT. Instead, the agreement forces all the taxpayers to pay for the debt (the buyout) and the Establishment thus wins twice. That is, they LOOK like the good guys for imposing that the whole of present Canadians take on the debt (even if they are NOT of the Established inheritors at fault) AND get to keep their 'supremacy' in the Constitional protection they desired.


This should suffice to answer the other questions. Note that this is not enough space to discuss the particular history of Canadian Multicultural Constitution. So, if you ask particular historical questions beyond this, I'll have to refer you to other places for your own interest to learn if you like. The point about this here is that 'cultural genocide' is a term meant to flip the meaning of racism to be those who DON'T favor a Nationalistic interpretation. This would be similar of what a Nazi might do if they existed today. Redefine hate and antipathy of a group as those who refuse to recognize the signficance of one's culture as inherent to ones' genes. In other words, those believing that this 'cultural genocide' is occurring is attempting to demand recognition that segregation of people by their genetic identity is actually a good thing.

[Edit: Fixed incorrect spelling.]

If there is no such thing as cultural identity then what is the default 'culture', and why are the PC always bleating on about 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity'? How do you get very large groups of people (ooh, 'groups', is that 'racist'?) to conform to the values and 'culture' of their adopted country? How do you prevent them from bringing their ingrained 'cultural bad habits' to their adopted country? I'm all for 'when in Rome', but apparently it's 'racist' to think like that. I am ordered to 'embrace' the 'diversity' of those dipshits I saw the other day at the supermarket in their billowing black tents (great for shoplifting) and eyeslits. Thank you America, you destructive fuck of a cuntry.

[Scott Mayers]

Okay, but I thought that if more than one native child was forcibly taken away, then that would just simply mean that native children were forcibly taken away. I did not realize there are whole other variables involved here.

So, what is the "absolute scale" the government is asserting by faith alone, which you do not accept?

If ANY child is "TAKEN" by any standard, it is worth looking at with a clear definition of what it means to be 'taken'. What is meant by 'taken' by the Natives here is the government's set up of schools FOR Natives in places closer to population centers far from their remote and isolated 'Reserves'. Those Reservations are particularly isolated far away from most cities, lack economies because the concept of 'reserve' was intended to permit Natives here to live as they used to rather than as modernized citizens who favored formal ownership of landed settlements.
...

If there is no such thing as cultural identity then what is the default 'culture', and why are the PC always bleating on about 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity'? How do you get very large groups of people (ooh, 'groups', is that 'racist'?) to conform to the values and 'culture' of their adopted country? How do you prevent them from bringing their ingrained 'cultural bad habits' to their adopted country? I'm all for 'when in Rome', but apparently it's 'racist' to think like that. I am ordered to 'embrace' the 'diversity' of those dipshits I saw the other day at the supermarket in their billowing black tents (great for shoplifting) and eyeslits. Thank you America, you destructive fuck of cuntry.

I didn't say that there is no such thing as 'cultural identity'. I am saying that governments should not be permitted to impose upon society artistic ideologies as though they are specific genetically inherited factors. That is, no SPECIFIC laws regarding culture (which includes religion or one's artificial aspects of volution) should be favored. A system that constitutionally defines its people as "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jewish", etc, is itself culturally biased because they think that there is something intrinsic to one's specific artificial behaviors as inherently genetic.

An example of 'culture' is what one enjoys of some artistic creation. Another is what you might prefer to do that gives you pleasure, ...like watching a science fiction movie, or playing classical guitar.

Culture laws are also those that permit a right of segregating one's children to be taught some specific religion and language based upon your parent's cultures with exclusion to outside influence. So what you seem concerned about outsiders bringing their 'culture' that conflicts with others is also NOT right to favor nor disfavor. Private Islamic communities would be an example of conserving cultural identity if laws were created to specifically permit them to make their own law system, like Sharia Law, for their own children that DIFFER or COMPETE to general laws elsewhere. Thus, a government, for instance, that has power to dictate 'culture' includes those laws that FAVOR segregate laws, as my own country favors regarding special cultures. Here, our "First Nations" for instance, is treated as nations within a nation such that they are permitted certain exceptions in laws that differ to non-Natives. We have a province, Quebec, that is permitted to discriminate against English language in laws. We have a special granted right of anyone elsewhere who is Catholic, for instance, to be allowed unique funds that would normally go to public schools to be diverted to their PRIVATE school system. But no other religions are permitted the same right. That is, if you are Evangelical, you CAN have your kids in a private Evangelical school, but they must still pay the taxes that go to either the public system or to the Catholic one.

An example of what would NOT be 'cultural' as a general law, and fair, would be one that requires all people to speak ONE language (as a minimum). Here we are biased for having TWO languages. This means that one can choose French even where no one else in some community speaks it. This aids in segregating their children by making a barrier that prevents them from leaving their cult. BUT, if you have a law that demands one official language, while it doesn't deny one's right to segregate voluntarily and teach their kids a non-English language, a law that demands it for the COMMON shared language is not biased.

Another fair non-culturally biased law that would be alright is one that disallows one to wear religious garb when working in some government office. Our laws here permit Sihks to uniquely be permitted to where their turbin, or a Muslim woman to wear a veil, etc. So although it would be a GENERAL law about culture when denying people from wearing religious garb in government paid services, it is not a SPECIFIC one or ones that favor some while disfavoring others.

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you. I don't mean any offence of the Catholic Church by your description but lack the means to spell out all the details.

No problem, Scott. I think a lot of people find the word "Christian" kind of opaque. It gets applied to everything from Catholicism to Catharism, everything from Mennonites to Manichees. And people on the outside can be quite forgiven for not understanding that there is so much variance among people who claim that term; it's confusing.

I was very surprised, when I started to study history among secular people, to be told that "Christians" held the Crusades, created the Inquisition, or slaughtered my ancestors at the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. It took me a few weeks to realize that, for secular historians, "Christians" means primarily the same as "Catholic." It never did for me. My convictions are not Catholic. But the Catholic church is famous for keeping records and writings on file; and this makes it easy for historians to generalize from Catholicism to things that the Catholics actually hated and set the Inquisitors against -- such as Waldensians or Anabaptists. In this, secular history has the story all messed up, as any theologically-informed Christian actually knows very well.

I learned a long time ago that the root of "catholic" as a word, is just "of the whole".

Yes. It really just means "universal." But the Roman Catholics are claim both to be "universal" and to be "Roman," in quite a deep sense...owing allegiance to the Papacy of Rome, and hailing to the sycretistic union of religion and paganism created by Constantine after the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

The only way to sort it all out is to say that those who actually follow the teachings and principles taught by Christ are "Christians," and the others will call themselves what they want.

The Anglicans (English) just redressed the authority of its 'papacy' that granted power to the Royalty as the church's authority.

Yes. Henry essentially wanted Catholicism, with him as Pope, not a new faith. And at first, he ruthlessly persecuted free-thinking Protestants, and burned them to death at Smithfield and other places. Not very "Christian" of him, really.

I am for the American's First Amendment and don't agree with the history of Canada's stance against that clause.

As am I. Absolutely.

Thus we DO assert freedom of conscience but only as secondary to the three major groups mentioned in general. This also conserves other Christians where they are permitted to have their children go to the Separate Catholic School system (a type of 'voucher' that permits your own tax dollars to go to either that Church OR to the default public system.)

This has not gone totally unnoticed. Ontario, for example, has been criticized for this policy, and three times condemned by the UN for discrimination against various religious and ideological objectors because of this education policy favouring Catholicism over Jews, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims and Atheists. One religion gets full tax-funded support, equivalent to the public secular system: the others get nothing, because none of these tax dollars ever go to them.

Either way, I think religion is fine if it is not utilized politically.

I completely agree. The mix of ideology and politics is always toxic.

It is too powerful of a convenient mechanism of manipulation.

Well, so is enforced secularism, of course. Look at what happened in Russia and China, for example. Any ideology given hegemony becomes tyrannical. So I would argue for a neutral and "open" public square, with priority granted to none.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If ANY child is "TAKEN" by any standard, it is worth looking at with a clear definition of what it means to be 'taken'. What is meant by 'taken' by the Natives here is the government's set up of schools FOR Natives in places closer to population centers far from their remote and isolated 'Reserves'. Those Reservations are particularly isolated far away from most cities, lack economies because the concept of 'reserve' was intended to permit Natives here to live as they used to rather than as modernized citizens who favored formal ownership of landed settlements.
...

If there is no such thing as cultural identity then what is the default 'culture', and why are the PC always bleating on about 'multiculturalism' and 'diversity'? How do you get very large groups of people (ooh, 'groups', is that 'racist'?) to conform to the values and 'culture' of their adopted country? How do you prevent them from bringing their ingrained 'cultural bad habits' to their adopted country? I'm all for 'when in Rome', but apparently it's 'racist' to think like that. I am ordered to 'embrace' the 'diversity' of those dipshits I saw the other day at the supermarket in their billowing black tents (great for shoplifting) and eyeslits. Thank you America, you destructive fuck of cuntry.

I didn't say that there is no such thing as 'cultural identity'. I am saying that governments should not be permitted to impose upon society artistic ideologies as though they are specific genetically inherited factors. That is, no SPECIFIC laws regarding culture (which includes religion or one's artificial aspects of volution) should be favored. A system that constitutionally defines its people as "Christian" or "Muslim" or "Jewish", etc, is itself culturally biased because they think that there is something intrinsic to one's specific artificial behaviors as inherently genetic.

An example of 'culture' is what one enjoys of some artistic creation. Another is what you might prefer to do that gives you pleasure, ...like watching a science fiction movie, or playing classical guitar.

Culture laws are also those that permit a right of segregating one's children to be taught some specific religion and language based upon your parent's cultures with exclusion to outside influence. So what you seem concerned about outsiders bringing their 'culture' that conflicts with others is also NOT right to favor nor disfavor. Private Islamic communities would be an example of conserving cultural identity if laws were created to specifically permit them to make their own law system, like Sharia Law, for their own children that DIFFER or COMPETE to general laws elsewhere. Thus, a government, for instance, that has power to dictate 'culture' includes those laws that FAVOR segregate laws, as my own country favors regarding special cultures. Here, our "First Nations" for instance, is treated as nations within a nation such that they are permitted certain exceptions in laws that differ to non-Natives. We have a province, Quebec, that is permitted to discriminate against English language in laws. We have a special granted right of anyone elsewhere who is Catholic, for instance, to be allowed unique funds that would normally go to public schools to be diverted to their PRIVATE school system. But no other religions are permitted the same right. That is, if you are Evangelical, you CAN have your kids in a private Evangelical school, but they must still pay the taxes that go to either the public system or to the Catholic one.

An example of what would NOT be 'cultural' as a general law, and fair, would be one that requires all people to speak ONE language (as a minimum). Here we are biased for having TWO languages. This means that one can choose French even where no one else in some community speaks it. This aids in segregating their children by making a barrier that prevents them from leaving their cult. BUT, if you have a law that demands one official language, while it doesn't deny one's right to segregate voluntarily and teach their kids a non-English language, a law that demands it for the COMMON shared language is not biased.

Another fair non-culturally biased law that would be alright is one that disallows one to wear religious garb when working in some government office. Our laws here permit Sihks to uniquely be permitted to where their turbin, or a Muslim woman to wear a veil, etc. So although it would be a GENERAL law about culture when denying people from wearing religious garb in government paid services, it is not a SPECIFIC one or ones that favor some while disfavoring others.

I pretty much agree with everything you've said, I was only pointing out the hypocrisy and double-standards of the Politically Correct, and your present Govt. is about as PC as it gets (with the exception of NZ). The only reason Govts. bring in bullshit, anti-free-speech laws like the meaningless 'hate-speech' ones is because they want to help their Big Business buddies by giving them a free rein to import thousands of cheap workers from poorer countries, thus ensuring that no one in the host country dares to object. Never mind that it doesn't have the resources and infrastructure to support a huge, sudden (by population growth standards) influx of people with nothing in common with the host country's culture and values.