The CanaDoper Café (2012 edition of The great, ongoing Canadian current events and politics thread.)

[Sunspace]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

Toronto Comic Art Festival is coming up this weekend. My 9 year old son is ready to camp out on Friday night so he can meet Bryan Lee O'Malley because Scott Pilgrim is the most awesome thing evah! I just smile and try to remember being that young myself...

Thank you for reminding me of this!

[Polycarp]

I am the very model of a modern Gov'nor General
I'll praise the B.N.A. Act when it hits its sesquicenteneral.
I look all dignified as hell, despite my countenance youthful;
I speak Francois, Inuit, Cree, and even Kwakiutl.
I take advice from anyone who holds the Commons' confidence;
In fact in matters of dispute my ass is firmly on the fence.
I present Olympic medals to Calliope Ouzouni
At death I'll adorn the dollar coin for I already am quite looney.

[Dread Pirate Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

I am the very model of a modern Gov'nor General
I'll praise the B.N.A. Act when it hits its sesquicenteneral.
I look all dignified as hell, despite my countenance youthful;
I speak Francois, Inuit, Cree, and even Kwakiutl.
I take advice from anyone who holds the Commons' confidence;
In fact in matters of dispute my ass is firmly on the fence.
I present Olympic medals to Calliope Ouzouni
At death I'll adorn the dollar coin for I already am quite looney.

Now, if you can get Le Ministre to sing that bad boy and post the video on You Tube for the world to enjoy, you'll really have something.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Just when you think it can't get any worse, we're letting Conrad Black back in to the country.

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

Just when you think it can't get any worse, we're letting Conrad Black back in to the country.

What, you think he poses some kind of risk to the public or something?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

He's no longer a citizen by his own choice, and he's a convicted criminal. There are translators who in Afghanistan who are likely to be killed for having helped us out, yet they've been denied entry into Canada. As far as I'm concerned, Conrad Black can fuck off and die.

[Sunspace]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

He's no longer a citizen by his own choice, and he's a convicted criminal. There are translators who in Afghanistan who are likely to be killed for having helped us out, yet they've been denied entry into Canada. As far as I'm concerned, Conrad Black can fuck off and die.

Yeah, I'm not too thrilled about him being here either. At the very least, he should have had to wait in the queue.

[Leaffan]

Well, I know the history, obviously. He applied for, and was granted, a one-year temporary resident permit of which over 10,000 are granted yearly for foreign nationals.

It's hardly unprecedented and he's not going to come and steal your money, probably.

There's something to be said for people serving their time in jail and being able to get on with their life. I'm not defending Black, per se, but I think the story is being blown out of proportion and wishing death on him isn't really very nice.

[the Lady]

Can I just wish that Macleans stop publishing his wife's drivel?

(yes, I know that the obvious answer is just to stop reading it)

[Cat Whisperer]

Well, if they keep publishing it, it keeps encouraging her.

Now I have to go look up who Conrad Black's wife is.

ETA: Ah, Barbara Amiel. I went and read a bit of a column of hers; yeah, I can live without that.

[Kenm]

It's hardly surprising that a criminal (first convicted when in university) who threw away his Canadian citizenship out of greed is allowed to return by a government that calls the Official Opposition Hitler sympathizers and anyone who protests against its citizen-spy bill pedophiles.

[Cat Whisperer]

Apparently it is 45 years today since the Toronto Maple Leafs won a Stanley Cup. Happy Anniversary!

[Muffin]

Just five more years and they can have a major celebration on making it half a century!

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Kenm

It's hardly surprising that a criminal (first convicted when in university) who threw away his Canadian citizenship out of greed is allowed to return by a government that calls the Official Opposition Hitler sympathizers and anyone who protests against its citizen-spy bill pedophiles.

I think you meant to post this on the Globe and Mail comments.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

He's no longer a citizen by his own choice, and he's a convicted criminal.

As was pointed out by more than a few people, we routinely let convicted criminals into the country if they're actors or athletes, even ones who aren't Canadian in any way. I don't see why anyone else should be treated worse. The fact that morons like the people who write for the Toronto Star are calling this "special treatment" when it's probably not the 1,000th time it's happened this year just goes to show you whether they're speaking from an honest position or a partisan agenda.

As for his alleged citizenship, or lack thereof, that was total bullshit perpetrated by the Prime Minister of the day over a political grudge. Black was born in Canada, he's Canadian, and that's that, as far as I'm concerned; I think it's absolutely horrendous that the law could ever be used or interpreted to deny a person citizenship, even if they say they don't want it anymore. As far as I'm concerned Black's "renouncing" of Canadian citizenship is meaningless.

I don't like Conrad Black but this isn't a goddamned police state.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by RickJay

As for his alleged citizenship, or lack thereof, that was total bullshit perpetrated by the Prime Minister of the day over a political grudge. Black was born in Canada, he's Canadian, and that's that, as far as I'm concerned; I think it's absolutely horrendous that the law could ever be used or interpreted to deny a person citizenship, even if they say they don't want it anymore. As far as I'm concerned Black's "renouncing" of Canadian citizenship is meaningless.

I don't like Conrad Black but this isn't a goddamned police state.

The procedure requires more than a simple statement. It takes a lot of work, and Black did it.

No Canadian since since the Nickel Resolution in 1917 has been knighted, and Black knew it.

However, Tony Blair and the queen (for $ome rea$on) ignored and lorded Black against the Canadian PM's wishes, Canadian history and precedent.

Very tawdry. No surprise with Blair — or Liz, for that matter.

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Kenm

The procedure requires more than a simple statement. It takes a lot of work, and Black did it.

No Canadian since since the Nickel Resolution in 1917 has been knighted, and Black knew it.

However, Tony Blair and the queen (for $ome rea$on) ignored and lorded Black against the Canadian PM's wishes, Canadian history and precedent.

Very tawdry. No surprise with Blair — or Liz, for that matter.

Thank you for quoting a bazillion pages of ......... I don't know what.

I need to sleep now, after that.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by RickJay

As far as I'm concerned Black's "renouncing" of Canadian citizenship is meaningless.

I don't like Conrad Black but this isn't a goddamned police state.

I don't see how permitting a citizen to renounce his citizenship means the state is a police state. Prohibiting a person from renouncing his citizenship, or taking a person's citizenship away from him, yes, but letting the person renounce his own citizenship, no.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Kenm

No Canadian since since the Nickel Resolution in 1917 has been knighted, and Black knew it.

That's not true. From around the 1930s on (the Nickle Resolution was ignored by some later governments), no Canadian living in Canada was knighted (AFAIK), but Canadians living in the UK still can be (and are) knighted or ennobled. The Canadian government's wishes are irrelevant, because as far as the British government is concerned it is now totally and completely foreign.

Originally Posted by Kenm

However, Tony Blair and the queen (for $ome rea$on) ignored and lorded Black against the Canadian PM's wishes, Canadian history and precedent.

Why would the British Prime Minister and the British Queen (the Queen of Canada does not create peerages, so her role in Canada is irrelevant) ask a foreign prime minister about an appointment to the British House of Lords, or respect a foreign government's precedent? Total independence is a two-way street.

However, that's why I have no sympathy for Conrad Black. He threw away his citizenship because of a purely diplomatic dispute; there were no legal reasons why his peerage couldn't have gone through, and Chretien had no leg to stand on when he tried to interfere in the governance of a foreign nation. He probably would have gotten his peerage and kept his citizenship had he not been so impatient.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

... but Canadians living in the UK still can be (and are) knighted or ennobled.

True enough. See, for example, Sir George Bain:

Sir George Sayers Bain, a Canadian by birth born in Winnipeg and attended Miles MacDonell Collegiate, was President and Vice-Chancellor of Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland from 1998 to 2004....

He is a non-executive director of Bombardier Aerospace, Canada Life Group (UK) Ltd, [and] the Canada Life Capital Corporation.... He holds nine honorary doctorates and was knighted in 2001.

Emphasis added.

[Kenm]

From the CBC:

Indeed, since passing the Nickle Resolution in 1919, Canada has prohibited the British, or any foreign government for that matter, from conferring "any title of honour or titular distinction" upon any Canadian citizen.

The resolution says that conferring titles on Canadians isn't compatible with Canada's ideals of democracy.
<snip>
George Sayers Bain, another Canadian citizen who lives in Britain, was also bestowed a knighthood in the same ceremony. Blair explained that he did not know Bain was a Canadian citizen until it was too late to change the list. But that wasn't the case with Matthews.

At the time, Chrétien 's office issued a formal note to the British government stating: "What I and the government object to is that, by conferring the knighthoods without seeking the agreement of the Canadian government, you have not taken into account the Canadian government policy with regard to how Canadian citizens should be honoured."

Of course Harper, the 18th-century monarchist, is well on his way to reversing that.

[Spoons]

Kenm, are you suggesting that no Canadian be allowed to accept honours from any foreign government? Or is it only the UK government's honours you have a problem with?

I note you have so far not have mentioned US honours conferred on Canadians: see, for example, the Congressional Medal of Honor conferred upon Canadians:

Sixty-one Canadians who were serving in the United States armed forces have been awarded the Medal of Honor, with a majority awarded for actions in the American Civil War. Since 1900, only four have been awarded to Canadians. In the Vietnam War, Peter C. Lemon was the only Canadian recipient of the Medal of Honor.

And let's not forget that the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry won a Presidential Unit Citation for actions at Kapyong, during the Korean War.

We also have Nobel Prize winners from Canada: Sir Frederick Banting, for example (1921 medicine); or John Polyani (1986, Chemistry); or Lester B. Pearson (1957, Peace). Should these gentlemen be excluded from consideration because "Canada does not allow foreign honours"? In this case, from the Nobel Foundation, in Sweden (medicine and chemistry) and Norway (peace)? Should these honours be denigrated (or refused) because they are foreign and not Canadian?

Note that all of the above have occurred since the Nickel Resolution in 1919. Are the US and Sweden and Norway okay to accept honours from, being independent republics; but the UK isn't, being our colonial masters? (Hint: See April 17, 1982, for an answer.)

If--oh, I don't know--say, Italy, wishes to confer an honour upon a Canadian today, I say, let it. We are independent from the UK, so if the UK wishes confer an honour upon a Canadian, let it. It is a foreign honour, like the US Congressional Medal, or the French Legion d'Honneur. Canadians have accepted these before with no problem from the Canadian government; where's the problem with an honour from the UK? According to our Constitution, the UK government is a foreign government.

I believe that Black went about it the wrong way. He was impatient, he got on the wrong side of Chretien; and it is my belief that had he not pushed the matter publicly using the media as a tool, things would have been taken care of through diplomatic channels, and resolved somehow. Hell, I'd suggest that if Black had been honoured by the Netherlands, or Switzerland, or Thailand, this wouldn't be an issue. It's only because the honour was coming from the UK that there is a problem (horrors! colonialism! we're not masters in out own house! wake the kids and call the neighbours, the UK still rules Canada!) Knowledgeable and educated Canadians know differently.

In any event, Black sitting in the House of Lords would never affect Canada. See again the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

You may not have liked the result of Black v. Chretien, (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 215, 199 D.L.R. (4th) 228 (C.A.); Kenm, but then, not every Canadian likes the outcome of all court cases. Or what the federal government does in response to those cases. Part of living under our own Constitution and Charter that are immune to changing by the UK, I guess.

[Lord Feldon]

Indeed, since passing the Nickle Resolution in 1919, Canada has prohibited the British, or any foreign government for that matter, from conferring "any title of honour or titular distinction" upon any Canadian citizen.

No, it hasn't. Canada has no such power, and the Nickle Resolution doesn't actually prohibit anything since it's not even law.

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Kenm

From the CBC:Of course Harper, the 18th-century monarchist, is well on his way to reversing that.

18th-century monarchist? Where did this come from?

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Leaffan

18th-century monarchist? Where did this come from?

From Kenm's feverish brain, I suspect.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Leaffan

18th-century monarchist? Where did this come from?

The thought of Harper in one of those massive powdered wigs is too horrible to contemplate ...

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by Malthus

The thought of Harper in one of those massive powdered wigs is too horrible to contemplate ...

Yeah. It was John Diefenbaker's undoing. (Sound abruptly cuts in.)

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Whereas Conrad Black made an excellent Cardinal Richelieu...

[Gorsnak]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

Whereas Conrad Black made an excellent Cardinal Richelieu...

Black and Amiel as Richelieu and Marie Antoinette? I thought it was supposed to be a costume ball.....

[detop]

Originally Posted by Gorsnak

Black and Amiel as Richelieu and Marie Antoinette? I thought it was supposed to be a costume ball.....

It is. He usually dresses as Maurice Duplessis.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by detop

It is. He usually dresses as Maurice Duplessis.

The federal Reform probably will put Duplessis on the new $5 bill.

[Leaffan]

Last penny to be minted today.

[Dread Pirate Jimbo]

I'd just like to mention that the NLL playoffs get underway starting tonight.

Of the eight teams in the playoffs, all three of the Canadian squads are in: the Toronto Rock host the Buffalo Bandits Saturday night (I think the game might be broadcast on TSN or TSN 2) and the Edmonton Rush visit the Calgary Roughnecks Saturday night as well. As with all NLL games, they can be viewed online through NLL's website.

The top two seeds in the playoffs are Calgary and Toronto, so the smart money at this point is on an all-Canadian Champion's Cup final, but with the level of parity in the league this year, one good night or one bad night by anyone could swing things in unexpected directions. Should be entertaining stuff for those of us who aren't all that into watching US-based teams battle for Lord Stanley's cup.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Leaffan

Last penny to be minted today.

Let's hope the Queen does not pass away today as well.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Dread Pirate Jimbo

I'd just like to mention that the NLL playoffs get underway starting tonight.

Of the eight teams in the playoffs, all three of the Canadian squads are in: the Toronto Rock host the Buffalo Bandits Saturday night (I think the game might be broadcast on TSN or TSN 2) and the Edmonton Rush visit the Calgary Roughnecks Saturday night as well. As with all NLL games, they can be viewed online through NLL's website.

The top two seeds in the playoffs are Calgary and Toronto, so the smart money at this point is on an all-Canadian Champion's Cup final, but with the level of parity in the league this year, one good night or one bad night by anyone could swing things in unexpected directions. Should be entertaining stuff for those of us who aren't all that into watching US-based teams battle for Lord Stanley's cup.

Yay! Lacrosse!

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Leaffan

Thank you for quoting a bazillion pages of ......... I don't know what.

I need to sleep now, after that.

Translation:

<sticks fingers in ears>
Lalalalalalala I can't hear you!

[Leaffan]

Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic

Translation:

<sticks fingers in ears>
Lalalalalalala I can't hear you!

Not really. It's good form to at least include some relevant quoted text in a response, not just link to a bunch of stuff and expect the reader to wade through it and try to postulate what the intent is.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

In reference to our earlier discussion about the Gideon's - Jeffrey Miller had an interesting piece about studying the bible in the Globe and Mail. It's a very sensitive issue, and I understand how people of religion don't want secular humanist/atheist people like me teaching the bible, but I fundamentally agree. I don't see how one is supposed to understand anything of Western literature without a thorough knowledge of the bible, whether we're talking about Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky or 'The Matrix'.

[mnemosyne]

His very first paragraph is ridiculous, though - "atheists should be thrilled about the Gideons handing out Bibles..."

That isn't the issue at all. You know as well as I do that no one studies a bible that was handed to them in the hallway between Math and Phys Ed. Kids getting a bible in this manner won't learn a thing more about art, history, world religions or any other topic.

Atheists are, in general, fine with the bible being taught as a work of literature, complete with criticism, questioning, pointing out inconsitencies and falsehoods, discussing sexism or paternalism or whatever the hell themes you want. It's the religious people who don't want that, because it exposes the bible for what it is: a random book of fairy tales, fables, allegories and weird stories from the past, written by several men, over a large period of time and full of inconsistencies, biases and ideas that aren't valid or applicable today.

Just try teaching that to fifth graders. Heck, try teaching that to students at any primary or secondary level of schooling and just watch the religious-types go apeshit with rage, spouting nonsense about "freedom of religion."

Jeffrey Miller wants to appease the religious masses, he doesn't want to further the literary knowledge of fifth-graders. This is a man who took university-level literature classes, then read the bible and started making parallels to things he's read before and since. The man teaches law and literature at Western. How many fifth-graders know Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Picasso, Charlie Parker? It just isn't the same situation whatsoever and he comes off as a pretentious twat because of it.

The bible has no place in schools unless in a literary context which is the one context bible-thumpers cannot accept. So remove the thing altogether and leave it to university to teach it: as was the case for Jeffrey Miller, and he turned out ok (well, other than writing pretentious twatitudes for the Globe and Mail, that is)

[Muffin]

It is important to study any number of things rather than be them. The hitch with Gideons is not that the Bible will be read, but rather that it is used to proselytize and is presented as truth. The primary goal of Gideons is to introduce people to Jesus Christ as the true god. It is not to teach the history of English literature, or the history of religions, or western cultural studies, or any number of other fields in which the Bible has had profound importance. It is to introduce people to Jesus Christ as the true god.

Miller speaks of Frye, under whom he studied. Note that although Frye was a minister, when he taught on the Bible and literature related to the Bible, he placed the bible and religion in context, rather than presenting them as truth with a view to making converts. He was able to use his biblical knowledge, but at the same time distance himself enough from his faith that he was also able to look at the Bible and religion from the outside. He was able to put the bible and religion in context with respect to literature and culture, rather than see literature and culture through the glasses of someone filled with the word of Jesus.

Back when I was reading texts such as the Bible under Frye, I was also reading The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kamph, and many other culturally important texts, but it was not in the context of becoming a Christian, a communist or a fascist. To learn about what we are, we must learn about how such texts have helped form our culture, so to ignore them is to be willfully ignorant.

But just as knowledge of the Bible is important for understanding English literature, it is also important to not be such an adherent to the Bible as to let it stand in the way of critical analysis. That's where true believers usually fall down, for in accepting and promoting the one true word of god, they tend to turn a blind eye to the simple fact that the Bible is one, albeit the primary one, text of many that collectively have been central to our literary culture and it's development over many hundreds of years.

Frye used his knowledge, but was not overridden by his faith, when he developed his theories on literary criticism. For someone to teach the Bible in a literary context, I submit that although it is obviously necessary for that person to know the Bible, it is equally important for that person to be intellectually distant enough from the closed system mindset of true believers, such as Gideons, to be able to put the bible and it's influence into context. It is simple (long and arduous, but simple) for a person to learn the Bible. It is not so simple for a true believer to put his or her profound personal belief into a box, and put the box away in a drawer, for the duration of his or her intellectual pursuit that touches on the Bible as a literary and cultural keystone of English literature and western culture.

When I come across people who are resistant to learning about the Bible or religion from non-believers, I have to wonder if it is that in fact what they want is to hear a reflection and augmentation of their beliefs, rather than an intellectual examination and discussion of how English literature and western culture has been influenced by the Bible and various aspects of Christianity.
In short, if one wants to learn about the Bible's role in English literature and the development of western culture, one would do better to study under a secular humanist or an atheist rather than someone who has been saved through the word of god to the degree that an intellectual distancing is no longer possible.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

The bible has no place in schools unless in a literary context which is the one context bible-thumpers cannot accept. So remove the thing altogether and leave it to university to teach it

Very well said.

[Muffin]

Freedom of religion v. freedom from religion.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by Spoons

I note you have so far not have mentioned US honours conferred on Canadians: see, for example, the Congressional Medal of Honor conferred upon Canadians:

I have no problem with any Canadian receiving any U.S. medal. Your attempt to draw a parallel between a medal and ennobling a Canadian, then giving that person a foreign title and installing that citizen into the law-making upper house of a foreign country thanks to liberal amounts of cash, defies reason, especially when that person in a fit of petulance threw away his Canadian citizenship to sit in the foreign House of Lords where political interests against their lordship's country of birth abound.

And let's not forget that the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry won a Presidential Unit Citation for actions at Kapyong, during the Korean War.

Again, this comparison is and the others that follow it are absurd.

If, as is in the U.S., knighthoods were honorary — surprise, it isn't the 18th or 19th century anymore — fine.

Originally Posted by Cat Whisperer

From Kenm's feverish brain, I suspect.

Why, bless your heart.

[Cat Whisperer]

I didn't know you were southern.

[Kenm]

I'm in southern Manitoba.

[Kenm]

BTW, Tom Mulcair is a French citizen.

The issue of dual citizenship has generated controversy in the past with former Liberal leader Stephane Dion and with Michaelle Jean, who gave up her French citizenship to become governor general.

Dual citizenship of a lawmaker at the federal, provincial or municipal levels should be illegal. A conflict-of-interest vote alone against Canada's interests could be catastrophic, never mind any full-blown legislation favouring another country to Canada's detriment.

Mulcair should drop his French citizenship or be forced to. His "fears" centre on a Spanish airport incident of 20 years ago, which, apparently supersede that of a possible PM working or appearing to work in the interests of France against those of Canada. Idiot.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Kenm

BTW, Tom Mulcair is a French citizen.Dual citizenship of a lawmaker at the federal, provincial or municipal levels should be illegal.

How exactly would you propose forcing foreign countries to comply with such a law? They're the ones that determine which Canadian citizens are dual citizens, after all.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Muffin

It is important to study any number of things rather than be them. The hitch with Gideons is not that the Bible will be read, but rather that it is used to proselytize and is presented as truth. The primary goal of Gideons is to introduce people to Jesus Christ as the true god. It is not to teach the history of English literature, or the history of religions, or western cultural studies, or any number of other fields in which the Bible has had profound importance. It is to introduce people to Jesus Christ as the true god.

Miller speaks of Frye, under whom he studied. Note that although Frye was a minister, when he taught on the Bible and literature related to the Bible, he placed the bible and religion in context, rather than presenting them as truth with a view to making converts. He was able to use his biblical knowledge, but at the same time distance himself enough from his faith that he was also able to look at the Bible and religion from the outside. He was able to put the bible and religion in context with respect to literature and culture, rather than see literature and culture through the glasses of someone filled with the word of Jesus.

Back when I was reading texts such as the Bible under Frye, I was also reading The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kamph, and many other culturally important texts, but it was not in the context of becoming a Christian, a communist or a fascist. To learn about what we are, we must learn about how such texts have helped form our culture, so to ignore them is to be willfully ignorant.

But just as knowledge of the Bible is important for understanding English literature, it is also important to not be such an adherent to the Bible as to let it stand in the way of critical analysis. That's where true believers usually fall down, for in accepting and promoting the one true word of god, they tend to turn a blind eye to the simple fact that the Bible is one, albeit the primary one, text of many that collectively have been central to our literary culture and it's development over many hundreds of years.

Frye used his knowledge, but was not overridden by his faith, when he developed his theories on literary criticism. For someone to teach the Bible in a literary context, I submit that although it is obviously necessary for that person to know the Bible, it is equally important for that person to be intellectually distant enough from the closed system mindset of true believers, such as Gideons, to be able to put the bible and it's influence into context. It is simple (long and arduous, but simple) for a person to learn the Bible. It is not so simple for a true believer to put his or her profound personal belief into a box, and put the box away in a drawer, for the duration of his or her intellectual pursuit that touches on the Bible as a literary and cultural keystone of English literature and western culture.

When I come across people who are resistant to learning about the Bible or religion from non-believers, I have to wonder if it is that in fact what they want is to hear a reflection and augmentation of their beliefs, rather than an intellectual examination and discussion of how English literature and western culture has been influenced by the Bible and various aspects of Christianity.
In short, if one wants to learn about the Bible's role in English literature and the development of western culture, one would do better to study under a secular humanist or an atheist rather than someone who has been saved through the word of god to the degree that an intellectual distancing is no longer possible.

This is an argument I just don't understand.

I fully support keeping the people handing out bibles out of schools, for the simple reason that we should not have just anyone allowed into schools. That makes sense to me.

But the notion that simply being handed a bible is likely to lead to people becoming religious makes no real-world sense to me.

I understand why the Gideons believe it - they are religious and no doubt hope that the kids will read this stuff and, through some sort of divine inspiration, become religious themselves.

I do not understand why sensible non-religious people seem to believe it as well. To my mind the whole thing (other than, as I said, the idea that we can't have random people allowed into schools to hand stuff out - whatever it may be) is a total non-issue, because the activity - handing out bibles - is going to have a close-to-zero-percent chance, on its own, of actually indoctrinating anyone into the religion.

[Kenm]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

How exactly would you propose forcing foreign countries to comply with such a law? They're the ones that determine which Canadian citizens are dual citizens, after all.

Foreign countries' laws are irrelevant. Mulcare lives in Canada, is a member of Parliament and has the potential of being Canada's prime minister.

If he wants French citizenship, he can have it if his Canadian citizenship is revoked and he is prohibited from being a Canadian lawmaker, never mind PM.

What if another MP, member of a legislature or big-city mayor was a dual Canadian-U.S. citizen? Potential conflicts would be legion, no imagination required. Or Canadian-China/Somalia. . . .

Imagine the stink if a U.S. president was a dual U.S.-Kenya citizen.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Kenm

Foreign countries' laws are irrelevant.

Where do you think foreign citizenship comes from?

Canada can't control French citizenship or the House of Lords. For someone who's so worried about improper foreign influence, you seem to have a pretty grandiose take on Canada's place in the world.