🚀 go-pugleaf

Glen Hallick wrote:

> "The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message 
> news:cv00i3$cir$3@gallifrey.nk.ca...

>>In article <8fk611dgt6mropa93t5furhg8iga984pgf@4ax.com>,
>><c_cars@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>Same sex marriage, or whatever the Liberals call it was not a big
>>>thing on my personal agenda until this morning. It seems that the
>>>debate on same sex marriage is about to commence in parliament today,
>>>not a big deal until it was mentioned that Martin our Prime Minister
>>>is pushing it as a Minority Rights Bill, sorry this is where I draw
>>>the line in the sand. What lunacy is the Martin government attempting?
>>>
>>>A "Nay/No" vote on this bill should be considered as a
>>>non- confidence vote for Martin's minority government, we really need
>>>to replace these fools ASAP.

>>Time for an informed referendum.

> Minority rights should never be put to a referendum to be decided by the 
> majority.
> Glen > 

Finally, an intelligent reply! Right or wrong, who can tell, but at 
least, thinking.

Right on, but!  Referendum or not, the legislators will vote their 
concience, right?  They should be able to differentiate between 
democratic rights and religious convictions, but?

I don't denigrate any religion, except compulsory ancestral 
canabalism, but how is any one going to ignore their own convictions 
when trying to be fair to those odd few minorities who's rights we 
would like to respect, even with a smart secular politician?

There is, in reality, no seperation of church and state, since a 
government will always be controlled by those in the social 
majority, Christians, Bhuddists, Consumers, Thinkers, whatever.

The difference must be that intelligent men of concience support 
others' freedom of concience, and, recognise the difference between 
religious government and secular freedom of religion.

Fairness, like riding a bike. Do it right or crash.

The formula of course requires that legislators recognise that 
government must not govern the electorate, but must govern the rich 
business operators and foreign powers who would take liberties with 
the common man, using his roads for overweight cargo, shorting 
weights, measures and purity, etc.

We want fairness for all!

The problem is that some legislators govern with an eye towards 
their political retirement, and consider their pensions 
insufficient, wanting ever more to feather their nests, voting to 
please their rich business friends.

That is why I believe we need less government control and more 
auditors, really nasty ones, to chase the politicians, and big 
rewards for whistleblowers who are right. Join the audit party!

The only law we could all agree on is equality before the law, and 
compulsory justice for all, with government required to pay as much 
for the defense as they pay thier prosecutors. We all pay taxes, 
after all, don't we?

All cases should be argued by the complainants themselves before a 
judge, who has power to settle cases before the lawyers move in, and 
fearing only appeals instigated by aggreived parties at their own 
expense, which, if won, unseat the judge. They do get stagnant, and 
do kowtow to their political appointers.

Then let the lawyers argue it out in public debate before the 
courts, they will have their day in court eventually anyway, and 
that is the only hope for minorities.

Still, do we draw the line at compulsory ancestral canabalism, or 
should we go for a voluntary system? Are all issues religious at heart?

Should our laws permit freedoms on a list, or prohibit abhorrent 
practices on a list?

I believe in complete freedom except in cases not withstanding the 
majority's lawful rights to property, equal justice and concience, 
according to the observation of the logical truth that what goes 
around comes around, also called the "Golden Rule."

Except for those who believe that since homosexuals will die without 
issue and will obviously become extinct soon without lawful heirs, 
they should be robbed and killed before God calls them, Himself. 
Would He deny them another chance to repent? (There is a joke in 
there, somewhere;-)

If God wants revenge, He will get it without our help, in His own 
time. How dare we presume to predict His strange methods? How dare 
we presume to "help" Him? How could we trust those who might usurp Him?

Terry K -an Agnostic, so far.