772 comments posted · 37 followers · following 13

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "That's kind of the se... · 1 reply · +3 points

To be fair to Emily, she was saying that Elizabeth I ended religious persecution and killing in Britian.

There is even a grain of truth to that (thou it's not entirely true). Liz I did do much to bring about peace between Catholics and Protestants.

To say that that was the start of secularism is still just as baffling. As I note in my comment above, Elizabeth I had a large role in establishing the Church of England. That's hardly something a secularist would want on their resume.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "That's kind of the se... · 0 replies · +4 points

How is the esablishment of a state run church a move towards separation of church and state? It seems to me that Elizabeth I went in the exact opposite direction, melding church and state in a way that endures to this day. Ending religious persecution has nothing to do with church/state separation. The historical record will always show that the first nation to be founded on secular principles is America. It will always remain so. Jefferson was and is a hero to freethinkrs around the world. It's a shame that anyone takes credit from him, and hands it to a monarch who in no way thought chuch and state should be separate (the exact opposite in fact). That is why I try to show you the truth. You beliefs do a disservice not only to Jeffersons memory, but to your own understanding of the history of freethought.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "That's kind of the se... · 0 replies · +6 points

You have a pesecution problem if you read my post to you as an attack. I asked you a question, and even had the courtesy to say please. What part of my post did you consider an attack?

I give credit to Elizabeth I for many things, and think she was a great monarch. She was not what you think she was. Thou less fanatical then bloody Mary, she was a devout protestant and believed in the divine right to rule. She also executed Catholics, thou not at the stake. Since you enjoy looking at wikipedia (I do as well), take a gander at what they say about her:

"One of her first moves as queen was to support the establishment of an English Protestant church, of which she became the Supreme Governor. This Elizabethan Religious Settlement held firm throughout her reign and later evolved into today's Church of England."

cont. below

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - The Night of 1,000 Del... · 2 replies · +9 points

The most telling moment in the Liz May interview I saw was when she said that we actually had a "minority government" since only 60% of Canadians voted, and only 40% of those voted CPC.

It makes me wonder what planet she's living on. Maybe after some time in the house she will realize that Canadians actually elected a CPC majority. I'm betting that even after that epiphany, she still won't show any respect for the result.

The Greens are the most shamless self-promoters of any party. May winning her seat was the biggest black mark on what was otherwise a great night.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - "That's kind of the se... · 9 replies · +5 points

We've had this conversation before Emily. Could you please point out when the British came up with the concept of church/state separation?

Before you answer with something about Elizabeth I let me remind you that not only was she both head of the state AND the church, she also was a proponent of the divine"right to rule" idea that was in vogue at the time.

The truth is that "secularism" wasn't even a word until 50 years after Jefferson coined the term "separation of church and state" in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Your problem is that your anti-American bias does not permit you to give credit where it is due.

You hold tight to your revisonist history if you want, but you should at least make an attempt at backing up your claim by pointing to the moment in history when you think the Brits came up with the idea. My guess is that you won't be able to find any such moment, as to this day the monarch is STILL the head of both chuch and state in Britian.
(even thou they have followed the Americans lead and now have a de facto secular society)

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Plus/minus · 2 replies · +6 points

Well I'd rather you explain it to me Emily. It is your theory after all.

The Conservatives gained 391,751 more new votes this election, then the combined "left" parties you listed.

How does this equal any leftward shift, nevermind a major one? It's a simple question.

Does it have something to do with balloons?... cause these numbers should really pop yours.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Plus/minus · 0 replies · +2 points

Just simple math actually... but thanks anyway.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Plus/minus · 6 replies · +7 points

Let's test this major move left with the numbers provided.

Vote change for CPC +623,332

Vote change for NDP/Bloc/Green/Lib +231,581

Do you see why this does not equal a major leftward shift? I'm sure with a little more effort towards intellectual honesty, you can figure it out.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Plus/minus · 3 replies · +4 points

I think he's refering to Emily.

12 years ago @ Macleans.ca - Layton's against the o... · 2 replies · +4 points

So the CPC vote share went up by over 3 points, at the same time voter turnout increased by 2 points.

It sounds like Canadians came out in droves, to support this massive leftward shift you speak of.

Glad you are so happy with the result. I am too.