[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Cam

Never thought I'd have to weigh in on religion on this forum, but here it goes:



While it's true that many Christians are focused on converting others (Jehovah's witnesses, etc), you shouldn't paint them all with the same brush. Many Christians are unconcerned with the beliefs of others.

While I thank you for your attempt at being unbiased in your approach, I must again way in. As a Christian using the bible as their source of teaching, it is almost instinctual to care about the beliefs of others. However most people would understand that this doesn't give us the right to jump all over people and try to convert them. I believe it comes down to something called common courtesy.
I have found (from my own experience) that when people find out that you are a believer, they often begin to question you about your beliefs. This is usually done in a polite matter, as it is intriguing to learn something new.

Originally Posted by Cam

I would like to clear something up about discrimination here. You are equating religeous discrimination with things like racism and sexism, things that someone is born with and can have no negative effect on them. However religeous discrimination is more like discriminating against the racists or the flat world believers. It's discriminating against beliefs that someone adopts later in life and can (although certainly not always) have a negative effect on one's character (example: fundamentalism).

There is a flaw in this argument. With your line of thinking it is not possible to be discriminatory against transvestites, or homosexuals, etc. While liking someone of the same sex is more often than not a genetic trait, becoming someone of the opposite sex is a life choice similar in nature to finding a faith and committing it. Do you mean to tell me it is OK to discriminate against people because of important decisions that they have made in their lives?
Also Religion isn't a thought process that can be avoided and thus disregarded as you so claim. Religion is an inherent part of life. Choosing to be an Atheist is a Religious practice, one that I would say when investigated for its principles could potentially be far more negative in nature than being a believer in any other religion.

Originally Posted by Cam

Being as intelligent people don't have self-contradictory beliefs, I highly doubt that he is intelligent. And being as the psychology of religion has shown that your relationship with God is actually a relationship with your own ego (thus God's opinions are always your own), I also highly doubt he is down to earth. I've never met the man, so I'll withhold such a judgement until I have, although I do have expectations. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised.

You would be very pleasantly surprised. Interestingly enough, being a Christian was undoubtedly not a part of the criteria for being hired. Remember this man has been on the Police force since 1987, has been a part of many divisions within the force. Though I don't know him well enough to say whether or not he could be qualified as a genious, I could hazard a guess that based on his qualifications, he is a fairly smart individual.
Now your post only highlights your own ignorance about Christians and how they live their lives. A big part of being a believer is submitting to God's will and committing to something that you would prefer not to do. Now to those who don't believe in God, I would understand if this in their mind implies lunacy, however this does not fall at all in line with your statement that
"the psychology of religion has shown that your relationship with God is actually a relationship with your own ego (thus God's opinions are always your own)".

Originally Posted by Cam

It's not practical to be intimately familiar with every church in every religeous denomination, so we're going to have to go by the general teachings of Christianity.

So you claim that it is OK to be ignorant of the subject at hand, and yet come up with the answers despite this ignorance. Even an unintelligent man such as myself (What with my contradictory beliefs and all) could see the flaw in that statement.

Originally Posted by Cam

And could you please remember that Freedom of Religion does not mean Protection from Criticism.

I would gladly accept criticism of my beliefs, as such a thing only opens the door to conversation. What does offend me however, are ignorant and generalized statements that hold no water what so ever. Remember that the majority of the statements on this site have not been against Christianity but against those who believe in it. If you want to delve into the Bible and start playing the "I'll show you the contradiction's, the lies, etc." game then I am very much OK with that, actually I would warn you that I very much would look forward to it. Just remember I was an Atheists once, so I know every argument in the book. However if you want to do so (which I doubt you do) then let's do it over PM so not to lead these people to falsely believe that I am trying to convert them.

Originally Posted by Cam

All of that is fine, however, when he is being interviewed as the chief of police, he is representing the City of Winnipeg and should conduct himself as such. I for one am concerned about how the rest of the country will see us. If city officials are allowed to spout religeous ideas when they represent the city, then Winnipeg will be increasingly associated with the social conservatives of Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Winnipeg has a negative stigma across the country, this stigma is wrong (Winnipeg is awesome), but we still need to advertise ourselves well. This man is doing irreparable damage to our reputation and I won't stand for it. Winnipeg must stand on the right side of history as socially progressive.

I don't even know what to say here.