Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Friday, June 08, 2007

John Tory and Faith-based Private Schools

Well, turns out where I'm staying has a wireless connection! I'll be too busy to really make use of it this week, however, I felt I should chime in on John Tory's upcoming campaign proposal regarding faith based education, since I went to a Christian elementary school for five years.

Here's the brief overview that I got from the CBC on the road today... John Tory supports a parent's right to opt for private faith-based education, but rather than doing so via a voucher based tax credit, he favours providing direct funding for these schools, provided that they in some measure come under the authority of their local public school board. At the same time, he favours increasing funding to the public system, not taking from the public system to fund faith-based education.

According to the CBC, Mr. Tory is planning to release more details on this tomorrow. However, based on the details mentioned by the CBC, here's my take on the idea... IT MIGHT JUST COST HIM THE ELECTION. Most of the people I know, who sacrifice to send their kids to private Christian schools, will never support such a plan... and might just be willing to actively campaign against it. (despite the common stereotype that they're rich... trust me, my parents are not) Here's just a few reasons why they'll never support it...

Firstly, people who choose to send their kids, like my parents, often do so to REMOVE their kids from the influence of the public system, and the boards that run them. These boards are the same ones who are implementing immoral sex education programs, and ramming humanistic philosophy down the throats of kids. Parents of faith often remove their kids from the public system in order to protect them from being overtly converted to humanism by the world.

Secondly, in order to receive funding, some degree of the school's autonomy will most certainly have to be given up... there's no way they'll be able to get at this money without the government attaching strings. Most parents greatly value this autonomy, which enables the schools to select the curriculum, the teaching staff, etc. Parents aren't likely to give that up willingly.

Thirdly, and what should be most important to John Tory, for many parents who support faith based education, this idea may just be enough for them to NOT vote for Mr. Tory, and just choose to stay home... or, if they're really bothered by it, as I'm starting to be, may just be enough for them to vote AGAINST Mr. Tory, by supporting Dalton McGuinty.

In an effort to throw a bone to a part of the PC base who support faith based education, he may have inadvertently thrown them a bone of contention instead... and since these parents are willing to sacrifice to send their children to these schools, you can be sure that they're going to do whatever it takes to ensure that the government doesn't get control of their schools.

This is a really bad move that may just be enough to cost him the election.

Tax credits are what these parents want, since they're having to pay TWICE for their children's education, once via property taxes, and once via private tuition fees. Rather than try to put forward an idea like this Mr. Tory, I would have done nothing about the whole private school issue. If I were you, I'd just try to forget this idea and let it quietly die between now and the October election.

Let me be crystal clear... if my local PC candidate supports this idea, I'll likely be staying home come election day. That's how important this issue is... Mr. Tory, you need to drop it NOW, otherwise you put your electoral chances in severe jeopardy.

We'll see what the details of the plan are. Please post links to anything you see in the comments, as I'll have a hard time following this while I'm away.

Labels: , ,

31 Comments:

  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 06:41:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Jim said…

    Am I to understand that he is proposing to fund Moslem schools? Is this sharia by the backdoor?

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 07:20:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    Great post, Andrew. To be honest, I never thought about it that way before.

    I can't stand Dalton, but I agree that John Tory isn't much better.

    We don't actually have a Conservative party to vote for. Are there any other? Christian Heritage?

    This might actually make me vote for the electoral change in that it would give smaller parties some representation, right?

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 08:11:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Am I to understand that he is proposing to fund Moslem schools? Is this sharia by the backdoor?

    If he is it would be more of pushing that scary "humanism" into the Muslim schools than it would be anything to do with Sharia law.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 08:15:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    These boards are the same ones who are implementing immoral sex education programs, and ramming humanistic philosophy down the throats of kids.

    I went to pubic school (in liberal Toronto) and I don't remember any immoral sex education programs. My little sister goes to public school and I haven't heard of any at hers either, though I'll ask her next time I talk to her to double check. As far as ramming "humanistic" philosophy down the throats of kids, you'll have to be a little more specific about what exactly it is you don't like being taught there because that statement doesn't really tell us anything.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 01:41:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No way on earth do I want "my" taxpayer money to pay for faith based schools. If parents of certain faiths want to separate their kids from the public system -they should pay for it themselves.

    I went to public schools and was never taught anything immoral - what a bunch of nonsense saying "immoral" teaching.

    If John Tory goes this route - he's toast and should be.

    School is for learning to read and write, etc.

    Religion is taught in churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. and should remain so.

    Imagine how high taxes would have to increase to cover this idea?

    A government is responsbile for helping educate you - not your religious leanings.

    I am so angry!

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 01:51:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I guess that goes for the Catholics too anon? As I recall a huge fear on the part of Catholics when Davis finally gave them full-funding, was the exposure to "public" schools would water down what made Catholic schools better. That hasn't happened, although Catholic schools are out-performing public ones based on test scores.

    I too don't wish that school boards
    as they exist now oversee faith-based schools. No way! Our boards are a mess, way too expensive and loaded to the teeth with bureaucrats.

    How odd is it that over 70% of our education taxdollar goes to salaries and the other 25% needs to be managed by school boards? The beauty of sending kids to private schools is that it isn't like the public system at all, faith-based or not.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 02:28:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I taught in a private Jewish school. The morning was devoted to Jewish Studies. The Ontario curriculum had to be fit into the afternoon. There was no way that a full time curriculum (language arts, math, social studies, science, phys. ed. etc.) could be fit into a half time day.

    The students didn't stand for the singing of O Canada either, by the way.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 02:52:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think this will confuse parents rather that get their support because on the one hand Tory says he "supports" the parent's right to choose but then gives the money to the school. Doesn't he trust parents to use the money wisely?

    I agree, that watering down the autonomy of private schools is kind of defeating the purpose of parents isn't it?

    Didn't the Christian schools support this effort en masse?

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 04:34:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How in the hell is he going to pay for this? I don't want my taxes going up because he thinks it would be cute to fund every single religion's schools. Where does it end? Jewish schools, islam schools, protestant schools,etc, etc, etc....

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 05:06:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Very good analysis CC..
    at first religious families might have been pleased, but I sure wouldn't want public admin. dictating Christian curriculum.
    And those that didn't see 'immoral teaching'...there in lies the problem...relativism, blended with secularism...'there is no right or wrong.'...different 'measuring sticks'...each has there own moral compass, etc.

    John Tory, AKA the Red Tory ...try to 'please 'em all and end up pleasing no one...I know an Aesop's Fable he should read...
    Time for a voucher school system.Why do we have to waste tax money on top heavy administration instead of education? Give us a'voucher' and we shop for the best school that suits our needs.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 05:07:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Real Tory said…

    GET RID OF JOHN TORY!!!

    John Tory supports SSM. John Tory supports abortion. John Tory supports Kyoto.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 05:21:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Eldon Murray said…

    re: immoral sex education programs, and ramming humanistic philosophy down the throats of kids.

    It isn't that the school boards attempt to teach immoral sex ed, it is that they attempt to teach amoral, that is, they give kids every aspect imaginable regarding sex and leave the children to experiment and discover that sex outside of marriage is unhealthy. As soon as you teach abstinence in sex ed in a public system, you have the non-religious groups crying bloody murder for allowing 'religious' beliefs in a moral absolute (found commonly in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) to exist in a secular school system.

    As far as humanistic philosophy goes, it cannot be denied that the public system promotes the humanism completely. Example: The debate on evolution vs creation is structured around a disbelief in a God due to humanistic viewpoint and little else. If the public system did with creation as it attempts to do with sex ed, the curriculum would allow an unbiased instruction of both viewpoints being properly supported. Recent study proving bias.

    What it all comes down to is the government trying to get its hand into the religious school curriculum. Once a Christian school accepts tax dollars, it has to listen to the government. This is the same reason churches do not pay taxes - because then the church, like corporations, would have a hand in the government. That was why the US created specific rules on separation of church and state, not to keep religion out of the state as it is often translated, but to keep the state from being led by the church (as has occurred throughout the last 2000 years, but visible today in Iran et al). Religion should affect government through the individual and their vote, not the organizations in which they exist.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 09, 06:46:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said…

    I saw a news clip of Tory introducing his platform. He said costs to follow.

    I think this is a trial balloon. We need to be very vocal and say, John Tory, we want a Conservative leader!

    Actually, strategic voting is the answer. Try to figure out who has the best chance of unseating your Liberal candidate & vote accordingly. That way at least we won't end up with another majority Liberal government.

    We need another Mike Harris!

     
  • At Sun. Jun. 10, 10:33:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    It isn't that the school boards attempt to teach immoral sex ed, it is that they attempt to teach amoral, that is, they give kids every aspect imaginable regarding sex

    As it should be (particularly since morality is relative).

    and leave the children to experiment and discover that sex outside of marriage is unhealthy.

    And yet I, and so many others, "experimented" and discovered exactly the opposite.

    As soon as you teach abstinence in sex ed in a public system, you have the non-religious groups crying bloody murder for allowing 'religious' beliefs in a moral absolute (found commonly in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) to exist in a secular school system.

    As well they should if the schools try to teach abstinence only. Us evil "humanists" don't care if abstinence is included as an option (which is how I was taught in high school), just as long as it's not taught as the only valid option (like it is in many parts of the US, although many schools are stopping this practice as they're ending up with too many teen pregnancies in their schools thanks to the lack of education on birth control. Yes, a large percentage of teens will have (and always have had) premarital sex regardless of what you teach them. Deal with it).

     
  • At Sun. Jun. 10, 04:13:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    ... morality is relative ...

    Do you really think that, tch? I wonder if you would still think so if you were treated unfairly. Examples are: being shouted down at a meeting because some one didn't like what you were saying, being cut off in traffic, having your home invaded and being beaten up and robbed, having your home fire-bombed, etc. I'll bet if any of the above were to happen to you or to a loved one (and I sincerely hope that nothing like the above EVER happens to you or to a loved one), you'd change your mind.

     
  • At Sun. Jun. 10, 08:00:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Eldon Murray said…

    The whole concept that morality is relative is hogwash. In other words, TCH, when someone sacrifices your child in a Satanic ritual, it is morally acceptable to that group, and you are OK with that? That is exactly the humanistic philosophy being taught in schools that I was speaking about.

    I do not know how you discovered that premarital sex is healthy, when it has become the downfall of our civilization (being an aberration in all previous civilizations up to this point). If you look at the raw divorce numbers, those who are getting divorced now were not virgins on their wedding night. Since moral relativity has become popular religion, sleeping around and living together has become unfortunately commonplace.

    I am proud to say I will be married in two weeks a virgin to a virgin, and none of that can be attributed to "proper" sex education or birth control. A large percentage of teens will have premarital sex, it is true, but a trend is beginning to turn back on this in many places because children have seen what broken families are like. If you want to promote such a culture of divorce and infidelity, I pray for your children, should you now or ever will have any.

     
  • At Mon. Jun. 11, 09:50:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Do you really think that, tch? I wonder if you would still think so if you were treated unfairly.

    Of course. It wouldn't be very consistent of me if I didn't (what, do you think I've never been treated unfairly before?).

    Examples are: being shouted down at a meeting because some one didn't like what you were saying, being cut off in traffic, having your home invaded and being beaten up and robbed, having your home fire-bombed, etc. I'll bet if any of the above were to happen to you or to a loved one (and I sincerely hope that nothing like the above EVER happens to you or to a loved one), you'd change your mind.

    I'm not saying I'd enjoy those experiences, but my lack of enjoyment does not mean that morality has to be absolute, it just means that my brain is programmed to dislike certain events.

     
  • At Mon. Jun. 11, 10:00:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    The whole concept that morality is relative is hogwash. In other words, TCH, when someone sacrifices your child in a Satanic ritual, it is morally acceptable to that group, and you are OK with that?

    You've just demonstrated my point, it is "morally acceptable" to that group, hence it is relative. Again, I'm not saying I'd like it, but that doesn't make it "wrong" or "evil." Truth be told, Evil doesn't even exist, at least not ontologically speaking.

    That is exactly the humanistic philosophy being taught in schools that I was speaking about.

    It's actually just basic logic. If humanists happen to have figured that out it just means that they're more logical than most religionists.

    I do not know how you discovered that premarital sex is healthy, when it has become the downfall of our civilization (being an aberration in all previous civilizations up to this point).

    Um, okay. Interesting assertion.

    If you look at the raw divorce numbers, those who are getting divorced now were not virgins on their wedding night.

    Since the majority of people are not virgins on their wedding night I'm not surprised that many divorcees weren't.

    Since moral relativity has become popular religion, sleeping around and living together has become unfortunately commonplace.

    And? You're assuming that these are "bad" things.

    I am proud to say I will be married in two weeks a virgin to a virgin, and none of that can be attributed to "proper" sex education or birth control.

    And if remaining a virgin until marriage is a goal of yours then I'm happy for you. Just don't make the assumption that this is something that everybody needs to do.

    A large percentage of teens will have premarital sex, it is true, but a trend is beginning to turn back on this in many places because children have seen what broken families are like. If you want to promote such a culture of divorce and infidelity, I pray for your children, should you now or ever will have any.

    I sincerely doubt that divorce is caused by premarital sex. I suspect that there are many factors at play in divorce, but I can't see premarital sex playing into this phenomenon.

     
  • At Mon. Jun. 11, 08:50:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    Forgive me for not believing you, tch, but I, quite frankly, don't believe you. If you really believed that all morality is relative, then you would obviously see no problem with the Nazis having killed six million Jews.

     
  • At Tue. Jun. 12, 08:09:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Forgive me for not believing you, tch, but I, quite frankly, don't believe you.

    You're free to disbelieve whatever you like.

    If you really believed that all morality is relative, then you would obviously see no problem with the Nazis having killed six million Jews.

    Again you're confusing seeing a problem with something with something being wrong or evil. While it can't be wrong, simply because "wrong" doesn't exist (from an ontological morality perspective, anyway), I can still dislike it from an emotional perspective and see a problem with it from a relative, society-based morality perspective.

     
  • At Tue. Jun. 12, 12:24:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    The reason I don't believe it is because of human nature. It simply doesn't make sense. And, as Judge Judy has said, if something doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true.

     
  • At Tue. Jun. 12, 01:17:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    The reason I don't believe it is because of human nature. It simply doesn't make sense. And, as Judge Judy has said, if something doesn't make sense, it usually isn't true.

    The thing is, from a purely logical perspective it makes perfect sense. It's only from an emotional perspective that we have trouble with it.

     
  • At Fri. Jun. 15, 07:38:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous ryan;-P said…

    So christian heretic (could have a more pretentious pseudonym?)

    If I may paraphrase what you're saying here it's that, there is no such thing as absolute morality. Of course in saying this you are making an absolute truth claim thereby leaving yourself and your arguement with no ground to stand on.

    Every one of your posts here has been one steaming pile of nonesense after another. You remind of the first year student who takes philosophy 101 and thinks he understands the human condition, until he shows up for 2nd semester and finds out that everything he learned in first semester gets thrown out the window.

    Throughout your comments you argue against teaching children Christian morality in school, because you say you believe that morality is relative. Here's the problem, your argument that morality is relative leaves you with no reason to argue against anything. You're assuming that your position of moral relativity is superior. Your own comments disagree with your professed moral relativity because they assume that you know better than someone else. Furthermore, if moral relativism was actually true you would have no way of conceptualizing it. If there was no right or wrong you simply would not be able to percieve anything "objectionable". To put it another way if there was no right or wrong, it would have been impossible for us to even concieve right or wrong; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we would never know it was dark. Darkness would be without meaning. Get it?

    When asked by another commentor if you would object to your own child being sacrificed in a Satanic ritual your response was: "You've just demonstrated my point, it is "morally acceptable" to that group, hence it is relative". First of all, give me a break. If that's what you really believe than you're more than just ignorant, you're a fool. (a fool with no children I suspect) First of all this arguement proves nothing. Mathematics are abosolute, but falible, imperfect humans make mathematic mistakes all the time, does this mean that 2+2 only equals 4 sometimes? Or does it mean that mankind is subject to making errors of judgement? Further to this "argument" in India Hindus believe it is wrong to eat cows, in North America we think it's OK. This shows that morality is relative right? Wrong, Hindus believe cows house the reincarnated souls of their ancestors, therefore it's wrong to kill other people. In this we agree, it's wrong to eat Grandma!

    In the same sense you seem to hold true that it is wrong to force theological or moral beliefs upon another person. In this we agree, the moral code is not prescribed it is discovered, you simply seem to prefer trial and error over instruction.

    I found this comment particularily dismal: "Truth be told, Evil doesn't even exist, at least not ontologically speaking."

    That's like me saying the sky isn't blue, because blue just doesn't exist.

    When another commentor asserted that if you really believe in moral relativity you would have no problem with the Holocaust, you replied: Again you're confusing seeing a problem with something with something being wrong or evil. While it can't be wrong, simply because "wrong" doesn't exist. OK, YOU CLAIM TO APPRECIATE LOGIC, WELL, THAT STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL NONESENSE. If there was no wrong, or evil, there would be no issue of seeing a problem with something. The justification of the Holocaust is not just a matter of opinon! Can you grasp that concept?

    An often sited delemma used to prove moral relativity is this: There are 5 people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only 4. If one person isn't thrown overboard, then everyone will die. Students often labor over this delemma, and their inability to come to an answer must prove moral relativity. But the delemma actually proves the opposite. Because there would be no dilemma if morality were relative. If morality were relative and there were no absolutes it wouldn't matter, throw everyone overboard. The reason there is a struggle is because we recognize the value of life.

    The ultimate example of your illogical statements is that you want us to value your opinion, but you deny that there are values for all persons. Please explore the other side of the coin before you ever question someone elses morality, OK?

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 16, 08:48:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    So christian heretic (could you have a more pretentious pseudonym?)

    I'm sure I could think of one. :)

    If I may paraphrase what you're saying here it's that, there is no such thing as absolute morality. Of course in saying this you are making an absolute truth claim thereby leaving yourself and your arguement with no ground to stand on.

    You seem to be confusing "morality" with "truth," but these are two different animals. Saying there is no absolute morality is not the same thing as saying there is no absolute truth, and I never claimed that absolute truth doesn't exist (the rest of your post makes the same mistake so that's all I'll say about that for now).

    The reason there is a struggle is because we recognize the value of life.

    Or simply because we value life. Just because most humans assume that life has an inherent value doesn't mean it does. We also value little pieces of paper that we call money, but the value of these papers are also relative to how much we consider them to be worth (or how much we're told they're worth by certain people).

    Every one of your posts here has been one steaming pile of nonesense after another.

    You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I appreciate that you at least took the time to read my posts.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 16, 09:15:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous ryan;-P said…

    The bottom line is that if you trully believe morality to be relative you have no compelling reason to disagree with anything. It's all just a matter of opinion. You have no reason to disagree with anything that is taught in schools. Be it secular humanistic teaching in Canada or jihadist indoctrination in the Middle East, all things being relative you have no reason to favour or deplore one over the other.

    But your comments betray your disbelief, you argue in favour of your relativism, because you believe it to be superior to other modes espoused here. ie. There's nothing relative about your belief in relativsm.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 16, 09:25:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    The bottom line is that if you trully believe morality to be relative you have no compelling reason to disagree with anything.

    Sure I do, the chemicals in my brain drive me to disagree (and, perhaps unfortunately, we're all slaves to the chemicals in our brains). But, again, don't confuse disagreeing with one's moral views with disagreeing with truth (as I said, I don't deny that truth exists, just that truth and morality are the same thing)

    It's all just a matter of opinion.

    Exactly (at least as far as morality goes), opinion and preference (and often fear).

    You have no reason to disagree with anything that is taught in schools. Be it secular humanistic teaching in Canada or jihadist indoctrination in the Middle East, all things being relative you have no reason to favour or deplore one over the other.

    As I said, my brain drives me to "disagree" (although, admittedly, "dislike" would be a more accurate term) with some "moral views." Since my own personal moral code is based on not harming others, I would push for schools to not do that, but I do realize that my view is no more "right" than anybody else's, it's just what I prefer. From a purely practical perspective, you've got to pick one if you want a functional society, but I'm not arguing that mine is "better" even if it's what I prefer.

    But your comments betray your disbelief, you argue in favour of your relativism, because you believe it to be superior to other modes espoused here.

    Not superior, just more logically accurate (as far as I can tell).

    There's nothing relative about your belief in relativsm.

    Of course not. As I said, I'm only discussing moral relativism, not absolute vs. relative truth.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 16, 11:02:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous ryan;-P said…

    "the chemicals in my brain drive me to disagree (and, perhaps unfortunately, we're all slaves to the chemicals in our brains)"

    Why does your brian drive you to "disagree"? As I said before if there was trully no such thing as good or bad, our brians would never have been able to concieve the notion in the first place. Just as if there was no such thing as light, darkness would be without meaning. The fact that your brian perceives something as good or bad, liked or disliked proves that there is some standard outside of yourself with which you judge the sum of your experiences by.

    "I don't deny that truth exists, just that truth and morality are the same thing"

    "I'm only discussing moral relativism, not absolute vs. relative truth."

    I'm not confusing truth and morality. But you seem to be missing the link between the two. I haven't met many serious relativists who deny absolute morality but believe truth can be known. If truth can be known, than the concept of absolute morality could be true.

    In response to my acusation that you behave as though your moral relativism is superior to absolute morality you reply:

    "Not superior, just more logically accurate (as far as I can tell)."

    Not superior, just more logically accurate? I'm sorry, but how exactly is that not superior? If something is more logically accurate, does that not imply that the other option is less logical, and therefore inferior?

    On top of it all you still fail to realize that if you believe in moral relativity you have no right to participate in any debate, anything you say must be nonesense, because you cannot simultaneously believe that all morality is relative while advocating moral relativity.

    Back to the school analogy, whether a madrasa in Iran teaches children to blow themselves up to kill their enemies or a school in Canada teaches children to respect their fellow man, should be without meaning to you, it all just a matter of opinion, right? I like chocolate, you like vanilla.

    I'm sorry, but almost everything you've contirbuted here has been nothing but soft-headed post-modern nonesense.

     
  • At Sat. Jun. 16, 05:30:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Ryan, I responded to you over on my blog.

     
  • At Sun. Jun. 17, 08:29:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    I personally like how Ravi Zacharias deals with this question of relative morality...

    "In some cultures, people love their neighbours, while in other cultures, they eat their neighours... do you have a personal preference?"

     
  • At Mon. Jun. 18, 09:04:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    "In some cultures, people love their neighbours, while in other cultures, they eat their neighours... do you have a personal preference?"

    Yes, I do have a personal preference. Perfect demonstration of moral relativism there, actually, by good ol' Ravi. :)

     
  • At Wed. Aug. 29, 08:39:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Why do you have a personal preference? Is one 'better' than the other, or is it merely that certain chemicals in your so-called brain engage in certain reactions?

    What a putz. You people should stop feeding the ignorant ranting fool.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home