Birdy

spooooooooooky!

Yep, I grew up playing recitals and attending music camps there. It's very old in a conventional way, small/choppy rooms, a maze-ish feel... but i was young. It is/was in drastic need of restoration. I love it that way though. We had the craziest ghost stories about that place.

I love this building.

Sounds lovely.

Really, where the fuck is DEM? I am the song that never ends. I figured i can continue to kick the horse, or I can give up and throw out an insult instead. At the time, the latter seemed more appealing. I gave up long ago on thinking opinions around this place can change. Now I'm in it for the entertainment.

I feel like the song that never ends. I disagree... with you all! bunch'a closed-minded hippies!

if it's a public school system, isn't part of the public religious? don't they get a say?

So then it seems like the only viable alternative, if we choose to go down this route, is to completely abolish all prayer all together from parliamentary proceedings. Seems kind of contradictory to the efforts of those who oppose it in the name of those un-represented religions. Is it the interest of other religions to have no prayer read, or their prayer read? Are we really being more multi-cultural by silencing all voices? I don't think so. Seems more like appeasement than a culture in progress. I'm all for your middle road solution Allison, hiccups it may present and all. And while some traditions are better left in the dark ages, I don't agree the lord's prayer reading is one of them. If we advocate representation of our people than we should recongize that a large number amongst us are Christian and that Canada of yesterday was founded on Christian principles and we should look to how we can incorporate that in the Canada of the future (this is not about 'preservation'). And (apologies to phishtaper) as I've yet to find out exactly what it is about these words that people find so offensive to their ears when read out, I find it hard to imagine how it's elimination is really going to change anything, at all, other than give those people who prefer not to hear reference to God the opportunity to not hear reference to God. And where's the representation then? After all, if you're not a believer, these are just words being brought together. Noone's forcing a gun to your head ordering you to interpret the reading and pay homage. We're simply recognizing that to some of our fellow citizens, these words do have meaning and significance, and isn't that much more open-minded and liberal than it's alternative? I think so.

This girl's skin looks literally like the plastic used on my most favourite barbies. Literally.

Tradition isn't about doing something for the sake of always doing it at all, and i'm sorry that you *appear* to think so. It's about giving the future an understanding of the past and of where, in this particular instance, our country came from. As a student of history and a big fan of family traditions, i place a lot of emphasis on their importance. I never insisted this at all. I simply wondered what the reaction to this was from the people who do have some sort of invested care in the subject. (You admitted you could care less.) You are more than entitled to your opinion, care or not. I just think in debates like this, even outside of the jambands world, we rarely ever hear from those it truly affects and that's the opinion (at least to me, and it should be for everyone) that really matters.

There's a loaded statement!

[color:purple] Yep, fucked. I'm going to sleep tonight with one eye open.

Wow, you really went to bat in this thread for someone who 'could care less'. I have a feeling most people who oppose this, oppose it in the name of someone other than themselves. Excluding Mr. McGuinty of course, but i think his motive stems entirely on the political side of things. It would be interesting to remove the bleeding hearts from these equations, remove all of the people who through their own insecurity of some sort face a fear of Christianity and see what's left. I'd be willing to listen to these people. I just have a hard time listening to someone who cares less tell me what other people do care about. And that's nothing personal.

I think this is a pretty good thing. I'd like to be able to think we could send our troops easily down to a Hurricane Katrina situation, or those wildfires that took out half of Southern California situation. Nothing to be ashamed of there!

No, I don't think anything's being forced on anyone, but we're not going to get anywhere with that. Why all the uncomfortableness though? What EXACTLY is it about the lord's prayer that makes YOU, personally, wince when you hear it phishtaper? I'd like to know. Plesae don't say you it's that you care about how it affects others. How does it affect you?

Amen. Noone's forcing anything upon anyone. Maybe we should quit playing 'O Canada' before the leaf's game in support of all of those Russian nationals? What about their national anthem? I hope they're not thinking they're not 'good enough' to be part of the 'enforced' national hockey league playing of national anthems committee's selection. Those poor repressed hockey players!!

No, I do get it. Hence my participation in this thread.

I find it reaaaaally interesting how you can equate the reciting of prayer to imprisonment and repression. Let's talk apples and oranges phishtaper.

Yes, a great man. The kind of great man who squashes any voice and imprisons any man who had a voice different than his or who he perceived as a threat to this regime. The kind of great man who built labor camps and held people without trial, even killed them, by the thousands. What a great man.

Having the lord's prayer recited certainly wouldn't evoke a complete breakdown of society either, now would it? has it? if anything the only people who it seems to hurt are the people that *seem* to move from issue to issue until every part of cultural or religious heritage is stricken from all facets of government, as if we should hang our heads in shame or something. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with how our government views the existence of other religions, nor does it give any more weight to Christianity, it's simply recognizing that Canada was founded on the principles of Christianity. Zing! I fully understand this side of the issue, I just don't agree with it. I don't think we should have to erase who we are in order to make ourselves 'progress'. If you think revoking the lord's prayer is going to solve the world's problems, or even in the least bring people not inclined to accept other religions closer to each other, than I'd say you don't have your head screwed on tight enough. There's waaaaaaaaaaay bigger problems out there, and yet here we are focusing all of our thoughts and attentions on this one. What does that say?

I had major squirrel issues, but it seems planting a ton of different herbs has kept them away.

Religion provides a means for people to exercise forgiveness, to act morally and to empathize with others for the sake of being good alone. Unfortunately not everyone walks around on the earth opening doors for others, saying please and thank you and generally doing their best to make the world a better place, so if there's a group of people that want to organize themselves, act like good people and believe in something greater than what science can prove, LET THEM! Who/what really is the reciting of the lord's prayer hurting, other than the pride of those who don't have their own religious/spiritual mantra read out before the proceeding? I'm sorry but I can't help but equate this to the culture of entitlement, the 'whaaaaaaaaa, what about me?' attitudes that people are increasingly adopting and that our government, through motions like this, seem to continue to say is okay. How REALLY is the reciting of the lord's prayer stopping us or hindering us from being a multi-cultural society? Doesn't change come from the individual??

I think this is the reason people get worked up over issues like this. Minority groups, religious and otherwise, have traditionally been excluded from having a voice in defining who "we" are, and the recital of this prayer in government is indicative that this tradition of exclusion is still very much in practice. Using a non-denominational prayer or a moment of silence makes way more sense. Personally, I'd prefer if they read a statement about their responsibilities to their constituents and then a had a moment of silence to reflect upon that. From what I can see, Canada is more willing than most countries to continue redefining who we are in order to be accepting to all peoples and faiths. So much so that beer commercials are probably the closest thing to patriotism that i've ever witnessed. I love this about Canada, but I also respect how our country came about and upon what principles it was founded on. If it were these Christian principles that created such a kick ass country, than that's a big point in favour of Christianity for me. If our government can recognize various groups of people and various faiths and accept them, with their Christian foundation, than that's another big point in favour of Christianity for me. We shouldn't have to erase our history (as a nation state) to prove that we can all peacefully co-exist and respect each other. I think doing so shows a certain level of volatility in our individual beliefs and in a way limits just how accepting any religion can ever be, if in a position of power.

I'm with Ollie. I'd rather there be a prayer than nothing at all. It's important to respect tradition just as it's important to understand where we came from and from what principles we were founded on. If that creates a feeling of exclusion, then sobeit. It's who 'we' are, whether you agree with it or not.