FPTP vs MMP

[Evan Leibovitch]

CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote:
>> With few exceptions (Buddhism notably among them), religions tend to be
>> mutually exclusive. And almost by definition, they must define their
>> particular faith-based ethics as superior -- more divine, if you would
>> -- than those of other religions.
>>
>> What you call Secular Humanism is a religion only to the extent that it
>> has a core ethic, and its own view of human nature. Unlike most
>> religions, it is not mutually exclusive.
>
> That presumes other religions do not accept other faiths as being
> legitimate. Some of course do not but Buddhism is not the only one
> that recognizes other faiths.
The very first two commandments (which are combined by Catholics and
Lutherans as the first commandment) deal with mutual exclusivity. No
other gods. No idol worship. So much for Jews and Christians.
And while I know less about Islam, there have been stories that indicate
a ... lack of tolerance ... for those who recognize other gods besides
Allah.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52004
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/01/asia/AS-GEN-Malaysia-Renouncing-Islam.php
> All that "inclusiveness" and "multiculturalism" is window dressing and
> amounts to nothing if Canadian children are ignorant of the history of
> this country and the foundations of liberal democracies.
I'm not disagreeing with you on this. I just happen to think that
Multiculturalism is a gift that Canada uniquely enjoys, and it's a
resource we have barely begun to exploit. I've had the good fortune to
travel to every continent and many, many places -- my Toronto background
has certainly helped me to work in a very broad range of cultures and
attitudes. (Pretty strange to be served Peking Duck in a Beijing
restaurant and recall that it wasn't as good as stuff I'd had in Markham.)

It's not an absolute necessity, but it sure ain't window dressing either.


> Part of the reason why parents opt out of the public system is that
> the public system does not meet their expectations because it is
> geared towards the lowest common denominator.
Another way to say this is that every other school can expel students
but the public system has to acommodate all who show up.
> Why is it "segregation" when 53,000 children of various religions
> other than Catholic get funded but "inclusive" when 450,000 Catholic
> children get funded?
It isn't. Catholic schools are also about segregation IMO. I've
personally been consistent on that.

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists