sda2.jpg

September 12, 2009

First They Came For The Marriage Commissioners

"I fail to understand how secular powers and government agencies should think they are in a position to tell the church that she is wrong in her internal rules and regulations, even though these have directed and shaped the life of the church during the last 2,000 years. However, this is what we face today. If the Human Rights Tribunal should choose to interfere with the church's governance, this will be most shocking. The tribunal has no authority to place itself as an arbiter of canonical precepts."

Unless they decide they do.

Posted by Kate at September 12, 2009 9:18 AM
Comments

asuming the rights councils do issue a ...err... fatwah against the local churches,how long do you think it will be before they assue one against a mosque??
and bets??

Posted by: em butler at September 12, 2009 10:02 AM

The problem here is that the Canadian charter doesn't guarantee the separation of church and state. In the US this act would be unconstitutional; here, it's not. I'm split on this one. I think we need a separation of church and state, so I'm opposed to the government interfering with the church just as much as vice-versa.

However, as long as we're going to allow people to act like bigots because some ancient book tells them to do it, it's discriminatory to punish bigots whose actions are motivated by something other than religion. Religion shouldn't get a free pass. Either punish bigotry of all kinds - including religious - or don't punish any of it. I'd prefer the latter.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2009 10:33 AM

Is it not a fact that Catholic schools are funded in part by non-Catholic tax dollars? If so, then the second case (Jesse Lloyd) absolutely has merit.
In the larger context, it is time to end preferential tax treatment for institutions of superstition.

Posted by: philboy at September 12, 2009 10:53 AM

You have a choice! You an marry in the church--or at the courthouse etc. So what's the problem?

Philboy: Better check up on that. USA and Canada have different laws on funding schools! I went to a Catholic school (Sask.) where the School Board and the Parish had signed an agreement, the students were funded by the public school tax system. In turn, the school allowed protestants. It worked great!

Posted by: Joe Citizen at September 12, 2009 11:00 AM

philboy is right on.

Superstitious nitwits can invoke the separation of church and state when they stop taking tax breaks. Until then, they are no different than any other institution that sucks off of the national government's tit.

Posted by: anon at September 12, 2009 11:03 AM

I agree and disagree on this one. I agree 100% that the RC church should be able to determine who gets to be an altar server and who doesn't and the HRC has no business sticking its nose in.

However, schools are funded by tax dollars and are therefor legitimatly subject to some strings attached to those dollars. Non-descrimiation in employment is a no-brainer imo. There is no such thing as Catholic Math so you don't need to be Catholic to teach it. If Catholic schools were entirely privately funded then I'd agree that the governement should but out.

Posted by: Travis at September 12, 2009 11:18 AM

Speaking of Bigots hows it going there Alex and Philboy.

Alex believe it or not being swept along by the 'cool crowd' does not make you cool and not being swept along by the 'cool crowd' does not make you a bigot. It is very possible that one's objection to 'gay marriage' is based on firm logic and solid reasoning and in no way is a form of bigotry just as it is possible to think you are being 'with it' when in fact you are acting on your own base bigotry.

Your smear against those who hold religious views indicates to me that you are a bigot that has no underpinning for your prejudice other than you don't like anyone laying out a moral code different than you own.

Posted by: Joe at September 12, 2009 11:20 AM

Joe, I could not care less what superstitious nonsense floats your boat. I just don't want to pay for it.

Posted by: philboy at September 12, 2009 11:35 AM

"First They Came For The Marriage Commissioners": the case of the marriage commissioners is a non sequitur. Marriage commissioners, like justices of the peace or judges, work for the state not the church. As public employees they are obligated to uphold the laws of the land. Churches are essentially private organizations (although their tax-exempt status makes that a little suspect). A citizen is not forced to belong to a church, and as a private organization a church should have the right to do whatever it wants privately. However, a citizen does not have the option to opt out of the state or its bureaucracy, so marriage commissioners must perform their legal duties regardless of their beliefs. A marriage licence is, after all, a secular institution not a religious one. What makes a public marriage commissioner refusing to deal with a gay customer any different than a Muslim public servant refusing to deal with an unveiled woman or a Jew?

Posted by: Eric at September 12, 2009 11:42 AM

Philboy said:
"I could not care less what superstitious nonsense floats your boat. I just don't want to pay for it.

Philboy I thought this thread was about overreaching HRC's. Why bring 'cap and trade' into it?

Posted by: Doowleb at September 12, 2009 11:44 AM

So by phil and anon's interpretation anyone that gets tax breaks or money from the state should be obliged to follow any and all state rules. I wonder if that includes indecency laws at gay pride parades. What about artists, writers, sports, social clubs, broadcasters etc,? Our big, big government and its massive subsidy system has its fingers in almost every aspect of our lives. Does the state then have the right to force all organizations and individuals to conform to the ever-changing whims of government. In the rush to attack religion, atheists seem to forget that they are opening doors to areas that may someday inhibit their freedom.

And before you start off on the typical self-righteous atheist rants, you might as well know that I am not religious but I refuse to call myself atheist because they are exactly like the bible-thumping zealots they so despise.

Posted by: LC Bennett at September 12, 2009 11:44 AM

I just love it when big government and big religion get into a food fight. They are both after the same thing ... our money and support and as much control as they can get. Although, they do offer very different plagues upon the population.

If it were my decision, I would say toss the gay, toss the HRC and let the church continue on it's incredible shrinking journey. Even though they are all disgusting in their own right, I find the church the least offensive of the three ...

Great entertainment these people are.

Posted by: Momar at September 12, 2009 12:16 PM

There are several political organizations diguised as churches.

For example, it's no secret that the United Church is the NDP at prayer. There are even more hard-core marxists that have infiltrated the Unitarian Church.

Anglicanism has been take over by the gay lobby.

Politically-active Southern Baptists have equally cloaked themselves in the spiritual legitimacy of the church and are equally involved in activities which are totally unrecognizable from Christianity as it was practised 2,000 years ago.

All of the above have one thing in common ... they're all offshoots of the westernmost province of Christianity, the Church of Rome.

The bishop of the Church of Alexandria, Egypt is also called a pope (papa, or father). There is a whole world beyond the fragmentation of Rome and its bastard orphans of the Protestant movement.

The natural result of this encroachment of the church into earthly matters is the tragic growth of atheism, an natural response to its dabbling into wordly affairs and movement further away from its ancient roots of enlightenment.

I truly feel sorry for those who cannot understand the beauty of the Christian message. It's quite apparent they are troubled and still have not made the effort to seek out the truth for themselves, but are seduced by marxist rhetoric.

Posted by: set you free at September 12, 2009 12:19 PM

Regarding public funding of Catholic schools in Saskatchewan, as a rate payer I am offered a choice of where to direct my tax dollars, public or Catholic. It's reasonable, therefore, to assume that any tax dollars the Catholic system receives are voluntarily assigned.

As for marriage commissioners, I agree with Eric. They are employees of the state and must follow the laws and regulations of the state. To quote Groucho, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member." If they don't want to do the job they've been hired to do, find another job. I have no sympathy for whingers.

Posted by: djb at September 12, 2009 12:31 PM

I agree with djb regarding taxes. My memory isn't what it used to be but I seem to recall that in Ontario you had a choice which school system your taxes went to. So philoboy ain't paying dick to the Catholic school system unless he wants to.

As for the heathens whining about tax exceptions for the church, y'all just have to get yourself declared a religious organization or a non-profit group and you too can save a buck.

LC Bennett is right on about atheists being zealots. A person's religion (or lack of) or sexuality don't really bother me... as long as they don't try to convert me, we can all get along just fine. The same goes for politicians.

Posted by: Texas Canuck at September 12, 2009 12:51 PM

One of the greatest concepts created in moving liquid material in a container is what is known as baffles. They are barriers that allow the movement of some fluid but not all fluid from rushing to one side or the other of the moving container. In human society we see the same motions as a contained liquid. As an ideology becomes trendy everyone rushes to embrace it and the society as a whole tilts one way or another in a most unhealthy manner. Socialism/progressivism is just such a movement and one of the baffles that is preventing our society from falling completely into chaos is the Church. Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant all serve to keep the culture from killing itself and if any atheist knew or understood the amount of work performed by 'the Church' in keeping society on an even keel they would be demanding the Church receive a subsidy from the state far above and beyond the 'tax free' status the Church and innumerable other 'non profit' organizations receive.

Posted by: Joe at September 12, 2009 1:09 PM

Scripture: Mark 2:13-17

13 He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them. 14 And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose and followed him. 15 And as he sat at table in his house, MANY TAX COLLECTORS and SINNERS were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him. 16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."

It was the tax collectors and sinners who recognized they needed help, not the self righteous who like to be greeted obsequiously in the town square.

Tax collectors for the past 2000 years don't have a particularly great reputation for dealing fairly with those they collect taxes from. In JC's day they were viewed pretty much with fear and loathing. Further they had the chronic reputation for overcharging/cheating (Read Adscam or insert your own favorite scandal).

Example:

"And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold."


By falsely accusing any man: and this agrees most fitly to the master of the tax gatherers: for commonly they have this practice among them when they rob and spoil the commonwealth, that they claim to be concerned for nothing else except the profit of the commonwealth, and under this pretence they are thieves, and to such an extent that if men reprove them and try to redress their robbery and thievery, they cry out that the commonwealth is hindered.

The church state argument has been going on for the past 2000 years. The current fashion is for the state now stick its nose in Church business.

Any reasonable student of history will recognize the state is typically brutal in its application of law. ie the early Christians were hardly having a swimmingly good time of it, being hurled to the lions by the then Roman state.

The marriage commissioner, HRCs is merely more of the same though on a somewhat lesser level. If one is going to make the argument that one has

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.


Then the freedoms are only useful in that one can reasonably exercise them when they don't impinge on another's freedom.

If your going to tell Catholics that they can't hire catholic teachers for a catholic school are we then going to tell Jews they can't hire a rabbi for a rabbinical school etc.? In short it is to make a mockery of the freedom 2(a).

If one is going exercise the "freedom of conscience and religion" it presumes that the individual actually has a conscience and/or religion.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at September 12, 2009 1:17 PM

This country made a fundamental mistake when it created the unnatural institution of gay marriage, there is no such thing under natural law and God will punish Canadians severely for having the insolence to tamper with the divine principle of the sacrament of marriage.

The only way to avoid complicity in that unpleasant fact is to speak out against it and demand a repeal of the law. The inclusion of homosexuality as a category of protected "minority" groups was just icing on that cake and also flies in the face of the moral teachings of the authentic churches and many other religious faiths.

I don't care if they send me to jail for saying this, I would far prefer a Canadian jail to hell. It's something every libertarian morally vacuous conservative should think about carefully, and don't say you weren't warned. If the weak, confused and frightened neutrals hadn't caved in during the parliamentary debates, we would never have had these evil laws and practices thrust upon us here in Canada.

But there is no law that says we have to keep this situation unchanged. Countries make mistakes. Canada made a whopper of a mistake with all of this legislation, and it's time we elected some people with the integrity required to do the difficult tasks required to repeal and overturn the whole stinking mess.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell at September 12, 2009 1:27 PM

Joe:

Bravo!

Your post was so bang-on.

The church, in its pure form, has performed a valuable unseen and unappreciated social service for thousands of years.

Its practitioners and their children who embrace the legacy and understand the wisdom of moving closer to the peace and awsome beauty of the creative force shall inherit.

Atheism rejects thousands of years of the search for univeral truths and needs to indoctinate other people's children for its pepetuation. Now, if an atheist would like to pass on his non-beliefs to his children, I have no problem with that.

What I have a huge problem with, and what I have been totally consistent about, is when somebody else tries to apply their values to my children. That's indoctrination.

Like the vast majority of regular posters here, I am quite capable of spending my own money and raising my own children.

Never let those like philboy, the self-proclaimed smartest man in the universe, tell you otherwise.

BTW, thanks for your recognition of Orthodoxy as an important Christian denomination. Even though it as as fragmented as any, nobody can find an equivalent of Protestantism within the Orthodox community, which continues to be guided by ancient wisdoms.

Posted by: set you free at September 12, 2009 1:34 PM

I don`t think the HR Tirbunal has any business dictating Church policy -- not even where there is taxpayer support for the schools. Catholic schools are funded in Ontario and if the State decrees what their hiring practices should be, then they are no longer Catholic schools -- though they might be schools with a religion class. The Catholic schools feel it is important to have all teachers knowledgable about the Catholic faith in particular because they also have a stong element of moral values incorporated into school life -- frequently backed up by Church teachings. The concept is destroyed if there is not an effort also have a Catholic staff. Now -- if this is disagreeable to some, then the solution is to not to have taxpayers fund Catholic schools. I know some will agree with that -- though I personally do not.

Posted by: Lindal at September 12, 2009 1:53 PM

"And before you start off on the typical self-righteous atheist rants, you might as well know that I am not religious but I refuse to call myself atheist because they are exactly like the bible-thumping zealots they so despise."

This speaks for me also!

Posted by: Indiana Homez at September 12, 2009 2:07 PM

When an activist seeks out a marriage commish that has stated it is against his religion to do a same sex marriage should the state rule on that? If the commish finds someone else to perform the ceremony why should anyone care. Oh yeh the gays want the ceremony performed by someone that hates the idea. Ahh memories. 'Do you two deviants take each other in sin to perform unnatural acts 'till you get bored with each other.' You have to compromise but we don't.

Posted by: Speedy at September 12, 2009 2:22 PM

I should point out that I am not anti-gay. If someone wants to be married it should not be for political reasons but because they want to spend their lives together. If the politics takes priority they shouldn't be doing it.

Posted by: Speedy at September 12, 2009 2:37 PM

If freedom of association is to have any meaning in Canada, citizens and non-government entities must be free to choose (discriminate) based on their own private criteria. This is the fundamental flaw with ALL so-called human rights legislation: it attempts to apply the very legitimate anti-discrimination limits on the monopoly of state power to private citizens, who have no power over their fellows beyond denying them their own association.

If a church (or any association) decides that membership in that church (association) is a required condition of employment with them, then the state should have no business interfering with that. I don't buy the argument about them being beholden to public policy by receiving special tax treatment or subsidy from the public purse. That criteria would implicate nearly every citizen of this country in some form or other and is, rather, one of the strongest arguments against government meddling in private citizens affairs.

I would much prefer if we fought private discrimination by refusing to associate with bigoted individuals and associations and by speaking out against their ideas, not by employing armies of self-important HRC bureaucrats wielding state power who make it their mission to sniff out unorthodoxy according to the politically-correct fashion of the day.

Posted by: DF at September 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Philboy said; "I could not care less what superstitious nonsense floats your boat. I just don't want to pay for it."
I think he's on to something here. Let's get the state out of funding all kinds of things that are solely the function of one's belief system.
Partial list;
CBC
HRC
Wheat Board
Arts

etc etc

I would be ok with that, although I'm sure that's not what he has in mind.

Posted by: Jethro at September 12, 2009 2:47 PM

I note that on the top photo the flag is flying at half mast.

Posted by: Warren Z at September 12, 2009 2:49 PM

Throw in whining western rural conservative welfare bums, Jethro, and you got my vote.

Posted by: philboy at September 12, 2009 2:52 PM

I took down my Red Ensign flag yesterday, and put up the Stars & Stripes, in honor of my American cousins on their most auspicious anniversary. I have kept the Stars & Strips up today, to honor today's tea parties.

Posted by: Colin from Mission B.C. at September 12, 2009 2:53 PM

Alex: "In the US this act would be unconstitutional; here, it's not."

However, we have guaranteed in the Charter of Rights [for some] and Freedoms [for some] freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of expression, among others, as pointed out by Hans Rupprecht. Unfortunately, whenever there's been a case taken to a human rights tribunal by a gay person offended by the Church's teaching and practices, the rights of gays always trump the Church's freedom rights. It's so post-modern, so predictable: Freedom for me but not for thee.

My G*d, there's a lot of ignorance on this thread: The BNA Act guarantees certain privileges for the Catholic Church (never having anticipated that the Protestant majority at the time would ever be a minority), and parents who send their children to Catholic schools, as djb points out, designate their tax contributions to the Catholic School Board in their jurisdiction, so it's not as though Protestants or non-believers are paying the costs of Catholic schools.

I agree that there is no such thing as "Catholic Math" or "Catholic Science," but as Catholic spirituality permeates all of life and the way Catholics view the world, one's faith outlook, or lack thereof, affects the way one teaches all subjects. In addition, Catholic teachers are expected to teach religion in every elementary classroom, so how could a non-Catholic do this?

Lastly, quit the snide remarks about superstition and tax exempt status. Are those who've made those remarks aware of the volunteer services made available by Christian/Catholic churches to the public -- not just for fellow-Christians, but for everyone of any faith or creed or none? I'm talking about soup kitchens, clothing depots, in-from-the-heat and in-from-the-cold programs, tutoring programs, etc., etc. These services, if only available through government programs would cost the public twice or three times what they cost the churches, largely because of the hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer labour, not to mention the monetary generosity of those who give to the churches.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

Posted by: batb at September 12, 2009 3:21 PM

"I could not care less what superstitious nonsense floats your boat."
Philboy -. Why bring 'cap and trade' into it?

Beauty, Doowleb!

Posted by: Cal at September 12, 2009 4:06 PM

Hey Philboy, let's also talk about ending the tax subsidies made to Suzuki's foundation, all the left-wing not for profit organizations, feminist groups, racial groups, language groups, academic organizations, and liberal front groups who use their tax status to spread corruption, decadence and evil.

Posted by: anselm at September 12, 2009 4:22 PM

Well, from a purely anthropological perspective, all cultures that span the globe, even tribes in the densest jungle forests, have one thing in common when their concept of "marriage" comes up: that is, the union between a man and a woman.

Somehow, even cultures that are completely ignorant of Western mores, have this same innate idea about coupling.

Just that empirical evidence is all anyone needs to know that gay marriage is unnatural and aberrant.

The gay lobby and their political allies can spittle all they want in protest, they cannot demolish the anthropological argument.

Also, they'll never ever get to enforce "acceptance" of their lifestyle on Christians. They can try but it will fail.

Funny how they don't want religious doctrine forced down their throat but they don't have a problem trying to enforce acceptance of their lifestyle on others.

Posted by: chuck80 at September 12, 2009 4:46 PM

Not a word about this major American event on either CTV.CA or Globe.com as of 5 PM EST Sept. 12.

This must be another one of Kate's 'not waiting for the asteroid', but then, this theme could easily be set on auto stun and run a new MSM lunacy every day and twice on some days.

If nothing else, this event will let the other side know that there is a serious opposition and ain't pissin' around. Could be construed as a show of force. These are mostly the armed right wing traditional Americans.

Maybe some honesty in Washington is a good idea at this time ... before the shooting starts.

Posted by: Momar at September 12, 2009 5:05 PM

Seperate church and state. The legal part of a marriage should be whatever license you buy from city hall or the provincial government. Like your drivers license, its bureacratic no ceremony required....call it a certificate of union.

A marriage shoudl take place in a church but it the ceremony has no legal standing. Priests, rabbi's Immans should not have any function for a state.

Thik about it for two other events, birth and death. Both certificates are from the government and have nothing to do with relgous authorities. Yet there are Chriistenings and funerals, completely seperate.

Nobody says you have a right to a christening or religous funeral.....get the state out of the business of "marriage" (its a religous word) and get the church away from performing state duties.

Posted by: Stephen at September 12, 2009 5:06 PM

Sorry ... wrong string.

Posted by: Momar at September 12, 2009 5:06 PM

I can't speak to other provinces, but as a parent in Ontario with two girls in the Catholic system, I can assure you we were asked which system we wanted our school taxes applied to.

And since about 1/3 of the students in Ontario are in the separate school system, it's pretty obvious that a fair amount of dollars are being raised from their parents.

So, as usual, philboy is unaware of the facts, and makes bald assertions that are just wrong. NO non-Catholic is forced to pay a cent for the support of Catholic schools.

I will say that the standardised school tests introduced by that fascist, child hating monster, Mike Harris, consistently show Catholic schools achieving higher results on average than public schools. I'm glad my daughters are in the Catholic system.

Posted by: KevinB at September 12, 2009 5:15 PM

Stephen: " ... get the state out of the business of "marriage" (its a religous word) and get the church away from performing state duties."

A lot of priests agree with you.

And, BTW, priests/ministers get no payment whatsoever for filling out the government forms and making sure that they're sent into the government bureaucracy post haste. A lot of them would be more than happy to bless unions/marriages which have already been legally entered into at city hall, so that they aren't asked, as they often are, to perform a religious ceremony that many couples have no understanding of or respect for but, rather, want only because it comes along with a pretty background.

Posted by: batb at September 12, 2009 5:46 PM

Education in Ontario is fully-funded by the Provincial government through taxes on a per-pupil, and needs-based (e.g. based on student enrollment, student characteristics, and board characteristics) formula, whether it be the Separate system or the Public system.

It has been this way since Bill 160 which was introduced to solve the inequity problem between, mainly rural and urban tax bases, but which also leveled the playing field between Separate and Public systems in many jurisdictions. This is one reason Separate system trustees were not as opposed to the 'new' (Mike Harris era Education Improvement Act) funding formula as were their Public system counterparts.

There is no longer any option to direct taxes specifically to any one system as while education taxes (in part) are still collected at the municipal level, they are no longer allocated and paid out at the municipal level.

Posted by: Jan at September 12, 2009 6:29 PM

Bigots nothing. People make choices in their lives to behave a certain way and people react. Would anyone feel pity for a compulsive thief dismissed from service of the Church? I doubt it. Mr. Corcoran knows the Church's teaching on HIS CHOICE of lifestyle. He made it an issue; not anyone else.
People who brand organised religion as "superstition" tend also to be the same people who hang off of every word coming out of Obama or Al Gore. I'll take a man who walked on water over the latter any day.

Posted by: Osumashi Kinyobe at September 12, 2009 6:45 PM

It would seem, kevinb, that it is you who is unaware of the facts, or perhaps you choose to distort them to conform to your predetermined ideological bias, but Jan seems to know whereof she speaks. As a rate payer in SK, I have never been given the option in the allocation of my education tax dollars.

Posted by: philboy at September 12, 2009 7:12 PM

anselm, you got that right. Somehow I also do not think that this is what Phillboy had in mind.

Posted by: Ken at September 12, 2009 7:18 PM

Hummmmmmmmm a 2000 year old institution that has weathered civilizations fall & barbarian incursions, the first two waves of Islamic invasion & numerous attempts to destroy it.Also it has gone threw division in the reformation as well the orthodox split,Yet is as hardy as ever. Are going to be taken on by homosexuals who lets face it set this up for a legal president as they did in an Evangelical collage in Alberta.
If this guy was sincere he would follow Catholic teaching. Since he's not there are plenty of Homosexual Churches he can go to.
This is a Marxist- Homosexual bid to weaken further any church life in the Nation.
Enjoy the Islamics I say to them. They will love you to death. You can bet any man lover that tried to use the inquisition against them, would "Have problems" that could become terminal.
If you don't like a church there are thousands more you can go to.
JMO

Posted by: Revnant Dream at September 12, 2009 7:19 PM

Revnant Dream: There is an old saying, "The devil hates even his own". No where is this more evident in the modern liberal/islamist marriage. As the liberals succeed in undercutting the moral underpinnings of a sound society they weaken the society which makes it all the more enticing for a takeover by the Islamists. The Islamists first task will be to purge all the liberals.

Posted by: Joe at September 12, 2009 7:38 PM

Joe:

"Speaking of Bigots hows it going there Alex and Philboy"

I'm good, child, how are you?

"blah blah blah cool crowd ... possible that one's objection to 'gay marriage' is based on firm logic ... no way is a form of bigotry"

I have no idea what "coolness" has to do with it. You are proposing to control the conduct of others because they practice a way of life that is foreign to you. That's bigotry. You can try to justify it with logic and reason, if you want, but you'll be lying to yourself.

"Your smear against those who hold religious views indicates to me that you are a bigot that has no underpinning for your prejudice other than you don't like anyone laying out a moral code different than you own"

Except that I don't. I ridicule the beliefs of the religious in general, but I do not accuse all theistic people of being bigots. That's because there have been plenty of people who insist on clinging to the security-blanket of religion, while rejecting the bigoted teachings of the church.

Nice strawman, though.

batb:

"However, we have guaranteed in the Charter of Rights .. freedom of conscience and religion and freedom of expression"

True. However, your freedom of conscience and expression do not mean that you can, for instance, sacrifice virgins to your volcano god. Similarly, the courts seem to have ruled that your freedoms do not give you the right to discriminate against someone. Personally, I disagree with their decision - I think you should have the right to discriminate against whomever you want, whenever you want - but that's the law as it currently stands.

"but as Catholic spirituality permeates all of life and the way Catholics view the world, one's faith outlook, or lack thereof, affects the way one teaches all subjects"

How so? Do Catholic teachers preface every sentence with "God says"? Like, "God says 2+2=4, therefore it must be so"?

"Are those who've made those remarks aware of the volunteer services made available by Christian/Catholic churches to the public"

Why should that matter at all? Your response to someone calling your religion a silly superstition is to say "but we do good stuff"? Ok, good for you, but what's that got to do with what he was saying?

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2009 8:05 PM

We heard alot in demoract and republican scandels and finally one can be find solution

both parties are radical in USA to push too much too litle to thier benefit
one grop who support unlimittedo f girl friend play boy are too mcuh
and other group in USA

I heard in fox news also
some catholic try to force To ban divorce in some state as sin in their religion
as they did stop gay marriage in USA too
Again Catholic church corruption:

As I count in past:

Divorce is worst thing any religion agree with it but in certain condition is allowed this is not sin
This is made up story of Catholic Church

How they force Nun to worship god without having husband or Christ with a wife that again is corruption of Catholic Church

How they teach bikini and alcohol and then stop drug and how they show their freedom to their women and men in Italy and Ireland are proof some thing wrong and not take care of their church group

or they wear their daughter miniskirt and then they expect them to get safe ride I was in Doctor clinic to bring one of my family member there and I saw one innocent teenager catholic girl with big body grown up but by face you could understand she must be 14 to 16 and face was show she is still very child and she wear very short skirt and see start to seat and so many old men start watching her legs all the time I feel really sorry for the girl and how those old fox looking at her and she even not noticed why she was in pain and carry big bag full of text book please tell your children to cover their legs in public place if they like to stay safer

etc...

In Islam have able to get 4 while nobody has 4 except Wahabi religion such as King in Saudi Arabic or even Dubai has 3 wifes

The condition first wife must agree and in fact funny nobody will agree to husband marry then they can not have second wife then must divorce if he insisted to have one or put in condition in before marriage in paper
while in Muslim only 0.0001 percent may have two wife’s in majority nobody follow two wife because of conflict of interest over kid and wealth and so many other social issue in today life still some muslim like to follow shari law not Canadian law to change for their benefit and not have look like affiar but allow in Isalm law
these is diffeernt news we heard about all mesage chinnese who are intetnioanly hire girl for misude them and use for prostition as well is not allow for corrupt all society emotioanly finacialy and this must get stop

Divorce is easier and allowed in jewish and Muslim law then christina can not change moses law sine he was first. But only catholic are disagree with divorce while divorce affect children while sometime that is inevitable

Ibrahim has two sons and Moses and Jesis came from one of son of Ibrahim and from second son
Mohamad generation go back to same prophet Ibrahim
we may say we all are sister and brother as we come from Mr. Adam I guess

Posted by: new at September 12, 2009 9:10 PM

DUH! Please, show me where in the CANADIAN Constitution there is anything to do with the separation of Church and State! It DOESN'T EXIST! The Frogs are still allowed by constitutional pronouncement to support the Child Mollester Church, as are most Saskatchewan residents. Supporters of Child Mollesters (Catholics) still have their own school system (VICTEM POOL). Thank god for the "Charter of "victimizers" rights.

Posted by: Bart at September 12, 2009 10:01 PM

Did I really see pillboy say "Do what you want, just don't make me pay for it"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!

Whatsamatta pillboy, got a problem with government wasting your money on crap you don't believe in?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!

Man that just made my day. That is frickin' hilarious! Bwaha!

Posted by: The Phantom at September 12, 2009 10:05 PM

re. chuck80 @4:46 - "From a purely anthropological perspective, all cultures that span the globe... have one thing in common when their concept of "marriage" comes up: that is, the union between a man and a woman.

Somehow, even cultures that are completely ignorant of Western mores, have this same innate idea about couling."

Well, not really. Honestly, most human societies seem to favour polygamy. One of the factors that consistantly stymied Christian missionaries in the 19th century was that tribal chiefs simply refused to conform to a religion that required monogamy... I mean, why WOULD they, really?

Advantage, Islam.

"Gay marriage" is a stalking horse - or maybe I mean a Trojan Horse - for polygamy. There has never been a culture which sanctioned homosexual "marriage", because marriage is fundamentally about reproduction and child-rearing.

Polygamy, OTOH, is even part of the Judaio-Christian tradition - a while back, mind you, but read up on King Solomon.

There will be a push within the next few years in North America for polygamous marriage to be legitimized, possibly from weirdo breakaway-fringe Mormon types but far more likely from Middle Easterners. After all, who are we to judge? It's part of their culture (culture is sacrosanct); the participants are willing (in a way); hell, we already pay welfare for these kinds of set-ups.

I believe that Stephen and batb(?) are right, and that there should be a complete seperation between civil unions and religious marriages. There's no other way out of the corner we've painted ourselves into, which BTW all started by allowing stigma-free divorces at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: Black Mamba at September 12, 2009 10:20 PM

"coupling", natch.

And: batb(?) because I wasn't really sure about her own opinion.

Posted by: Black Mamba at September 12, 2009 10:24 PM

Anslem no doubt named after the Saint who suggested that if God is possible, therefore God exists because it is impossible to have a possible God. On the matter of education taxation, I am not able to direct my share to the Catholic School system in BC.
Therefore I am forced, against my will, to support the secular system. Where's the fairness in that?

Posted by: Larry Bennett at September 12, 2009 10:27 PM

Hey Philboy, let's also talk about ending the tax subsidies made to Suzuki's foundation, all the left-wing not for profit organizations, feminist groups, racial groups, language groups, academic organizations, and liberal front groups who use their tax status to spread corruption, decadence and evil.
Posted by: anselm at September 12, 2009 4:22 PM "

I do believe poster anselm is on to something here;

tax exempt organizations (non profit and all that) BUT not a penny, not a halfpenny not a dust particle of a penny from gubbamint. wtf hold does this plethora of special interest groups have on the public teat anyway???

is steve-o harpoon a man of his word or just clucking a script in order to stay in power?

Posted by: curious_george at September 12, 2009 11:33 PM

Black Mamba:

"'Gay marriage' is a stalking horse - or maybe I mean a Trojan Horse - for polygamy. There has never been a culture which sanctioned homosexual 'marriage', because marriage is fundamentally about reproduction and child-rearing."

Not really. Marriages were used for all sorts of things, including political alliances and business deals. You can easily have procreation without marriage, so the institution isn't required on that front. Meanwhile, many nations accepted - and some even formally recognized - homosexual relationships. Really, marriage was just a transfer of the woman from the father to the husband, which made homosexual unions a relationship between equals, and made marriage nothing more than a formal transfer of property.

You're right, though - polygamy has been the norm in any society which is exposed to hardship. Depending on the circumstances societies would practice either Polygyny or Polyandry, although the former was much more common.

Rweally, there's no reason not to allow any form of marriage since today marriage just a contract between free individuals. Whether that contract includes a man and a woman, two men, two women, or a dozen assorted individuals, should be irrelevant. Let people make up their own minds instead of having a bunch of 30 year old virgins in funny robes trying to tell them what to do.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2009 11:35 PM

p.s.

soldier on rightists, on day we will hear the welcome peel of the death knoll of HRCs in this once great land.

it is our only hope to a return to greatness; free of the fear of devastating state sanctioned political correctness.

unless, unless, steve-o harpoon DOESN'T HAVE THE GOD%$%%^%AMN GUTS TO STRIKE THE DEATH KNOLL SOUNDER and pursues his infatuation with a mirage (minority govt !!!) of powah.

Posted by: curious_george at September 12, 2009 11:41 PM

So Alex, got a problem with virginity have you? I suppose you made a point not to marry one, eh? Must be fun knowing that you were hardly the first. Usually it's your sort who accuses priests of being perversly sexually active. Make up your mind will ya! Just out of curiosity Alex, when is the proper time to "lose" your virginity?

Posted by: Larry Bennett at September 12, 2009 11:43 PM

"So Alex, got a problem with virginity have you? I suppose you made a point not to marry one, eh? Must be fun knowing that you were hardly the first."

I haven't bothered marrying, but I've had my share of virgins, thanks. I'm not sure what the big deal is. I'd rather have an experienced woman any day.

"Just out of curiosity Alex, when is the proper time to 'lose' your virginity?"

Mine? 15. Yours? I don't know. One day you'll find a nice girl, and you'll know when the right time comes.

Posted by: Alex at September 12, 2009 11:53 PM

What Philboy is really saying is that the Catholic School system should be forced to accept students from the general public, educate them, but not receive money from the public coffers. So who will pay for the education! Obviously nobody paid for his!

Philboy is on another rant. The Catholic school system teaches the same subjects, math and science etc. as the other schools. In most schools, they have 30 minutes of Christian ethics a day. . And bye the bye philboy, check the class averages out in the Catholic School systems, especially in the USA, as compared to public schools.

Posted by: Joe Citizen at September 13, 2009 12:00 AM

"Philboy is on another rant. The Catholic school system teaches the same subjects, math and science etc. as the other schools."

Oh, ok. So then you'd have no problem with publicly funded Muslim schools, right?

Posted by: Alex at September 13, 2009 12:05 AM

Alex - "reproduction AND child-rearing." The "and" is very important.

When you say "many nations accepted - and some even formally recognized - homosexual relationships", my guess is you're talking about the ancient Greeks. While most of the Greek city states in the classical period eroticized certain male relationships in a lot of complicated ways, the idea that homosexual partnerships - to use a frame of reference that would have made no sense in the 5th c. B.C. - were considered in any way analagous to marriage is simply untrue.

If you're talking about someplace else, please to provide reference thankssomuch.

What's the "hardship" connection? Explain how that works, would you?

Polyandry's only ever been practiced in the Himalayas; it's a complete historical freak.

And here's something you have ass-backwards (no pun...); while "political alliances and business deals" were something marriage was sometimes "used for", the institution couldn't have been "used for" that if it didn't already exist, could it? I mean, it's not like someone solidified a dynastic arrangement by aquiring some important guy's daughter and then had a wonderful brainwave and realized: Hey, we could BREED! Neat! Fringe benefit! So again, the bedrock of marriage is...

But you know, none of this really matters. My point was that soon there's going to be a serious attempt in the West to legitimize polygamy, a horribly misogynist practice that at this point thankfully is very alien to our culture; and that this attempt will be a means of pushing us towards allowing Sharia law to be practiced openly. Your thoughts are along the lines of "hey, sounds cool! Let's all just get together in groups of any sort and form 'contracts' of some kind, or whatever".

Groovy, baby.

Posted by: Black Mamba at September 13, 2009 1:00 AM

Alex: So rather than listening to 30 year old virgins, we should give a listen to you? Now I'm unsure of what your "share" of virgins is, but I have to wonder if there weren't any offspring and what became of them. And I do know something about young maidens, and that is that they tend to fall swiftly and deeply in love with young stalwarts like yourself (unless of course these were 30 and 40 year old virgins) but I suppose we can just kiss those off, what's it to us, as long as we get what we want.
Oh yeah Alex, we should let our young people take they're advice from winners like you!

Posted by: Larry Bennett at September 13, 2009 8:12 AM

Oh man, I seem to have embarrassed pillboy into silence! That's amazing.

Kate, do I get a prize?

Posted by: The Phantom at September 13, 2009 10:25 AM

None of you get a prize. If you continue to use my comments section like your own private chat room, I can always close them down.

Do you understand? The message at the top of your input form is not a joke, and I"m frankly getting tired of people wasting my bandwidth to flood this site with back and forth crap.

Posted by: Kate at September 13, 2009 10:50 AM

I was saying, Black Mamba, that it wouldn't be a bad idea at all for the Church to get out of the wedding biz, especially now that the laws of the land are totally counter to Christian teaching -- no matter what "progressive" Christians are pushing on their dioceses and congregations.

'Not a bad idea for the state to perform legal marriages and, then, if a couple wishes to have their union blessed by God, they can come to the church after the civil ceremony and receive a blessing. In that way, everyone is happy, I suspect, and priests/ministers are not put in the compromising position of being asked -- or commanded by a Human Rights Commission -- to perform "marriages" which run completely counter to the teaching of the Christian Church and the priest's/minister's conscience.

I realize that activist gays might go to a priest/minister to ask for a blessing just to rock the boat, but they could be directed to the Metropolitan Community Church and Brent Hawkes' ministrations, That's a bridge that would have to be crossed if/when ... And, of course, there will always be clergy who are so "progressive" that they'd bless the union of two tea cozies, but that's another issue for another time ... ;-)

BTW, great riposte to Alex's impertinent improvisations.

Posted by: batb at September 13, 2009 10:54 AM

No problem Kate. My apologies. Your place, your rules.

Posted by: The Phantom at September 13, 2009 3:17 PM

The church is within its rights to refuse to reinstate the gay man as altar server, and the separate school board is entitled to hire Catholic teachers only.

The first is a private matter, and is covered by freedom of religion.

The second is slightly more complicated because the schools are considered "public", but the fact remains that the system is paid for out of tax funds from Roman Catholic parents who want their kids brought up in the way they see fit, and if that means hiring their own to do the teaching, that's fine. Ideally there would be no "public" education system at all, parents would provide for their own kids' education, and there would be no issue; it would be like joining a private club.

One notion that has arisen in Charter jurisprudence is that "the Charter applies only to government". That's not really true; a constitution is supposed to be a litany of individual rights that government is supposed to protect: the right to life is a bar against the crime of murder, which is not perpetrated by government, for example. Unfortunately, this view of the Charter has left the door wide open for courts to say that private relationships can be covered by human rights commissions - with all the amateurism, fanaticism and bullying that you find therein. This is how the commissions end up negating the Charter and destroying our rights. The jurisprudence is ugly, believe me. If you want to be sickened by a Supreme Court decision, try Blencoe (from the year 2000).

Technically, all the "anti-discrimination" stuff violates the right to freedom of association, excepting for government officials. So do most of the labour decisions, like Lavigne and Health Services and Support (2007). We've seen the SCC violate freedom of expression repeatedly: Keegstra & Taylor, Irwin Toy, Thomson Newspapers, Harper, for example. The Chatterjee decision this year violated the fundamental right not to suffer legal penalties without being charged with a crime. Pretty soon, we won't have any rights left at all.

Posted by: nv53 at September 14, 2009 12:58 AM

A very thoughtful post, nv53.

Though Christians and the Catholic Church, in particular, seem to be a favourite whipping boy of Canadians' (particularly the "open," (sic) "tolerant," (sic) and "diverse" (sic) crew), the continued attacks on their rights to freedom of conscience, religion, and expression, are dangerous precedents with dire consequences for all Canadians. As nv53 points out, "Pretty soon, we won't have any rights left at all."

Thanks, Kate, for this post.

Posted by: batb at September 14, 2009 7:16 AM
Site
Meter