Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
The End of Religious Freedom in Canada???; with an explicit attack on Catholicism
Topic Started: Jul 20 2005, 11:27 AM (716 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jolly
Jul 20 2005, 08:10 AM
Then the question becomes, "Does the melting pot theory work?".

In order for a society to be stable, should the majority of the nation's culture be homogenized?


Bill Bean
Jul 20 2005, 08:22 AM
I think the answer is "evidently not" but we'll continue to gloss over the cracks. I shudder at the thought of a 'homogenized' culture. Sounds a bit '1984'


Apropos of these two comments, the notion of forced homogenization is now being bandied about on the Canadian National Public Radio.

Canadian National Public Radio Broadcasts Call for State Control of Religion, Especially Catholicism

His rationale is
Quote:
 
"Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat."


So the solution to maintaining the boundaries bewteen Church and State is for the State to govern the practice of religion?

What do the liberals and atheists (including agnostics and autolatriacs) here think about this? And esp AC and Dolly!!!!
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dolmansaxlil
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, I think the first thing to note is that the seperation of church and state, as far as I'm aware, is NOT guaranteed in our charter. (AC - correct me if I'm wrong). Religion (specifically Catholisism) has more part in some of our policy than it does in the US (at least officially). For example, in a few provinces, we have a publically funded Catholic school system. From what I understand, including some concessions to the Catholics in our Charter was the only way to get Quebec some provinces to sign. All that said, the Charter also guarantees freedom from discrimination based on religion, so obviously the government can't operate using religious doctrine as a basis for law without going against the charter.

The second thing to understand is that Canada has never strived for the "melting pot" model. They've been calling our version of multiculturalism a "cultural mosaic" for at least 20 years - probably more. The aim is not to have everyone adopt the "Canadian way" but rather to allow people from other cultures to continue to celebrate their culture in their new country.

Now that the background is out of the way...

Quote:
 
Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat.


Though I don't like the wording of this particular sentence (and I don't like some of what he says in the article) I think that Catholics ARE getting priveledges that they shouldn't have - but my issue is in one specific area: In some provinces, Catholic schools are publically funded, when other Christian schools, Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc etc are NOT drives me insane. If a group approached me asking me to support a legal case against the government requesting money to start a Jewish school (Actually, in this area, it would be an old order Mennonite school in all likelyhood) under the publically funded system, I would, by all means, give them money and lots of my time. Not because I think Jewish schools should be publically funded, but because I think that either you have to publically fund any religious school that is demanded in an area, or none at all. I feel that by fighting for the right to have an *insert any religion but Catholic* school publically funded, it would force the government to take a hard look at the Charter and take out that clause - getting rid of publically funded religious education altogether. So in that way, yes, I feel that the seperation of church and state IS threatened.

On the other hand, some of what he says I do have problems with:

Quote:
 
"Couldn't we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood. "


This is where I think religious organizations need to make a choice. I think they should have to choose between falling under the legislation in place for private clubs (ie. we can reject anyone we want on any grounds) OR a charitable organization. If they are a charitable organization, then they should have to follow the same human rights rules as everyone else but they get a tax exempt status. If they go the private club route, they can discriminate to their hearts' content, then they have to pay taxes. It's up to them - but I don't think they should get the benefits of both (which is what they currently have).

What it comes down to is I think you either have to make religion totally illegal, or you have to let them follow their doctrine (of course, nothing is black and white, and there are pieces of doctrine preached by some religions that I wouldn't want to allow in my country). You can't say "Well, you can be whatever religion you want - but you have to do it THIS way." That's not how religion works.

I'm going to leave my comments on the article at that, because otherwise this will end up being a novel.

"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

My Flickr Photostream


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
katie
Fulla-Carp
Geez ... I guess I don't qualify Ivory, "eh", on either count ?

No matter. I've PM'd AC. I want his view point on this.

I read the article. Can't find any info googling for this Bob Ferguson professor guy in association with Royal Roads / RMC either. No matter. I think the guy's a bit whacko. I find this article and this fellow's opinion baffling at present.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
katie
Jul 20 2005, 04:08 PM
Geez ... I guess I don't qualify Ivory, "eh", on either count ?

No matter. I've PM'd AC. I want his view point on this.

I read the article. Can't find any info googling for this Bob Ferguson professor guy in association with Royal Roads / RMC either. No matter. I think the guy's a bit whacko. I find this article and this fellow's opinion baffling at present.

No offense intended, my dear Canuck!!! :)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
katie
Fulla-Carp
You're forgiven my dear Ivory. See what marriage is doing to your brain already? ... and it gets worse, believe me! ;) :)
Something's odd with this article, don't know what though.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Truly excellent satire. Really good satire should be accepted by a fairly large number of people as reasonable. In "A Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in IrelandFrom Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public" http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html Jonathon Swift said (in 1729)
Quote:
 
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

It's pretty hard to believe anyone really took him seriously then (after all they knew he was a satirist) but, and this is actually true, my son came from high school one day horrified and told me about the English plan to eat Irish babies. It turns out his English teacher had them read "A Modest Proposal" as a straight essay. To this day I suspect she believes he was serious.


"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Might be satire, Joe -- if so, I was taken in! Do you have any evidence that is the case, or is the guy a whacko?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JoeB
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Quote:
 
Do you have any evidence that is the case, or is the guy a whacko?

I listened to his audio recording and, to me, there’s no doubt he has presented a superior satire. Towards the end he has to let everyone know it’s all in good fun, and he does:
Quote:
 
  "Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions. Yes religion can be a comfort and a guide, but we cannot take rules from our holy books and apply them to the modern world without democratic debate and due regard for the law."

So in order to preserve the separation, he proposes totally destroying it and replacing it with a state regulated “religion-lite” in several different artificial flavors.

He’s very good. And very funny. This should become a classic.
"There are many ingredients in the stew of annoyance." - Bucky Katt
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
katie
Fulla-Carp
Now I must to listen to it. And I will!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dolmansaxlil
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, damn! I was sucked in too! Now I'd like to hear it, though!
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

My Flickr Photostream


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
The first hint ought to have been that the prof. is retired from RMC or Canada's equivalent of Westpoint or Sandhurst. One of the few bastions of conservatism left in this country.

An absolutely brilliant satire of the current trend of meddling left wing politicians and their supporters to impose the nanny state on us all.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
katie
Fulla-Carp
AlbertaCrude
Jul 22 2005, 07:57 AM
The first hint ought to have been that the prof. is retired from RMC or Canada's equivalent of Westpoint or Sandhurst. One of the few bastions of conservatism left in this country.

An absolutely brilliant satire of the current trend of meddling left wing  politicians and their supporters to impose the nanny state on us all.

Exactly.

My little brother turned up his nose at Royal Roads/RMC back when he was to enter college. I'm glad he did.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
A bit jumpy there, Ivory, I see.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Jul 26 2005, 04:32 PM
A bit jumpy there, Ivory, I see.

Not jumpy, just vigilant. Of course, since ONLY Jews get persecuted, and are the victims of genocide, and have trademarked the Holocaust and marketed it (at Berkeley's Center for Jewish Studies I heard a lecture on the Holocaust Museum as the cathedral of modern Jewry), then for you it must be jumpy. That is your only possible read on things, isn't it.

So even if it is a spoof, why would you not be concerned about deliberate attacks on specific groups? It's ok as long as the hatred is against Catholics but not Jews or homosexuals? Are you that much of a hypocrite?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Vigilant? More like "I know nothing about Canada or Canadians".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jul 26 2005, 05:35 PM
Vigilant? More like "I know nothing about Canada or Canadians".

Yeah, I should have figured it out given Canadian's other sterling contributions to comedy such as Tom Green, Rick Moranis, and Martin Short.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dolmansaxlil
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Don't forget:

Dan Ackroyd
John Candy
Jim Carrey
Dave Foley
Eugene Levy
Andrea Martin
Bruce McCulloch
Kevin McDonald
Patrick McKenna
Mark McKinney
Rick Mercer
Colin Mochrie
Mike Myers
Leslie Neilson
Catherine O'Hara
Gilda Radner
Martin Short
Dave thomas
Scott Thompson
Mary Walsh


We're a funny bunch up here.
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson

My Flickr Photostream


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Not to mention Bill Murray.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jul 22 2005, 05:57 AM
The first hint ought to have been that the prof. is retired from RMC or Canada's equivalent of Westpoint or Sandhurst. One of the few bastions of conservatism left in this country.

An absolutely brilliant satire of the current trend of meddling left wing  politicians and their supporters to impose the nanny state on us all.

I am not convinced that it is satire -- after all, it was proposed by an engineer. I've yet to find one with a sense of humor. Rather, it seems more like the hyper logical POV of a materialist.

Furthermore, it is on the CBC.CA site without clarification that it is satire. Rather it is prefaced with the following commentary:
Introduction:


Quote:
 
Men and women within the Roman Catholic faith are still hoping that the church can change to more accurately reflect the World in which we live.This week-end, for example, an international conference will be held in Ottawa to support women's equality in religions. WOW, or Women's Ordination Worldwide, is fighting for the ordination of women in all Christian Churches. It says it wants to open a global debate on the issue.


And some were hoping for reform during the period when the old pope was dying and the new pope was being anticipated.


Bob Ferguson is a retired professor from the Royal Military College. He believes that Catholics are unlikely ever to see changes in policy on birth control or on the question of married or female priests. In fact, he says change won't come until the churches are forced to comply with the same human rights legislation that affects the rest of society.



Listen again to the recording -- it seems like a page out of CS Lewis' "That Hideous Strength". No doubt Jeff and his ilk would want to portray a concerned response to this as paranoia, all the time thinking "what a great idea, I wish I was smart enough to have thought of it!"

This "modest proposal" is hardly ground breaking humor or even poignant satire since it is exactly what happened in the 1950s in China with the suppression of the Catholic Church and the establishment of the Patriotic Church. Hundreds of thousands of Catholics were imprisoned and murdered. You call that funny?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Trust us, it's satire. For example:

"Ferguson, would see religion regulated by provinces in the same way professions are regulated. "I am an engineer so the model I am thinking about is rather like the provincial acts regulating the practice of engineering," he said. "For example, engineers must have an engineering degree from a recognized university or pass qualification exams. They must have a number of years of practical experience and pass an ethics exam. The different branches: mechanical, electrical, civil and the like have a code of practice that applies to everyone. Why can't religious groups do the same?"

Continuing his comparison Ferguson stated, "I envisage a congress meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers' P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification."

You have know something about how our federalist structure operates to appreciate the mocking humour behind that.

Don't read into it something that it doesn't claim. Freedom of religion is as equally enshrined in this country as it is in the US. And kindly refrain from comparing Canada to Maoist China.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jul 26 2005, 07:56 PM
And kindly refrain from comparing Canada to Maoist China.

Oh, really? The radical liberals in America might look positively on that association as a socialist worker's paradise freed of religion and traditional values.

Posted Image

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Well I ain't a radical Liberal so you can bark up someone else's tree. Like I said it is apparent you have no clue about this country, its history or how it is goverened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jul 26 2005, 08:22 PM
Well I ain't a radical Liberal so you can bark up someone else's tree. Like I said it is apparent you have no clue about this country, its history or how it is goverened.

Well, I certainly didn't know that's how you folks spelled governed. But really, AC, you think Canada is that monolithic?

And the graphic is not my idea -- it's just some liberal-aetheist-socialist wankers thinking that they have more in common with you guys than the rest of 'Merica. Where could they have gotten that idea, 'eh? ;)
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Canada monolithic ?!? Preposterous! Now I hope you are not are putting words into my mouth as would the WTF crowd. The radical liberal types do in fact believe Canada is monolithic. It is about as monolithic is say, the USA or Russia. In many ways there are essentially 10 separate countires here plus the arctic and the Aboriginals. Anything but monolithic.

Today's latest news on protecting religious freedom in Alberta:

In an effort to give religious officials and marriage commissioners in Alberta the right to refuse same-sex marriage, the provincial government is considering invoking the notwithstanding clause....

I trust you do know what "the notwithstanding clause" is.

Goverened=governed according the Hunt & Peck Typing Method
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
AlbertaCrude
Jul 27 2005, 09:23 AM
Canada monolithic ?!? Perposterous! Now you are putting words into my mouth. About as monolithic is say, the USA or Russia. In many ways there are essentailly 10 separate countires here plus the arctic. Anything but monolithic.

Today's latest news on protecting religious freedom in Alberta:

In an effort to give religious officials and marriage commissioners in Alberta the right to refuse same-sex marriage, the provincial government is considering invoking the notwithstanding clause....

I trust you do know what "the notwithstanding clause" is.

Goverened=governed according the Hunt & Peck Typing Method

That Canada is not monolithic was my point -- you accused me of knowing nothing about Canada or Canadians -- it is a vast and diverse country, yet you played the Canadian authority card on me as if it were one thing that one "could" understand.

I'll buy the next round.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1