Friday, January 19, 2007

Anti-Prayer Police Not Happy

You gotta love Ontario.

Fantino doesn't want us to laugh. Secular Ontario doesn't want us to pray.

At least we'll be allowed to smoke outside of casinos.

26 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

How would the TheoCons feel if the religion of choice was not Christian?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

CWTF - Are you RT's marionette now, since he supposedly "retired"?

Cherniak_WTF said...

Certainly not Joanne. Red is much better than I'll ever be at this stuff.

So, how would the TheoCons feel if the religion of choice was not Christian?

Anonymous said...

People that don't believe in god want to ban prayers. Is that not like making everyone pray to their god.

jeff davidson said...

obviously you can pray in ontario. however, for the sake of the growing numbers of secular canadians, do it at church or your home or with other like-minded people. no problem.

separation of church and state please.

Anonymous said...

CWTF... they probably wouldn't care... you can't miss what you never had can you? Technically, if the religion of choice were something other than Christian, then there wouldn't be any TheoCons would there.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Technically, if the religion of choice were something other than Christian, then there wouldn't be any TheoCons would there.

Bingo!

Anonymous said...

I am sure if someone wanted to pray a Buddhist prayer, no one would talk about Church and State issues. It is more anti Christian bigotry by the left.
Separation of Church and state never meant to mean Christianity was never to be seen in public. This is part of some athiest agenda , which as I have said before is the new religion of the liberal elite.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Charles said...

Our government tradition is a completely joined church and state. Maybe some of you people should travel a little. British Parliment and Westminister are on the same grounds sharing walls because the church and state have traditionally been on very close terms. The same people who scream "seperation,seperation" are the same ones who absolutely hate the United States, where the term was coined, but also deeply misunderstand the true meening of the saying. Seperation of church and state, when Jefferson said it, he was talking about differing views within the Christian faith, so when we are talking about prayer to God as in the Christian God there was no argument.He was talking about government promoting one particular faith group of Christians over another. In Canada we have traditionally never had a seperation of church and state because our British history has always made room for the universal church. The head of our government is also the head of the Church of England/Anglican. we were founded on Christian ideals and principles that only came under attack when the government was taken over by socialist who think that government is god. You might want to read the BNA and the constitution.

Anonymous said...

hey Charles,
The head of the government is our Prime Minister, and by no means is he or she the head of any Church.

I think what you might be refering to is the head of state - who currently is the Queen of England. The Queen of England has absolutely no political role or power in Canada. She is merely a figurehead.

So i don't really think you have a point there. but good try...

Anonymous said...

Joe Calgary: Technically, if the religion of choice were something other than Christian, then there wouldn't be any TheoCons would there.

Joanne: Bingo!

Uhm... I don't get it. Care to explain?

Also, you still haven't answered Cherniak's question

"How would the TheoCons feel if the religion of choice was not Christian?"

Its good to get a two-way discussion once in awhile. I think we have a lot to learn from RT

Anonymous said...

Joe Calgary: Technically, if the religion of choice were something other than Christian, then there wouldn't be any TheoCons would there.

Joanne: Bingo!

Your're avoiding Cherniak's "How would the TheoCons feel if the religion of choice was not Christian?"

I think its a fair question.

Charles said...

Anonymous, You are right. I was incorrect in saying that Queen Elizabeth II is our head of government, I meant she is the head of state. By the way her title here in Canada is Queen Elizabeth II - Queen of Canada, She happens to be the Queen of Great Britain as well. My point is ; in Canada our government traditions have always included the church, we don't chase the church out of public life, we just don't let one church rule. By the way, you don't win a debate on ideas by pointing out minor technical errors that play no part in the substance of the argument a person is putting forward, and then go on to make errors of your own, it just makes you look petty and ill-informed. Some of you people seem to think that you are in the United States, by the way you keep going on about seperation of church and state.It was an American idea that was taken out of the context in which it was origionally used We have a completely different type of government. I would prefer a Republic, but we have to make due with a Federation.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Charles for pointing out my errors - its a good way for improvement.

When you assert that you'd like to see the church's involvement in the state - in what ways do you mean that? And what was the original context that you'd like to see the church part of the state?

I have no qualms about seeing the values of honesty, integrity, generosity, tolerence... which are not just part of the Church, but universal to many faiths, being involved in the state.

Seeing as how Canada has found a strength in diversity (of culture, faith, race) - in what ways, in todays context, would you like to see the church as part of the state?

Anonymous said...

If I may put in my ten cents worth (it used to be worth two, but one should to allow for inflation), and speaking as an evangelical Christian (baptised in the United Church, confirmed in a Lutheran Church, baptised again seven years ago in a Baptist Church), much depends upon what one means by "separation of church and state."

If by separation of church and state one means separation of institutional control, I am all in favour of it. Church and state should not try to control each other because the results are absolutely disasterous.

If one means separation of influence, then I am absolutely opposed to it. People of faith, whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Shinto, Animist, Wiccan, Morman, Scientologist, Pagan, whatever, have absolutely the same right to influence public policy on whatever issue they want as more secular-minded people who take stands on issues relating to civil rights, the environment, health care, gun control, integrity in government, etc. I submit that to disagree with that thesis would be to make people of faith into second-class citizens, and would be, to use the language of the politically correct, "faith-o-phobic."

To jeff davidson, I would like to know if you feel that people of faith should not be free to be public with what they believe ("do it at church or your home or with other like-minded people)? And, if you do, is it because you feel it might offend more secular-minded people? I would assume you would not answer "Yes" to both questions. If you were to so answer, you would, it would seem, justify those who want, for example, to ban Gay Pride parades because it offends large numbers of people of faith. I sincerely do not wish to put words in your mouth, or in anyway misunderstand your position, so please clarify your thinking on this issue.

Cherniak_WTF said...

brian, thanks for a little sanity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

separation of church and state please.

Then let's keep the 'clergy' out of parliament.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Great debate going here. Quite respectful for the most part.

Charles, I love this:

By the way, you don't win a debate on ideas by pointing out minor technical errors that play no part in the substance of the argument a person is putting forward, and then go on to make errors of your own, it just makes you look petty and ill-informed.

Well said indeed.

Red Tory said...

As a secular person, I find nothing offensive about saying a little prayer before conducting civic business in chamber. I might well contemptuously roll my eyes while this silliness is going on, but it’s relatively harmless and presumably speaks more to sincerely good intentions than it does actually to faith.

Although I do wonder however how the guidance of the Almighty creator of the Universe is required to install a new stop light at the corner of 47th and Maple or implement a two percent increase in water rates. I’d really think He would be off concerning Himself with things of greater importance like the creation of new planets and whatever other stuff divine beings get up to on a daily basis rather than offering Olympian advice about the re-evaluation of property assessment formulas.

As Canadians we’re in a bit of a sticky situation here, caught between the American model of church/state separation and the English model where the two are one and the same (kind of, sort of). So, a little tradition, a little toleration isn’t out of order. The key is finding the line where one starts to exert too much influence over the other.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. Red. That post was actually worth responding to. Yes, I agree that it's a delicate balance. Seems to me that the ideal thing to do would be to provide a few minutes of silence where those so-inclined could silently pray to their God for wisdom and guidance. The others could think about their shopping lists.

Our city council here could use a little spiritual guidance. They seem to be a good-old boys club that likes to keep things in the dark and implement a huge tax increase after the election but of course those taxes were frozen before the election. What a pack of thieves they are!

Red Tory said...

Well, gee, I’m impressed that you thought that was “worthy” of responding to.

Personally, I think that “moment of silence” concept is crap and a total cop-out because most people are most likely going to drift off and wonder whether they left their iron on before they left the house and such things. This is symbolism of the most shallow and disingenuous kind.

If you’re going to have a moment of prayer, then at least do it in good faith. As I said, as a secular person (speaking just for myself) I’ve got no problem at all with the idea of saying a little prayer before getting business underway. The fact there are different faiths all strenuously claiming rights to the truth presents some difficulty however. And it would seem a little odd in a boardroom, wouldn’t it? And government should be run more like a business, shouldn’t it?

There’s also an important distinction to be made here. And that’s between the prayer, which can be made silently, and the preface invoking the prayer. So the issue is not the actual prayer itself, but the manner in which it’s introduced.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And it would seem a little odd in a boardroom, wouldn’t it? And government should be run more like a business, shouldn’t it?

And yet our Charter begins: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recogize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."

(Oh and thank you, Karen Redman for my beautiful copy of the Charter, worthy of a frame, and sent courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada.)

Cherniak_WTF said...

And yet our Charter begins: "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recogize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."
But it does not specify which God....
My partner worships small trim bushes (she is a reformed Druid) and mine is a fat drug addict that died on the Can (Elvis of course)...

Anonymous said...

I look forward to the day when Toronto adopts this attitude and includes on their council christians, jews, muslims, taoists, rastafarians, scientologists, buddhists, hindus, bokokonists, natives, some weird sun cult, and satanists.

After the four hours it takes for everyone's 'prayer' they can get down to work!


Just to point something out, if you read the article it seems very clear that these councils are quite clearly breaking the law, isn't there a thread about the 'two tiered justice' concerning natives? Should we add a third for municipal councils?