TreeBeard

That’s up to whatever private entity is booking the acts. If they don’t want someone, for whatever reason, shouldn’t they be allowed to not book the act?

The Premier of Alberta thought she had clemency power “like in the USA”. She also spoke to justice officials in Alberta weekly to try and convince them to drop charges on someone. Not a great look for the new Premier…. political interference in prosecutions.

The Supreme Court has had quite a bit to say about secularism and what it means in Canada. Indeed, Canada is definitely a secular coutry, meaning that no one religion is favoured over another. from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art2a.html Secularism is closely linked to the notion of “state neutrality” in respect of religion, which the Supreme Court has articulated as follows: A breach of a duty of state neutrality must be established by proving that the state is professing, adopting or favouring one belief to the exclusion of all others and that the exclusion has resulted in interference with the complainant’s freedom of conscience or religion (Saguenay, supra at paragraph 83). While the state cannot favour one religious view at the expense of others, the duty of neutrality does not require it entirely to abstain from celebrating and preserving its religious heritage (Saguenay, supra at paragraphs 87 and 116).

There’s nothing official about it. Officially, we’re a secular country.

You advocate for public officials only promoting Christianity. Call it what you want. Christianity is as respected in law as every other religion. That’s all the respect it gets; equal to all the others. In fact, it is favoured in many cases, like public Catholic school boards. Pluralism doesn’t mean you agree with all religions. That’s not even possible. It means, the country is made up of people from many religions and are all treated equally.

Historically, yes. Absolutely. But that was the past. It’s a bold new Canada where it’s pluralistic, which you said you were in favour of. If you were truly in favour of pluralism, you wouldn’t be advocating for Canada to only be a “Christian nation”.

Funny term…. I thought Christians used that term when they wanted to be inclusive of Jews. Otherwise, why not just say “Christian”?

Judeo? I’m not sure the Jewish people had much part in the founding of Canada. I am more than willing to acknowledge that Canada was founded by Christians. Church of England, to be exact. Are you saying that Canada should only be promoting the Church of England doctrines and prayers? You know…. because of history. But, while I acknowledge Canada was founded by Christians, that doesn’t mean Canada is static. It doesn’t mean that it should never change. We’re making history right now. And, right now, Canada is a secular, pluralistic society with no state religion.

If they shouldn’t promote every religion, then they shouldn’t promote any religion. Canada has no official state religion.

Nah, say Jesus all you want. But, if you say Jesus, you have to say Allah, Buddha, Vishnu and Satan as well…. That’s how living in a pluralistic society works, which you said you were in favour of.

If the election is open to interpretation (there are basic facts about our system you seem to ignore), then anyone can say anything about what they thought the will of the voters REALLY was.

I guess you could play with the numbers and come to the conclusion that Canadians wanted a Lib/NDP coalition, by your logic, no?

maybe I’m just a centrist on some things…. And something else on the things where we disagree. I think a mix of mockery and rational points is needed. You mention satire in your signature. Satire certainly contains mockery much of the time.

If they mentioned Jesus in the prayer, what would happen?

No, I enjoy the conversation. I just didn’t understand your point about militant atheists. I thought it would be an interesting question to know what the OP thought the consequences would be of not invoking Jesus in a prayer at a memorial. That was the entire premise of the OP, so why not ask about it? Do you think it should be taboo to question religious doctrine? On another point, you sure like labels, don’t you? You take great pride in being a “centrist” and seem to be offended and quick to rip the centrist badge off my chest if I say something you don’t agree with. Did I even call my self a centrist at some point? If so, feel free to re-label me as “militant atheist”, “radical leftist”, or whatever would make you feel better.

The first sign is signing posts “seig heil”, I think….

Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that you embrace pluralistic society. We’re all better for it. Cherry picking the bible is the way forward for Christianity to fit into today’s more tolerant society. I just don’t think the view is very biblical. Hopefully, you will also take this view with LGBTQ folks in the future.

You weren’t paying attention to whom my post was replying. It had nothing to do with the OP, but the contention by @Contrarian that I’m a “militant atheist”.

I don’t disagree. We also need to build correctly. We’ve encouraged urban sprawl over many decades. It’s inefficient, takes up way more land, and harms the environment. We need to build more and more freeways to try and keep up with traffic congestion, which gets worse anyway. So not only do we need to build more, we need to build better than we have been.

It’s militant to ask questions and have discussion on an Internet forum?

Does the bible say to respect pluralism? I don’t think it does. The 1st Commandment specifically says not to respect pluralism. If you need more…. John 3:18, following one of the most often quoted passage in the bible, advocates against pluralism, not for it. John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

What are you going on about? You keep spamming the board with the same reply to me.

I think some very incompetent people have been working in military procurement for a long time…. Easily since Harper. Clearly, pistols are not a controversial item with environmental issues, NIMBYs, or native protestors….

Does this mean they’re going to hell now? What are the consequences exactly?

When’s the last time a soldier shot someone with a pistol?