Christian Heritage Party

[Hugo]

So presumably you would agree that pacifists should be exempt from that portion of taxes which pays for the military forces.

No, because by being in Canada they are supporting the military forces. If they do not support the military, let them go somewhere outside of its protection.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Okay, so then if people don't support the public school system in Canada they too can move outside the sphere of its benefit (i.e. outside Canada). Right?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Though not yet totally so, our present school system is broadly anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim. I object to that.

What makes you say that? Have you got examples?

[Hugo]

Okay, so then if people don't support the public school system in Canada they too can move outside the sphere of its benefit (i.e. outside Canada). Right?

Or they could just go to a private school.

[Michael Hardner]

Playful:

Actually there have been a few intolerances towards Christians in the public school system. Saying of the Lord's prayer each morning is banned ...

Actually, I don't think it ever was banned in Canada. I certainly don't recall a test case. It seems that most schools just dropped it voluntarily over the last 25 years or so.

Also, there shouldn't be anything wrong with any theist saying The Lord's Prayer as it makes no reference to Jesus himself, just God. Any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists on the board can correct me if I'm wrong.

People want the benefits of Christmas but do not want to acknowledge that it is a Christian holiday. What is next, Easter?

These holidays were co-opted and promoted as mini business booms a long time ago.

It seems that as soon as a person is called a Christian, then they are labeled intolerant and extreme. Yet, it seems society is allowed to walk all over centuries long beliefs but a Christian is not allowed to voice their beliefs in public.

I hear a lot about this not being allowed to speak, but it seems to me that any examples I hear are abuses of the system.

Here's another example from DAC:

Do you then follow through to see that children should also not be forced to study materials that promote homosexuality?

I looked into this matter after a discussion on another board, and discovered that a text was being debated as 'promoting' homosexuality. That text was a reader for children that included two male neighbours who were living together. That was it. Of course, their sexuality was implied but that was all.

Does that promote homosexuality ? Or does it just acknowledge it ? I personally don't think you can make anybody gay or straight anyway, but surely our books should reflect the reality of the world out there. Shouldn't they ?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Okay, so then if people don't support the public school system in Canada they too can move outside the sphere of its benefit (i.e. outside Canada). Right?

Or they could just go to a private school.

No, that's not fair. They'd be free-riding like the pacifists.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Playful:

Actually there have been a few intolerances towards Christians in the public school system. Saying of the Lord's prayer each morning is banned ...

Actually, I don't think it ever was banned in Canada. I certainly don't recall a test case. It seems that most schools just dropped it voluntarily over the last 25 years or so.

Also, there shouldn't be anything wrong with any theist saying The Lord's Prayer as it makes no reference to Jesus himself, just God. Any Jews, Muslims, Buddhists on the board can correct me if I'm wrong.

None has ever been banned from saying their own prayers on their own time at school in Canada that I know of.

However prayer, regardless of denominational affiliation, as an official activity of the school or class should not be condoned.

[DAC]

Actually there have been a few intolerances towards Christians in the public school system. Saying of the Lord's prayer each morning is banned ...

Actually, I don't think it ever was banned in Canada. I certainly don't recall a test case. It seems that most schools just dropped it voluntarily over the last 25 years or so.

“The Ontario Court of Appeal struck down the use of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools in Zylberberg v. Ontario, in 1988.

[Janet Buchanan, Withering rights: Religious freedom in Canada (Faith Today Publications, 2004), p. 26.]

[DAC]

You're not legislating that everybody has to become Christian, you're just legislating that people conform to Christian attitudes. I'm not saying that Christian attitudes are a bad thing, but some of the views expressed on the CHP policy statement seem to be outside mainstream Canadian values. In particular I don't think that most Canadians, or even most Christians, want to see censorship.

Two things, Kimmy.

First is that in this the CHP is doing the same thing that everybody else does. The NDP in power legislates its beliefs, the liberals, the conservatives, the Bloc all do the same. Why is it OK to legislate secular beliefs and not others? Isn’t that a denial of pluralism?

Second, how big a percentage of the population has to agree with you for your view to be mainstream? 35% of the population were firmly anti-abortion the last time I looked at polls on the subjection. I keep hearing that a majority favour capital punishment for some offences. What are the mainstream Canadian values? And what defines them as mainstream?

Let me suggest a single value in which the CHP is outside the mainstream - that is its belief that it is good for Christian commitment to inform and regulate one’s political action. For the last four or five decades, we as a country have been sold a bill of goods. We’ve been told, and most have accepted it, that the only religious belief that has a legitimate place in the government of our country is secularism. The secularists have said that because they don’t worship some god, they are not religious but neutral. It’s a black lie, though most of them today cannot even seen that. Their view is just as religious as mine. It just happens to be a anti-god religion instead of a pro-god religion. And they are completely intolerant of anybody who challenges their claim to the reins of power.

Unfortunately, people have listened to the slippery, deceptive talk, and accepted it. So now it may trouble people in some instances, but they accept the principle that secularists can legislate their religious views, but nobody else should be allowed to do so. In fact, anybody else who offers to do so is SCARY!!!

The CHP is outside the mainstream in this, because likely 90% of Canadians have been led down this garden path. Note that I am defining mainstream as consensus, vast majority. I think that’s the only non-censoring definition that’s possible, but I’m willing to hear an alternate proposal, if you have one. Until you define the term though, it is just a scare word with little real meaning. It becomes an ad hominem abusive attack, in logical terms.

My main point is that the phrase "Christian principles" in the policy statement is completely not specific. If "honesty, responsibility, and restitution" are the principles intended, then they should say so explicitly. Rehabilitation "based on Christian principles" seems pretty open to interpretation. If they don't want to have people thinking they are advocating Bible-School for prisoners, they should spell it out more clearly.

Point well taken. The only answer I can give is that the CHP does a more detailed and careful job of defining its views and commitments than any other party I have seen. But that does not deny your point.

Can you assure me that homosexuality wouldn't be considered "just cause" for termination? In fact, there have been legal cases on the issue, which was the whole reason that sexual orientation received explicit protection in the first place.

Obviously I can’t assure you of that. I have no confidence in the justice system in our country, and I don’t think a CHP government could change that very much in less than about 25 years in office. It would take that time to see that judges who would adhere to law and not write their own were in place.

Further, there are situations in which homosexuality is just cause for termination. The most obvious are in religious institutions which believe that homosexual practice is sin. Mind you, for many of these a habit of malicious gossip is also grounds for termination. Giving special protection to homosexuals just leaves such groups open to attack. That’s the principle reason it is a problem.

Can you cite for me an example of any instance, ever, where homosexuality has been *promoted* in schools? Personally, if you can find an example, I'd be very interested to hear it.

Turn it around. Can you cite me examples of public schools today in which it is not promoted? The Supreme Court, Chamberlain vs Surrey School Board, (2002) ruled that the school board could not forbid teachers to present pro-homosexual books to Kindergarten & Grade 1 classes. The only option given those who have moral objections is to find a private school for their children or home school them - without ceasing to pay taxes to support the public system which supposedly has no biases.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why is it OK to legislate secular beliefs and not others?

Ludicrous. No-one 'legislates secular belief'. First, legislation relates to behaviour and conduct, not belief. Second, 'secular belief' is a meaningless formulation. Institutional secularism is not premised on 'belief' at all. It is premised on pragmatism determined through democratic means. Third, this method is chosen over use of religious criteria because (a) religious criteria are not and cannot be sufficiently inclusive to sustain the democratic principle, and ( religious criteria are not amenable to pragmatism.

Let me suggest a single value in which the CHP is outside the mainstream - that is its belief that it is good for Christian commitment to inform and regulate one’s political action.

You're fudging. The CHP says that Christian belief should inform and regulate ALL political action.

For the last four or five decades, we as a country have been sold a bill of goods. We’ve been told, and most have accepted it, that the only religious belief that has a legitimate place in the government of our country is secularism. 

It seems you never tire of braying the same nonsense.

Once again: 'Secularism' is not a religion. It is not even an ideology. It is a term for describing the ABSENSE of religious motivation. Your insistence that secularism is something, which by its very meaning it is not, is simply absurd. Your repetition of such absurdity smacks of disingenuouity.

The secularists have said that because they don’t worship some god, they are not religious but neutral. It’s a black lie, though most of them today cannot even seen that.

Utterly ridiculous statement. How can someone 'LIE' who genuinely thinks they are telling the truth?

Their view is just as religious as mine.

HOOEY.

... they are completely intolerant of anybody who challenges their claim to the reins of power.

Intolerant of the objective of wishing to destroy our society and replace it with theocracy? Yep, and unapologetically so. Religion was extracted from the state for good reasons and there are no good reasons to allow it to creep back in.

[DAC]

Once again: 'Secularism' is not a religion. It is not even an ideology. It is a term for describing the ABSENSE of religious motivation. Your insistence that secularism is something, which by its very meaning it is not, is simply absurd. 

A quick check of dictionary.com and my own dictionaries gives meanings like this.

Religion (among other things)

  4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

secularism

  1. Religious skepticism or indifference.

  2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

secularism

secularism

a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations

ideology

  1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

  2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

ideology

  1: an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

Since when is the question of God’s existence and whether his teachings should affect political decisions not a religious question? How is a zealous determination to exclude God and those who follow him from the political process not a religious issue? Secularism as expressed by The TS is certainly a “cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal” - thus religion. But pass by the formal definition. Allow for the sake of argument that religion really only refers to those who believe in some god. The denial of god is still a religious issue, and those who make that a principle of our society are expressing a religious belief, though it is a negative on formal religion.

If you were really non-ideological, you would insist that denial of God be excluded from civil affairs, just as much as affirmation of God is excluded. Of course at that point you have a problem, because you’ve excluded everything.