Christian Heritage Party

[DAC]

Question for all you people worrying about the Christian Heritage Party's "extremism". They have a fairly detailed policy statement covering the whole spectrum of government policy, on their website. How many of you have read it?

[maplesyrup]

DAC....good point.

Is this the link?

Party Policy: 'A Blueprint for Restoration'

[kimmy]

Ok, why don't we have a look at this?

http://www.chp.ca/partyPolicy/partyPolicy6.htm

* They want to criminalize abortion (isn't this what got Cheryl Gallant labeled an extremist?) and they'd have to use the Notwithstanding clause to do it (isn't that what got Randy White labeled an extremist?)

* their stance on reproductive technologies is a little beyond mainstream...

Forms of reproductive technology and methods of birth control leading to abortion, non-therapeutic experimentation, and assaults on the fidelity of the husband/wife relationship, are contrary to our principles (e.g. embryo experimentation, in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination by donor, surrogate motherhood, I.V.F. and insemination of lesbians).

They'd ban artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, and the "morning after" pill.

* what about gay rights?

2. THE FAMILY

We affirm that the family is a God-ordained institution and the fundamental, indispensable basis of human society (1); that it consists of a man and woman lawfully wedded in a secure family home where natural or adopted children can be lovingly nurtur ed to maturity (2). We affirm that heterosexual, monogamous marriage is God-ordained as the foundation of the family (3), and that any other form of union whatsoever is Biblically prohibited (4). We believe that widespread violation of these prohibition s inevitably leads towards moral collapse and social disintegration.

...no gay marriages, for sure.

3. SEXUAL ABERRATIONS

It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups (1).

...no legal protection for gays, either.

10. NATIONAL GUIDELINES

Safeguards and disincentives should be in place, at the federal level if necessary, to discourage any publicly-funded institution from openly teaching neutral or positive attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, homosexuality, extr a-marital sex, the occult, or any political ideology which favors world government at the expense of national sovereignty.

...and no saying anything nice about gays in public schools, either. There will be book-burnings, and the books being burned will be "Susie has Two Mommies".

* and forget about adults being able to make up their own minds about erotica...

We support enactment and enforcement of legislation to combat the moral blight of pornography in our land. We affirm that erotic materials give a false impression of love and sexuality; glamorize promiscuity by depicting aberrant sexual behavior; promote degrading acts such as bestiality, perversion, cruelty, and homosexuality as though they were the norm; create a thirst for increasingly offensive materials; and may incite one to harm others in an attempt to satisfy perverted fantasies that have been aroused through prolonged involvement with erotica. If hard-core pornography is readily accessible to some, it will inevitably be available to all, and since children must be shielded from pornography during their formative years, we advocate stringent criteria and penalties pursuant to the import, production, sale, and distribution of obscene materials.

* they'd reinstitute capital punishment...

The law should provide for justice which includes capital punishment for those who commit first-degree, premeditated murder.

* they'd send convicts to Bible-School...

6.8.3 REHABILITATION

We believe it self-evident that the secular humanistic program of psychological and psychiatric treatment has failed, and assert that rehabilitation based on Christian principles, both in prison and on parole, should be given pre-eminence.

I guess it depends on how you define extremist... but if the Conservatives were extremists in the views of most Canadians, then Christian Heritage is way off the charts.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Thank you Kimmy. A very informative post entirely disposing of the notion that the CHP is anything but a rabid bunch of extreme theocrats.

[Hawk]

Yes, but what should seriously concern most people is how they elected the Fiberals and the Fiberals are the ones who enacted all that the CHP vows to reverse =p That is alot of powerful legislation

[kimmy]

Thank you Kimmy. A very informative post entirely disposing of the notion that the CHP is anything but a rabid bunch of extreme theocrats.

Thanks

-kimmy

[DAC]

Good for you, Kimmy. You actually read some of the things you want to criticize. I don’t agree with you, but at least you are not just throwing around labels attached to nothing but prejudice. You are still throwing around labels, though.

Let me note that the Liberals say that anybody who disagrees with them is an extremist. Unfortunately, you seem to accept their attacks as being the official base (i.e., if they labelled somebody as extremist, that makes it true). Personally, I think the person who labels others as extremists (or other ugly labels) is a threat to our democracy. Such a person is not interested in the good of the country or in truth, but only in manipulating people and gaining power, it seems to me. Oh, I suppose he or she might be interested in the good of the country as he or she sees it, but how can you trust a person’s judgment if they use invalid arguments and seek to manipulate the electorate?

From that Liberal perspective, I confess that the CHP are extreme extremists. You’ve only mentioned issues which make good sound bites today. The CHP’s slant challenges the way we have been going in a lot of ways.

However, please note, they are the Christian HERITAGE Party, not the Christian Party. That means they reject the approach of legislating Christianity. When you interpret them “they'd send convicts to Bible-School...” you are misunderstanding their approach to rehabilitating criminals. Bible School might be available (as it is today, in fact), but only on a voluntary basis. But they would apply Christian principles, such as honesty, justice, responsibility, restitution ...

However the substance of your attack lies in four areas. You believe that anyone who is not pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography and anti-justice, is an extremist. Or are you just saying that is the view of many Canadians?

The CHP is terrible because “They want to criminalize abortion” and “they'd reinstitute capital punishment”. Don’t you find it strange that a man who rapes and murders a series of young women, and videotapes it himself so there can be no doubt of his guilt should be protected, while an unborn child who has done nothing to harm anybody can be killed at her mother’s whim? The CHP proposes to execute “those who commit first-degree, premeditated murder”, and to protect the weak, helpless child. If that’s extremism in our society, we’re in sad state!

It should be beyond the power of any legislative or administrative body to recognize, affirm, condone, or discriminate in favor of, identifiable sexually aberrant individuals or groups (1).

...no legal protection for gays, either.

That’s not what they said. What they said is no protection that does not apply to everybody else equally. Under a CHP government, someone who attacked a gay and caused his death might well be executed. That’s protection.

Safeguards and disincentives should be in place, at the federal level if necessary, to discourage any publicly-funded institution from openly teaching neutral or positive attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, homosexuality, extra-marital sex, the occult, or any political ideology which favors world government at the expense of national sovereignty.

...and no saying anything nice about gays in public schools, either. There will be book-burnings, and the books being burned will be "Susie has Two Mommies".

Why is this so terrible? It says nothing about burning the books, or even censoring them. It is a plan to exclude them from publicly funded institutions. Today the Bible is excluded from most if not all public schools in our land except in voluntary classes, usually outside normal school hours. In fact in many public schools it is not even acceptable to have a traditional Christmas concert. Why do such limits suddenly become a horror if they apply to other materials that are offensive to far more people?

Enough said. I think that throwing around labels like “extremist” is a big problem. But given the reality that this is being done, I’d suggest that the real extremists are those throwing around the labels. They label themselves, for those willing to think about it.

[Alliance Fanatic]

DAC don't expect her to respond back to you because you proved her wrong. Is'nt it funny how whenever you prove them wrong they don't ever respond.

Anybody who disagree's with Jack Layton is an extremist don't you know.

[maplesyrup]

DAC....that is why I believe in proportional representation, so if the Christian Heritage Party got 5% of the vote, they would receive 15 seats in our 308 seat House of Commons.

Even if one does not support a political party, one has to support democracy, and if a certain percentage of the population votes for a certain party, they need to be proportionally represented if we are to be a truly democratic society.

The word democracy gets a lot of abuse and misinterpretation, don't you think?

[kimmy]

Good for you, Kimmy. You actually read some of the things you want to criticize. I don’t agree with you, but at least you are not just throwing around labels attached to nothing but prejudice. You are still throwing around labels, though.

In this conversation I use the word extremist in the sense that it was used in the recent election (meaning, if many Canadianns decided not to vote for the Conservatives because they found the party's stance on social issues extreme, then how will they react to the Christian Heritage Party?)

I don't think you can argue that several of the positions on their page are outside the range of mainstream Canada.

From that Liberal perspective, I confess that the CHP are extreme extremists. You’ve only mentioned issues which make good sound bites today. The CHP’s slant challenges the way we have been going in a lot of ways.

I mentioned issues where their stance is unacceptable to the courts and to mainstream Canada. The fact that it might make for good soundbites doesn't make it any less relevant.

However, please note, they are the Christian HERITAGE Party, not the Christian Party. That means they reject the approach of legislating Christianity.

I understand the distinction you are making. However, the webpage we are discussing doesn't limit itself to "heritage". God and the Bible are used over and over as justification for their policy positions. That's not Christian "Heritage", that's Christian *Beliefs*.

Can you think of any reason why in-vitro fertilization would be incompatible with Christian *Heritage*? Their objection seems to be merely that "it's not how God planned it", which again isn't *heritage*, it's belief.

When you interpret them “they'd send convicts to Bible-School...” you are misunderstanding their approach to rehabilitating criminals. Bible School might be available (as it is today, in fact), but only on a voluntary basis. But they would apply Christian principles, such as honesty, justice, responsibility, restitution ...

Those aren't Christian principles. They're universal to just about any legal or moral system you could name, *including* secular humanism. They obviously want some kind of change from the way the current corrective system operates (which at least nominally includes each of the elements you mention) so again, what are they proposing?

However the substance of your attack lies in four areas. You believe that anyone who is not pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography and anti-justice, is an extremist. Or are you just saying that is the view of many Canadians?

My argument is that most Canadians (and the law) support

-acceptance of homosexuals

-legal access to abortion

-the right of adults to decide what they want to read or watch

(As for being "anti-justice", I guess that depends on whether you consider capital punishment to be justice.)

The CHP proposes to execute “those who commit first-degree, premeditated murder”, and to protect the weak, helpless child. If that’s extremism in our society, we’re in sad state!

I won't bother getting into an abortion debate because that never solves anything. However, I'd like to point out the following quote taken word for word from the very same page:

"We believe that the human body is the property of God, and that no one but God has the authority to terminate human life except in accord with the express provisions of the Bible. No person, institution, or government shall tolerate, encourage, or decree death by means such as abortion, euthanasia, or suicide. "

Does that really seem compatible with capital punishment? The human body is God's sacred property, and no one has the right to mess with it (except when it's convenient.)

That’s not what they said. What they said is no protection that does not apply to everybody else equally. Under a CHP government, someone who attacked a gay and caused his death might well be executed. That’s protection.

And what about if a gay person is fired from his job? Currently, Canada's laws provide gays with protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The passage I quoted says in black and white that they don't believe gays are entitled to that protection.

Today the Bible is excluded from most if not all public schools in our land except in voluntary classes, usually outside normal school hours. In fact in many public schools it is not even acceptable to have a traditional Christmas concert. Why do such limits suddenly become a horror if they apply to other materials that are offensive to far more people?

They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.

[kimmy]

DAC don't expect her to respond back to you because you proved her wrong. Is'nt it funny how whenever you prove them wrong they don't ever respond.

Anybody who disagree's with Jack Layton is an extremist don't you know.

Who said anything about Jack Layton?

-kimmy

[Alliance Fanatic]

Actually I think that you should remember that most people do not want to be victimized. If a Christian were to be attacked on the street by a homosexual, than it would ne considered an assualt, if a christian were to attack a homosexual than it is a hate crime, and deserves a tougher sentence. Does'nt really seem right does it.

More people have a problem with some gay rights groups advocating for a lower age of consent to 14, and even to 12 which many find disturbing. I don't believe that pro-gay books should be allowed in schools, as the bible and other religous texts have been banned.

[kimmy]

Actually I think that you should remember that most people do not want to be victimized. If a Christian were to be attacked on the street by a homosexual, than it would ne considered an assualt, if a christian were to attack a homosexual than it is a hate crime, and deserves a tougher sentence. Does'nt really seem right does it.

This is an honest question, not an attack... have you actually read about how Canadian law treats hate crimes, or have you just decided that the law cares more about minorities/gays/jews/muslims than white people?

More people have a problem with some gay rights groups advocating for a lower age of consent to 14, and even to 12 which many find disturbing. I don't believe that pro-gay books should be allowed in schools, as the bible and other religous texts have been banned.

...ok, so we shouldn't tolerate homosexuals, because after all there is a fringe-group of gays who are promoting pedophilia? Well, that's a good point I suppose.

On a related note, we probably shouldn't tolerate Christians, because there is a fringe-group of Christians promoting violence against Jews.

(you see what I'm getting at, right?)

-kimmy

[Bryan]

After reading through all their policy statements, I must say I really like what the CHP stands for. It's about time someone stood up for morals and values in our society.

[playfullfellow]

They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.

Actually there have been a few intolerances towards Christians in the public school system. Saying of the Lord's prayer each morning is banned which was a cneturies long tradition in all public schools, there are no bible study classes during regular class times anymore and the most recent is the hoopla over Christmas, which is celebrating the birth of Jesus. Now we call it winter festivals, winter break, what have you. People want the benefits of Christmas but do not want to acknowledge that it is a Christian holiday. What is next, Easter?

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. Canada seems to love to pander to the wants and whims of minority groups and gladly step all over Christian beleifs to do so. As long as all this labeling crap continues, then we will continue to have these problems.

[Dragon]

They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.

Actually there have been a few intolerances towards Christians in the public school system. Saying of the Lord's prayer each morning is banned which was a cneturies long tradition in all public schools, there are no bible study classes during regular class times anymore and the most recent is the hoopla over Christmas, which is celebrating the birth of Jesus. Now we call it winter festivals, winter break, what have you. People want the benefits of Christmas but do not want to acknowledge that it is a Christian holiday. What is next, Easter?

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. Canada seems to love to pander to the wants and whims of minority groups and gladly step all over Christian beleifs to do so. As long as all this labeling crap continues, then we will continue to have these problems.

as we as a country evolve, so should our traditions. I really don't see why non-christian children should be forced to study the bible or say a christian prayer.

I wouldn't say there is an intolerance when it comes to christian prayers and classes in schools as there is an entirely separate educational system for christians that gets a chunk of tax revenues.

I do agree with you that changing the name of the Christmas holiday is excessive as nobody is being forced to actuially celebrate the birth of Jesus.

[DAC]

The word democracy gets a lot of abuse and misinterpretation, don't you think?

Oh yes!!!

For far too many, democracy means "all right thinking people will vote the way I do, and most others should not even be allowed to voice their views, let alone run candidates".

For the politicians, democracy seems to mean government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the benefit of the politicians.

Of course for uncle Joe (Stalin) democracy meant "allowing" the people to vote for him, with no opposition allowed.

Yes, it gets a lot of abuse.

[DAC]

I understand the distinction you are making. However, the webpage we are discussing doesn't limit itself to "heritage". God and the Bible are used over and over as justification for their policy positions. That's not Christian "Heritage", that's Christian *Beliefs*.

The Bible is the source book for the things that form our Christian heritage. The CHP is committed to legislation deals with public issues. They approach that from a biblical Christian viewpoint. Yes, it is legislating certain Christian beliefs, just as the NDP’s promoting unions is legislating NDP beliefs. The point is that the CHP does not try to compel people to become Christians, or to penalize them for not being Christians.

Can you think of any reason why in-vitro fertilization would be incompatible with Christian *Heritage*? Their objection seems to be merely that "it's not how God planned it", which again isn't *heritage*, it's belief.

The CHP’s objection to in vitro fertilization, as I understand it, is not because “it’s not how God planned it”, but because the present practice involves the fertilization of a considerable number of ova, most of which are then allowed to die. Since we believe that life begins with conception, we oppose that for the same reason we oppose abortion. I, for one, would not have a problem with in vitro fertilization if it did not involve callous disregard for the “unneeded” embryonic people. If, for example, one ovum were fertilized, and an attempt made to implant it, and if that failed, then a second ovum was fertilized ..., I think it would remove most if not all objections to the process.

they would apply Christian principles, such as honesty, justice, responsibility, restitution ...

Those aren't Christian principles. They're universal to just about any legal or moral system you could name, *including* secular humanism. They obviously want some kind of change from the way the current corrective system operates (which at least nominally includes each of the elements you mention) so again, what are they proposing?

The fact that others accept them too does not deny they are Christian principles. Personally, I don’t think secular humanism holds to them inherently. That is another argument, but I’d be prepared to argue that for secular humanists these are borrowed principles, principles which do not derive from their fundamental beliefs. But leave that.

I certainly want major changes to the way the current corrective system operates. While honesty, justice & responsibility are nominally part of our present system, it is only nominal. In fact, it seems to me that there is little doubt that the concept of justice is completely gone in practice. Justice means that if I borrow $500 from you, I pay back the full $500. I can’t pay you a nominal $5 and say that’s enough. Justice means that the penalty for an offence matches the weight of the offence. There may be a few judges today who hold to it, but my reading says it is gone from our system. Do I have to cite examples? They are in our media all the time.

While there has lately been a small move to restitution, it’s meagre. But restitution, full restitution, should be the natural response to property crimes.

Honesty? Where is honesty when a person can be held not guilty because conclusive evidence of guilt was obtained in some improper way?

Responsibility? When all you have to do is prove that you were (voluntarily) drunk, and you’re let off?

"We believe that the human body is the property of God, and that no one but God has the authority to terminate human life except in accord with the express provisions of the Bible. No person, institution, or government shall tolerate, encourage, or decree death by means such as abortion, euthanasia, or suicide. "

Does that really seem compatible with capital punishment? The human body is God's sacred property, and no one has the right to mess with it (except when it's convenient.)

Yes, Kimmy, that’s compatible with capital punishment. Here you’ve missed the key issue. As people are God’s creation, and so his property, it requires his authority to take away their life. Where do we find his authority? In the Bible. The Bible plainly tells us that those who commit murder, and are conclusively proven to have done so, are to be executed. I believe it is also a matter of fundamental justice.

And what about if a gay person is fired from his job? Currently, Canada's laws provide gays with protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The passage I quoted says in black and white that they don't believe gays are entitled to that protection.

Canada’s laws protect everybody from being fired without just cause. That covers gays, Christians, Muslims, drunks, hard workers ... whatever. The CHP would remove special protection for gays. It would sustain for them the same protections everybody else has. That includes protection for a gay from being fired because of sexual orientation, unless that interfered with his ability to do the particular job acceptably. Example: is it appropriate for a gay man to work as a men’s locker room attendant in a gymnasium? I believe that the CHP would enforce those protections. If it did not, I can assure you there would be upheavals in the camp!

They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.

Actually, they wish to ban promotion of homosexuality in public schools. You’re dodging the issue. Promotion of Christianity in public schools is already banned, vehemently opposed. As has been pointed out in this thread, even Christian holidays cannot be celebrated as such in many if not most schools. Why should it be acceptable to promote homosexuality, but not Christianity? I enjoy discussing with you, because you take issues seriously, and usually avoid twisting people’s arguments. But at this point you are twisting the CHP’s views.

[DAC]

Dragon wrote:

as we as a country evolve, so should our traditions. I really don't see why non-christian children should be forced to study the bible or say a christian prayer.

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

I wouldn't say there is an intolerance when it comes to christian prayers and classes in schools as there is an entirely separate educational system for christians that gets a chunk of tax revenues.

Where are you living? There is no place in Canada in which there is a separate, public funded educational system for all Christians. In Manitoba and Ontario, and perhaps New Brunswick, there is a publicly funded Roman Catholic school system, but nothing for protestants. Protestants are required to pay taxes to support a public school system that in most places actively attacks their beliefs. If they want to protect their children from such attacks they have to pay again to set up their own schools. Do you call that tolerance?

[kimmy]

The Bible is the source book for the things that form our Christian heritage. The CHP is committed to legislation deals with public issues. They approach that from a biblical Christian viewpoint. Yes, it is legislating certain Christian beliefs, just as the NDP’s promoting unions is legislating NDP beliefs. The point is that the CHP does not try to compel people to become Christians, or to penalize them for not being Christians.

It seems to me like you'd like to have things both ways. We're not legislating Christian beliefs, we're just legislating Christian traditions; Christian beliefs are part of Christian heritage... it's kind of a circular argument.

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.

The fact that others accept them too does not deny they are Christian principles. Personally, I don’t think secular humanism holds to them inherently. That is another argument, but I’d be prepared to argue that for secular humanists these are borrowed principles, principles which do not derive from their fundamental beliefs. But leave that.

I think that many Canadians agree that the justice system has flaws. I think that is kind of beside the point, however.

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.

Canada’s laws protect everybody from being fired without just cause. That covers gays, Christians, Muslims, drunks, hard workers ... whatever. The CHP would remove special protection for gays. It would sustain for them the same protections everybody else has.

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.

They wish to ban tolerance towards homosexuals from public schools. I've never heard of anybody wanting to ban tolerance towards Christians from public schools.

Actually, they wish to ban promotion of homosexuality in public schools.

"Safeguards and disincentives should be in place, at the federal level if necessary, to discourage any publicly-funded institution from openly teaching neutral or positive attitudes toward abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, suicide, homosexuality, extr a-marital sex, the occult, or any political ideology which favors world government at the expense of national sovereignty. "

You're not allowed to say anything positive about homosexuality, and you're not even allowed to say anything neutral on the subject.

Banning the teaching of neutral attitudes toward homosexuality sounds like banning tolerance to me.

On an unrelated note, this same passage would apparently also require the removal of any Star Trek materials from public schools

You’re dodging the issue. Promotion of Christianity in public schools is already banned, vehemently opposed. As has been pointed out in this thread, even Christian holidays cannot be celebrated as such in many if not most schools. Why should it be acceptable to promote homosexuality, but not Christianity? I enjoy discussing with you, because you take issues seriously, and usually avoid twisting people’s arguments. But at this point you are twisting the CHP’s views.

I disagree that I'm twisting it. The CHP webpage says that they want materials promoting a positive or neutral attitude toward homosexuals removed from public schools.

Under the CHP platform, even encouraging a "live and let live" attitude towards homosexuals would be banned. I don't think I've distorted their position at all.

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.

And finally, you and several others in this thread seem upset that public schools are not allowed to promote Christianity to students. Aren't you at least glad that the same law prevents your kids' teacher from having them study the Koran during class?

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

... the CHP does not try to compel people to become Christians, or to penalize them for not being Christians.

Right. All they want is to require everyone to behave according to (their version) of Christian morality. Thru legislation. And enforcement measures if necessary.

... embryonic people.

What gives an embryo human status?

[DAC]

And finally, you and several others in this thread seem upset that public schools are not allowed to promote Christianity to students. Aren't you at least glad that the same law prevents your kids' teacher from having them study the Koran during class?

No. I'm upset that Christians are required to fund a public school system that actively opposes Christian beliefs, that Christian parents who are concerned about that are forced to pay double to have their children educated in an acceptable environment.

As it happens, I don't believe neutrality in the school system is possible. So I favour the system they have in Holland, in which every school is equally supported financially by the government according to a formula based on the number of students taking part and the number of families registering their support. Your school can be a Jewish French immersion school for converts to Zoroastrianism, or whatever.

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

I'll have to go through the rest of your reply to me another time.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Do you think that other taxpayers should be exempted from supporting public institutions which they find to be in opposition with their beliefs?

[Hugo]

Do you think that other taxpayers should be exempted from supporting public institutions which they find to be in opposition with their beliefs?

Yes. Public institutions should be for the citizenry as a whole and should not be politically, culturally or religiously charged. If such an institution exists perhaps it has no business being a public institution, therefore, not just those who don't agree but nobody should be made to support it. Those who do, may do so voluntarily.

[The Terrible Sweal]

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