What Does The Liberal Minority Mean -- Morally?

[Neal.F.]

When the courts are stacked with liberal judges, obviously they are going to interpret the law from a liberal perspective.

The Trudeau Charter of rights isn't worth using for toilet paper. It replaced the Diefenbaker bill of Rights which was sufficient.

Trudeau wanted to force his vile visiuon on the country long after he was gone.

Parlaiment needs to reclaim its authority, before the tyrants in robes render parliament irerelevant.

Interesting how you say that it is designed to protect minorities from majorities. where's the protection for the Christian? the unborn child?

It's just a neat way for liberals to get their agenda passed, when they know they will not get the approval of the people.

[Black Dog]

When the courts are stacked with liberal judges, obviously they are going to interpret the law from a liberal perspective.

Parlaiment needs to reclaim its authority, before the tyrants in robes render parliament irerelevant.

But the authority of the Suprem Court derves from Parliment. The Supreme Court has the ultimate power of judicial review over Canadian federal and provincial laws' constitutional validity, based on Parliment's acceptance of the Charter. The Supreme Court ha sno authority to pass laws on its own. Now, whatever your issues with the Charter might be, but the fact is the Supreme Court is part of the democratic structure of our nation.

where's the protection for the Christian? the unborn child?

Religious freedom is protected under the Charter. And the courts have established that a fetus has no inherent right to life and no legal protection as a person until born alive.

It's just a neat way for liberals to get their agenda passed, when they know they will not get the approval of the people.

So you rposition boils down to the following: allowing the courts to do the job they are mandated to do by Parliment to interpret and rule on laws based on the Charter of Rights, (legislation that was passed by the elected government of the time and endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the democratically-elected governments of the provinces) is bad, but only in cases where they going against your personal views. Again, if the same process were applied with differnt results (ie. a Supreme Court ban on abortion), I have no doubt you would be hailing such a decision as a victory for freedom and democracy.

[Hugo]

Hugo, are you advocating anarchy?

Yes, I am. There's another thread in which I go into more detail.

I think Governments do have the right to fineand imprison

What if somebody refuses to pay a fine or go to prison and threatens to use force - including deadly force - to defend themselves?

Moreover, government is an institution of individuals. What you are saying is that some individuals have a right to fine and imprison other individuals, which is iniquity and the making of tyranny.

life & death is too much power to invest in government, except where deploying the armed forces is concerned.

So, it's acceptable for government to decide life and death for foreigners, just not its own citizens?

However, I disagree with the idea that anti-abortion legislation won't work without universal acceptance.

If you pass an anti-abortion law without pro-life opinion having become at least the vast majority, you are asking for civil disobedience and a vast number of crimes that will fill your jails with abortionists and mothers-to-have-been.

Mr John has only breached the COVENANT (not contract) with his wife

Marriage is not a covenant, nor is it between two people and God:

"However, I say to you: do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God's throne; nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Nor by your head must you swear, because you cannot turn one hair white or black. Just let your word yes mean yes, your no, no; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one."

-- Matthew 5:34-37.

Therefore, the only Christian interpretation of marriage is that it has nothing to do with God but is an agreement between two people, and their word should be binding: a contract.

AND placed her in grave danger without her knowledge or consent. He has also hurt any children there may be in the family by his actions.

You refute your own argument. You state that Mr. John has done all these things, and he has. The institution of prostitution has not done any of them. Therefore, your argument is merely a converse accident and is false.

Pornography destroys families and hurts thoise involved in the industry by dehumanizing people and turning them into objects to satisfy their sexual desire.

I asked for proof, not your opinion. Regardless, pornography can be as destructive to the soul as it likes, self-destruction is the right of the individual. As regards "dehumanizing people", this allegation has been made against many things: wage labour, Social Insurance Numbers, uniforms, military service, collectivism, and organised religion. All of them are subjective, none are defensible.

Revealing a woman's ankle in public was once thought to be all of the things you level at pornography.

What do you think about zoning laws?

I think it highly unjust for the government to dictate to a landowner what he may use his own possessions for.

[JWayne625]

The thing about same-sex marriages is that proponents say that it will not interfere with the right of an organization or person to refuse to perform such a mariage because it goes against their religious beliefs. The opinion stated by the intervenor representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association at the Supreme Court, was that the proposed legislation guarantees that nobdy would be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it goes against their religious beliefs. He seems to have forgotten the ultimatum given to Commissioner's in British Columbia, who were told they would either perform such marriages, or they would lose their livelihood, by having their licenses' as Commissioners taken away from them. That hardly guarantees freedom of religion, in fact it shows quite clearly that freedom of religion is not and will not be guaranteed by this legislation.

We seem also to have forgotten the ruling by the Court in Ontario that ruled that a Catholic School, and it's Board was obliged to allow one of their student's to bring his gay boyfriend to the Prom. This was a clear indication that the "State" is not above infringing on religious freedoms, it those freedoms interferes with certain agendas. It's not as if this was a public school, it was a school run as a offshoot from the Church, and as such should have been exempt from interferance under the protections supposedly guaranteed for religious freedom. This very well might have been a school run by another religious group, such as Baptist or Muslim, it just happened to be Catholic in this instance. I'm sure the ruling of the court would have still interfered because these Judges are simply not made to be accountable for their decisions. Just remember, judges are simply lawyers who have the right political connections to get appointed. Being intelligent is not a necessity, being politically connected is.

We elect our politicians to make decisions, and we hold them accountable for those decisions at election time. The problem today is that we have allowed our elected politician's to defer to the judiciary those decisions that are controversial, and that that they don't wish to take ownership for, so they allow unelected and unaccountable judges to make those decisions for them. They can then stand back and, to use an old analogy say' "The devil made me do it." Maybe the time has come to elect our judiciary and get rid of party politics. It would at least have the effect of making these judges accountable for their decisions, and I would bet more attuned to the wishes of the majority. After all, isn't that what democracy is supposed to be all about, power by the people, for the people, and not power for the judiciary, with no accountability.

[Hugo]

Neal,

There was another point of yours I wanted to touch on, too.

one's salvation comes exclusively from one's decision to accept him as saviour and enter into the relationship with him, not upon any "works" "brownie points" or anything we do.

That's completely backwards. Living according to Christ's teachings is the most important thing, more important than "accepting" Christ in the way you speak of.

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness." -- Matthew 7:21-23

Therefore, according to Christ himself, it is certain that Mahatma Gandhi (for instance) would be allowed into paradise since he lived his life according to the will of God and the teachings of Christ - pacifism, compassion, love for all men and disdain for material goods - even though he was a Hindu and did not accept Christ in the way you mean. Similarly, there are many who fit into the category Jesus decried, people who claim to be Christian and to have accepted Jesus into their hearts and yet lead a very un-Christian life.

[Guest eureka]

The state cannot interfere in the right of a Church to refuse marriage to homosexuals. The "protection" of religious freedom is absolute and the base from which all freedoms flow. It is the basic tenet of Constitutional agreement and protection.

It is also not a Charter issue. The Charter merely affirms what the Constitution gives in this..

The Diefenbaker Bill of Roghts was not sufficient. It offered no protection whatever to other than Federal breaches of federal law. In that, it was equal to the American Bill of Rights which is still, in some parts effective only with repect to the federal government and federal institutions.

Our Bill of Rights may also have affirmed the Constitutional Freedom of Religion but it did not protect against provinces or individuals. It was a start only.

[Black Dog]

He seems to have forgotten the ultimatum given to Commissioner's in British Columbia, who were told they would either perform such marriages, or they would lose their livelihood, by having their licenses' as Commissioners taken away from them. That hardly guarantees freedom of religion, in fact it shows quite clearly that freedom of religion is not and will not be guaranteed by this legislation.

Marriage Commissioners perform civil ceremonies, not religious ones. The government can dictate the terms of employment to its own employees.

[Hugo]

While we're on the subject of gay marriage and churches, it's my opinion that any Church that opposes homosexuality is being fundamentally anti-Christian and rejecting the teachings of Christ and the word of the Bible. In my opinion, a church that rejects homosexuals is, in actual fact, a satanic temple. If the government was to shut any of them down or any were to collapse financially due to a lawsuit I would shed no tears.

If anybody is interested I'll be happy to explain my position further, but before I go into a long and possibly quite rambling explanation I'll gauge the level of interest first.

[August1991]

If anybody is interested I'll be happy to explain my position further, but before I go into a long and possibly quite rambling explanation I'll gauge the level of interest first.

Bored, I express an interest.

I view it this way: I buy a TV from Shop X which says that for the next 5 years, if the TV breaks, Shop X will replace it. In 3 years, the TV "breaks" (according to me but not according to Shop X).

The obvious answer here is that Shop X and I have previously agreed on Judge Z to decide our differing opinions of "broken".

You are thinking about buying a TV from Shop X and you hear my story of the broken TV and the claims of Shop X that the TV was not broken.

Does your trust in Judge Z help you in your decision to buy a TV at Shop X?

IMV, this is the issue of marriage in a particular church.

[Hugo]

Your analogy of shops and judges is basically sound. When you pick a church - or any other institution - to marry you, you and your spouse have chosen an arbiter for your marriage.

As you're interested, or bored, I'll explain my position. Firstly, while Jesus talked about a great deal of subjects and morals, he never talked about homosexuality. Either he saw nothing wrong with it or he didn't consider it a big enough deal to warrant discussion. Either way, it's hard to take that as any kind of condemnation.

The Old Testament that many take as a condemnation of homosexuality is frequently ambiguous and usually misinterpreted.

Leviticus is not a text of moral codes but of cultural ones. The laws it describes (such as wearing clothes of only one fiber or clipping one's beard or hair in certain spots) was designed to preserve the cultural integrity of the Jewish people against their neighbours.

This becomes obvious when you consider that the word used in the Hebrew text to describe these acts, including homosexual relations, is toevah, which literally means "culturally forbidden." If the author had wanted to describe homosexuality as immoral, he would have used the word zimah. When translated into Greek, again, the word bdelygma is used, which means "ritual impurity", and not anomia, which means illegal, immoral or sinful.

Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality, but it is very important to note that it does this as a crime of idolatry - identifying with the Gentiles - rather than as an immoral crime. Cursing ones parents was also given the death penalty for the same reason, since Jewish society revolved around the family and a strict family hierarchy, to reject ones parents constituted a severe disruption of Jewish society.

In Genesis, when Sodom is described, the crime is not homosexuality. In Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the sins for which God destroyed the city are listed as oppression and injustice, lying, lack of hospitality, and rape, never homosexuality. Regarding the story in Genesis, when read in context (considering Lot's offering of his daughters to the crowd as sacrificial victims) it seems clear that the crime of the mob was not to desire homosexual relations with Lot's visitors but to desire to rape them.

Paul's letter to the Romans is misinterpreted. The Greek word supposed to mean "natural" actually means "true to oneself", and the word supposed to mean "unnatural" actually means "unexpected." Similarly, the word supposed to mean "degrading" actually means "socially disapproved", and the word taken as "shameless [acts]" means "not according to accepted norms" in the original Greek.

When these correct translations are reinserted into Romans, the text is very different. Now, Paul is saying that homosexuals have rejected the norms of their society for a different way, and their acts therefore have not been accepted by society. This is confirmed when Paul says in Romans 14:14 that "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself." Furthermore, Paul's text is a piece of propaganda aimed at conversion and at unity of believers, and therefore seeks to appeal to the Judeo-Christian sense of superiority over the Gentiles, so Paul seeks to differentiate them from the Gentiles in his letter.

When the original Hebrew in Corinthians and Timothy is considered, the passages are condemning lewd and unrestrained sexuality in and of itself, no matter what the orientation.

Jesus's teachings in Matthew, Mark and Galatians clearly state that no act is wrong in and of itself, but only motives can be wrong. The most crucial and important teaching of Jesus was to love thy neighbour, therefore, an act that does not transgress against one's fellow man or that is not intended to cannot be immoral according to Jesus.

These mistakes usually come about through reading the Bible without historical context. This is very common. For example, consider that Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. So, it sounds like it would be impossible for a rich man to enter. However, in Jerusalem one of the entranceways to the city was called the Eye of the Needle, and it was so low that a traders camel laden with goods had to be unloaded and then had to stoop down low in order to pass through the gate, and be reloaded on the other side. With this knowledge, the interpretation of Jesus's phrase becomes very different. No longer is it impossible, it becomes merely difficult.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No matter what turns we may take for short-term gain, unless a nation has a transcendent standard of right and wrong -- rooted in the absolutes of the One who created the universe -- that society will inevitably descend into the Law of the Jungle: "Might makes right."

Prove that.

And if you can, I'll be very surprised. For one thing, it is impossible (due to inherent fallibility) for anyone to be 'rooted in the absolutes' of anything, since the best anyone can do is act on what they perceive or believe the absolutes to be.

Furthermore, within all faith traditions there is disagreement about the meaning of the faith. The absence of such agreement demonstrates that religious faith is not a useful method of practical interpersonal or collective decision-making.

[DAC]

Hugo: October 8, 2004

Jesus Christ was a libertarian, pacifistic anarchist. He said, "Go forth and sin no more",

Please explain to me how a libertarian anarchist can tell someone to sin no more. Anarchy denies any authority to which a person is responsible, and libertarian views, likewise, would seem to insist on freedom to "sin" if you want. I know you have argued elsewhere that anarchy means freedom as long as you don't inflict your freedom on others, but the specific case in which Jesus told a woman, "Go & sin no more" was sex between consenting adults. So far as I know anarchy and libertarianism would both say, "That's fine". So how can an anarchist and a libertarian tell the woman to stop doing it?

Aside from that, Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The Greek can also be translated as a command, "If you love me, keep my commandments". Either way, it declares that there are commandments to be kept. It's not anarchy. It's not libertarian.

Pacifist? Where do you find Jesus repudiating David the warrior, or John the Baptist, his own herald? John was specifically asked by soldiers what they should do. He did not tell them to get out of the army as soon as they could. he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14)

Jesus is not pacifist, libertarian or anarchist. The only way he can be held to be such is by grabbing a few pieces out of their context. I know. I have done that in the past at least on the pacifism issue.

Hugo: October 8, 2004

Marriage is not a covenant, nor is it between two people and God:

"However, I say to you: do not swear at all, neither by heaven, because it is God's throne; nor by earth, because it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Nor by your head must you swear, because you cannot turn one hair white or black. Just let your word yes mean yes, your no, no; for what is in excess of these is from the wicked one."

-- Matthew 5:34-37.

Therefore, the only Christian interpretation of marriage is that it has nothing to do with God but is an agreement between two people, and their word should be binding: a contract.

Malachi 2:14 'Yet you say, "For what reason [does God reject your offering]?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.'

So that you won't be tempted to claim this is some other covenant than marriage, the passage goes on to speak about the Lord hating divorce. They broke the marriage covenant by divorce.

Mark 10:14 "what God has joined together, let not man separate." Jesus is here speaking about marriage. That makes it rather blind to say that a Christian interpretation of marriage has nothing to do with God.

Hugo: October 9, 2004

one's salvation comes exclusively from one's decision to accept him as saviour and enter into the relationship with him, not upon any "works" "brownie points" or anything we do.

That's completely backwards. Living according to Christ's teachings is the most important thing, more important than "accepting" Christ in the way you speak of.

"Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness." -- Matthew 7:21-23

Therefore, according to Christ himself, it is certain that Mahatma Gandhi (for instance) would be allowed into paradise since he lived his life according to the will of God and the teachings of Christ - pacifism, compassion, love for all men and disdain for material goods - even though he was a Hindu and did not accept Christ in the way you mean. Similarly, there are many who fit into the category Jesus decried, people who claim to be Christian and to have accepted Jesus into their hearts and yet lead a very un-Christian life.

John the Baptist: John 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

Jesus said of him (John 5:33) "You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth."

John 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."

John 12:48 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day."

Mahatma Ghandi does not pass this test. You are correct in saying that there are many who claim to follow Jesus but show by their lives that the claim is false. That's what Jesus was talking about in the passage you quoted. Those who love him are moved to keep his commandments. But the Bible is clear from cover to cover. "by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified." (Galatians 2:16)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Salvation comes, not by our doing good deeds, but by Christ's standing in the dock for us, taking our punishment on himself to clear us before God, and his working new life, righteousness, into our hears.

I'll have to answer your mistaken interpretation of a biblical view of homosexuality another time. You may have observed from my erratic participation that I'm finding it hard to make time to indulge myself in these discussions.

[DAC]

Black Dog: October 8, 2004

you would not be charged with a hate crime unless you were seen to be inciting violence.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the school teacher in Alberta who was charged and convicted of hate crimes a few years ago did at most two things: He denied that the holocaust affected the commonly accepted 6,000,000 Jews; and he may have held to the conspiracy theory about Jews working behind the scenes to dominate the world. My memory is that it was clear that he opposed violence against Jews.

[Hugo]

Please explain to me how a libertarian anarchist can tell someone to sin no more.

This question would not need an answer had you not edited out the second part of my sentence to make your point look stronger.

A libertarian anarchist such as Jesus can give advice. I can say "don't buy a Chrysler" to you, but without force or the threat thereof it's just a piece of advice and you aren't compelled to obey it. Since Jesus completely forsook the use of force, the only possible explanation of this quotation is that Jesus was giving advice.

Anarchy does not forbid morality, nor does it forbid holding an opinion or attempting to convice others of it. It just forbids using fraud, violence or threat thereof to impose your opinion on another human being.

Aside from that, Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). The Greek can also be translated as a command, "If you love me, keep my commandments". Either way, it declares that there are commandments to be kept.

Finish the sentence! "it declares that there are commandments to be kept [if you love Christ]."

Once again, Jesus is not compelling anybody to do anything. He says, "if you love me, you'll act this way." A wife may say to her husband, "if you love me, you'll be faithful to me." Is the wife her husband's government? Would she be right to use violence to ensure her husband's fidelity? Is she even threatening to use violence to ensure his fidelity?

Or is she simply giving conditions for their strictly voluntary relationship?

Pacifist? Where do you find Jesus repudiating David the warrior, or John the Baptist, his own herald?

I find Jesus rebuking Peter for drawing his sword in Jesus' own defence, warning him that those who live by the sword shall die by it. I also find him teaching people to turn the other cheek should somebody use violence against him. I also find him refraining from summoning an army of angels to smite his enemies even though it would cost him his life.

How do you reconcile any of this with a supposed endorsement of violence by Jesus?

John was specifically asked by soldiers what they should do. He did not tell them to get out of the army as soon as they could. he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

That's a pretty clever answer from John. It's very hard to be a soldier without intimidating anybody.

Malachi 2:14 'Yet you say, "For what reason [does God reject your offering]?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant.'

That's the Old Testament. Jesus goes against a lot of the teachings in the Old Testament, his is the new covenant and is overriding. Jesus says in Matthew that you cannot invoke God as a witness, therefore, Jesus refutes this teaching in Malachi.

Mark 10:14 "what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Mark 10:14 "But when Jesus saw [it], he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God."

Mahatma Ghandi does not pass this test. You are correct in saying that there are many who claim to follow Jesus but show by their lives that the claim is false. That's what Jesus was talking about in the passage you quoted. Those who love him are moved to keep his commandments.

I would argue that somebody who complies with all of the teachings of Jesus, like Gandhi, loves him. They clearly love what he taught and what he stood for, from which it follows that you'd love the man. I find it hard to believe that Jesus, always a man of compassion and love, would condemn Gandhi to burn in hell because he called God "Rama" and not "Jehovah."

Salvation comes, not by our doing good deeds, but by Christ's standing in the dock for us, taking our punishment on himself to clear us before God, and his working new life, righteousness, into our hears.

Then why would he give us instructions in how to live? If he has taken the punishment for all of us, what does it matter?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Nobody is talking about kicking someone's ass. I just see conservatives getting their asses kicked by Liberal extremists.

I don't understand why you would say that. What legitimate interest held by conservatives is being harmed, and in what way?

As for abortion, it is murder plain and simple.

Nope. Murder is killing a human being. Fetuses aren't human beings yet.

As for prostitution, what may be consensual between the hooker and the John may well have devastation consequences to a family, should Mr. John contract a disease and bring it home to an unsuspecting wife.

That sounds like something between Mr. John and his wife. Why should the state concern itself with (potential) private breaches of faith between two people?

Pornography is damaging to families as well.

Prove that.

I'd like to see it wiped out, and failing that, at least kept in brown paper wrappers, instead on in our kids faces.

Two things: First, clearly you don't believe in freedom of expression. Second, where is pornography in kids faces?

Drugs. Sorry, seen to much in my life to justify it as a consensual victimless crime.

Who is the victim? Victim of what?

While I agree with you that a good act committed under duress is worth nothing, but let's get beyond the idea of victimless crimes and at least ensure that , say, Mr. John will be held responsible for his actions when he brings home the disease to Mrs. John. 

Mrs. John has her legal remedies already. Prohibiting prostitution is not a remedy for Mrs. John for two reasons: it has not stopped prostitution and it doesn't fix her problem after the fact.