Atheists are UnCanadian

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Otherwise, all religions are made up by man and there is no proof that any of these entities existed. Jesus never existed, Muhammed never existed.  People are still fighting over imaginary gods.

I think there is enough evidence that Jesus and Muhammed the men existed, it is what they proclaimed to be that is in question. There are many modern day people who make divine claims, we know they exist, we can go and see them or get reports on television, etc. about them. Their existence is not in doubt, it is just the claims they make that are. 

[GostHacked]

Fine, I'll grant you the notion they existed, but they are not the people they claim and what history claims them to be. Therefore, it's all made up as I said.

[Wilber]

14 hours ago, kimmy said:

 

I can't help thinking that the same people, if we were in the 1600s, would be running around shouting "Christophobic!!" in response to criticism of burning "witches" at the stake.

 -k

No they wouldn't, they would be burning the critics at the stake.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Wilber

[Moonlight Graham]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[-1=e^ipi]

20 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

• (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

• (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

 

Too bad section 2 is restricted by section 1.

[Altai]

12 hours ago, GostHacked said:

You can call it what you want, I don't feel the need to deceive myself with false gods and their sacrificed offspring and the many hypocritical things that have been said and done in the name of religion. This atheist simply wants peace. The religious followers are simply ruining it for me.

No logical person could be an atheist. Logic will bring you to the God. I decided not to discuss about religions with an atheist. First of all, an atheist have to recognize presence of a creator super power. Then we could discuss about religions as second step. Atheism itself is complately a hypocrisy.
 

[Rue]

13 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Too bad section 2 is restricted by section 1.

No actually, The Supreme Court of Canada won't interpret any section that way. Legally the charter and such sections are read with as broad an application as possible not a narrow one. That means if you have two rights that appear to conflict one another such as someone arguing their religious beliefs give them the right to limit someone else's they won't be able to.

 If you have religious  beliefs that violate other people's rights the Supreme Court will use a basic formula and ask  whose right being asked for causes the most violation of another's rights.  The one that restricts more rights than it protects will be limited because the Charter is to be read to benefit as wide a tolerance of rights as possible not one that allows one right to completely nullify other rights. Muslims have the right to say and believe what they want but it ends if they expect to impose it on non Muslims or for that matter other Muslims who do not agree with them. No my right to my religious beliefs does not mean I can demand to stone people to death because they are gay nor can I arrest women and whip them for driving a car or showing their face.

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Rue

[?Impact]

54 minutes ago, Rue said:

What people do not want to discuss is many Muslims come from countries where there was no distinction between the state and Islam. Sharia law, Muslim law was enforced by the state. It institutionalized and imposed Muslim beliefs on all. Non Muslims are defined as inferior. When Muslims then come to Canada, they go from taking their Muslim status as unquestioned and enforced by the state to just another of many beliefs that are no better or worse than others.

Now that is an important topic, and one that is certainly related to immigration & citizenship. Perhaps we need to be clearer in the Constitution about the separation of powers, and make sure that is understood by immigrants and new citizens. I don't think the Americans did much better a job either. Although Thomas Jefferson wrote: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" when originally discussing the first amendment, that part of the text never made it into it. Article 6 of the US Constitution does talk about no religious requirements for government office holders but that is a secondary issue. What really troubles me about America is the practice of US politicians to always say "God Bless America", which certainly implies a supreme being. Of course our own Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God, so we are no better.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Now that is an important topic, and one that is certainly related to immigration & citizenship. Perhaps we need to be clearer in the Constitution about the separation of powers, and make sure that is understood by immigrants and new citizens. I don't think the Americans did much better a job either. Although Thomas Jefferson wrote: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" when originally discussing the first amendment, that part of the text never made it into it. Article 6 of the US Constitution does talk about no religious requirements for government office holders but that is a secondary issue. What really troubles me about America is the practice of US politicians to always say "God Bless America", which certainly implies a supreme being. Of course our own Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God, so we are no better.

Agreed.  A very important point.  How does a country let a potential immigrant know that his or her religion, any religion, is no longer important to anyone but themselves, and no-one has to respect it, or behave in any way required by it, and if they cannot fully accept that, they are not welcome?

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

... What really troubles me about America is the practice of US politicians to always say "God Bless America", which certainly implies a supreme being. Of course our own Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God, so we are no better.

 

There is/was no such separation of church and state in the U.S., and certainly not in Canada.   

Canada's criminal code still has a law against blasphemy.

 

[Rue]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Now that is an important topic, and one that is certainly related to immigration & citizenship. Perhaps we need to be clearer in the Constitution about the separation of powers, and make sure that is understood by immigrants and new citizens. I don't think the Americans did much better a job either. Although Thomas Jefferson wrote: "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State" when originally discussing the first amendment, that part of the text never made it into it. Article 6 of the US Constitution does talk about no religious requirements for government office holders but that is a secondary issue. What really troubles me about America is the practice of US politicians to always say "God Bless America", which certainly implies a supreme being. Of course our own Constitution recognizes the supremacy of God, so we are no better.

I cut down my last post and deleted the comment but I am glad you clarified it with your response as did BC. I stated many Muslims have come from countries where there is no separation of their religion from state and so they have grown up in a Sharia (Muslim) law system where they just assume no religion is equal to Islam because of their law sand so they leave a country where other non Muslims didn't' have the same rights now  they come to Canada and on the one hand they are told they have the right to their religious beliefs which believe non Muslims aren't equal, but  then are also told at the same time in Canada all religions are equal. Canada sends out confusing signals to new Canadians.

Our constitution could have done a far better job as you say separating church from state in its wording to help.

There is a way to criticize religious concepts without saying  hateful things about the  people of those religions.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2017 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Agreed.  A very important point.  How does a country let a potential immigrant know that his or her religion, any religion, is no longer important to anyone but themselves, and no-one has to respect it, or behave in any way required by it, and if they cannot fully accept that, they are not welcome?

 

That's not how it works in the U.S. or Canada....landed immigrants or refugees have rights except for those reserved to citizenship.   That's why they get due process before deportation.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's not how it works in the U.S. or Canada....landed immigrants or refugees have rights except for those reserved to citizenship.   That's why they get due process before deportation.

I know.  That's why it was posed as a question.  Still, one also has to ask how those rights include imposing one's religion on others.

[Rue]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

There is/was no such separation of church and state in the U.S., and certainly not in Canada.   

Canada's criminal code still has a law against blasphemy.

 

The law you point out in Canada is not enforceable any more. It will eventually be deleted. We have many criminal code sections no longer enforced.

I also disagree with you respectfully on the US Constitution which clearly prevents the state whether it be at the federal or state or even municipal level from using the law to treat people differentially bases on their religious beliefs.

Its precisely why Trumps ban was thrown out.

 

 

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I know.  That's why it was posed as a question.  Still, one also has to ask how those rights include imposing one's religion on others.

 

The same way citizen's impose their religion on others (e.g. Xmas displays, holidays, etc.)

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

The law you point out in Canada is not enforceable any more. It will eventually be deleted. We have many criminal code sections no longer enforced.

I also disagree with you respectfully on the US Constitution which clearly prevents the state whether it be at the federal or state or even municipal level from using the law to treat people differentially bases on their religious beliefs.

Its precisely why Trumps ban was thrown out.

 

The point was/is that Canada very much did have such religious inclinations to the point of codifying blasphemy into law.  

Enforcement is secondary to this discussion.    Canada has lots of stupid laws on the books. 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The same way citizen's impose their religion on others (e.g. Xmas displays, holidays, etc.)

I don't see any imposition there.  I wouldn't see any imposition with being given paid Ramadan off either.  It would be my choice.

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's not how it works in the U.S. or Canada....landed immigrants or refugees have rights except for those reserved to citizenship.   That's why they get due process before deportation.

In Canada the law does not distinguish between Canadian citizens and non citizens in its application of the Charter of Rights, the US does wi th its constitution. A non US citizen does not have the same rights as a US citizen in some respects but you are right they have the same right to due process but the US can deport illegals far easier than we can in Canada. The due process illegals get in the US is almost non existent-in Canada they could technically appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In the US the moment you prove with due process someone is illegal, their due process ends. They are deportable bye bye.

In both countries you can't use the Constitutions to allow individuals in the name of their rights  to violate other peoples' rights.

No I can not stone you because you are gay and my religion says so.

You want 4 wives, no.

You want to arrest and whip a woman for diving a car or going out alone without a male escort, no.

 

[?Impact]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada has lots of stupid laws on the books. 

Yes we do, and we need to clean them up. Hopefully we can do it faster than America that has 51 sets of books with stupid laws (probably more, but I don't really know how the territories work).

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

In the US the moment you prove with due process someone is illegal, their due process ends. They are deportable bye bye.

That would be an interesting topic, Not just the differences between the US and Canada but what the rights of non-citizens should be. I also wonder if what you say is true or not, at least technically and meeting international obligations. If Canada wants to deport an immigrant, I don't think the situation you are talking about would occur. What I do see happening is trying to deport refugees, and then we (and the US) are obligated by international treaties to address certain refugee rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

10 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't see any imposition there.  I wouldn't see any imposition with being given paid Ramadan off either.  It would be my choice.

 

Many atheists don't see it that way.   In Canada, there is still significant state sponsored religious residue in culture and practice.

[Rue]

7 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The same way citizen's impose their religion on others (e.g. Xmas displays, holidays, etc.)

Not in law. I don't impose my religion on you putting up a Christmas display in my home or outside my home. It only becomes an issue in public places.

Imposition does not become a factor for the law to regulate until such time it is in a place that is deemed neutral to all.

There is also something called common sense. If the majority of people in a neighbourhood are Christian, the retail stores will cater to Christmas just as they will not if its a Muslim neighbourhood.

In business, serving your clientele and catering to their  religions during holidays is not something the courts will step in and prevent.

Courts won't interfere with business practices unless say Kia won't serve Muslims. However if it wants to put up a Christmas tree, the court could care less.

In theory there are a lot of rights. In reality however until someone complains they have been violated, there is no legal issue because consent to the violation through silence is allowed.

We only activate the law when a conflict/complaint arises.

The law will not define one religion as better or worse than another and it will expect the person seeking a remedy to be prepared not to ask for something it would not want someone doing to them.

That so called Golden Rule is the basis on how all human rights issues are balanced in the event of a conflict. Its a balancing act to assure two equals remain that way not one becoming more equal than the other.

If I were the Metro Toronto Police, I would take Gay Pride to court and challenge them for excluding the police from the parade. Its blatant discrimination brought on by a bigoted Black Lives Matter group who practice open hateful discrimination against the police on the grounds they are justified in being bigoted against police because they can assume all police are racist.

In Canada we are allowing certain minority groups to play the race or human rights card to violate the human rights of others. It has to be challenged because if its not, if you walk away, bullies like Black Lives Matter are enabled to engage in the very hatred they claim to be fighting.

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Rue said:

Not in law. I don't impose my religion on you putting up a Christmas display in my home or outside my home. It only becomes an issue in public places.

 

Yes...in law.  Four provinces still have constitutional preferences for funding of education delivered by organized religious organizations.

[Rue]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Many atheists don't see it that way.   In Canada, there is still significant state sponsored religious residue in culture and practice.

Yes indeed. The Legislative Assembly in Quebec still has a large crucifix. Most provincial parliaments use the Lord's prayer.

The Queen, our head of state is the head of the Anglican Church.

In that sense you could argue we are a Christian state because of our choice of monarch. This is with due respect what you meant about the US government as well-that the belief in God through Christian beliefs is there in prayer and ceremony. I don't disagree with that. What I do mean however is to say you also have a brilliantly written constitution that protects non Christians from discrimination for not being Christian and as the US has evolved, warts and all, its separated religion from state when serving its citizens at any level of government. You remember that case where the woman would not grant a license to a gay couple to marry based on her religious beliefs. The laws of the US did not allow her to do that. She was entitled to her belief, but not imposing them through restriction of government services.

Your constitution stands to this day about treating people fairly. Its always been a model for other legal systems including Canada's which has tried to take it and the British approach to constitutional rights and fuse them. The US wrote everything down, the British liked to keep their constitutional protocols often unwritten.

So our Charter attempts to take unwritten British protocol and combine it with US approaches to individual rights. Under the circumstances its tried its best. I  was fortunate to meet Prof. Hogg who helped much of the Charter of Rights when I was in law school doing a Master's part-time. Fascinating and modest man and said the American written approach was far more complex than it looked and was an intricate game of checks and balances while British constitutional protocol often came from practices that came about because of the whim of a monarch designed to placate the monarch, but in so doing also kept people from turning on one another all agreeing to trust the monarch as being neutral to them both-the US relied on no one human-the British relied on their monarch as a super human at times ordained by God.

Very interesting difference. Now of course some woul arguePierre Trudeau who brought in the Charter thought he was God. Not quite. We never had to chop off his head like King Charles or Dick Nixon.

[Rue]

31 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The point was/is that Canada very much did have such religious inclinations to the point of codifying blasphemy into law.  

Enforcement is secondary to this discussion.    Canada has lots of stupid laws on the books. 

 

Your point was and is well taken. I have tried to clarify further. I did not do a good job clarifying. I actually agree Christian symbols and vestiges very much remain in botht he Canadian and US legal systems, all I meant is  our constitutions won't allow the laws to discriminate aganst non Christians although those symbols remain.

Now you brought up education. In Ontario we of course have a Catholic public school board. No other religion has this. It mixes public school with ONE religion. So on its f ace it certainly sounds like state and religion are not separate.

Its a classic example of a remaining Christian vestige at a time where Canada's Christian beliefs and state were not separated.

Keep in mind the vast majority in Canada still remain Catholic.

However what is also interesting to note is anyone of any religion can go to a public Catholic school and many do as with due respect the school boards are run better. The Catholic school board does not require non Catholics to attend any Catholic religious ceremonies or have to engage in the Lord's prayer.

As well I can indicate in my public taxes that I do NOT pay towards the Catholic school system.

So the law is in effect rebalanced any true discrimination. Catholics don't get any real advantage other than I suppose being able to keep crosses in their schools, have religious ceremonies but the taxes are paid by Catholics.

In fact if I had kids and I was Jewish I would send them to a French immersion school and if it was Catholic I would not mind at all.

I also believe myself that its my responsibility in private to teach my kids about their religion or cultural not in public school. I only expect public school to teach religion in a non denominational way which the Catholic schools do. They only go Jesuit on fellow Catholic students who take a separate class although I defer to other parents on that as each school board is different.

No way the US would allow that at any level of jurisdiction.