The Left invites terrorists into our home

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

Barbara Santamaria, a teacher on the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board in 1983, was pressured to quit when the board found out she was Jewish. “I went for my interview knowing that I was going to be asked for a reference from my parish priest, which I don’t have because I am Jewish.”

During the job interview, Santamaria says she was told it was important that all teachers are Catholic so students can constantly be immersed in Catholic doctrine.

Although no official challenge was taken up against the board, Santamaria tells Xtra the experience led her to advocate for a single secular school system.

https://www.dailyxtra.com/discrimination-in-ontario-catholic-schools-33556

So, here you have a "Jews need not apply" rule.  
 

[drummindiver]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of COURSE they're not carte blanche.  But your statement: "All those examples are illegal.  " is false.

Give it up, are you seriously going to dig in on this one ?  The competing rights section isn't as relevant as the one I posted.  

Here's a transgendered teacher who was legally fired - updated from June 2017:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/06/23/transgender-teachers-fight-for-human-rights-complaint-hearing-dismissed

"because he agreed to a settlement with the school board."

Right.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, drummindiver said:

"because he agreed to a settlement with the school board."

Right.

Didn't catch that.  There are many other examples though.  I will point out that people are unwilling to test this for understandable reasons.  Schools don't want this rule tested, in case they lose and have to figure out how to put openly gay people in the classroom.  The government doesn't have any political win here, since nobody is clamouring for change.  At some point, they may indeed be forced to hire LGBT people in religious schools.  

[WestCoastRunner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Yeah, because you're wrong about it being slanderous or insulting. It's a simple statement of fact. And because it's relevant in that most people would consider that a major negative in promoting someone to an important position with hefty responsibilities. Military guys who drink too much aren't unusual. My father was one, after all. Generals who are known alcoholics who only recently got our of rehab are, and are rarely, if ever promoted.

Your comments reflect the deeply entrenched stigma that recovering people face.  Your comments and others here reflect great ignorance and baseless moralization that is unfortunately widespread in society.

To improve successful recovery, addicts continually work on their integrity, values, sound judgement, ethics and responsibilities.  Traits which are greatly needed in politicians.  It's too bad we don't have more recovered addicts as our politicians to lead our country.   

[dre]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

1. Modern common decency meaning... the Catholic Church should be forced by law to hire female priests ?  I think the pluralism comes from tolerance of different metaphysical views.

2. It's by design.  The state will not impose its will on churches and allow them to pursue their ideology.  Not sure how that can be an accident when it was a deliberate and necessary plan from the outset of western democracy.

Its not by design. You need to look at the environment when these concepts evolved. It was about preventing the practice of religion, and the establishment of state preference. The founding fathers never sat down and said "Man! We need to make sure churches don't have to marry fags in a hundred years!".

These laws were born in the British North America Act, and the Freedom of Worship Act, and the Treaty of Paris.  The pre-amble to the FWA is "free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference". 

That does not mean the church should be immune from efforts by society to get rid of discrimination by age, gender, height, weight, race, or anything else.  You interpretation is so broad, you could literally claim that a church does not have to conform to local building codes.

You need to view these things through the lense they were viewed at the time they were created. After the 7 years war ended people in Quebec face a very real risk of being prevented from practicing Catholicism.  We had just lived through a thousand years of religion persecution.  These protections were born out of people actually being PREVENTED from espousing certain beliefs and ideas, and trying to spread them. Not to allow religious institutions to engage in anti-social behavior like racism or homophobia, or mysogeny.

[Michael Hardner]

Thread drift.

 

Reply is here:

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

 

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. No one would infer that the design was done to keep homosexuals from being married, but the overall design was to not impose the state on religious practices.

2. "Should" is subjective.  The church is not "immune" either, however keeping the state out of religious affairs is a longstanding and effective practice to order.

3. And if the state defines what "Catholicism" is, then yes they will be prevented from practicing religion as their churches define it.  Anti-social behaviour is for churches to decide, and some of them have decided to change with the times others havent.

Again the design was for the state to stay out of affairs of religion, and the system seems to work well as the courts have interpreted these protections.

 

1. I'd say it was to prevent a state from not allowing people to practice religion. Religious practices are not the same thing and as dre says they could be just about anything anyone practicing religion wanted to say they are, and especially when millions of adherents and voters agree.

2. I fail to see why we shouldn't have as much of a right to keep religions out of the state's affairs.  Note the preamble to our constitution for example.  I've long argued that the respect that religious beliefs are afforded by this sort of thing only encourages more fantastical thinking - to the point that society is pretty much saturated with people who simply can't or refuse to think straight.  

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This thread is way off topic now... just saying.

The thread title being a case in point of what I mean by fantastical thinking.  Anything goes. 

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah... see that link above ?  New thread....

[GostHacked]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.dailyxtra.com/discrimination-in-ontario-catholic-schools-33556

So, here you have a "Jews need not apply" rule.  
 

The thing is, Jews are not Catholics.  But also, Christians need not apply, atheists need not apply, any other religion need not apply, it's not just singling out Jews. 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Your comments reflect the deeply entrenched stigma that recovering people face.  Your comments and others here reflect great ignorance and baseless moralization that is unfortunately widespread in society.

To improve successful recovery, addicts continually work on their integrity, values, sound judgement, ethics and responsibilities.  Traits which are greatly needed in politicians.  It's too bad we don't have more recovered addicts as our politicians to lead our country.   

Your comments reflect your hand-wringing bleeding heart liberalism: all emotion, no thought.  My father was an alcoholic, so is my brother. The latter went to rehab several times. I'm very well aware of challenges they face. I'm also aware that the last thing a recovering alcoholic needs is a new high-stress job. All of which is irrelevant to the point of the question of why he was given the job. We don't give people cabinet appointments to aid in their recovery but because they've demonstrated considerable ability in regard to the subject matter.

Or, apparently, because they're gay.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The thing is, Jews are not Catholics.  But also, Christians need not apply, atheists need not apply, any other religion need not apply, it's not just singling out Jews. 

The lady in the story was Jewish.  Actually Christians *need apply*.

[betsy]

On 8/28/2017 at 11:51 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe but it's two discussions.  I think it has been pointed out before that they are screened though.

 

Being thoroughly and properly screened, is questionable.  That's what they claim.

Edited August 31, 2017 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

Your comments reflect your hand-wringing bleeding heart liberalism: all emotion, no thought.  My father was an alcoholic, so is my brother. The latter went to rehab several times. I'm very well aware of challenges they face. I'm also aware that the last thing a recovering alcoholic needs is a new high-stress job. All of which is irrelevant to the point of the question of why he was given the job. We don't give people cabinet appointments to aid in their recovery but because they've demonstrated considerable ability in regard to the subject matter.

Or, apparently, because they're gay.

Thank goodness you don't work in the mental health industry. 

[Rue]

17 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thread drift.

 

Reply is here:

 

Speaking of thread drift...what does the Catholic school board and its policy of only hiring Catholics (not just any Christians but Catholics) have to do with the thread?

Here let's put it back on track.Trudeau is a whore and bigot apologist. He panders to bigots if they are non white, gay or women for votes. We see that every day. We see that with him, his party and Liberals. Its nothing new. Liberals think their shit don't stink. They think their  supporting bigots and discriminatory totalitarian beliefs is righteous.  There is Lord Justin sitting in a Mosque with extremist anti semites, bigoted against all religions but their version of Islam, sexist and homophobic, dressed like a man of the desert, pretending to be T.E. Lawrence, the next minute, oops there he is in his uniform pink shirt and white bumb bum pants prancing at a gay pride parade or two or three or four or five or whatever. No disconnect there for Lord Justin.

Liberals t imagine their beliefs  taken to their extreme create either communism or fascism  in the name of progress and elightenment through the state whereas with extremist conservatives the worst you get are libertarians or anarchists. Never met an anarchist who had a sense of direction and therefore was capable of following instructions although they do scream a lot especially in the Italian legislative assembly.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

26 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Thank goodness you don't work in the mental health industry. 

Understandable given that so many of you liberals are mental health patients. I wouldn't worry.  I am pretty sure Argus does not give enemas only electro-shock therapy. Trust me you won't remember a thing.  Its like ZAP then Yabba Dabba Doo.

Regards,

Fred, Dino, Barney, Bam-Bam

Edited August 31, 2017 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, Rue said:

Speaking of thread drift...what does the Catholic school board and its policy of only hiring Catholics (not just any Christians but Catholics) have to do with the thread?

I started a new thread - link above.

[Hydraboss]

43 minutes ago, WestCoastRunner said:

Thank goodness you don't work in the mental health industry. 

Except what he wrote is accurate.  Stress is one of the top relapse triggers.  To put a very recent (a year?) recovering alcoholic (all alcoholics are "recovering" regardless of time off the bottle) in that kind of position reeks of cronyism and is a dangerous game to play with our governance.

All that said, there has never really been any "merit" to how ministers are chosen for positions - how do we end up with an obese person as a Minister of Health?  What about someone in charge of finance that can barely understand a balance sheet (or not at all)?  Sport and Disabilities....no one cares so put someone clueless there.  Indian Affairs (or whatever it's called this week)?  Hows about we put someone there that actually KNOWS something about...I don't know...Indian affairs?  The one that amazes me is the refugee in charge of Immigration and Refugees - are you kidding me?  Does anyone expect this guy to react critically to a system that let him in?  What a joke.

Trudeau putting the ex-drunk in charge of the military is just his SOP - take someone that will piss off the people concerned about the portfolio and tell them to giver'.  (I'm surprised he hasn't named himself Minister of Energy (just to irritate Alberta and Saskatchewan).

[taxme]

21 hours ago, dre said:

So what? That's the same reason Europeans came here. The chance at a better life, and the promise of some perks. European settlers used to get 150 acres for free, just for showing up.

The Europeans founded North America as part of an expedition to discover new lands. They did not know whether a better life awaited them or not. When they did arrive in N.A. there were no perks then like there are now. Today those perks are being taken advantage of. If Canada did not offer any perks at all it's more than likely they would never come here at all. Why immigrate to Canada when there are places to live closer to home if there were no perks? Acres were given away as part of an incentive to get people to immigrate to N.A. to get the country inhabited. Canada does not need to offer acres of lands today just to get people to immigrate here. 

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

They can refuse to hire women priests, or gay teachers for example.  Women and men can be segregated in prayer services.  Homosexuals and unmarried couples can be refused service.  People who leave a church can be shunned.  They can refuse people who are not in their religion from being hired.  I guess you didn't know this, and that's ok: it explains why you think Muslims get special accommodation for their religion.  

If some Christian individual owning a bake shop decided to refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals for their wedding, I wonder how long it would take before the chit hit the fan on that one? Muslims appear to be exempt from any law because of their religion, but Christians cannot. Multiculturalism is to be forced on some but it would appear that it will not be forced on others. 

[PIK]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Your comments reflect your hand-wringing bleeding heart liberalism: all emotion, no thought.  My father was an alcoholic, so is my brother. The latter went to rehab several times. I'm very well aware of challenges they face. I'm also aware that the last thing a recovering alcoholic needs is a new high-stress job. All of which is irrelevant to the point of the question of why he was given the job. We don't give people cabinet appointments to aid in their recovery but because they've demonstrated considerable ability in regard to the subject matter.

Or, apparently, because they're gay.

Is that why trudeau used the words neutral gender?

[PIK]

15 minutes ago, taxme said:

The Europeans founded North America as part of an expedition to discover new lands. They did not know whether a better life awaited them or not. When they did arrive in N.A. there were no perks then like there are now. Today those perks are being taken advantage of. If Canada did not offer any perks at all it's more than likely they would never come here at all. Why immigrate to Canada when there are places to live closer to home if there were no perks? Acres were given away as part of an incentive to get people to immigrate to N.A. to get the country inhabited. Canada does not need to offer acres of lands today just to get people to immigrate here. 

So true, it was a hard life for those that came here. And very true on the fact they come here the perks ,even if they are living fine where they are. But if you keep bringing in people from africa and the ME, then this country will eventually be like africa or the ME.

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, taxme said:

If some Christian individual owning a bake shop decided to refuse to bake a cake for homosexuals for their wedding, I wonder how long it would take before the chit hit the fan on that one? Muslims appear to be exempt from any law because of their religion, but Christians cannot. Multiculturalism is to be forced on some but it would appear that it will not be forced on others. 

Off topic.

Reply here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/27094-church-and-state/

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, PIK said:

But if you keep bringing in people from africa and the ME, then this country will eventually be like africa or the ME.

On the other thread, I explain that the poster you reply to spreads disinfo on here.  The disinfo the 'non-Gentile Caucasian nationalists' spread include the idea that Canada is for white people, and not a way of life on its own. People who come from Africa, and learn our way of life are productive and an asset to the country, as opposed to people who want to drive us into the ground and divide us based on race and heritage.

 I for one have faith in our system, and don't fear beige people will come here and 'pollute' us.    Maybe that's patriotism, I don't know.

[GostHacked]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The lady in the story was Jewish.  Actually Christians *need apply*.

What about Muslims? Yes the lady in the story was Jewish, which is not Catholic.  And Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. Jews are on their own tree by the looks of it. 

[Michael Hardner]

Off topic - reply link above.