Church and State

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, dre said:

1.  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". 

2. 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.

3. 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.

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.

[dre]

18 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.

The overall design, and in fact the literally stated purpose - was to stop the government from preventing certain types of religious belief.  Again you need to look at the context and the backdrop that these protections emerged from.

As for it working "well" that is a subjective judgement. I think it would work just as well if Churches were treated the same as any other private club.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, dre said:

1. The overall design, and in fact the literally stated purpose - was to stop the government from preventing certain types of religious belief.  Again you need to look at the context and the backdrop that these protections emerged from.

2. As for it working "well" that is a subjective judgement. I think it would work just as well if Churches were treated the same as any other private club.

1. Right, and the religious exemption is set up to prevent government from imposing measures which would prevent or modify religious practice by any means apart from reasonable accommodation.

2. We have had religious peace.  I am convinced the changes you are looking for will come at some point.

[Michael Hardner]

4 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. 

 Well, it happened in the states.  Opening a business to the public means you can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion etc.  It's not at all an analogous situation to what we're discussing though.  It's completely different.

None of the examples given differentiate between Muslims and other religions, so your post is just more hypocrisy and disinformation you are spreading, while decrying 'fake media.  Your posts are the best advertisement for why 'gentile Caucasian nationalism' and the fright around beige people should be ignored.

 

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

1. What about Muslims? Yes the lady in the story was Jewish, which is not Catholic. 

2. And Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.  

1.  What about them ?  They would get the same exemptions as other religions.

2. My point.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

1. Anyone should have the right to refuse anyone they do not wish to do business with.

2. I am pretty sure that a Rabbi is not going to offer a job in the synagogue to a devout Muslim if he does not have too.  

1. "Doing business" is not hiring practices.

2. Then why did you make point #1 unless you are either hopelessly confused or spreading disinfo ?

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 Well, it happened in the states.  Opening a business to the public means you can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion etc.  It's not at all an analogous situation to what we're discussing though.  It's completely different.

None of the examples given differentiate between Muslims and other religions, so your post is just more hypocrisy and disinformation you are spreading, while decrying 'fake media.  Your posts are the best advertisement for why 'gentile Caucasian nationalism' and the fright around beige people should be ignored.

 

One should be able to deny whomever they want to if it is their own business. If you don't like or agree with what someone else does with his/her own business than you/they can go somewhere else to do your/their shopping. The business owner may loose lot's of business but so be it. There is more than one grocery store for people to go too. 

On the contrary. My posts are only put up to try and inform people of what is going on behind their backs by their government, and I am just suggesting to them that there is always two sides to every story. They don't just have to listen to and believe what the mainstream media tells them all the time. There is other websites where one can get and are given an alternative side to a story or event that they may be interested in knowing or learning about. 

 And just how would know if what I am posting here is not of a true and real nature? Christ, you don't even bother to go to check out the websites that I post for you to go and visit. You are a one-sided story snowflake only. Aw well. 

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

One should be able to deny whomever they want to if it is their own business. If you don't like or agree with what someone else does with his/her own business than you/they can go somewhere else to do your/their shopping. The business owner may loose lot's of business but so be it. There is more than one grocery store for people to go too. 

"Should"... is arguable but it's not the case in law.  I think that the government should do what it can to facilitate cohesion of its citizens, and this policy helps that.  Also, think of it this way: when people say "no white allowed", as you expect will happen, you will have a legal avenue to complain.

2 minutes ago, taxme said:

On the contrary. My posts are only put up to try and inform people of what is going on behind their backs by their government, and I am just suggesting to them that there is always two sides to every story. They don't just have to listen to and believe what the mainstream media tells them all the time. There is other websites where one can get and are given an alternative side to a story or event that they may be interested in knowing or learning about. 

Yes, I know about these 'alternative' sides.  They're all bullshit, but feed your face and your ego.  It's not "learning" though, but listening to some broken-down white supremacist telling shitty tales of how it was in granpappy's time.  No thanks. 

 

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

 And just how would know if what I am posting here is not of a true and real nature?  

I read them and I have a brain.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. "Doing business" is not hiring practices.

2. Then why did you make point #1 unless you are either hopelessly confused or spreading disinfo ?

1. You should just mind your own business as to how anyone runs their business. You don't like what a business owner does well then don't shop there. It's so bloody simple, snowflake.  

2. Go away, You have confused me enough already and you are the one that likes to and enjoys spreading false lies about me. You are not a credible person to have to deal with. But hey, that is my opinion and I am sticking with it, snowflake.

Did you ever stop to think for a whole minute that maybe the stuff that you like to enjoy reading and listening to may be spreading lies and fake news? Hey, you never know, snowflake. 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, taxme said:

1. You should just mind your own business as to how anyone runs their business. You don't like what a business owner does well then don't shop there. It's so bloody simple, snowflake.  

 

1. Hey - my country, my laws.  I have a say, sorry.  More than not shopping somewhere, I will get them shut down if they're illegal.

 

Just now, taxme said:

2. Go away, You have confused me enough already and you are the one that likes to and enjoys spreading false lies about me. You are not a credible person to have to deal with. But hey, that is my opinion and I am sticking with it, snowflake.

2. I haven't spread false lies - I asked what you think about Nazis and you have ducked that one probably a dozen times or more, with the paper-thin "stop accusing me !" defence.  If I'm not worth dealing with (you did call me the enemy) then why are you posting to me ?  Also why are you insulting me more ?  Are you getting frustrated ?  If so, focus on improving your arguments, improving yourself... or go hide on another site.  Either way will work.

 

Just now, taxme said:

Did you ever stop to think for a whole minute that maybe the stuff that you like to enjoy reading and listening to may be spreading lies and fake news? Hey, you never know, snowflake. 

3. It's not truth, nor is it lies.  It's a perspective on some presented facts.  I don't have binary views on mainstream information, it's more nuanced than that.  People with little understanding for how the world works scream 'fake news' then run away to insane lying websites for the truth.

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Should"... is arguable but it's not the case in law.  I think that the government should do what it can to facilitate cohesion of its citizens, and this policy helps that.  Also, think of it this way: when people say "no white allowed", as you expect will happen, you will have a legal avenue to complain.

Yes, I know about these 'alternative' sides.  They're all bullshit, but feed your face and your ego.  It's not "learning" though, but listening to some broken-down white supremacist telling shitty tales of how it was in granpappy's time.  No thanks. 

 

I read them and I have a brain.

Well, if you have a brain then use it wisely. In most instances you appear to not have a brain at all. Just saying. There are plenty of old white nationalist grandpa's out there that do have a brain and do use it, and live in a world of common sense and logic, and non violence. Unlike you who appears to be living in an emotional and politically correct liberal world where thinking is not required. Just saying. 

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Hey - my country, my laws.  I have a say, sorry.  More than not shopping somewhere, I will get them shut down if they're illegal.

 

2. I haven't spread false lies - I asked what you think about Nazis and you have ducked that one probably a dozen times or more, with the paper-thin "stop accusing me !" defence.  If I'm not worth dealing with (you did call me the enemy) then why are you posting to me ?  Also why are you insulting me more ?  Are you getting frustrated ?  If so, focus on improving your arguments, improving yourself... or go hide on another site.  Either way will work. 

 

3. It's not truth, nor is it lies.  It's a perspective on some presented facts.  I don't have binary views on mainstream information, it's more nuanced than that.  People with little understanding for how the world works scream 'fake news' then run away to insane lying websites for the truth.

1. It's my country too, snowflake and everyone should have a say, sorry. It's illegal today because of people like you who feel that everybody should live according to how you think and feel, and dam their rights to choose and be free. Listen to Mr. tough guy? "I will get them shut down if they're illegal". If they don't meet my standards they are history. Boo-hoo for you. 

2. Do you read anything I say? I gave you what you asked for and gave you the answers you were looking for re: Nazism. Now I am still waiting for you to show me as to where I have said that I am a Nazi and that I support Nazism? This must be about a dozen times I have asked you already. Where is your proof, snowflake? Either show me your proof verbatim or stop accusing me of something I am not. Hey, I enjoy sparring with you. You make me look good, and yourself look very bad. You have insulted me more than once. Tit for tat. With you I don't get frustrated, I get even. That is what you are great at doing here and that is to argue and make accusations against me. You are the one that runs and hides. You go which will work fine for me. 

3. Go take some sleeping pills and go chill out. Everything and everybody that you disagree with has to be insane and is reporting false news. Maybe after a good nights sleep you may start to make some sense. I said maybe. Nighty-night. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, taxme said:

Unlike you who appears to be living in an emotional and politically correct liberal world where thinking is not required

I have stated repeatedly that my views on such things are open, and I revise them based on information that I read here and elsewhere.  Unlike you, I don't base my views on 'fear', but information.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, taxme said:

1. It's my country too, snowflake and everyone should have a say, sorry. It's illegal today because of people like you who feel that everybody should live according to how you think and feel, and dam their rights to choose and be free. Listen to Mr. tough guy? "I will get them shut down if they're illegal". If they don't meet my standards they are history. Boo-hoo for you. 

1. It's called a legal system and I get a say as much as you do.  You can express your views against multiculturalism and diversity and maybe one day more than 2% will be convinced.  'People like me' changed the system in the 1960s and 1970s and so far so good.

 

5 hours ago, taxme said:

2. Do you read anything I say? I gave you what you asked for and gave you the answers you were looking for re: Nazism. 

2.  Where did you give me the answers ?  I missed it.  

 

5 hours ago, taxme said:

3. Go take some sleeping pills and go chill out. Everything and everybody that you disagree with has to be insane and is reporting false news. Maybe after a good nights sleep you may start to make some sense. I said maybe. Nighty-night. 

3. Not everybody who disagrees with me cites fake news.

[John Prewett]

There is a real Church and there is an imitation church (actually many imitation churches).

The imitation church runs the USA.     Mockingbird Stream Media runs the USA and  the CIA runs the MSM  and the boss imitation church runs the CIA.  

 

 

[James Butler]

Hi I am a Muslim in this forum and indicating the US citizens what do you this on this?

Islamic Society of Basking Ridge’s Struggle for its Mosque

[Scott Mayers]

Most people confuse our form of distinction between Church and State is like the United States. Our laws (or British evolved ones) did NOT dismiss the powers of the 'state' to religious law-making. Canada treats the Queen as our head and she is the head of the Anglican Church (British 'catholic' mixed with protestant ideals). We have laws that preserve both this AND the Catholic Churches. We have 'freedom' TO belief but our laws are enabled to make laws regarding them (favorable or not).

The United States, however, opposed ANY form of laws regarding religion because they FAVOR specific groups over others. Instead, it treats religion as 'art' (which I agree to) and so while one may freely speak to their beliefs, for lawmaking, they recognized that government should only be secular. The only reason why it 'appears' that the U.S. is more religious is due to the fact that religions there feel a need to compete with more force because the laws are not allowed to be designed to favor them. 

Canada is a 'mecca' for the religious SEGREGATIONISTS. The hope is to take the Multicultural stance of favoring religions in law would provide a means to empower their religions by segregate laws. These are not universal and misleading because they are actually guided by constitution to the catholic version of 'liberalism'. These empower them to discriminate which forms of religion exist. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

The United States, however, opposed ANY form of laws regarding religion because they FAVOR specific groups over others. Instead, it treats religion as 'art' (which I agree to) and so while one may freely speak to their beliefs, for lawmaking, they recognized that government should only be secular. The only reason why it 'appears' that the U.S. is more religious is due to the fact that religions there feel a need to compete with more force because the laws are not allowed to be designed to favor them.

 

OK, but separation of church and state actually evolved over time in the United States, as it would have been impossible to bring several very religious colonies on side without some accommodation at the federal level.  Thomas Jefferson took up the cause in 1801 after being prodded by the minority Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.   Many U.S. states continued to have strong religious practices as a matter of law well into the 20th century (e.g. blue laws). 

[Scott Mayers]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK, but separation of church and state actually evolved over time in the United States, as it would have been impossible to bring several very religious colonies on side without some accommodation at the federal level.  Thomas Jefferson took up the cause in 1801 after being prodded by the minority Danbury Baptists in Connecticut.   Many U.S. states continued to have strong religious practices as a matter of law well into the 20th century (e.g. blue laws). 

True. Isn't that why the Amendments are precisely alterations or clarifications of Constitutional ideas? While religions will focus on the significance of protection FOR religion, it has even more inclusiveness when it speaks of non-religious persons and even alternative beliefs that are highly unconventional. The U.S. was also a significant formation from the Enlightenment. The reason France held much support for the U.S. was due to the fact that it was France's own Revolution that fostered the 'republican' rebirth (with respect to re-discovering the Greek philosophy AS WELL as the Protestants both due in great part to the freedom granted from the invention of the printing press that enabled individual expression to take a new step forward. 

Religion though is counter to secular governments that are more 'democratic' regardless of which forms they take. While there are more 'benevolent' forms, religion is just an extension or our 'artistic' interpretations of reality. To IMPOSE any such interpretation is what makes any laws regarding them in government more dangerous. The U.S. formation was one that 'protested' against Monarchy and its Aristocratic links that favor people based SOLELY on hereditary beliefs. Monarchy and its Aristocracy are themselves 'religious' because they treat specific people based on genetic qualities as default most "natural" to rule, using God as a means to excuse their supremacy. Given the gods are out of reach and impossible to prove, it acts as means to justify ANY form of rule where people want to deny that they are actually lacking any more reason than LUCK of ENVIRONMENTAL (in)HERITAGE. 

[eyeball]

On 8/31/2017 at 9:36 AM, dre said:

The overall design, and in fact the literally stated purpose - was to stop the government from preventing certain types of religious belief.  Again you need to look at the context and the backdrop that these protections emerged from.

As for it working "well" that is a subjective judgement. I think it would work just as well if Churches were treated the same as any other private club.

I'd take it a step further and treat governments like private clubs too.