Prayer Rooms in Schools

[Leafless]

Riverwind

You wrote- " There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that supports Christianity per se."

Yes, there is!

The Constitution Act 1867 guarantees two systems of publicly funded education in Ontario...Roman Catholic and Public. And Quebec is guaranteed it's right to it's R.C. Christian religion.

You also wrote- " Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

Also who do you think the God ( spelled with a capital 'G') is they are referring from British rule who gave us our constitution?? Or do you just might think it has something to do with Christianity?

[Leafless]

sami

You wrote- " It's funny I have exactly the same assessment of you."

The way you come to conclusions I'd fiqure that anyways.

In reference to religion anyone who thinks 2%-Islam of the population is equal to 72%-Christianity of the population regarding culture, traditons and values needs to evaluated concerning his or her mental state.

[Riverwind]

The Constitution Act 1867 guarantees two systems of publicly funded education in Ontario...Roman Catholic and Public. And Quebec is guaranteed it's right to it's R.C. Christian religion.

The provisions for RC schools are the first example of the Canadian policy of multiculturalism and not a symbol of the exclusivity of Christianity. You would have seen the same provisions for Judaism or Islam if there were a sufficient number of followers in the colonies at the time.

Also who do you think the God ( spelled with a capital 'G') is they are referring from British rule who gave us our constitution?

If it is not written down explicitly then the meaning is in the mind of the reader. God is a general term in the English language that does not exclusively mean the Christian god. If the authors were so convinced that it should refer exclusively to the Christian god they would have used terms like 'Christ' or 'Jesus' to make sure there was no room for misinterpretation. They did not so we must assume their intention was to be deliberately vague.

[geoffrey]

Even if we have a Christian culture, which we don't, that doesn't mean we must have a Christian state.

I'd be the last one calling for a theocracy.

Sure Christians built this country (well actually without the Chinese we'd never have Western Canada, but hey, they are only Chinamen so they don't count in the building of Canada right Leafless?), but so did men wearing beaver pelt hats and communted to work portaging in canoes.

So yes. Let's return to our roots in our Christian built state. And wear beaver pelt hats. Hopefully you don't have a car, because those people in the past didn't either, so car users are inferior to the canoe historical power. Canoes were the fundamental success of our nation, so everyone should use them exclusively.

How ridiculous.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with you Geoffrey. It's backward thinking to try to build a nation based on what happened hundreds of years ago.

More to the point, it shows a shameful lack of personal responsibility to present your own prejudices as somehow based on principles.

[Leafless]

Riverwind

You wrote- " The provisions for RC schools are the first examples of multiculturalism and not a symbol and not a symbol of exclusivity of Christianity."

These provisions were made relating to the origins of this country contained in Constitution of 1867 and not the Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' which was long before multi-culturalism was ever dreamed of and became policy.

If you want to make some kind of loose attachment to this it would be related to bi-cultural not multicultural.

You also wrote- " If the authors were so convinced that it should refer to the Christian God they would have used terms like Christ and Jesus to make sure there was no room for misinterpretation."

At that time in 1867 the British victors religion ruled and there was no other god to make reference to.

Christianity was the religion at that time and still is the major or principle religion of Canada.

You are being offensive with your interpretations that clearly show a disrespect for Christianity and Christians in general along with Christian traditons and customs responsible for the society we have to-day.

[Michael Hardner]

You are being offensive with your interpretations that clearly show a disrespect for Christianity and Christians in general along with Christian traditons and customs responsible for the society we have to-day.

Leafless, I find your posts here to be quite hypocritical.

You say that Geoffrey is being offensive, when all he's doing is discussing the issues of church and state. You decry minority religions' right to worship freely, while demanding that Christianity dominates.

I consider myself to be Christian in philosophy. The Golden Rule of Christianity demands that we treat others as we ourselves would be treated. It demands personal accountability in thoughts and actions.

It dismays me to read the opinions of people like you who call themselves Christian, but fail to adhere to the Golden Rule. No wonder Christianity has garnered such a bad name in some circles.

You would deny the rights of Muslims to pray, to attend public schools, and expect others to simply obey your wishes. A true Christian would respect others, and would lead by example.

Show some personal accountability and admit that you're not a Christian, simply somebody that doesn't like Muslims for whatever reason. That would be a good first step towards redemption - the Christian thing to do.

I'm sorry but I feel frustrated by your posts, and I want to show your the error of your ways.

[Riverwind]

These provisions were made relating to the origins of this country contained in Constitution of 1867 and not the Charter of 'Rights and Freedoms' which was long before multi-culturalism was ever dreamed of and became policy.

The provisions in the 1867 constitution were the first example of Canadian society adapting to meet the needs of minority groups (RCs in this case). The founding fathers of this country realized that trying to create a state based on the hegemony of a single culture was not possible. The principal is the same even if the words 'multi-culturalism' are not used.

At that time in 1867 the British victors religion ruled and there was no other god to make reference to.

At the time the divisions between Catholics and Protestants were at least as wide as the gap between Christians and Muslims today. Both groups were openly hostile towards the other and felt the other group had inferior values. So the ambiguous wording was intended by the authors to convey acceptance of many beliefs - not just one.

You are being offensive with your interpretations that clearly show a disrespect for Christianity and Christians in general along with Christian traditions and customs responsible for the society we have to-day.

The social institutions we have today do not exist because of Christianity - most of them have roots in Greek and Roman cultures that predate Christianity.

[Leafless]

Michael Hardner

You wrote- " You say geoffrey was being offensive."

You have the wrong poster.

I said Riverwind is being offensive.

But what geoffrey said doesn't hold water as Canada was never a theocracy in the sense Islamic countries are.

The level of control Christianity has over the population is almost nil and is a 'take it or leave it' religion as compared to Islam where you can face execution for even converting to another religion.

The point is Canada provides the freedom to believe in whichever religion you believe in including Islam and other imported religions.

We have certain constitutional guarntees concerning funding Catholic and secular education.

But unfortunately these religions were not part of the country at the time of confederation and this is what you have a hard time understanding. There are no guarantees for that type of religious support.

Canada DOES HAVE A VIBRANT HISTORY and it is still PRIMARILY CHRISTIANS that are building this country in virtually every category.

Even atheist have more of an input than all the imported religions combined relating to building Canada.

[Leafless]

Riverwind

You wrote- " The fouding fathers of this country realized that trying to create a state based on the hedgemony of a single culture was not possible . The principle is the same even if the words multicultural is not used."

You hypothesis is badly flawed.

PROOF PLEASE!

You also wrote- " So the ambigious wording was intended by the authors to convey acceptance of many beliefs- not just one."

PROOF PLEASE!

You also wrote- " The social institutions we have do not exist because of Christianity- most of them have roots in Greek and Roman cultures that predate Cristianity."

So what are you saying ---All cultures rightfully own Canada??????

[Riverwind]

You wrote- " The founding fathers of this country realized that trying to create a state based on the hegemony of a single culture was not possible . The principle is the same even if the words multicultural is not used."

The British may have conquered Canada but they could not assimilate the French community (or choose not to assimilate). Instead they created a state based in the idea that multiple cultures could be accommodated within a single state. The fact that the two original cultures both happened to be Christian does not mean that Canada was created as a Christian state. In those days, Catholicism and Protestantism were different religions for all intents and purposes.

In other words, Canada has always been a multi-cultural society and people who seek to suppress other cultures in the name of tradition are actually going against the true traditions of this country.

[sami]

In reference to religion anyone who thinks 2%-Islam of the population is equal to 72%-Christianity of the population regarding culture, traditons and values needs to evaluated concerning his or her mental state.

This is not an issue of whose religion is practiced by a majority of our population. I don't understand why you continue to make that an issue. I simply believe that a Canadian citizen who is a contributing member of society should be seen as equal regardless of religion or lack there of. Not accommodating something as personal as their beliefs, lifestyle or culture so long as it does not infringe on the rights, culture, beliefs or lifestyle of other Canadians will create a caste system in this country. As some European counties have proven, this is not in the spirit of a true democracy, which treats all its citizens as equally. I don’t understand why assume some has to be crazy or a religious activist to believe this.

[Slavik44]

Riverwind

You wrote- " The fouding fathers of this country realized that trying to create a state based on the hedgemony of a single culture was not possible . The principle is the same even if the words multicultural is not used."

You hypothesis is badly flawed.

PROOF PLEASE!

You also wrote- " So the ambigious wording was intended by the authors to convey acceptance of many beliefs- not just one."

PROOF PLEASE!

You also wrote- " The social institutions we have do not exist because of Christianity- most of them have roots in Greek and Roman cultures that predate Cristianity."

So what are you saying ---All cultures rightfully own Canada??????

Listen you need to realise that we are not living in the 1800's, what the founding fathers intended for thsi country will always be up for dispute...that being said we should not give a damn, we are not here to impress a bunch of bigots from the 1800's. I love the past, I study it, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in it. What are founding fathers intended is not important...Our founding fathers intended for Canada to be a great part of the British Empire they did not intend or want Canada to become America's best friend or even friend but we have. Our founding fathers didn't want Canada to be one of the most urbanized countries in the world, but we are, Our founding fathers probabley didn't want women voting, but they do. Our founding fathers probabley didn't want British Columbia to have had an Indo-Canadian Premiere, but we have. Our founding fathers never intended for Canada to talk about cutting ties to the monarchy, but many Canadians now do. Our founding fathers never intended for Canada to have homosexual politicians but we do. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS LIVED IN THE 1800'S, BUT WE DON'T AND THAT IS SOMETHIGN YOU NEED TO REMEMBER.