Far left activists and politicians look to bully, intimidate, harass Christian music artist and parishioners from exercising right to practice religion

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Ok. If he's singin' and speechifyin' inside the Church, Ok. Christians are as entitled to hate as much as the next guy. But all outside concerts, parades, fairs etc.. get permits.

 But should we give Nazis a soapbox in our publicly owned parks? 

"The Christian singer describes himself as a musician, missionary, author and activist. He has spoken out against “gender ideology,” abortion and the LGBTQ+ community.
“Between praising President Donald Trump as God’s chosen one and suggesting that abortion supporters are ‘demons,’ Feucht has repeatedly advocated for the fusion of church and state,” the article says."
VS:
"Canada parks mandate: 
These core values – respect for people, equity, diversity and inclusion, integrity, engagement and excellence. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Being a successful and innovative agency is rooted in our ability to create inclusive spaces where staff and visitors with a variety of perspectives and experiences feel a sense of belonging. This also means providing fair and equitable access to opportunities for under-represented people including: Black, Indigenous, people of colour, the Two Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ (2SLGBTQ+) community, and people living with disabilities."

I don't know what mandate or values churches have these days, but he definitely doesn't fit in with OUR parks's mandate.

So your saying freedom of speech only gets applied in public spaces, and is restricted in parks....you should read the constitution and the freedom of speech para....no where does it say anyone has to agree to your parks rules as long as they obey the freedom of speech rules written into the constitution....those rules apply to every where in Canada...unless it is a private property...did those palestinian protesters get permits to protest outside of the church....do they share the same regards for the rules as you listed for your parks...last time i heard palestinians in Gaza were throwing  LGBTQ people off roofs to see if they could fly....sounds like double standard to me...

Edited July 28, 2025 by Army Guy

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, herbie said:

No they aren't. You're defining Christians as the ones that really aren't.

LOL so you're saying the official doctrines of the Catholic Church (anti-abortion/gay marriage/gender-affirming surgery etc) are now hate-crimes and shouldn't be allowed to be spoken in public venues in Canada?

[West]

8 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

LOL so you're saying the official doctrines of the Catholic Church (anti-abortion/gay marriage/gender-affirming surgery etc) are now hate-crimes and shouldn't be allowed to be spoken in public venues in Canada?

Canada really has become a pathetic country hasn't it? 

Call for death of the jews as a Muslim or murdering fetus? Thats okay. 

Oppose mutilation of children? Hate crime 

Truly sick country 

[CdnFox]

On 7/26/2025 at 9:41 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It's country versus country. Stop lying to yourself

You're saying if the guy who was from Canada they would let him play? Give your head a shake

[CdnFox]

15 hours ago, Barquentine said:

EVERYONE  needs a permit to hold a concert in every city. Fire safety, parking, crowd control, traffic....

If you're going to demand that everyone have a permit then you have to make sure that everybody gets a permit. If the permit is issued based on whether or not the state likes the person or approves of the concert, Then it's no longer a permit. At that point it's just authoritarian control.

Is the guy says something illegal arrest him. Otherwise he gets to talk. We just had people across the country calling for the death of Canada a public gatherings, I dare say a guy who says abortion might not be a great thing is something we're going to survive

[Barquentine]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Is the guy says something illegal arrest him. Otherwise he gets to talk.

The guy IS getting to talk (or sing, or spread hate or whatever he does). First in NS he was rightfully not allowed to use a National Park but got to use a right wing church property. And what I can see he's finding venues to use across the country, and reaping a lot of free PR from the media.

And yes, anybody of any stripe should have to follow the rules to use public spaces for events.

Free speech (as opposed to hate speech) applies to this guy as much as anybody. Just a question of where and how.

[Barquentine]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

The Bible says many there be that are taking the wide road to hell.

The Bible says many things:

Deuteronomy 22:20
“But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones

Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Good old-fashioned values!

 

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Like many blanket pronouncements here it must be fun cherrypicking versus of the Bible out of context and thinking everyone just accepts it all face value.

This particular quote comes at the end of the parable of 10 minas. In the context you've chosen, It refers to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews of the day and inserts a young noble into the story line in his stead.

The parable has multiple facets but in addition to the obvious, it was also addressed to those Jews who seemed devout on the surface but whose devotion was to religious doctrine and not to God... he did it in the form of a parable that would make sense to the people of the time and place.

The last portion of it reflects a common outcome (of the time) when a conquering king was defied by the population (or parts of it) that he came to rule over. It was analogous (for the times) as opposed to being the call to arms that (I perceive) you are trying to make it sound like.

For those so inclined, cherry picking versus out of the Koran is far more entertaining... but my guess is that you, Herb and Flyer won't be doing that anytime soon. 

 

Edited July 28, 2025 by Venandi

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Free speech (as opposed to hate speech) applies to this guy as much as anybody. Just a question of where and how.

Do you support grooming kids in school with LGBTQ ideology?  What if a kid claims he is trans?  Should schools hide that from parents? Do you support that kind of thing?   Are you LGBTQ?

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

he Bible says many things:

Deuteronomy 22:20
“But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones

quote

Before answering this question, it is important to clarify a difference between the Old Testament and New Testament. Under the Old Covenant law, given to ancient Israel under a theocracy, the punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10). In the New Testament, Jesus brought a new law into effect. The wages of sin is still eternal death (Romans 6:23), but adultery no longer carries the death penalty civilly. Modern Christians are not living under the old theocracy and are not commanded to harm those who sin.

The Old Testament law lists a number of behaviors that were punishable by death, including adultery. “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10). It is important to note that the punishment was the same for both parties involved. There was no double standard that made allowances for a man’s dalliances; he was punished right along with the woman. This law and others concerning sexual immorality in Leviticus 20 are tied to the need for the complete moral separation of Israel from other nations. The Canaanites had been known for their sexual licentiousness, among other things, and God wanted Israel to be holy, or “set apart,” from them (verses 22–24). Again, this law was given to Israel as part of the Mosaic Covenant. The church is not Israel, and we are not living under the Old Covenant.  unquote

What is the biblical punishment for adultery? | GotQuestions.org

You obviously cherry pick a verse here or there to try to discredit the Bible, but you don't have any idea what the Bible is all about.  I suggest you study the Bible from a reputable source and find out the context and meaning of a particular passage before jumping out and quoting something.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

The guy IS getting to talk (or sing, or spread hate or whatever he does). First in NS he was rightfully not allowed to use a National Park 

Then he wasn't allowed to speak. He was denied a venue that should have been allowed to everybody. Somebody decided they didn't like what he had to say, that would be an example of the last acting like fascists. Denying political or ideological opponents the right to free speech is the Hallmark of an authoritarian government.

And that's what they did. You've literally just admitted it. The guy found a workaround that they couldn't block but they tried their best.

4 hours ago, Barquentine said:

And yes, anybody of any stripe should have to follow the rules to use public spaces for events.

If the rules include "those in power must approve of what you say first", then no.  Those are rules that should NOT have to be followed. 

Size of the event, safety concerns, basically things that apply to every single event that takes place are fine. Content control and pre-approval of the message is not. If they say something illegal then arrest them.

Do you really need me to explain to you why it's not okay for governments to decide whether or not you're allowed to say something? I know you on the left hate the idea of personal freedoms and rights if they interfere with your mental image of socialist utopia But I guarantee you'll hate it if these same techniques are used against you.

The right tried to explain that message to the democrats when they were pulling lawfare and all kinds of authoritarian nonsense with trump, and now they're crying the blues when those same techniques are used against them. Learn from their mistakes

[TreeBeard]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

In the New Testament, Jesus brought a new law into effect.

Where in the bible does it say specifically which laws are voided?

 

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You obviously cherry pick a verse here or there to try to discredit the Bible

When you, the Christian, disregard bible passages, that is cherry-picking.  

You like the old testament prohibition on gay sex, but you ignore several other OT laws and punishments.  How do you decide which OT laws apply?

[Zeitgeist]

Canada is one of the traditionally Christian Western countries where the government and media have suppressed their own traditions and peoples.  Christianity is under siege in Canada.  In a country with a falling birth rate, only complete fools would promote LGBTQ lifestyles and anti-family policies like unlimited abortion up to the day of birth, free birth control, and permissive assisted suicide laws.  Canada has moved in the wrong direction for at least the last decade.  We have a 1.3 birth rate.  The U.S. has a better 1.6 birth rate.  The only way Canada maintains itself now is through mass immigration, which is eroding the traditional cultures and peoples.  This is what stupid people do.

[blackbird]

7 hours ago, Barquentine said:

Free speech (as opposed to hate speech) applies to this guy as much as anybody. Just a question of where and how.

Who gets to define what is "hate speech"?  You?

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, paxamericana said:

These people are nothing but useful ideots. The real crooks are the corportist who want to undercut American labor by importing cheaper labor or outsourcing them altogether as was done for the past 50 years. We need to give our people a chance, invest in america ,give them jobs, train them up. American workers are one of the most productive in the world. 

Leftists don't understand how much Pelosi and her fat-cat friends benefit from having millions of illegals pour across the border to work for cheap in slaughterhouses, etc, and how much they drive up the cost of those guys' low-rent housing units. 

"Ohhh, Nancy is such a champion of the poor people in America!" they say, as Nancy is busy screwing over all of the poor people in America.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You like the old testament prohibition on gay sex, but you ignore several other OT laws and punishments.  How do you decide which OT laws apply?

Implicit in your question is the standard version of  "oh YA, well what about this" fallacy. You aren't asking because you want to know, you're simply making a pronouncement you think will stump everyone. Most of the time people who actually do know the answer recognize the fallacy for what it is and just let you run with it. That's what I'll be doing in about  2 minutes BTW.

The bible is actually consistent in both testaments about homosexuality being a sin. The difference is that the New Testament offers the hope of redemption and salvation through the redeeming power of Jesus.

Simple eh? 

Even if your only reason for reading the Bible is to trip up Christians and receive applause from the likes of Herb and  Flyer, I'd still say it's a good thing,  maybe you'll learn something. 

I'm guessing it won't be humility though...

Edited July 28, 2025 by Venandi

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

You like the old testament prohibition on gay sex, but you ignore several other OT laws and punishments.  How do you decide which OT laws apply?

I never ignored anything.   We are not talking about all the OT laws and punishments.  That is not the subject here.  Maybe if you paid attention, you would know what the subject on here is.  The subject is not about the whole Bible.  The subject is about what a Christian music artist/preacher is being banned for.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

How do you decide which OT laws apply?

If you're talking about homosexuality, that is condemned in both the O.T. and the New Testament.  So why is it necessary to talk about every other law in the O.T. that have nothing to do with the subject?

[Moonbox]

3 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Implicit in your question is the standard version of  "oh YA, well what about this" fallacy. You aren't asking because you want to know, you're simply making a pronouncement you think will stump everyone.

That's not what whatabout fallacy is at all.  

You're right that it's a stumping and frustrating for biblical purists, but that's because they never actually have an answer that doesn't undermine their dogmatic quoting from scripture.  If any of it is subject to modern interpretation, then all of it is, which means it's far from the trump-card that Bible-thumpers wish it to be on matters of Rights and Law.  

[User]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

When you, the Christian, disregard bible passages, that is cherry-picking.  

You like the old testament prohibition on gay sex, but you ignore several other OT laws and punishments.  How do you decide which OT laws apply?

Well, you run away from our other discussions when I have to point this out to you when you do it... but you ignore context because you are not reading the whole Bible, which is why we call out your cherry-picking and others. They are comments made out of ignorance by people like you who just want to play gotcha or attack Christianity. 

 

55 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You're right that it's a stumping and frustrating for biblical purists

No, not really at all. Dealing with these simple attacks is pretty simple. You are not the first bigots in history to come up with them and you are likely mindlessly parroting them from someone else anyhow. 

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, User said:

Well, you run away from our other discussions when I have to point this out to you when you do it.

The number of times I've come across you telling people they're running away from you on this forum is weird.  These sort of self-serving delusions don't impress anyone but yourself.  

1 hour ago, User said:

No, not really at all. Dealing with these simple attacks is pretty simple. You are not the first bigots in history to come up with them and you are likely mindlessly parroting them from someone else anyhow. 

So simple you won't (can't) bother.  🙄

"THAT'S RACIST!" isn't much of an argument I'm afraid, though it is funny.    

[CdnFox]

Just now, Moonbox said:

The number of times I've come across you telling people they're running away from you on this forum is weird.  These sort of self-serving delusions don't impress anyone but yourself.  

 

The leftists on this board have a strong habit of running away and ignoring people who they can't argue against. If they don't run away from the people then they run away from the argument as you have done a million times in the past.

So it's not weird, it's just an observation. It only comes up with five or six people, but they do it all the time so it comes up a lot. The fact that you give so many examples for him to comment on is what's weird

You're right that it's not impressive, shooting cattle with a high-powered rifle and scope is nothing to brag about.

But the only one diluting themselves that there are impressive in any way is you.

 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

The number of times I've come across you telling people they're running away from you on this forum is weird.  These sort of self-serving delusions don't impress anyone but yourself.  

Or maybe... just maybe... there are a lot of folks on here that run away. It is just a fact that this is not the first time I have engaged with folks like TreeBeard, and he ran away just like he did just over a week ago when he was trying to argue there is some doctrinal position in Christianity that Christians can't support deportations. 

There is no end to the stupidity folks like you will try to engage in with twisting scripture

7 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So simple you won't (can't) bother.  🙄

"THAT'S RACIST!" isn't much of an argument I'm afraid, though it is funny.    

I bother plenty of times... which is why I accurately point out the folks running away when I do. 

So, what exactly is your argument here about scripture you want me to respond to? Give it your best go. 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you're going to demand that everyone have a permit then you have to make sure that everybody gets a permit. If the permit is issued based on whether or not the state likes the person or approves of the concert, Then it's no longer a permit. At that point it's just authoritarian control.

What ever gave you the impression that leftists are against authoritarian control? You must be reaching decades back into your memory banks. 

[CouchPotato]

He hadn't even spoken anything yet. They shut it down because people made a stink about him simply because he has expressed 'unacceptable views' in the past. They don't know what he is going to talk about or sing about. 

It's pretty concerning that in Canada you can prevent someone from performing based on the fact that you know they hold certain views. That is ridiculous. 

Edited July 28, 2025 by CouchPotato