Freedom of Religion

[noahbody]

Shoud the right to freedom of religion be absolute? Is it time we revised the Charter and altered it to "freedom of peaceful religion."?

In my opinion, it is time Canada protected its society from extremism and the nevative aspects of religion that keep other parts of the world from becoming civil. What's your view?

[Catchme]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

Perhaps, the Greater Vancouver Area Sikh community, but only around election time. But then again, they are only arguing amongst themselves, so really they would not apply either, as they do not impact the rest of Canadians with their election bickerings.

I mean, after all, we do not know, who torched and ripped apart, the Mosques and Synagogues, so there is no one religion really there to accuse of being non-peaceful and with having negative aspects.

Who is going to define what peaceful is in this context? set the parameters so to speak? Agnostics? Buddists

And just what negative aspects do you mean? And who would be the judge and jury on the decision of whether these negative aspects were in fact negative aspects? Athesists? Buddists?

Then of course is the actual changing of the Charter?

Who would be the ones asking to change the Charter?

Do we really want to go down that road, because after all, Freedom of Religion can't really have a rider can it?

Remember, NOT all, within any one religious sect, are radical, so really the whole group, and in fact all religious people in Canada, would be tarred by the actions of just a few.

Do you have a specific religious group in mind, other than Christian fundamentalists?

[noahbody]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

Perhaps, the Greater Vancouver Area Sikh community, but only around election time. But then again, they are only arguing amongst themselves, so really they would not apply either, as they do not impact the rest of Canadians with their election bickerings.

I mean, after all, we do not know, who torched and ripped apart, the Mosques and Synagogues, so there is no one religion really there to accuse of being non-peaceful and with having negative aspects.

Who is going to define what peaceful is in this context? set the parameters so to speak? Agnostics? Buddists

And just what negative aspects do you mean? And who would be the judge and jury on the decision of whether these negative aspects were in fact negative aspects? Athesists? Buddists?

Then of course is the actual changing of the Charter?

Who would be the ones asking to change the Charter?

Do we really want to go down that road, because after all, Freedom of Religion can't really have a rider can it?

Remember, NOT all, within any one religious sect, are radical, so really the whole group, and in fact all religious people in Canada, would be tarred by the actions of just a few.

Do you have a specific religious group in mind, other than Christian fundamentalists?

Okay, how about this. We don't change the charter, we merely pass a law that would hold preachers of any religion to account to what they preach. For example, holding someone like Elmasry in Vancouver accountable for his preachings of martyrdom and murder when one of his congregation acts upon his teachings. Would this be any different than holding Charles Manson responsible for the killing of his disciples?

[margrace]

One of the fundamentalist tv stations is in trouble, does this fit. They are asking people to cash in RRSP and Bonds and send the money to them. Then they will be saved apparetly.

[noahbody]

One of the fundamentalist tv stations is in trouble, does this fit. They are asking people to cash in RRSP and Bonds and send the money to them. Then they will be saved apparetly.

I think that fits under the "There's a sucker born every minute" clause.

[geoffrey]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

What the hell are you talking about? What Christian Fundamentalist has attacked anyone in Canada?

Perhaps, the Greater Vancouver Area Sikh community, but only around election time. But then again, they are only arguing amongst themselves, so really they would not apply either, as they do not impact the rest of Canadians with their election bickerings.

I'm sure that no other ethnicities were on board the Air India flight that their feuding blew up?

I mean, after all, we do not know, who torched and ripped apart, the Mosques and Synagogues, so there is no one religion really there to accuse of being non-peaceful and with having negative aspects.

I think this is a crosses burning on the lawns of Prince George type story. What Mosque and Synagouge has been torched recently? The attacks on the Jewish United Talmud Torah school in 2004. in Montreal for example, was a Muslim attack in reprisial for the Israeli's elimination a Hamas leader. Pretty sick that they can't even leave their old world conflict behind? I also didn't see the Jews retaliate.

And just what negative aspects do you mean? And who would be the judge and jury on the decision of whether these negative aspects were in fact negative aspects? Athesists? Buddists?

Good point, can't be done.

Do we really want to go down that road, because after all, Freedom of Religion can't really have a rider can it?

I personally believe that Freedom of Religion can fit neatly under Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Conscience. It needs no special protection.

Freedom of Religion should also never be a defence to harms committed to another, regardless. That includes oppression of women IMO.

[Catchme]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

Do you have a specific religious group in mind, other than Christian fundamentalists?

Okay, how about this. We don't change the charter, we merely pass a law that would hold preachers of any religion to account to what they preach. For example, holding someone like Elmasry in Vancouver accountable for his preachings of martyrdom and murder when one of his congregation acts upon his teachings. Would this be any different than holding Charles Manson responsible for the killing of his disciples?

Ah, so you did have a specific target group in mind, thought as much!

That would already be covered under criminal law, directing/inciting acts of hate/racism/violence/murder and all of that kinda stuff. So really, again why would we need another law, when we already have one?

[geoffrey]

That would already be covered under criminal law, directing/inciting acts of hate/racism/violence/murder and all of that kinda stuff. So really, again why would we need another law, when we already have one?

Catchme is right here. Inciting violence and the such is already covered by law. Now only if it were to be enforced.

[noahbody]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

Do you have a specific religious group in mind, other than Christian fundamentalists?

Okay, how about this. We don't change the charter, we merely pass a law that would hold preachers of any religion to account to what they preach. For example, holding someone like Elmasry in Vancouver accountable for his preachings of martyrdom and murder when one of his congregation acts upon his teachings. Would this be any different than holding Charles Manson responsible for the killing of his disciples?

Ah, so you did have a specific target group in mind, thought as much!

That would already be covered under criminal law, directing/inciting acts of hate/racism/violence/murder and all of that kinda stuff. So really, again why would we need another law, when we already have one?

My specific target group would be extremists who promote violence. Elmasry is a good example as a member of his congregation went over to Chechnya. I wonder if he is still preaching. Anyone know? For the record I do have muslim relatives who left the mosque as it was too radical.

[Catchme]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

What the hell are you talking about? What Christian Fundamentalist has attacked anyone in Canada?

Perhaps, the Greater Vancouver Area Sikh community, but only around election time. But then again, they are only arguing amongst themselves, so really they would not apply either, as they do not impact the rest of Canadians with their election bickerings.

I'm sure that no other ethnicities were on board the Air India flight that their feuding blew up?

I mean, after all, we do not know, who torched and ripped apart, the Mosques and Synagogues, so there is no one religion really there to accuse of being non-peaceful and with having negative aspects.

I think this is a crosses burning on the lawns of Prince George type story. What Mosque and Synagouge has been torched recently? The attacks on the Jewish United Talmud Torah school in 2004. in Montreal for example, was a Muslim attack in reprisial for the Israeli's elimination a Hamas leader. Pretty sick that they can't even leave their old world conflict behind? I also didn't see the Jews retaliate.

Freedom of Religion should also never be a defence to harms committed to another, regardless. That includes oppression of women IMO.

Although Terlesky became pro-life, he has spoken out against violence in the movement, and condemned the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic and attacks on abortion doctors in Vancouver and New York. On the other hand, during a presentation he made to the B.C. budget committee (date unknown), he called "bubble zones" - a law that restricts protestors from rallying too close to abortion clinics and prohibits blockades near clinics - unconstitutional.

On September 21, 2000 Terlesky attempted to hand deliver a letter to Morgentaler asking him to stop performing abortions...In September of 2002, Terlesky was sentenced to one year of probation for violating the "bubble zone" outside Everywoman's Health Centre in Vancouver in January 2001. Other Charges of uttering threats were dropped and he was issued a recognizance order to stay out of Everywoman's access zone for one year.

Terlesky claims to be against racism and discrimination and that he tolerates other's religious beliefs. However he abhors Astrology, Channeling, Black Magic, White Magic, Witchcraft, Palm Reading, Numerology, Tarot Cards, Water Witching, Silva Mind Control, New Age, Hypnosis, Goddess Worship, Wicca, Eckankar, Clairvoyance, Buddhism, the Bahá'í Faith, Bestiality, Yoga, and Blood Covenants claiming that they are "not in accordance with the Holy Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ".

Terlesky also allegedly sent several letters to the Kamloops Women's Resource Centre threatening to sue the Centre if it didn’t remove a link to an unflattering article about a right-wing men's group Promise Keepers from its website, and later tried to get the Centre’s funding removed because it provides support for gays and lesbians. Allegedly Terslesky attended CBC's counterSpin program, but before taping began, he screamed at Native people in attendance to "Go to Afghanistan and join the Taliban." He also posted on the CounterSpin website discussion area, saying "The US helped get rid of the Taliban and will now rid us of the despot in Iraq and I say Praise God." After a gay man was brutally beaten to death in Vancouver's Stanley Park, Terlesky told a B.C. newspaper that the man was "engaging in inappropriate behaviour."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merle_Terlesky

The Deadly Risks of Being Pro-Choice

by Allison Brewer

'A heightened sense of awareness" -- those words have been echoing through my head since the Sept. 11 terrorism attacks in New York and Washington. But it wasn't the first time. In 1994, we opened Dr. Henry Morgentaler's Fredericton abortion clinic. Over the next five years that heightened sense of awareness became part of who I was. Words like "anthrax" were striking terror in my heart back when antichoice terrorists were making their mark on the consciousness of every abortion-clinic worker on the continent.

Terrorism is not a foreign concept to the thousands of women and men who put themselves at risk daily to ensure a woman's right to choose. Abortion clinics were the target of terrorist activity long before anyone had heard of Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden.

That's why, when most of North America will think of Nov. 11 as Remembrance Day and a date that marks two months since the terrorist attacks, for many of us it's an anniversary of another sort. In addition to the anthrax scares, bombings, threatening letters, picketing and abuse, since 1994, on or about Remembrance Day, there have been four sniper attacks on doctors in Canada and the United States -- doctors who were known abortion providers. The first was on Nov. 8, 1994, when Vancouver doctor Garson Romalis was shot and wounded. The following year, on Nov. 10, Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ont., was targeted while eating breakfast in his home. Two years later on Nov. 11, Dr. Jack Fainman of Winnipeg was shot. And on Oct. 23, 1998, Dr. Barnett Slepian of Amherst, N.Y., was killed.

Each of these men was shot in his home by a sniper using a long-range rifle. Anti-abortion extremist James Kopp has been charged in the shooting of Dr. Short and the killing of Dr. Slepian.

In October of this year, the FBI reported that at least 110 envelopes and packages containing a white power were sent to abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood facilities in the United States. Ninety Planned Parenthood centers reported receiving the letters; the 20 remaining packages were sent to independent abortion clinics.

Since 1982, there have been 169 arsons and bombings of abortion clinics in the United States. In 1991, in Springfield, Mo., a clinic receptionist was shot and paralyzed from the waist down; in 1992, Dr. Morgentaler's Toronto clinic was firebombed; in March of 1993, Dr. David Gunn was murdered outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla.

There is not time to recount all of the acts of terrorism rained down on abortion providers, but the December, 1994, killings of Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols at a clinic in Brookline, Mass., hit particularly close to home for many of us on the front lines. By then, the term "justifiable homicide" had become the new buzzword of homegrown, right-wing fundamentalist extremists.

But the antichoice terrorists have not restricted themselves to clinic violence. Eric Rudolph made the FBI's Most Wanted List for the January, 1998, bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., clinic that killed a security guard and seriously injured a nurse. He was also wanted for bombings at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, at a lesbian bar in Atlanta, and at another clinic in Georgia.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1108-06.htm

Plus, of course the other "negative aspects" of Christian fundamentalism that impact negatively upon Canadians.

The Air India attack, may well be considered an act of terror, I agree, but it was not against ALL Canadians, or Canadian Values, it was infighting apparently between them, and yes there was collateral damage, it does not fit Noah's parameters that he set out, so I did not include.

No, there was another attack upon the same school in 2006. But one can find no where that those who did were Muslim. Lot's of spurious accusations, of course. Moreover, I never said Muslims were targeting Jewish places, nor that Jews were retailiating. The only thing I said was that attacks against both were occuring. Much more frequently against Muslims than you appear to recognize, so please stop with the Crosses Burning kinda stuff as an attempted put down. It is erroneous and mean spirited.

"OTTAWA ONT -- Police called for anonymous tips yesterday into a brutal hate crime in which a Muslim teen was beaten unconscious last week by a dozen white teens. "The 15--year--old Arabic boy was riding his bicycle home in Orleans, just outside Ottawa, when he was swarmed by a group of about 12 white teens. The teens told the boy he was the reason for the World Trade Center terrorist attack and punched and kicked him repeatedly. He was beaten unconscious and left for five hours."

That's right. The incident got 86 words on page 10 and no, I don't know what an 'Arabic boy' is. There was, it is true, a longish general piece (757 words) on page 5 concerning the anti--Arab backlash. It does not mention the beating, just a strangling attempt against a female Saudi doctor in Montreal and some fires set at mosques and Sikh temples. (The fires had received modest coverage earlier.) The next day the beating is mentioned in a 865 word piece that made page 9. It contained Prime Minister's Jean Chrétien's expressions of concern about attacks on Arabs and others.*An interim report card prepared by the Council on American--Islamic relations indicated there have been 120 anti--Muslim hate incidents across Canada since the terrorist attacks. They included 10 death threats, 13 cases of physical violence and 12 attacks on mosques and Islamic centres."

http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann04152004.html

CJC urges Montreal police to recognize attack on Muslim school as hate crime.

http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?action=briefs&item=33

[White Doors]

Okay, how about this. We don't change the charter, we merely pass a law that would hold preachers of any religion to account to what they preach. For example, holding someone like Elmasry in Vancouver accountable for his preachings of martyrdom and murder when one of his congregation acts upon his teachings. Would this be any different than holding Charles Manson responsible for the killing of his disciples?

We already have that. that is inciting violence.

already against the law.

[Canadian Blue]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than this religion. Can you give us examples of how mainstream christian fundamentalist's are violent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_t...Nation_of_Islam

I don't feel particularly threatened by people who go to church on sunday, and believe in the literal interpetation of the bible. As for the abortion killing's, that was what, maybe at best a few people who were actually involved. I'm more along the lines of spiritual, however I don't feel threatened by people who believe in Jesus Christ.

Although Terlesky became pro-life, he has spoken out against violence in the movement, and condemned the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic and attacks on abortion doctors in Vancouver and New York. On the other hand, during a presentation he made to the B.C. budget committee (date unknown), he called "bubble zones" - a law that restricts protestors from rallying too close to abortion clinics and prohibits blockades near clinics - unconstitutional.

That's one man.

Plus, of course the other "negative aspects" of Christian fundamentalism that impact negatively upon Canadians.

I personally don't like this kind of talk, since it does nothing but breed fear. It's similar to the debate were Robert777 was saying all muslim's want to destroy Canada and take it over.

And just what negative aspects do you mean? And who would be the judge and jury on the decision of whether these negative aspects were in fact negative aspects? Athesists? Buddists?

Agreed.

I think we shouldn't attempt to cherrypick right's, it's a slippery slope. If we tell somebody that they can't practice their religion simply because we don't like a certain verse or passage in a religious book it does nothing but create animosity between people.

[Wilber]

Why is this in a forum on US Politics?

[Catchme]

Maybe you should be asking this of the Christian fundamentalists, as they seem to be the only ones who are not peaceful in Canada, and who have some apparent negative aspects, and from whom the rest of Canadians may need to be protected.

Christian fundamentalists are more dangerous than this religion. Can you give us examples of how mainstream christian fundamentalist's are violent.

I don't feel particularly threatened by people who go to church on sunday, and believe in the literal interpetation of the bible. As for the abortion killing's, that was what, maybe at best a few people who were actually involved. I'm more along the lines of spiritual, however I don't feel threatened by people who believe in Jesus Christ.

Although Terlesky became pro-life, he has spoken out against violence in the movement, and condemned the bombing of the Morgentaler clinic and attacks on abortion doctors in Vancouver and New York. On the other hand, during a presentation he made to the B.C. budget committee (date unknown), he called "bubble zones" - a law that restricts protestors from rallying too close to abortion clinics and prohibits blockades near clinics - unconstitutional.

That's one man.

Plus, of course the other "negative aspects" of Christian fundamentalism that impact negatively upon Canadians.

I personally don't like this kind of talk, since it does nothing but breed fear. It's similar to the debate were Robert777 was saying all muslim's want to destroy Canada and take it over.

No Can Blue, there is more than one man involved in all of the things mentioned. And there are even more that advocate violence against targeted peoples. And there are many others who have conducted acts of terrorism or verbally advocated for them. To shrug them off, as being different than other fundamentalist radicals who want to harm others who do not believe as they do, because they profess to be Christian, is wrong.

Personally, I am just as fearful of them, as I am other extremists and fundamentalist of other religions. perhaps even more so.

That's nice that you do not feel particularily threatened by those who self process to believe in, what they call the literal interpretation of the Bible. As we can see from the examples here, some's fanatic's beliefs, are really NOT based upon the literal interpretation of the Bible, they are cherry picking the parts they want to use, and are distorting a good many other points. They would like to take away others rights and freedoms, and have no compunction with being deceitful to do so.

There were just not a "few bad apples" who targeted abortion clinics, people seeking abortions, and abortion providers, there was MANY. And those that did so are terrorists.

[Canadian Blue]

I've gone to an evangelical church for the first 16 years of my life, and I have yet to see the support of "terrorist" action's you claim. Pro-life, perhaps, but advocating violence, never.

To shrug them off, as being different than other fundamentalist radicals who want to harm others who do not believe as they do, because they profess to be Christian, is wrong.

To say that they are the only danger to peace in Canada, is dead wrong as well.

That's nice that you do not feel particularily threatened by those who self process to believe in, what they call the literal interpretation of the Bible. As we can see from the examples here, some's fanatic's beliefs, are really NOT based upon the literal interpretation of the Bible, they are cherry picking the parts they want to use, and are distorting a good many other points. They would like to take away others rights and freedoms, and have no compunction with being deceitful to do so.

Who are you talking about, you only said Christian fundamentalist's. That's a pretty broad group. Which group in particular, and why are they more dangerous then some sects of Islam, Judaism, and some radical sects in the Sikh religion.

There were just not a "few bad apples" who targeted abortion clinics, people seeking abortions, and abortion providers, there was MANY. And those that did so are terrorists.

I haven't seen any mainstream church's advocate violence. As for terrorism, what do you call the Islamic terrorists in Toronto, why are they any different. Aren't they also a threat to peace. The reason I'm asking you this is because you stated the only real threat to peace is Christian fundamentalists, and even then Christian fundamentalist is a broad term.

[Catchme]

Not going down that road with you, I was very selective in my statements, no matter how you try to twist it.. I said those that did those things were terrorists, I never broad brushed. I was very clear on why I felt that radical fundamentalists who were not anti-choice, anti-gay, terrorists, but who had other "negative aspects" in their beliefs, frightened me.

Quite frankly, I do not feel that level of fear from other fundamentalist religious groups in Canada.