Separation of Church and State

[blueblood]

cbc

Looks like we have quite a little problem on our hands.

[Mad_Michael]

cbc

Looks like we have quite a little problem on our hands.

Especially since Canada doesn't have much in the way of laws in favour of separation of Church and State.

It is high time we had a charter-proof law on this subject on the books!

And it is a 'little' problem by definition. Canadian-Muslim issues pale in comparison with the European situation.

[Charles Anthony]

What I find noteworthy is that this Muslim against Muslim.

[Renegade]

Especially since Canada doesn't have much in the way of laws in favour of separation of Church and State.

It is high time we had a charter-proof law on this subject on the books!

What kind of law are you expecting? The charter already gurantees freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State is a principle but how do you enforce it in law?

[guyser]

Looks like we have quite a little problem on our hands.

We ? I think "they" have a problem, unless the perps use bombs...then it is we.

How long until someone here blames Arar ?

(where is mikedavid anyway)

[uOttawaMan]

Looks like we have quite a little problem on our hands.

We ? I think "they" have a problem, unless the perps use bombs...then it is we.

How long until someone here blames Arar ?

(where is mikedavid anyway)

Haha.. you said "perp".

[blueblood]

Looks like we have quite a little problem on our hands.

We ? I think "they" have a problem, unless the perps use bombs...then it is we.

How long until someone here blames Arar ?

(where is mikedavid anyway)

I'd say it's we, there is a problem with religious fundamentalists of all stripes, the evangelical christians give us prairie boys a bad rap. Something about an abortion doctor getting death threats a while ago. Something needs to be done to cap religious fundamentalism in Canada before it gets out of hand.

[Saturn]

What kind of law are you expecting? The charter already gurantees freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State is a principle but how do you enforce it in law?

Maybe that "freedom of religion" needs to go from the Charter. Fundamentalists of all stripes interpret "freedom of religion" as freedom to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. Alternatively, maybe "freedom from religion" should be added to the Charter.

[Mad_Michael]

Especially since Canada doesn't have much in the way of laws in favour of separation of Church and State.

It is high time we had a charter-proof law on this subject on the books!

What kind of law are you expecting? The charter already gurantees freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State is a principle but how do you enforce it in law?

Enforce it? Lets get a law on the books first. Though, there are already many violations already standing. I fear the BNA Act (1867) gives justification for mixing Church and State.

Ontario has public finance of a Catholic separate school board. This monstrosity (a 'parting gift' from Bill Davis' conservative government some thirty years ago) has already been cited as the justification for the demand in Ontario for taxpayer funded Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc.

Quebec also has a very long history of mixing Church and State in education and the provision of social services.

If that is not enough difficulties, Canada's Head of State is also the titular head of the Anglican Church.

On this basis, I'd say that it is a fundamental impossibility to enact a law mandating the separation of Church and State in Canada. And thus, we are going to have to fight every religious attempt to expand on this, issue by issue, and defeat it at the ballot box.

Indeed, Ontario government bureaucrats actually accepted 'Sharia Law' in Ontario and set up a test project to evaluate the usage of it (until the public caught wind of the plan and that killed that - for now).

[Posit]

The "Public School Board" once used to be called the "Protestant School Board" and it has been publicly funded for eons.

[cybercoma]

Especially since Canada doesn't have much in the way of laws in favour of separation of Church and State.

It is high time we had a charter-proof law on this subject on the books!

What kind of law are you expecting? The charter already gurantees freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State is a principle but how do you enforce it in law?

Ban religion. Outlaw religious groups as "gangs" or "terrorists".

[ScottSA]

Looks like we have quite a little problem on our hands.

We ? I think "they" have a problem, unless the perps use bombs...then it is we.

How long until someone here blames Arar ?

(where is mikedavid anyway)

I'd say it's we, there is a problem with religious fundamentalists of all stripes, the evangelical christians give us prairie boys a bad rap. Something about an abortion doctor getting death threats a while ago. Something needs to be done to cap religious fundamentalism in Canada before it gets out of hand.

Trying to draw moral equivalency between fundamentalist Christians blowing up an abortion clinic very occasionally and fundamentalist Muslims committing wholesale slaughter around the globe on a daily basis is trite at best.

[na85]

Trying to draw moral equivalency between fundamentalist Christians blowing up an abortion clinic very occasionally and fundamentalist Muslims committing wholesale slaughter around the globe on a daily basis is trite at best.

Why, because they're Muslims?

[na85]

IMHO, the separation between Church and State can never be far enough.

I live in Ontario and I personally think that the publicly funded catholic school board is a disgrace. As to the claims that a law mandating the separation of church and state would not be enforceable, I disagree. Simply pass a law that says "either the state funds all religious institutions equally, or it funds none of them."

Even the libs couldn't tax-and-spend enough to finance all that.

[Renegade]

Ontario has public finance of a Catholic separate school board. This monstrosity (a 'parting gift' from Bill Davis' conservative government some thirty years ago) has already been cited as the justification for the demand in Ontario for taxpayer funded Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc.

How is this any different than government funding of woman's groups or funding multicultralism or funding native groups?

I agree that by making funding choices, the government is showing preferential bais for certain religions, but to prevent that and be consistant, you have to prevent the government from showing ANY bias toward any identifiable group, not just religious.

On this basis, I'd say that it is a fundamental impossibility to enact a law mandating the separation of Church and State in Canada. And thus, we are going to have to fight every religious attempt to expand on this, issue by issue, and defeat it at the ballot box.

Then you are contradicting your previous assertion that you should get a law 'on th books". My assertion was such a law was probably not possible, which you now seem to agree with.

[Renegade]

Ban religion. Outlaw religious groups as "gangs" or "terrorists".

Are you kidding me? Banning religion is a different than banning religous groups. How do you ban what people believe?

I would say your suggestion is the exact opposite of separation of church and state. In your suggestion, the state is telling you what you can and cannot believe in.

[ScottSA]

Trying to draw moral equivalency between fundamentalist Christians blowing up an abortion clinic very occasionally and fundamentalist Muslims committing wholesale slaughter around the globe on a daily basis is trite at best.

Why, because they're Muslims?

I assume you're just being silly.

[Mad_Michael]

Ontario has public finance of a Catholic separate school board. This monstrosity (a 'parting gift' from Bill Davis' conservative government some thirty years ago) has already been cited as the justification for the demand in Ontario for taxpayer funded Jewish schools, Muslim schools, etc.

How is this any different than government funding of woman's groups or funding multicultralism or funding native groups?

I agree that by making funding choices, the government is showing preferential bais for certain religions, but to prevent that and be consistant, you have to prevent the government from showing ANY bias toward any identifiable group, not just religious.

No. Religious group funding is a specific and identifiable class. It is not arbitrary, nor is it comparable to funding of various other non-religious public policies.

For example, funding for a 'women's shelter' is a general public service available to women. Public education or the fire department are public services available equally to all. Funding of a religious school board is a service benefiting one single religious group at the expense of others.

Also, there is a small matter of historical pragmatism. Church + State = Bloodshed. We've learned this lesson the hard way and do not wish to repeat the bloodshed. We do not have a historical record of wars and bloodshed breaking out over the funding of other non-religious programs.

On this basis, I'd say that it is a fundamental impossibility to enact a law mandating the separation of Church and State in Canada. And thus, we are going to have to fight every religious attempt to expand on this, issue by issue, and defeat it at the ballot box.

Then you are contradicting your previous assertion that you should get a law 'on th books". My assertion was such a law was probably not possible, which you now seem to agree with.

No, I am not. I believe we ought to put a law on the books mandating full separation of Church and State. I also believe that this is almost impossible without getting rid of the monarchy and re-writing the BNA Act.

[ScottSA]

For example...Public education [snip] are public services available equally to all.

...but based upon secularism, which may or may not accord with the wishes of the parents. Most notably in the increasing role public education is taking in the field of morality. You may believe that normalizing homosexuality, for instance, is a "rights" issue, but a great many people feel it's a morality issue. Yet secularism, and increasing the public school system, is encroaching upon belief systems that stand in opposition. Couching the debate in the terminology of 'rights' doesn't change that fact. In effect then, by seperating church and state on those terms is simply restricting all other belief systems in favor of the one you like.

Also, there is a small matter of historical pragmatism. Church + State = Bloodshed. We've learned this lesson the hard way and do not wish to repeat the bloodshed. We do not have a historical record of wars and bloodshed breaking out over the funding of other non-religious programs.

With respect, this is an ahistorical nonsense meme. The great secular atheisms of the 20th century killed more in one century than all the religious wars in history combined, ranging from the expansion of Islam to the 30 Years War. National Socialism alone is responsible for 50 million, Soviet Socialism for another 50 million or more, and God only knows how many Mao finished off in his sojourns across China. Pol Pot and his ilk are merely footnotes to the terrors of secular atheism.

[Renegade]

For example, funding for a 'women's shelter' is a general public service available to women.

So, women are not an "identifable class"? Is not a funding choice to support women's shelters made at the expense of others (ie men's shelters?)

Public education or the fire department are public services available equally to all.

I never cited these as example of special interest funding. You didnt address multiculturalism. What about aborignal funding?

Also, there is a small matter of historical pragmatism. Church + State = Bloodshed. We've learned this lesson the hard way and do not wish to repeat the bloodshed. We do not have a historical record of wars and bloodshed breaking out over the funding of other non-religious programs.

We don't have a history of bloodshed breaking out over the funding of religious programs either.

Look, I actually agree with you that we should have separation of church and state. I also think that it is abhorent for the state to show bias to specific religous groups.

Where I differ from you is that I don't really think that bias is any different that the bias shown toward other identifiable groups such as visible minorities, women, abroginals, etc.

No, I am not. I believe we ought to put a law on the books mandating full separation of Church and State. I also believe that this is almost impossible without getting rid of the monarchy and re-writing the BNA Act.

So you are saying you want to put in place a law that is impossible to put. You don't find that contradictory?

[na85]

How is this any different than government funding of woman's groups or funding multicultralism or funding native groups?

I agree that by making funding choices, the government is showing preferential bais for certain religions, but to prevent that and be consistant, you have to prevent the government from showing ANY bias toward any identifiable group, not just religious.

It's different because we're talking about the separation of Church and State. This is a religious issue, not a women's rights issue.

We're dealing with one religion getting governmental preference over another. Any other topic just doesn't enter into the verdict.

[gc1765]

What I find noteworthy is that this Muslim against Muslim.

Why is that noteworthy?

[Renegade]

How is this any different than government funding of woman's groups or funding multicultralism or funding native groups?

I agree that by making funding choices, the government is showing preferential bais for certain religions, but to prevent that and be consistant, you have to prevent the government from showing ANY bias toward any identifiable group, not just religious.

It's different because we're talking about the separation of Church and State. This is a religious issue, not a women's rights issue.

We're dealing with one religion getting governmental preference over another. Any other topic just doesn't enter into the verdict.

You didn't really answer the question. You saying it is different, doessn't make it so. The government shows preferential bias to a variety of groups. What I am pointing out is that bias has extended to not just religious groups. Why is religion a better or worse criterial for showing bias than race or gender? Calling is an issue of "Separation of Church ad State" doesn't change the underlying issue.

[Charles Anthony]

What I find noteworthy is that this Muslim against Muslim.

Why is that noteworthy?

I believe it is noteworthy because Muslims are commonly all lumped together as one antagonist.

For example:

But the fact remains that the Islamic faith is the same for radical Muslims as it is for moderate Muslims.

Shoe is on the other foot -- France becomes al-Qaeda,s newest enemy

When I postulated that Muslims might be attacking Muslims here in Canada, I got ridiculed.

[betsy]

What I find noteworthy is that this Muslim against Muslim.

Why is that noteworthy?

I believe it is noteworthy because Muslims are commonly all lumped together as one antagonist.

The Muslim religion is. An antagonist. It is the only religion I could think of that preaches slaughtering ALL NON-BELIEVERS.