Be Aware

Anyone with strong religious convictions who wishes to run for public office of any kind has to realize that they are going to have to deal with instituting policies that could possibly go against their personal convictions. I would suggest that before they run for public office they do some deep soul searching and decide if they are comfortable with that. If not they have no business seeking election.

For example, I'm a vegetarian but it would be ridiculous for me to seek office with the idea that I don't want the border open to the US to export more beef to the US when clearly this is what my constituents would want to happen. This example is also quite simplified in that the issue at hand here, namely gay marriage, is a matter of constitutional rights. The Charter applies to everyone in this country both in terms of protection of rights and our responsibility to live up to the statements contained in it. Clearly, in this case denying gays the right to marriage simply because heterosexuals (overwhelmingly Christians) want to enjoy this right exclusively for themselves for whatever reason is against the Charter. The fact that allowing this is against someone's personal religious conviction has no place in this argument whether a citizen or an MP since we are all bound by the Charter.

Just to note, I myself am not homosexual and don't know anyone who is so I don't have an axe to grind. This is simply about Canadian law, which is supposed to be above partisanship of any kind.

I think a lot of religious-minded people are confused about what religion actually is. Specifically, religion is not about looking at everyone else around you and trying to control their behaviour; it is about controlling your own behaviour.

<a href="http://www.muslimcouncil.org/english/pr-120605.html">http://www.muslimcouncil.org/english/pr-120605.html</a>

Thanks for that link! This is where it gets very sticky; I don't think that people should be forced to perform marriages or other acts that are against their religion, but I also don't think they should be exempt from hate speech laws. I think that losing the charitable status, but still being allowed to practice is a fairly good compromise. I certainly can't think of any better solutions.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

Many people use the separation of church and state philosophy as a means of telling people with religious convictions that they have no real right to openly oppose and fight same sex marriage legislation. The Muslim Council link proves how ridiculous this arguement is. Religious groups are already being threatened by the state to have their charitable tax status removed for speaking out against homosexuality and same sex marrage. This is proof of deliberate infultration, by the state, to penalize people on the basis of their religious beliefs. This is not a matter of religious institutions crossing over into unchartered political territory. It is rather the unjustifiable actions of the state pushing its way into the relm of religious institutions by threatening to take away their democratic rights and freedoms. If religion is about controlling one's own behavior, perhaps the government should heed the age old "separation of chruch and state" idea and let religious groups run their own affairs without fear of being penalized.

it is not penalising people for being religious; it is merely removing a benefit of belonging to an intolerant religion. The lack of a benefit is not at all the same as a punishment.

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

The Muslim Council's statement demonstrates that there is coercion going on to conform to someone else's agenda (in this case the homosexualists' lobby) by threatening to remove the charitable status from an organisation that will not condone same-sex marriages: isn't this in itself intolerant?

I do not see any evidence from the website that the Muslim Council of Montreal is advocating an intolerant religion, just that they won't perform same-sex marriages. Why should the state coerce them? They don't seem to be advocating this outside their religious community, just answering someone else's pressure.

We have analagous situations in the UK - though there's a new draft Charities Bill wending its way through the House of Lords and eventually the House of Commons, but they haven't come up with this particular angle, so who knows what the outcome will be. Perhaps they're saving the coercion thing for the Bill on outlawing Incitement to Religious Hatred?

Damn those homosexuals for lobbying to get the same rights as everyone else! Next thing you know, they'll want the right to vote too!

You're committing yet another logical fallacy. Religions that discriminate against gays are being intolerant. Trying to remove or discourage that behaviour is *not* intolerance; it is an attempt to reduce discrimination. Being coerced to conform to the laws of the country you are operating in is called law enforcement; what the proposal is doing is making a distinction between religions that go against the Charter of Rights and freedoms, and those that do not.



---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

The fact of the matter is that the article in the link is all paranoia created in the minds of religious leaders who are trying to create hysteria over a nonexistent threat. No one but these religious leaders have said anything close to what this article talks about. The gay community has only been asking for the right to have civil weddings performed by either willing clergy or by a justice of the peace. Also, telling people not to engage in homosexuality is one thing; teaching to hate and condemn others who don't share your viewpoint on this matter is another and those who do so definitely should be subject to prosecution.

Quite frankly, a lot of these religious organisations are awash in money and generally use it for nothing of any social value as claimed in the article but instead use it to further the membership of their religion by investing it and buying land for more churches, mosques, etc. and paid preaching. This constitutes a business and as such should be taxed as any other business. This is an issue totally separate from the gay marriage debate but is being used to further their position against gay marriage. I would definitely be in favor of religions institutions being required to prove that they are deserving of tax free status by:
1. Showing that they don't have paid preachers.
2. Showing exactly what their money is being used for and that is of social benefit and how they are monitoring it to ensure it is being used for its intended purpose.
3. That they are not engaging in investing of any kind to produce income for their church, etc.

One example of this is the Catholic church, which is worth $10s of billions, owns businesses and much real estate. To be sitting on this kind of money while people in this world starve is hardly the face of a charitable organization. Hardly the example that Jesus gave of not worry for your future as God feeds us as the birds of the air. On the whole, I would say that governments that have engaged in true social program spending have far outdone the efforts of any religion in the world up to this point, probably all religions combined.

I have to respond to your comment on paranoia created by religious leaders, etc.<br />
<br />
I urge you to search google on Chris Kempling, or follow this link. (Chris isn't an isolated case) <br />
<a href="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html">http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html</a><br />
I am not for gay marriage by any stretch, don't misunderstand me, but let's put that specific aside right now. When I speak out against such things as abortion or gay marriage, I have a right to do so. Where does the BCTF get off firing Dr. Kempling for writing a letter to the editor on his OWN TIME??? He wasn't preaching this in a classroom! You can't possibly agree with what's going on there. I don't check this site often, so feel free to email me: neildevrie@aol.com. Put KEMPLING in the Subject line so it doesn't filter. THanks!

That isn't true at all. Putting somebody in prison is a punishment-or is it just that they are losing the benefit of freedom? That's pretty hazardous logic. Even if it were true, logic has little place in politics where people are rarely vulcans. If your religion is intolerant of something, and I act against your intolerance, then clearly I am being intolerant of your intolerance. I might not like to ADMIT that, I would like to think I am right and you are wrong, but in any case it is clearly intolerant. This is why government typically tries to shy away from such issues.

First, before everybody hits the panic button we have to find out if this is true. Religious groups have made all kinds of claims in the past, and we have to find out exactly what this pressure is. If revenue canada has sent a letter saying a specific religion is going to lose its charitable status because they are refusing to perform gay marriages, then we do have a problem. Interestingly enough this would open the door for a church to appeal to the charter in claiming they are being discrimated against. I am no expert on Islam, but as this is a muslim site I highly doubt any muslim gays are going to even want the service as it would pretty much banish them from all their cultural ties. It is interesting that the link is a muslim site and not a catholic one, which makes me think its more racism related than sexuality related. If it actually happened then you would see jewish and catholics lining up and demanding divorces-hardly a can of worms the government wants to open.

I am naturally cautious about this because it truly would be the worst timing and would fall right in the hands of what every social conservative has been saying and that churches will be forced to perform them. Most of the 'big' religions apart from perhaps United are against homosexual marriage, so it's highly doubtful that virtually every religion in canada would lose their tax free status. In fact it sounds like a conservative ploy to get everybody riled up by election time.

I am also suspicious as it is virtually unenforcable. The state has shown no interest in the past, and the court rulings have forced this on governments-not gay lobbyists. Lobbyists have kept it in the courts for years until finally it has been recognized, but to think that our government has been proactive on this is remarkable short sighted. From what I've seen only conservative values have any hope of being pushed by lobbyists.

If it were true I don't see how it is a compromise. In fact in religious affairs it is quite obvious that discrimination is rampant. How soon until I can charge a local mosque or synagogue for not performing a marriage even though I am not moslem or jewish? I'd give this story a little lead time before we start arguing it because I don't think there's any real meat there.

You are confusing the individual with the religion, in this case. The *religion* isn't being punished if the person is being put in jail for hate speech or descrimination (I think jail time is not especially likely for such an offense).

The argument of being intolerant of intolerance is specious; one of those positions is in agreement with the law, and whichever is not lawful is the one that is genuinely intolerant (this is only true in a lawful society). The same goes for discriminating against those who discriminate;
that is like saying that the police are criminals for catching kidnappers.

If a synagogue or mosque refused to perform a marriage for you based on your sex, age, sexual preference (or in fact anything but religion), then yes, you should be able to charge them with discrimination. If they are going to perform a public service, then they should obey national laws in doing so, not just those laws that they happen to agree with.


---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.

What people fail to recognize is that religious individuals have God as their leader, and all societal laws stem from God. This is contrasted by the state that wants to claim that it is the ultimate power to follow.
Gay marriage might be what this specific battle is over, but the underlying issue is actually what entity each of us believes has the rightful power to control our lives, God or the State.

good insight, though it might be more accurate to say it is The State versus The Church, rather than God. God's will (if such a thing exists) could jsut as easily be manifest through The State as The Church, and abuse of power is equally present in both (and in fact any such human organisation).

---
Every time you complain about the moderators, god kills a kitten.