Skip to main content

Freedom of Religion under attack

From The Globe and Mail via The Last Amazon:
The Knights [of Columbus], adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed. That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week.
Something's rotten in Denmark (or Port Coquitlam). The Conservative party's justice critic, Vic Toews, made an interesting point on TV last night. He asked why the courts seem to consistently hold equality rights to trump rights to freedom of religion. It's a good question. I have a question too. Why do so many people hold the view that minorites must support one another? That rights for one group strengthen the rights of all minorities? Doesn't that mean Jewish people ought to support the rights of Nazis in Canada? My point is that support for something ought to be based on its mertis and its truth, and on no other criteria. Interestingly, Global TV is reporting that something like 67% of Canadians want to keep the traditional definition of marriage, and a similar percentage want the issue to go to a referendum. So why do the pointy heads keep telling Stephen Harper that his dissention from the Liberals on this issue is hurting him? If the poll is right, he is the only party leader defending the people of Canada. Jack Layton, for heaven's sake, is insiting that all his NDP members must support the Liberal bill or face consequences. So much for their freedom of religion, which is a Charter Right. Jack says human rights of minorities should never be subject to a majority vote. But Mr. Layton - that is the very question! Is it a human rights issue or not? Are there any limits at all to what the government can rule on and alter?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi