Call for State Control of Religion Especially Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rosalinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rosalinda

Guest
This was on LifeSiteNews July 19 about a retired professor spouting off on the Canadian National Public Radio. His ideas are really dangerous and demonstrate the true objective of those promoting same-sex marriage. Underneath all the false promises and reassurances that ssm was nothing more than a harmless recognition of a ‘human right’- inconsequential to the majority of citizens-we now see how quickly the mask was lifted from this demon of deceit once that goal was achieved. This is a clear call of state interference with the church under the guise of protecting human rights.

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071906.html
 
Why is an engineer commenting on these things? His ignorance of the issues is laughable. He has made a spectacle of himself.
 
OTTAWA, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just as Senate approaches the final vote on the gay ‘marriage’ bill, C-38, Canada’s national public radio CBC Radio has aired a commentary by a retired professor from the Royal Military College calling for state control over religion, specifically Catholicism. While parliamentarians dismissed warnings by numerous religious leaders and experts that such laws would lead to religious persecution, former professor Bob Ferguson has called for “legislation to regulate the practice of religion.”

“Given the inertia of the Catholic Church, perhaps we could encourage reform by changing the environment in which all religions operate,” Ferguson began his commentary in measured tones yesterday. "Couldn’t we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood. "

Ferguson continued, “Of course the Vatican wouldn’t like the changes, but they would come to accept them in time as a fact of life in Canada. Indeed I suspect many clergy would welcome the external pressure.”
 
CBC commentary continued with:
The former professor pitched his idea as a boon to religious freedom. “We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions,” he said. “They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can’t religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?”
Ferguson, would see religion regulated by provinces in the same way professions are regulated. “I am an engineer so the model I am thinking about is rather like the provincial acts regulating the practice of engineering,” he said. “For example, engineers must have an engineering degree from a recognized university or pass qualification exams. They must have a number of years of practical experience and pass an ethics exam. The different branches: mechanical, electrical, civil and the like have a code of practice that applies to everyone. Why can’t religious groups do the same?”

Continuing his comparison Ferguson stated, “I envisage a congress meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers’ P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification.”
 
CBC radio commentator concluded with:

Ferguson also suggests ‘obvious’ prohibitions on religion including preaching of ‘hate’. “I won’t try to propose what might be in the new code except for a few obvious things: A key item would have to be a ban on claims of exclusivity. It should be unethical for any RRP to claim that theirs was the one true religion and believers in anything else or nothing were doomed to fire and brimstone. One might also expect prohibition of ritual circumcisions, bans on preaching hate or violence, the regulation of faith healers, protocols for missionary work, etc.,” says Ferguson.

The retired professor concluded his comments aired on CBC yesterday morning saying, “Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions. Yes religion can be a comfort and a guide, but we cannot take rules from our holy books and apply them to the modern world without democratic debate and due regard for the law.”
 
" I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. "

Then he goes on to propose that the State force itself upon all the religions, forcing them to teach only what the state approves of – or rather, only what Ferguson approves of. :rolleyes:
 
Reepicheep said:
" I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. "

Then he goes on to propose that the State force itself upon all the religions, forcing them to teach only what the state approves of – or rather, only what Ferguson approves of. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I know. And actually he was dead wrong on every single point he raised. I consider it a waste of time giving him any more attention than he deserves. I doubt if he is much of an engineer. Engineers don’t usually cross lines like this. And I can’t believe CBC has nothing better to do than waste our time like this.
 
I once thought ssm was a bad joke which wasn’t worth wasting my time with because it would never happen. With hindsight, my perspective has certainly changed and I’m not so willing to dismiss any rabble-rouser the CBC choses to give 3 minutes of valuable airtime too.

CBC shapes a lot of minds. The MSM constantly bombards the public with alarmest threats of religion and unwittingly people absorb these suspicions without critical examination. Yesterday’s Toronto Star devoted pages in their Ideas section to this same tripe with a heavy focus on the American Supreme Court nomination,all of which was extremely prejudicial of Christians. At our own peril, do we ignore these voices and allow these irascible characters unfettered access to reengineering their own codes of “moral practice for religions”.
 
Letter to the CBC.

I have been a long time supporter of CBC radio and I am aghast with the
lack of responsible conduct in its decision to air the commentary of Bob Ferguson which directly targeted the Catholic Church. The state has no business meddling with church doctrines and regulating the practice of religion nor does the CBC have any business lending credence to the fiat of Mr. Ferguson. To state the obvious, no one is forced either to become a Catholic nor to remain one; anyone who can no longer abide by the teaching authority of the church and give the assent of faith is free to leave. The church proposes; she does not impose as Ferguson is so prepared to do.

It is not the role of the CBC to give a free platform to speakers with an anti-Catholic bias from where prejudice and hate are spread. A public attack of this nature does not serve the common good of democracy based on principles of tolerance and respect inclusive of all.

The day that Canadian politicians usurp the role of the Pope and
establish a ‘Canadian Catholic Church’ with female priests is the day I will stop attending church. In order for Ferguson and like-minded humanists to prevail, with their version of state - sponsored secularism, widespread persecution and concentration camps - just like the Communists practiced in the last century and which continue today in China - will be needed as a lot of Christians would rather be dead than listen to the likes of him preaching on Sundays.

Your commentator is worried “that the separation of church and state is under threat”? No, it is faithful Catholic Christians who are threatened by this brazen systematic effort to persuade the public we are a threat. This proposal advancing legislation for the sake of “religious freedom” and unity reaches too far into the sacred realm. The threshold into the sanctuary has already been trespassed with the legalization of ssm by a government which has dared to redefine a sacrament which by definition belongs to the Church. At this point, the state manifested its zeal to dominate the Church; to subjugate its members and to effectively oust God from the Canadian constitution.

To conclude, a healthy democracy needs the Church not only as the guardian of the truth but as the conscience of the nation for without truth democracy cannot survive for long. Organized without God a state will organize itself against man.
 
I think it sounds like satire. In the other thread I brought that up and those from Canada say I just don’t know what it’s like.

If this guy isn’t joking, he needs the demons of stupidity exorcised from him.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
I think it sounds like satire. In the other thread I brought that up and those from Canada say I just don’t know what it’s like.

If this guy isn’t joking, he needs the demons of stupidity exorcised from him.

Alan
Click to expand...
The profundity of stupidity in his interview had me hoping that it was satire. Then I listened to the audio track. Apparently he is serious.

a) It is pure opinion.
b) There is absolutely not a shred of research, not even a whisper in hek.
c) For pete’s sake, the man is an engineering professor. What does he know about the issues? Answer: nothing.

CBC ran it because they are tight little club who have a list of things to hate. Sheesh. Some people need to get lives. Preferably their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top