Peterborough [Ontario] Bishop Faces Human Rights Complaint

[averheyen]

Isn’t this one of the very greatest dangers of socialism? Doesn’t it ideologically believe that man should be the arbiter of morals - and further that God’s will and law is determined by a consensus of society’s citizens.

To Quote G.K. Chesterton:

“The position we have now reached is this: starting from the State, we try to remedy the failures of all the families, all the nurseries, all the schools, all the workshops, all the secondary institutions that once had some authority of their own. Everything is ultimately brought into the Law Courts. We are trying to stop the leak at the other end.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I disagree. What if a Satanist church decided to hold a service of human sacrifice? The Government would be correct to intervene to prevent that happening.

Your analogy of Satanists performing human sacrifices isn’t valid. The issue at hand is about a voluntary religious organization choosing who can and can not perform certain functions within the organization’s religious rituals.

Your example is about a group forcing someone who isn’t a member to ‘participate’ as a human sacrifice. It has nothing to do with freedom of association.

 

[rossum]

Your analogy of Satanists performing human sacrifices isn’t valid. The issue at hand is about a voluntary religious organization choosing who can and can not perform certain functions within the organization’s religious rituals.

Your example is about a group forcing someone who isn’t a member to ‘participate’ as a human sacrifice. It has nothing to do with freedom of association.

I use the extreme example of a Satanist volunteering to be a sacrifice in order to carry a message to Satan to show that the Government does have a right to intervene in religious affairs in some cases. The issue is over what latitude religious bodies are allowed in not following anti-discrimination legislation. Catholics and Orthodox Jews do not ordain women. Mormons used not to ordain blacks.

Should the Catholic Church discriminate against all homosexuals or just sinning homosexuals? I do not think that there is justification in Catholic doctrine to discriminate against homosexuals per se since homosexuality is not in itself a sin. Certain behaviours are sins, but sinful behaviours are not confined to homosexuals.

In this particular case, if the parish can show that it does not accept any sinful altar servers then it has a good case. If it is shown that sinful heterosexuals are accepted but sinful homosexuals are not then the case does not look so good for the parish.

All religious organisations are under some degree of restraint by the law; each country has to come to a consensus on what is correct for that country. In the case of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation the laws are mostly pretty new and have not bedded in yet. There are a lot of new cases still establishing boundaries.

rossum

 

[fix]

Wrong.

The Church is not free to blatantly and flagrantly breach the charter of rights and freedoms.

Admitidly, there is a more delicate balance between religion and the charter, than there is when dealing with the secular world.

The state recognizes that the Church and all religions are free to openly discriminate, yet remain within the confines of the law and the charter.

The religious propensity to practice discrimination, does however, only go so far. In that there are reasonable limits as to how far a faith group may practice discrimination.

If faith groups are not at all pleased with having to operate within the confines of a charter, then they are free to leave.

So, an illegitimate civil law must be obeyed? Sounds like the usual moral relativism.

 

[fix]

I use the extreme example of a Satanist volunteering to be a sacrifice in order to carry a message to Satan to show that the Government does have a right to intervene in religious affairs in some cases. The issue is over what latitude religious bodies are allowed in not following anti-discrimination legislation. Catholics and Orthodox Jews do not ordain women. Mormons used not to ordain blacks.

That is an absurd comment because the issue is not murder but the administration of Church functions.

Should the Catholic Church discriminate against all homosexuals or just sinning homosexuals? I do not think that there is justification in Catholic doctrine to discriminate against homosexuals per se since homosexuality is not in itself a sin. Certain behaviours are sins, but sinful behaviours are not confined to homosexuals.

That is not for the government to decide. They have no authority in such matters.

In this particular case, if the parish can show that it does not accept any sinful altar servers then it has a good case. If it is shown that sinful heterosexuals are accepted but sinful homosexuals are not then the case does not look so good for the parish.

They do not have to show anything. The Bishop is the authority whether you agree with his decision or not.

All religious organisations are under some degree of restraint by the law; each country has to come to a consensus on what is correct for that country. In the case of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation the laws are mostly pretty new and have not bedded in yet. There are a lot of new cases still establishing boundaries

Each country must act in conformity with justice, not moral relativism or political correctness.

 

[estesbob]

Wrong.

The Church is not free to blatantly and flagrantly breach the charter of rights and freedoms.

Admitidly, there is a more delicate balance between religion and the charter, than there is when dealing with the secular world.

The state recognizes that the Church and all religions are free to openly discriminate, yet remain within the confines of the law and the charter.

The religious propensity to practice discrimination, does however, only go so far. In that there are reasonable limits as to how far a faith group may practice discrimination.

If faith groups are not at all pleased with having to operate within the confines of a charter, then they are free to leave.

A perfect example of liberalism combined with moral relativism run amok.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

All religious organisations are under some degree of restraint by the law; each country has to come to a consensus on what is correct for that country. In the case of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation the laws are mostly pretty new and have not bedded in yet. There are a lot of new cases still establishing boundaries.

Religious organizations have freedom of association, which means that they can pick and choose who can join and who can perform religious duties. The law does not restrain religions in that area. This falls under freedom of assocation and is a right.

 

[fix]

I disagree. Satanists holding human sacrifices is very much the Government’s business. It should not be possible to escape any law merely by setting up a religion. The anti-discrimination laws already have religious exceptions written into them - Catholics may legally discriminate against women when selecting priests. The debate is about where the boundary between religious exceptions and obeying the law should lie.

rossum

No, that is not the debate. The debate is why should the state have any say in who the Bishop wants on the altar during a mass?

 

[fix]

A perfect example of liberalism combined with moral relativism run amok.

The worst kind of oppression and tyranny masked under “discrimination”.

 

[arcio]

In this particular case, if the parish can show that it does not accept any sinful altar servers then it has a good case. If it is shown that sinful heterosexuals are accepted but sinful homosexuals are not then the case does not look so good for the parish.

You are quite correct. Does this particular Church make it clear that those who engage in masturbation, practice artificial birth control or indulge in sexual thoughts, do not qualify as alter servers?

or

Is it only a minority homosexual that they’ve set their sights on?

If the Church was just as strict towards their concern of other sins, as they are in relation to homosexual acts, then I would suggest that the Church has a very strong case.

I have an inkling, that this Church, has likely singled out this sinner and this particular sin.

 

[arcio]

No, I’m right. And the Bishop had every right to do so if that’s what he felt he should do.

Your position is that the State does not have a role in regulating the practices of a Church.

You are mistaken.

How do you explain the fact, that although Canada grants her citizens the freedom of religion, that does not include the freedom to promote hatred from the pulpit? The state will intervene and stop that promotion of hatred.

If your right, then how do you explain that? You don’t have to agree with the states power in that regard, but at the very least, you must acknowledge the reality. No?

Are you interested in the facts, or would you rather be right?

 

[arcio]

No, that is not the debate. The debate is why should the state have any say in who the Bishop wants on the altar during a mass?

It is because the State represents the people and the people do not want to live in a society where people are discriminated against, based upon their sexual orientation.

If this Church treats all sinners and sins the same, then they’ve got a heck of a strong case. If they single out individuals based upon sexual orientation, they’ve got a legal problem.

 

[averheyen]

Your position is that the State does not have a role in regulating the practices of a Church.

You are mistaken.

How do you explain the fact, that although Canada grants her citizens the freedom of religion, that does not include the freedom to promote hatred from the pulpit? The state will intervene and stop that promotion of hatred.

If your right, then how do you explain that? You don’t have to agree with the states power in that regard, but at the very least, you must acknowledge the reality. No?

Are you interested in the facts, or would you rather be right?

Actually, your wrong. Directly wrong. The state has no right whatsoever, period, as to what is or is not preached at the pulpit. That is the purpose of seperation of church and state. The is the exact NEED for the seperation of church and state. And that’s a FACT. And it just so happens that it is a fact, that I AM right.

Having said that, this is less a discussion about that, and more a discussion about the validity of human rights tribunals. Even assuming you are right, then the bishop would be entitled to due process, habius corpus, etc. But he’s not. This is a kangeroo court, plain and simple, and it’s intrusion is extremely, not to mention constitutionally unjust.

 

[estesbob]

It is because the State represents the people and the people do not want to live in a society where people are discriminated against, based upon their sexual orientation.

If this Church treats all sinners and sins the same, then they’ve got a heck of a strong case. If they single out individuals based upon sexual orientation, they’ve got a legal problem.

The Church does treat all sinners the same. And the Chuch does nor consider SSA a sin-sexual behavior is the problem.

 

[arcio]

Actually, your wrong. Directly wrong. The state has no right whatsoever, period, as to what is or is not preached at the pulpit. That is the purpose of seperation of church and state. The is the exact NEED for the seperation of church and state. And that’s a FACT. And it just so happens that it is a fact, that I AM right.

Having said that, this is less a discussion about that, and more a discussion about the validity of human rights tribunals. Even assuming you are right, then the bishop would be entitled to due process, habius corpus, etc. But he’s not. This is a kangeroo court, plain and simple, and it’s intrusion is extremely, not to mention constitutionally unjust.

There is no arguement. In Canada, the state will intervene and will stop a Church from promoting hatred. There is nothing to debate, this is the law.

Do you deny the existence of the criminal code of Canada, section 318 and section 319?

Criminal Code of Canada, Section 319(1)

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of “publicly inciting hatred” has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

-communicate statements,
-in a public place,
-incite hatred against an identifiable group,
-in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a “public place” is one to which the public has access by right or invitation,

I’m not sure how you can be certain that the state cannot legislate what can be spoken at the pulpit, when in fact, the law limiting that hate cannot be spread already exists and has been on the books for years.

 

[averheyen]

There is no arguement. In Canada, the state will intervene and will stop a Church from promoting hatred. There is nothing to debate, this is the law.

Do you deny the existence of the criminal code of Canada, section 318 and section 319?

Criminal Code of Canada, Section 319(1)

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of “publicly inciting hatred” has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

-communicate statements,
-in a public place,
-incite hatred against an identifiable group,
-in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a “public place” is one to which the public has access by right or invitation,

I’m not sure how you can be certain that the state cannot legislate what can be spoken at the pulpit, when in fact, the law limiting that hate cannot be spread already exists and has been on the books for years.

Have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

 

[averheyen]

And considering you’ve stated Law, show me a few things here. Clearly demonstrate the Bishop’s right to due process, to a fair and speedy trial, show me his right to a lawyer, show me his right to be judged by a jury of his peers. It’s not there. This isn’t a real court.

 

[estesbob]

There is no arguement. In Canada, the state will intervene and will stop a Church from promoting hatred. There is nothing to debate, this is the law.

Do you deny the existence of the criminal code of Canada, section 318 and section 319?

Criminal Code of Canada, Section 319(1)

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

The crime of “publicly inciting hatred” has four main elements. To contravene the Code, a person must:

-communicate statements,
-in a public place,
-incite hatred against an identifiable group,
-in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace.

Under section 319, “communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means; a “public place” is one to which the public has access by right or invitation,

I’m not sure how you can be certain that the state cannot legislate what can be spoken at the pulpit, when in fact, the law limiting that hate cannot be spread already exists and has been on the books for years.

In this case the Church was not promoting hatred,

 

[arcio]

And considering you’ve stated Law, show me a few things here. Clearly demonstrate the Bishop’s right to due process, to a fair and speedy trial, show me his right to a lawyer, show me his right to be judged by a jury of his peers. It’s not there. This isn’t a real court.

Agreed. The Human Rights Tribunals are a farce, no question.

( The point remains, in Canada, the state can and does regulate what can be spoken from the pulpit)

 

[arcio]

In this case the Church was not promoting hatred,

Agreed.