Peterborough [Ontario] Bishop Faces Human Rights Complaint

[LRThunder]

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.

Are you equating being an altar server with a job or something that people could have rights to under secular law? That’s an apples and oranges comparison, since the altar server is not an employed position. There is no right for anyone to automatically be allowed to be an altar server.

 

[selylidne]

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

You are mistaken.

I think you’re confusing power with justice. The State arrogates to itself a role in regulating the practices of the Church. It has no such role by right.

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?

Canada does not grant “her” citizens any freedoms. Those are granted by God. The men and women composing the government of Canada protect some of them, are neutral about a few, and punish the exercise of still others. The fact that, if it comes to it, a police force will commit violence with a pretext to “stop that promotion of hatred” is easily explained by the desire of political elites to receive docile obedience from all they rule.

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

Hm, maybe you are a subjective relativist. In reality, the only way to be right is to adhere to the facts.

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.

There is an argument, and there is much to debate. Laws may be good or bad, and since the advent of the modern nation state, the vast majority of laws have been profoundly bad. The law is due deep and holy respect when it is a reflection of God’s law, albeit an imperfect reflection. Laws nowadays are only arbitrary rules of corrupt men, and are due only the prudent respect you’d give to a mob, gang, or wild animal. If they go so far as to compel you to commit injustice, then your moral duty would be to disobey.

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

I do not deny its existence, just as I do not deny that church authorities sometimes unjustly discriminate. I deny that either that law or unjust discrimination has any right. In this specific case, however, there is no right to be an altar server, so there was no unjust discrimination.

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.

Sometimes talk of ability refers not just to amoral, naked power, but to liceity. (See definitions 4 and 5 if you like.) It’s an important distinction to keep in mind.

 

[Holly3278]

Anti-Catholic bigotry is enshrined in Canadian law.

Yup, and that is just absolutely disgusting. It seems like anti-Catholic bigotry truly is the last acceptable form of bigotry or discrimination.

 

[fix]

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.

Nonsense. The Church is the authority here. She decides what will be taught and what will be accented, not “the people”. The Church is not a democracy and faux rights have no place.

 

[arcio]

Nonsense. The Church is the authority here. She decides what will be taught and what will be accented, not “the people”. The Church is not a democracy and faux rights have no place.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the ultimate authority in Canada.

The Catholic Church in Canada, is no more an authority, than a Jewish Synogogue, Hindu Temple or Islamic mosque.

The Charter protects these religious institutions and assures that they themselves, do not run afoul of the charter.

So yes, the State is the ultimate authority. The state has authority over me, the Catholic Church has no authority over me.

You choose to allow the Church to have authority over you. People who choose to abstain from the authority of the State, usually end up in jail.

Those who refuse to fall under the authority of the Church, well, let’s be honest, there aren’t any consequences.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the ultimate authority in Canada.

The Catholic Church in Canada, is no more an authority, than a Jewish Synogogue, Hindu Temple or Islamic mosque.

The Charter protects these religious institutions and assures that they themselves, do not run afoul of the charter.

So yes, the State is the ultimate authority. The state has authority over me, the Catholic Church has no authority over me.

You choose to allow the Church to have authority over you. People who choose to abstain from the authority of the State, usually end up in jail.

Those who refuse to fall under the authority of the Church, well, let’s be honest, there aren’t any consequences.

So are you just telling us how you understand the law to work in Canada, or are you agreeing with it? Or both?

Most of us on this thread are talking about how things should be. We think that freedom of religion is supposed to protect the Church from intrusion by the state.

You come across as if you’re happy that the state is going to start using force to control the Catholic liturgy.

 

[fix]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the ultimate authority in Canada.

As another poster has said we oght not confuse power with justice. That the state has the power to abuse its authority does not make such abuse good.

The Catholic Church in Canada, is no more an authority, than a Jewish Synogogue, Hindu Temple or Islamic mosque.

She has no authority to celebrate mass as She desires? So, the state gets to tell the Church what prayers may be used or what persons may be involved in saying them? Sounds like liberal tyranny.

The Charter protects these religious institutions and assures that they themselves, do not run afoul of the charter.

So yes, the State is the ultimate authority. The state has authority over me, the Catholic Church has no authority over me.

You choose to allow the Church to have authority over you. People who choose to abstain from the authority of the State, usually end up in jail.

Those who refuse to fall under the authority of the Church, well, let’s be honest, there aren’t any consequences.

Might makes right?

 

[averheyen]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the ultimate authority in Canada.

The Catholic Church in Canada, is no more an authority, than a Jewish Synogogue, Hindu Temple or Islamic mosque.

The Charter protects these religious institutions and assures that they themselves, do not run afoul of the charter.

So yes, the State is the ultimate authority. The state has authority over me, the Catholic Church has no authority over me.

You choose to allow the Church to have authority over you. People who choose to abstain from the authority of the State, usually end up in jail.

Those who refuse to fall under the authority of the Church, well, let’s be honest, there aren’t any consequences.

I think you clearly misunderstand the difference between a country and a religion. What you are describing, and have been describing is, and i repeat for the third or fourth time on this thread the exact reason, purpose, and necessity for seperation of church and state.

 

[averheyen]

Additionally, allow me to directly quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

In the preamble:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”

Which recognizes, not the country as the supreme authority, but God, and

Section 2:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association. "

PWND.

 

[rossum]

Additionally, allow me to directly quote the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

In the preamble:

“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”

Which recognizes, not the country as the supreme authority, but God, and

Section 2:

"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association. "

PWND.

So, I decide to found a new religion - the Incendiary Anti-Papal Church of Rossum. The religious services of the IAPCoR consist of the burning down of Catholic Churches (that is the incendiary and anti-Papal bit).

Does my right to the freedom of religion override the laws against arson, damage to property etc? Certainly not, the state has a right to intervene directly in the services of the IAPCoR to prevent them.

You cannot claim complete immunity from all laws on religious grounds, any more than the IAPCoR can. There is a boundary between religious freedom within the law and religious freedom outside the law. Different people have different views on where that boundary should lie.

The law cannot be excluded entirely from religion; it is a matter of deciding where the boundary should lie. In the UK the Catholic Church is allowed to discriminate against women when choosing whom to ordain as a priest. It is not allowed to discriminate against women when choosing a new Treasurer for a Catholic charity.

rossum

 

[fix]

So, I decide to found a new religion - the Incendiary Anti-Papal Church of Rossum. The religious services of the IAPCoR consist of the burning down of Catholic Churches (that is the incendiary and anti-Papal bit).

Does my right to the freedom of religion override the laws against arson, damage to property etc? Certainly not, the state has a right to intervene directly in the services of the IAPCoR to prevent them.

You cannot claim complete immunity from all laws on religious grounds, any more than the IAPCoR can. There is a boundary between religious freedom within the law and religious freedom outside the law. Different people have different views on where that boundary should lie.

The law cannot be excluded entirely from religion; it is a matter of deciding where the boundary should lie. In the UK the Catholic Church is allowed to discriminate against women when choosing whom to ordain as a priest. It is not allowed to discriminate against women when choosing a new Treasurer for a Catholic charity.

rossum

It is not hard to draw the boundary in the situations you cite. We are talking about religious services and how the Church is governed. Does the state get to say who may receive absolution in confession? Does the state get to say which prayers may be used? Does the state get to say who the bishop may choose to allow to have a part during some particular service?

The boundary is quite clear. The problem is some want to use the power of the state as a cudgel to try and change the Church as they wish.

 

[traillius]

Altar servers are unpaid volunteer religious positions. This is not employment. Anti-discrimination laws only apply in employment and public accomodation. Religious duties are bound only by canon law, as long as one’s life is not threatened.

 

[averheyen]

So, I decide to found a new religion - the Incendiary Anti-Papal Church of Rossum. The religious services of the IAPCoR consist of the burning down of Catholic Churches (that is the incendiary and anti-Papal bit).

Does my right to the freedom of religion override the laws against arson, damage to property etc? Certainly not, the state has a right to intervene directly in the services of the IAPCoR to prevent them.

You cannot claim complete immunity from all laws on religious grounds, any more than the IAPCoR can. There is a boundary between religious freedom within the law and religious freedom outside the law. Different people have different views on where that boundary should lie.

The law cannot be excluded entirely from religion; it is a matter of deciding where the boundary should lie. In the UK the Catholic Church is allowed to discriminate against women when choosing whom to ordain as a priest. It is not allowed to discriminate against women when choosing a new Treasurer for a Catholic charity.

rossum

You’re comparing apples to oranges.

 

[arcio]

You’re comparing apples to oranges.

He’s making a great point. Many on this board insist that under no circumstance, can the state interfere with God worship.

He very succinctly presented a scenario, where the state would intervene.

Apples to apples.

 

[averheyen]

He’s making a great point. Many on this board insist that under no circumstance, can the state interfere with God worship.

He very succinctly presented a scenario, where the state would intervene.

Apples to apples.

No, he made a lousy point. Especially considering what we are refering to. Comparing satanic rituals and arson to the catholic churchs governance on matters of personal morality is comparing apples to oranges.

 

[arcio]

No, he made a lousy point. Especially considering what we are refering to. Comparing satanic rituals and arson to the catholic churchs governance on matters of personal morality is comparing apples to oranges.

Many on this board insist that under no circumstance can the state intervene in the affairs of religion.

In Canada, if a religious leader preached hate from his pulpit, he could very well face charges under the criminal code of Canada for having spread hate.

Like it or not, that is the law of the land if you are a Canadian.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Altar servers are unpaid volunteer religious positions. This is not employment. Anti-discrimination laws only apply in employment and public accomodation. Religious duties are bound only by canon law, as long as one’s life is not threatened.

Excellent point!!

 

[fix]

Many on this board insist that under no circumstance can the state intervene in the affairs of religion.

In Canada, if a religious leader preached hate from his pulpit, he could very well face charges under the criminal code of Canada for having spread hate.

Like it or not, that is the law of the land if you are a Canadian.

Misdirection. The OP is about a Catholic going to the state and asking for unjust interference into a religious ceremony.

 

[arcio]

Misdirection. The OP is about a Catholic going to the state and asking for unjust interference into a religious ceremony.

Correct, as the complainant believes that he is unjustly being discriminated against.

He believes that he’s a good Catholic, yet believes he is being singled out because he is a chaste homosexual.

Now, the tribunal will hear the evidence and make a ruling.

 

[averheyen]

Correct, as the complainant believes that he is unjustly being discriminated against.

He believes that he’s a good Catholic, yet believes he is being singled out because he is a chaste homosexual.

Now, the tribunal will hear the evidence and make a ruling.

And what I am saying, and stating quite correctly at that, is the ther government of Canada, or any government for that matter, has NO business what so ever sticking its nose in there. That is what is called seperation of church and state.

But that’s not the problem here, because in Canada we do have that freedom no matter what you say or how you try to justify against. It’s very well enshrined in Constitutional law.

The problem here is the Human Rights Comissions. That’s the entire issue. Mr Cocoran is entitled to his greviences, and he could have hired a cannon lawyer if he felt he was so unjustly dismissed. Although, I’m almost one hundred percent positive that if he brought a case in cannon law against the bishop, the bishop would be seen as in the right.

The human rights comissions have overstepped their boundry. A Kangeroo court has no right to be investigating this and telling the Catholic Church what it should and should not be doing and what it should and should not be teaching. In a REAL court, not a kangeroo court like the human rights comission, that stands up.