Judge Cites Charter Preamble - Supremacy of God Recognized- Atheists - 0 - Religion

[Goober]

Judge Cites Charter Preamble - Supremacy of God Recognized- Atheists - 0 - Religion -Won
-Pun intended.

God’s place in Charter challenged | Holy Post | National Post

When a judge last month ruled that a Catholic high school in Montreal could choose its own religious curriculum, in defiance of an order by the Quebec government, he wrote that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically referred to “the supremacy of God” in its preamble. Now, in the ruling’s aftermath, some are wondering whether that language is out of place in a society that has grown increasingly secular.

“From an atheist’s perspective, what happens to those who don’t believe God exists?” asks Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Canada in Toronto.


“If God needs to be defended [by a court], then does God need to be defended by those of us who don’t believe in God?”

The phrase was cited by Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré in June, as he ruled that Loyola High School, a Jesuit private school, did not have to use the provincial religion curriculum and could teach ethics and religion from a Roman Catholic point of view. He called Quebec’s demand on the high school “totalitarian,” using the preamble to the Charter to make his case.

“Canadian democratic society,” the judge wrote, “is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law — both of which benefit from constitutional protection.”

 

[Cliffy]

Then the wording of the Charter needs to be amended. God in its normal use refers to the Christian god and that has no place in a multi-cultural society. This statement "the supremacy of God" has nothing to do with atheism, its about recognizing one religions god as superior to the gods of all other religions. That needs to be addressed from that perspective.

 

[Goober]

Then the wording of the Charter needs to be amended. God in its normal use refers to the Christian god and that has no place in a multi-cultural society. This statement "the supremacy of God" has nothing to do with atheism, its about recognizing one religions god as superior to the gods of all other religions. That needs to be addressed from that perspective.

So you would throw out all laws based upon Judeo Christian origin?

 

[Cliffy]

So you would throw out all laws based upon Judeo Christian origin?

I would throw out all laws except the laws of nature. Man is too much of a screw ball to be trusted to think up anything better. Human laws are made up by lawyers, judges, clerics and politicians, and we all know how useful and intelligent they are. Most laws are there to protect the rich against the poor and to perpetuate the jobs that make and enforce the law. If we are going to give credence to the Judea/Christian laws, then we would have to give credence to the laws of all religions - and that would include... shudder, shake, quiver... sharia law. Do you want that?

 

[Colpy]

Then the wording of the Charter needs to be amended. God in its normal use refers to the Christian god and that has no place in a multi-cultural society. This statement "the supremacy of God" has nothing to do with atheism, its about recognizing one religions god as superior to the gods of all other religions. That needs to be addressed from that perspective.

Then we need to "amend" the multi-cultural society.......

Liberty in an open democratic rich western society is not only the apex of human development.....it is a Judeao-Christian construct.

If people from other cultures and religions wish to come here to live and work, I am pleased to have them.....but I am NOT willing to deconstruct the greatest society that has ever existed simply to please them.

I would throw out all laws except the laws of nature. Man is too much of a screw ball to be trusted to think up anything better. Human laws are made up by lawyers, judges, clerics and politicians, and we all know how useful and intelligent they are. Most laws are there to protect the rich against the poor and to perpetuate the jobs that make and enforce the law. If we are going to give credence to the Judea/Christian laws, then we would have to give credence to the laws of all religions - and that would include... shudder, shake, quiver... sharia law. Do you want that?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is clear.....Christianity values the individual and offers him choice..........Islam means "submission" and offers no freedom of thought, conscience, or action.

 

[YukonJack]

"Then the wording of the Charter needs to be amended."

Better still, the kind of people who are admitted here, needs to be controlled.

You know, the old adage: Quality matters more than quantity.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Liberty in an open democratic rich western society is not only the apex of human development.....it is a Judeao-Christian construct.

I don't think that's true at all. Liberty as we understand the term is a product of the Enlightenment, which was at least partly a reaction against the oppressive secular power of the church at the time. Hume, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau had a lot to say about it. The nature of organized monotheism is to be reactionary and repressive, it has resisted the advance of science and knowledge and liberty at every step, and continues to do so. That's why there's a statement in the U.S. constitution that denies secular power to any religion, the founders were products of the Enlightenment and they well understood the oppressive nature of religion given secular power. Look around: the poorest, most corrupt, tyrannical, oppressive nations are by and large theocracies.

 

[Machjo]

Judge Cites Charter Preamble - Supremacy of God Recognized- Atheists - 0 - Religion -Won
-Pun intended.

God’s place in Charter challenged | Holy Post | National Post

When a judge last month ruled that a Catholic high school in Montreal could choose its own religious curriculum, in defiance of an order by the Quebec government, he wrote that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically referred to “the supremacy of God” in its preamble. Now, in the ruling’s aftermath, some are wondering whether that language is out of place in a society that has grown increasingly secular.

“From an atheist’s perspective, what happens to those who don’t believe God exists?” asks Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Canada in Toronto.


“If God needs to be defended [by a court], then does God need to be defended by those of us who don’t believe in God?”

The phrase was cited by Superior Court Judge Gérard Dugré in June, as he ruled that Loyola High School, a Jesuit private school, did not have to use the provincial religion curriculum and could teach ethics and religion from a Roman Catholic point of view. He called Quebec’s demand on the high school “totalitarian,” using the preamble to the Charter to make his case.

“Canadian democratic society,” the judge wrote, “is based on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the primacy of the law — both of which benefit from constitutional protection.”

Am I to assume this also applies to all monotheistic religions, including the Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Baha'i, and other monotheistic religions?:smile:

Then the wording of the Charter needs to be amended. God in its normal use refers to the Christian god and that has no place in a multi-cultural society. This statement "the supremacy of God" has nothing to do with atheism, its about recognizing one religions god as superior to the gods of all other religions. That needs to be addressed from that perspective.

Not exactly. The preamble states:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."

Where in this quote or any other quote does it limit itself to a Christian understanding of God?

Then we need to "amend" the multi-cultural society.......

Liberty in an open democratic rich western society is not only the apex of human development.....it is a Judeao-Christian construct.

Subjective.

If people from other cultures and religions wish to come here to live and work, I am pleased to have them.....but I am NOT willing to deconstruct the greatest society that has ever existed simply to please them.

'The greatest society that has ever existed'? Wow, that's slapping on quite a bit of icing on that cake.

That said, for the sake of maintaining the peace with Christians, I could agree to a British-type relationship between church and state whereby the government adopt an official religion or 'established Church' while still granting individual freedom of religion and religious association.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is clear.....Christianity values the individual and offers him choice..........Islam means "submission" and offers no freedom of thought, conscience, or action.

More superficial generalizations.

I don't think that's true at all. Liberty as we understand the term is a product of the Enlightenment, which was at least partly a reaction against the oppressive secular power of the church at the time. Hume, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau had a lot to say about it. The nature of organized monotheism is to be reactionary and repressive, it has resisted the advance of science and knowledge and liberty at every step, and continues to do so. That's why there's a statement in the U.S. constitution that denies secular power to any religion, the founders were products of the Enlightenment and they well understood the oppressive nature of religion given secular power. Look around: the poorest, most corrupt, tyrannical, oppressive nations are by and large theocracies.

Religion denies science?


"That which is in
conformity with science is also in conformity with religion."

-'Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad

Just consider how many words in the English language describing chemistry, astronomy and mathematics are found in the English language today which are of Arabic or Persian origin.

Islam is not the only religion in support of science either. If we read the Bible with a ore open mind rather than strictly literally, and understand that it is not intended as a science textbook but as a spiritual text, then we must accept that it is not discussing scientific concepts to begin with, and so we can't really say the Bible contradicts science either since it does not even discuss science.

Newer religions too are quite open to science:


"Whatever the intelligence of man cannot understand, religion
ought not to accept. Religion and science walk hand in hand,
and any religion contrary to science is not the truth." -- ABDU'L-BAHÁ,
Wisdom of 'Abdu'l-Bahá

More stereotyping and generalizing.

 

[Cliffy]

Not exactly. The preamble states:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."

Where in this quote or any other quote does it limit itself to a Christian understanding of God?

The word God with a capital G is used by Christianity. Many religions are polytheistic and refer to gods, lower case g. Jewish, Muslim Baha'i use different words for a supreme being, Native Americans use the Creator and Mother Earth (although She is secondary to the Creator, She plays a more direct role in daily lives). Other polytheistic religions refer to their gods by name. Although the wording in the Charter does not state that it means the Christian god, it is implied by the use of the capital G. A more inclusive expression would be "in a Supreme Being".

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Religion denies science?

Fairly often, yes, it does. Surely you're familiar with the story of Galileo, and Copernicus? How about creationism and its bastard child, intelligent design? Or a recent Pope's weaselly and conditional acceptance of evolution? Have you read MHz's attempts here to argue that Genesis gets everything right while simply denying that it gets things in entirely the wrong order? Or eanassir's fumbling attempts to use the Quran as a science book? I think Richard Dawkins is right, that religious belief is a delusion, and Christopher Hitchens is right, that religion poisons everything. The only reason Christianity isn't burning people at the stake for disagreeing with it these days is because, at least in the modern West, it no longer has the power of the state behind it. And you can thank the Enlightenment thinkers for that.

 

[Machjo]

The word God with a capital G is used by Christianity.

Yes, and the letter a is used by Canadians, but that does not stop Americans from using the same letter, does it?

Many religions are polytheistic and refer to gods, lower case g.

True.

Jewish, Muslim Baha'i use different words for a supreme being,

Are you sure about that?

Here are a few quotes:

Psalm 3,8:

Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God; for Thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek, {N}
Thou hast broken the teeth of the wicked.

(Kesuvim (Writings), Tehillim (Psalms))

This is a Jewish translation of the Hebrew Bible (aka the Old Testament), and you'll notice the word 'God' appears there.

Surah 1 of the Qur'an: The Opening

"In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds!

King on the day of reckoning!

Thee only do we worship, and to Thee do we cry for help.

Guide Thou us on the straight path,

The path of those to whom Thou hast been gracious; - with whom thou art
not angry, and who go not astray."

Notice the word 'God' appears here too, twice within the first complete sentence of the Qur'an!


And from the Arabic Hidden Words, among the first paragraphs of the Baha'i sacred texts:

"This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of Divine virtue."

Again, you notice the appearance of the word 'God'.

In the English language, 'God' is not a uniquely Christian word. If it were intended as such, then the Preamble should have specified it.

Native Americans use the Creator and Mother Earth (although she is secondary to the Creator, She plays a more direct role in daily lives).

Although the wording does not state that it means the Christian god, it is implied by the use of the capital G.

Not at all, as proven above. If the Christian God were intended, then the writers of the Preamble, educated as they supposedly were, should have realized the wider use of the word and thus worded it accordingly if they meant to limit it to the Christian God. Did they not know English?

Fairly often, yes, it does. Surely you're familiar with the story of Galileo, and Copernicus? How about creationism and its bastard child, intelligent design? Or a recent Pope's weaselly and conditional acceptance of evolution? Have you read MHz's attempts here to argue that Genesis gets everything right while simply denying that it gets things in entirely the wrong order? Or eanassir's fumbling attempts to use the Quran as a science book? I think Richard Dawkins is right, that religious belief is a delusion, and Christopher Hitchens is right, that religion poisons everything. The only reason Christianity isn't burning people at the stake for disagreeing with it these days is because, at least in the modern West, it no longer has the power of the state behind it. And you can thank the Enlightenment thinkers for that.

So then how do you explain such words as algebra, astronomy, alcohol (in reference to the chemical element and not the drink), etc.? They just appeared into thin air?

 

[TenPenny]

If you want to be technical about it, the fact that Canada was 'founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...' does not state that we still do, or should recognize the supremacy of God.

It only states that's what we were founded upon.

If you want to get technical.

 

[Goober]

If you want to be technical about it, the fact that Canada was 'founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...' does not state that we still do, or should recognize the supremacy of God.

It only states that's what we were founded upon.

If you want to get technical.

That and the basis upon which our laws and culture was founded. An interesting article in today's NP.
Editorial: God and the charter | Holy Post | National Post

 

[Cliffy]

If you want to be technical about it, the fact that Canada was 'founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...' does not state that we still do, or should recognize the supremacy of God.

It only states that's what we were founded upon.

If you want to get technical.

That is a big technicality. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[TenPenny]

Exactly; just because we were founded upon those prinicples, doesn't mean we still follow them.

We had slavery at one time, we don't any more. One could say that much of Canada was founded upon slavery and the spoils of war, but I don't think we'd consider that to be operating principles today.

I'm just sayin'.

 

[Goober]

Exactly; just because we were founded upon those prinicples, doesn't mean we still follow them.

We had slavery at one time, we don't any more. One could say that much of Canada was founded upon slavery and the spoils of war, but I don't think we'd consider that to be operating principles today.

I'm just sayin'.

Then they are part of our tradition of justice and equality are they not? And still resonate today and just as pertinent today as they were 100 years ago - While many will not agree with the Catholic rules on abortion none would argue against caring for the infirm, the helpless, the needy and to be treated equally under the law.

And a large number of people do have religious beliefs -

 

[Cliffy]

That and the basis upon which our laws and culture was founded. An interesting article in today's NP.
Editorial: God and the charter | Holy Post | National Post

"The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only foundation for tolerance between different peoples, or for harmony in a pluralistic society, but surveying the global scene today it is the most secure foundation currently on offer."

That is a blatantly biased statement with no basis in fact. There is no proof that a religious foundation of any kind is any more stable than one without. Almost all wars have been fought for religious reasons. Today, Iraq and Afghanistan are fought between Christians and Muslims and Christians are chomping at the bit to invade Iran. All the rhetoric to the contrary, all the propaganda is aimed at demonizing the Muslim faith and painting countries that have Islam as thjeir foundation as being archaic and barbaric. I have never been there, so I don't know what life is like over there, but I have a healthy suspicion of such a vicious and prolonged campaign against any group of people who we are at war with. In this I see an intentional attempt at justifying aggression and that has been the earmark of Christian backed wars since the inception of this religion. Thus to say that religion is a stabilizing influence in the world is a patent lie and just more propaganda to justify atrocities.
​

 

[Dexter Sinister]

So then how do you explain such words as algebra, astronomy, alcohol (in reference to the chemical element and not the drink), etc.? They just appeared into thin air?

Algebra and alcohol derive from Arabic words, astronomy is from Greek roots, alcohol is not a chemical element, and none of that has anything to do with whatever the case you're trying to make is.

 

[Goober]

"The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only foundation for tolerance between different peoples, or for harmony in a pluralistic society, but surveying the global scene today it is the most secure foundation currently on offer."

That is a blatantly biased statement with no basis in fact. There is no proof that a religious foundation of any kind is any more stable than one without. Almost all wars have been fought for religious reasons. Today, Iraq and Afghanistan are fought between Christians and Muslims and Christians are chomping at the bit to invade Iran. All the rhetoric to the contrary, all the propaganda is aimed at demonizing the Muslim faith and painting countries that have Islam as thjeir foundation as being archaic and barbaric. I have never been there, so I don't know what life is like over there, but I have a healthy suspicion of such a vicious and prolonged campaign against any group of people who we are at war with. In this I see an intentional attempt at justifying aggression and that has been the earmark of Christian backed wars since the inception of this religion. Thus to say that religion is a stabilizing influence in the world is a patent lie and just more propaganda to justify atrocities. ​

Blaming religion for all wars is biased - Wars were not only fought over religion witness WW1 - WW2 - Korea - Chinese Civil Wars - Russsia and the Tsars -

 

[Cliffy]

Blaming religion for all wars is biased - Wars were not only fought over religion witness WW1 - WW2 - Korea - Chinese Civil Wars - Russsia and the Tsars -

Show me where i said all wars were fought over religion. Religion is a destabilizing factor in the world, especially the fundamental, evangelical types. The crusades are still being fought and given half a chance we would be in the Inquisition in a heart beat if these clowns were given Cart Blanch. And if you want a few examples, just look at Ireland, Croatia and the Indian wars in America.