Conservatives support Satanism!!!

[Unforgiven]

lol

Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa bureau chief
Stephen Harper used an Easter weekend visit to a Mississauga religious centre to promote his party’s pledge to create an Office of Religious Freedom to promote religious freedoms around the world.

“It will call attention to the religiously persecuted and condemn their persecutors. It will signal to religious minorities everywhere that they have a friend in Canada,” Harper said during a Saturday morning stop at the Canadian Coptic Centre.

And he paid tribute to new Canadians who have suffered for their religious beliefs abroad and sought refuge here.

“The spirit that you have shown in standing up for freedom in your own lives should inspire all Canadians,” Harper said, according to a statement released ahead of the event.

It’s Harper’s second visit this year to the Coptic centre in Mississauga, which features a church and large community centre. Harper came here in January to meet with community leaders and members of the clergy to show support after attacks on Coptic Christians and their religious institutions in Egypt.

The office will work out of the department of foreign affairs to monitor and promote religious freedom around the world.

In a statement, Harper also pledged that a re-elected Conservative government would continue to ensure that the government would offer protection to vulnerable religious minorities through “our generous refugee settlement programs.”

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has signaled his support to the Conservative initiative though he said it would be important that the office offer support to all religions.

Isn't this the role of the Church?

 

[TenPenny]

Isn't this the role of the Church?

Apparently, the churches aren't doing enough for themselves, so the taxpayers have to come to the rescue.

 

[petros]

Religious Socialism

 

[CDNBear]

"The Conservatives Support Satanism"

They don't just support it.

 

[taxslave]

Through out the ages it has been the non religious that have been persecuted by the various cults. It is far more important to be protected from religion than to protect all the various religions from each other.

 

[Mowich]

lol

Bruce Campion-Smith
Ottawa bureau chief
Stephen Harper used an Easter weekend visit to a Mississauga religious centre to promote his party’s pledge to create an Office of Religious Freedom to promote religious freedoms around the world.

“It will call attention to the religiously persecuted and condemn their persecutors. It will signal to religious minorities everywhere that they have a friend in Canada,” Harper said during a Saturday morning stop at the Canadian Coptic Centre.

And he paid tribute to new Canadians who have suffered for their religious beliefs abroad and sought refuge here.

“The spirit that you have shown in standing up for freedom in your own lives should inspire all Canadians,” Harper said, according to a statement released ahead of the event.

It’s Harper’s second visit this year to the Coptic centre in Mississauga, which features a church and large community centre. Harper came here in January to meet with community leaders and members of the clergy to show support after attacks on Coptic Christians and their religious institutions in Egypt.

The office will work out of the department of foreign affairs to monitor and promote religious freedom around the world.

In a statement, Harper also pledged that a re-elected Conservative government would continue to ensure that the government would offer protection to vulnerable religious minorities through “our generous refugee settlement programs.”

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has signaled his support to the Conservative initiative though he said it would be important that the office offer support to all religions.

Isn't this the role of the Church?

I must be really slow this morning as I fail to see anything in this post that verifies the title of your thread. Or is this just another attempt at getting attention when none is warranted.

 

[TenPenny]

I must be really slow this morning as I fail to see anything in this post that verifies the title of your thread. Or is this just another attempt at getting attention when none is warranted.

Isn't satanism a religion?

 

[mentalfloss]

"The Conservatives Support Satanism"

They don't just support it.

Only one in the pink.

Lucky guy.

 

[Mowich]

Isn't satanism a religion?

Yes.

However, it goes without saying that Satanism is not one of the religions any of our Federal parties would consider as legitimate for the purposes of this act. Now I could be waaaaaaaaaaaay off base here, but I really highly doubt it and to state anything to the contrary especially in a thread title is not only highly misleading it is just plain stupid and reflects poorly on the poster, IMHO.

 

[Unforgiven]

I must be really slow this morning

How is that different from any other time of the day? lol

as I fail to see anything in this post that verifies the title of your thread. Or is this just another attempt at getting attention when none is warranted.

Well I do like attention from time to time. You could do more to hold up your end here.

You should read the article, it makes the connection plain to see. I could have used Vodun, Witchcraft or Jain Dharma for all the difference it makes. Satanism is just a little more sensational.

 

[TenPenny]

Yes.

However, it goes without saying that Satanism is not one of the religions any of our Federal parties would consider as legitimate for the purposes of this act. Now I could be waaaaaaaaaaaay off base here, but I really highly doubt it and to state anything to the contrary especially in a thread title is not only highly misleading it is just plain stupid and reflects poorly on the poster, IMHO.

So, you're suggesting that this act will allow the government to decide what religions need to be supported and encouraged and protected?

Is that something we aspire to? Maybe a layer of civil servants who determine what religions gain government approval. That would make sense. That's certainly what a modern Canada needs, a list of state-supported official religions.

 

[Unforgiven]

Yes.

However, it goes without saying that Satanism is not one of the religions any of our Federal parties would consider as legitimate for the purposes of this act. Now I could be waaaaaaaaaaaay off base here, but I really highly doubt it and to state anything to the contrary especially in a thread title is not only highly misleading it is just plain stupid and reflects poorly on the poster, IMHO.

Have you read what I have posted in the past?

Clearly not. Good day sir!

 

[Corduroy]

Isn't this the role of the Church?

Protecting religious freedom requires police and legal power. That is firmly the role of government. I certainly wouldn't want any church to have that kind of power.

What Stephen Harper is specifically proposing would also take the form of foreign policy. Another thing that is firmly the role of government.

 

[Tonington]

Yes.

However, it goes without saying that Satanism is not one of the religions any of our Federal parties would consider as legitimate for the purposes of this act. Now I could be waaaaaaaaaaaay off base here, but I really highly doubt it and to state anything to the contrary especially in a thread title is not only highly misleading it is just plain stupid and reflects poorly on the poster, IMHO.

If you create an office funded by tax payer money to support all religions from further persecution, then that is implicit support for satanism, unless the Conservatives wish to exempt them from the program, in which case the headline should be "Conservatives set up government agency to support religious persecution".

 

[mentalfloss]

Is there a way we could flood the system with a whole bunch of unnecessary religions to support?

 

[Mowich]

So, you're suggesting that this act will allow the government to decide what religions need to be supported and encouraged and protected?

That would be a no. I am not suggesting any such thing - though it probably would do just that. I was addressing the topic title.

Is that something we aspire to? Maybe a layer of civil servants who determine what religions gain government approval. That would make sense. That's certainly what a modern Canada needs, a list of state-supported official religions.

Personally? I see it as just another bureaucracy - I don't think we need it but then, that's just my opinion.

 

[TenPenny]

That would be a no. I am not suggesting any such thing - though it probably would do just that. I was addressing the topic title.

Then I guess I don't understand your 'I guess it goes without saying' bit.

So you're NOT suggesting that there is a limit to what religions would be given protection and encouragement.

So Satanism will be given the same protection as other religions.

 

[Mowich]

Then I guess I don't understand your 'I guess it goes without saying' bit.

So you're NOT suggesting that there is a limit to what religions would be given protection and encouragement.

So Satanism will be given the same protection as other religions.

I suppose if the politicians writing up the bill decide that Satanism is a legimate candidate for protection then, yes it will - though, IMHO,just don't see that happening. I have been wrong before though. ;-)

 

[Unforgiven]

Protecting religious freedom requires police and legal power. That is firmly the role of government.

Not that it has anything to do with the article. Promote not protect. Big difference there and while I have to say that in Canada we appreciate the concept of freedom to choose and abide a religion, promotion of any religion is not what the government is elected to do. That as I said, is the bailiwick of the Church.

I certainly wouldn't want any church to have that kind of power.

The Vatican and the Jewish Congress are two examples of organizations who can, as they should, use the justice system and rule of law to protect their religious freedoms in Canada. The government's role is only to provide the laws with which the courts can rule over disputes and injustices.

What Stephen Harper is specifically proposing would also take the form of foreign policy. Another thing that is firmly the role of government.

Nothing of the sort. It isn't not our role to step in when religions clash in foreign lands. We as a country can offer refugees of religious persecution a safe harbor to live and practice peaceful religions without condemnation. But at no point should we ever claim as a country to be the fighting wing of any religion.

I suppose if the politicians writing up the bill decide that Satanism is a legimate candidate for protection then, yes it will - though, IMHO,just don't see that happening. I have been wrong before though. ;-)

Again, you should read the article. Promotion not protection.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yea, I agree with being fair to religious groups but we need to remain as secular as possible. A good example of going the other way is France. There was no harm to secularity in keeping the burka.