Day of prayer is unconstitutional

[AnnaG]

The Day of Prayer is worded in such a way as to not only non denominational in Christian terms, but also stipulates no religious bias of any kind. It is simply an encouragement to pray within your own set spiritual belief system, and only if you choose to do so.

:roll::roll::roll::roll:It may not be choosy about what denomination it is, but prayer is a religious act exclusive of atheists. For a gov't to sanction a day of prayer for all but atheists is against the separation of church and state.

Claiming this is an infringement of separation of Church and State, in fact an implicit attempt to 'impose' a 'Church' on the people is utterly absurd.

Only in your limited viewpoint.

The fact that drooling idiots like this judge can be appointed to a position to spew out such nonsense, just shows how deformed and nonsensical our society has become.

Again, this is only in your limited viewpoint.
You should try to peek out from your tiny little world and see what's around sometimes.

 

[AnnaG]

Court splits sharply on campus Christian argument

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court seemed to split sharply Monday on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.
In arguments tinged with questions of religious, racial and sexual discrimination, the court heard from the Christian Legal Society, which wants recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law as an official campus organization with school financing and benefits.
Hastings, located in San Francisco, turned them down, saying no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
The Christian group requires that voting members sign a statement of faith. The group also regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with the statement of faith.
Court splits sharply on campus Christian argument - Yahoo! News

Can the girl guides deny admittance to boys? Can a mall deny boys from going into girls' washrooms? The issue has become a bit ludicrous.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I agree that it would not be wise for Canada to adopt an official religion for the reasons you mentioned. However, countries that already have an official stare religion, such as the UK, would be wise to keep it as it does provide a sense of cultural stability and continuity. I think the reason it would help there and not here is because there it is an established tradition already. Here, it would do nothing to provide any sense of continuity. On the contrary, here it would present radical change.

That said, in the event that Christians really started foaming at the mouth in Canada, I'd prefer a symbolic move to make a moderate church like the Anglican Church for example as the official state religion as a means of calming fears rather than end up under some kind of Christian theocracy.

As for religion though, I think mentioning God anywhere in the constitution as a matter of principle is far less intrusive than the inclusion of special privileges granted to separate schools in the body of the text.

Now here I agree with you. Having an official religion has not done Britain any harm. My attitude with any societal institution is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It applies to monarchy (I am opposed to getting rid of monarchy in Canada) or official religion (there is no reason for Britain to get rid of it).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So how do you explain constitutional guarantees for publicly funded separate schools for some religious communities and not others? Though that is not the government establishing a state religion, it certainly is the constitution favouring one religion over others. Seems even more religious than the UK in some respects. In the UK, they may have an official state religion, but all state-owned public schools in Britain are universally accessible. Yes the Christian Faith is given reasonable preferential treatment in their religious studies curriculum, though other religions are taught too side by side with it. In Ontario's separate school system, catholics are segregated from the rest of society. Looking at it that way, simpy having an official state religion is less intrusive than establishing a separate school system. One is mainly symbolic, the other has clear financial and administrative consequences in real life.

I agree separate schools (which are really Catholic schools) are an anachronism. I would support getting rid of public funding of separate schools. However, since it is written in the constitution, I think it will be very difficult to eliminate.

 

[AnnaG]

Well then, in spite of what Britain has, Canada should not have an official religion then because whatever it is we have is pretty secular and it works, so don't fix it..

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The Ontario Government officially supports the segregated school system, and McGuinty even actively defended it last provincial election.

McGuinty even cited the Constitution as his reason.

Funding for separate schools was not a subject in the last Ontario election. The Tory leader wanted to give money to all the private schools, religious and non religious. McGuinty was opposed to that, that is what the debate was about.

That would have opened an ugly door; government would probably have ended up funding Islamic Madrassas. The debate was not about funding for separate schools, but whether that funding should be extended to other religious schools as well.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Someone had mentioned above that 'God' necessarily refers to the Christian God. I totally disagree. I believe i God yet profess neither the Christian not the Jewish Faith. Many Religions teach the existence of God; Christians and Jews certainly do not have the monopoly on that. There are even Deists (i.e. people who reject organized religion but believe in God anyway).

It depends upon the context, Machjo. The preamble to the Charter was written quite recently so there you may be correct, in that God does not necessarily mean Christian God.

However, the preamble to American constitution was written several hundred years ago, in those days, there was only one God, the God of the Bible. So when US constitution mentions God, it very much means Christian God.

Just one of the ways in which Canadian constitution is superior to US constitution.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

What opinion polls? No major ones that I have read.

I recently saw an opinion poll on CNN, about how many Americans think that Obama is doing a good job. 14 % Republicans think that he is doing a good job, only 7% of teabaggers think so, putting them to the right of Republican Party.

 

[damngrumpy]

Am I missing something here? I thought the world had all kinds of problems, and the
politicians had real problems to solve. Then someone comes along and ties up court
time discussing whether or not the government should issue a request asking people to pray. Is there nothing left that we can find something wrong with? I am not someone you would call upon to pray for anything. Our family has a standing joke,
we have an aunt who is a retired nun, and every time she prayed for one of us we
started having bad luck. Of course it was chance but it seemed to be a pattern.
No I don't pray, and no I won't pray, and no I will not feel forced to pray because the
Prime Minister asked me to. This is just crazy. I don't care who prays or what President or Prime Minister requests it. If someone is influenced or pressured by such
a proclamation, they are in need of prayer because they would be beyond help in any
other way.

 

[DaSleeper]

I see someone is still stuck on teabaggers instead of tea party members tsk tsk:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Am I missing something here? I thought the world had all kinds of problems, and the
politicians had real problems to solve. Then someone comes along and ties up court
time discussing whether or not the government should issue a request asking people to pray. Is there nothing left that we can find something wrong with?

You are confusing politicians with the courts. Politicians may have real problems to solve, but the courts must hear any case that is presented. And indeed, all kind of cases are presented to the court, by both the left and the right.

In particular, most laws face court challenges right after they are passed. The faction opposed to the law goes to the court. The same goes for any proclamation or executive order. Everything is subject to vetting by the courts.

So there is nothing wrong with somebody taking this issue to the court.

 

[Machjo]

Funding for separate schools was not a subject in the last Ontario election. The Tory leader wanted to give money to all the private schools, religious and non religious. McGuinty was opposed to that, that is what the debate was about.

That would have opened an ugly door; government would probably have ended up funding Islamic Madrassas. The debate was not about funding for separate schools, but whether that funding should be extended to other religious schools as well.

Now here I would say the Tories had a legitimate point. If Catholic schools can get public funding, why not all religious schools? The Green Party wanted to get rid of all public funding for religious schools while the Tories wanted to provide funding for all religious schools equally. Though on the surface they appear to stand at two opposite extremes, if we look deeper they are actually more similar to one another than they were to the Liberals, since they at least hold to the common concept of what applies to one applies to all. I'd support either of those policies before one that makes one religion 'more equal' than other religions.

Also, concerning madrasas, let's not stereotype them. There are various kinds of madrasas, some more moderate than others. Let's not let the exotic sound of the word cloud reality. The same applies with Christian schools with some being more moderate than others.

 

[Machjo]

It depends upon the context, Machjo. The preamble to the Charter was written quite recently so there you may be correct, in that God does not necessarily mean Christian God.

However, the preamble to American constitution was written several hundred years ago, in those days, there was only one God, the God of the Bible. So when US constitution mentions God, it very much means Christian God.

Just one of the ways in which Canadian constitution is superior to US constitution.

SJP, Robertus Ketenensis translated the Qur'an into Latin in 1143. A second Latin translation was issued by Ludovico Marracci, a confessor to Pope Innocent XI, in 1698.

If you read Gibbon's Decline and Fall, published between 1776 and 1788, he likewise shows a considerable knowledge of Islam for his time. If European scholars of those times had so much knowledge of Islam, and the founders of the US were educated people, I cannot imagine them having been so ignorant of at least some of the basic precepts of Islam.

The earliest translation of the Qur'an into English was that of Alexander Ross in 1649 based on a French translation, followed by Sale's academic translation in 1734 and Rodwell's literary translation in 1861, these last two being translated from the original. Many other translations have followed since. In fact, Rodwell's was motivated by an intent to provide an exegetical work refuting Islam. If you should buy a copy of his translation minus the footnotes, you'd never know he was anti-Muslim owing to his honest translation. But if you get a version with the footnotes, it's clear what his real intent was. I cannot imagine him going through so much effort except to try to counter perceived fears that some Britons at the time were attracted to Islam already.

Certainly if there were fears in the 1800's over Britons adopting Islam, then I can only conclude that knowledge of Islam had been spreading long before that at least in academic circles, which the literary works mentioned above clearly prove. Seeing that the founders of the US were among that academic elite, I cannot imagine them having been so ignorant of at least the most basic principles of Islam such as the oneness of God.

Let's consider too that many scholars of the 1700's, Gibbon included, were self-professed Deists. Again, if there were so many Deists at that time, I'm sure discussion of the subject of Deism must have preceded them long before the 1700s for it to have spread so much during that time. Let's not think the Europe of the 1600's and 1700s was some religious monolith. Deism was already a perceived threat to the established Church (as evidenced by critical responses to Gibbon's work by Christians who were offended by his critical analysis of the Christian community in the Roman Empire), and knowledge of Islam already widespread among scholars.

I can't imagine scholars in the US having been so ignorant of those trends, and not being aware that a belief in God was not the sole monopoy of Christians and Jews even in their time.

Let's not insult the intelligence of our forefathers.

 

[damngrumpy]

Oh I agree, people have the right to take most anything to court, its just that with a
world full of problems this is kind of a waste of time. Who cares whether some one
asks people to pray? Surely the courts even should take some time to pause like they
do with other suggested cases and determine this has little value, when considering
the cost of court time alone. Now for me, I as I said don' t have any intention of
praying now or anytime soon. We live in an enlightened world, or at least I thought
we did but I guess that assumption was premature.
I guess I am tired of the non believers and the religious zealots alike. These two groups spend so much time debating each other with the same old arguments.
Religious zealots are the worst though, they have one agenda. One set of beliefs
and they are hell bent on not listening to anyone Else's point of view. Most non
believers I know, sometimes admit there are some unknowns but based on the facts
one can see......they don't believe.

 

[dreamwatcher]

I cautiously agree that a Day of Prayer would be nice, but I have reservations about it. It could become a money maker, of which I am against. Prayer (deep prayer) no Zen, or shouting and clapping of hands with phrases like "praise the lord" and a minister, or priest, pass their donation plate, with diamond studded pinky ring, What is truly useful is a thoughtful reflection upon our recent behaviour and in the quiet of our own room. A bedroom perhaps. Because speaking to our Lord is personal, One receives more from it, in a private space of our choosing = no distractions = and from my experience, in a very simple way, I feel closer to the oneness of Him.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now here I would say the Tories had a legitimate point. If Catholic schools can get public funding, why not all religious schools? The Green Party wanted to get rid of all public funding for religious schools while the Tories wanted to provide funding for all religious schools equally. Though on the surface they appear to stand at two opposite extremes, if we look deeper they are actually more similar to one another than they were to the Liberals, since they at least hold to the common concept of what applies to one applies to all. I'd support either of those policies before one that makes one religion 'more equal' than other religions.

No doubt both the Greens and Tories wanted to make the system fairer, more equitable. But there were problems with both the positions. Getting rid of separate school funding would require a constitutional amendment, a nearly impossible task. Saying that we must get rid of separate school funding was really tantamount to saying that we should do nothing, since in practice, nothing would get done. So Green position was not really all that different from Liberal position from practical point of view.

Reminds me of how Bush (the 1st) used to call for constitutional amendment for just about everything. Want to ban abortion? Let us have a constitutional amendment. Want to ban flag burning? Let us have a constitutional amendment. That was his way of passing the buck, of not doing anything.

So I don’t regard Green position and Liberal position to be all that much different, since the practical result would have been the same in both cases.

Also, concerning madrasas, let's not stereotype them. There are various kinds of madrasas, some more moderate than others. Let's not let the exotic sound of the word cloud reality. The same applies with Christian schools with some being more moderate than others.

No doubt there are good and bad madrasaas. However, the government would have been forced to fund both, under Tory proposal. And you are right; there would be problems with some Christian schools as well.

One good point about Catholic schools is that they are totally transparent, as transparent as the public schools. However, the same cannot be said of some of the Fundamentalist Christian schools, we don’t’ know what kind of ideology they are teaching the students.

Particularly in the case of a school operated from the basement of a mosque or a Fundamentalist Church, it would be very difficult to police what they are teaching and government money may end up going to all kinds of extremist causes.

Overall, I think the Liberal position of not doing anything made sense. Separate school funding is undesirable, but not much can really be done about it. It is part of the constitution.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I can't imagine scholars in the US having been so ignorant of those trends, and not being aware that a belief in God was not the sole monopoy of Christians and Jews even in their time.

Let's not insult the intelligence of our forefathers.

Perhaps you misunderstood when I said that there was only one God, the God of the Bible, when US constitution was written.

I am sure at least some of the Founding Fathers were learned men, knew of religions besides Christianity or Judaism. And we don’t have to go as far afield as Islam. Greek studies were quite common in those days, anybody who had any education at all would be aware of the ancient Greek (and Roman) Gods and Goddesses.

So the point is not that the Founding Fathers were ignorant, uneducated men who knew only of God of the bible. The point is that most of the US population was ignorant, uneducated and only knew of God of the Bible. Since the constitution was written for the benefit of almost exclusively Christian population, it is highly unlikely that any God besides God of the Bible was meant when God was mentioned in the US constitution.

Now, it may be that the founding fathers were astute enough to realize that while God will be interpreted to mean God of the Bible, that perhaps in a future, multicultural, pluralistic society, God may be interpreted with a broader meaning.

However, the US constitution was written for a Christian population and it stands to reason that God in that context meant God of the Bible. People would not have accepted the constitution if they had thought that God meant any God, that the constitution gave anybody the right to practice any religion in USA. In those days, religious tolerance meant tolerance towards all the branches of Christianity, not necessarily towards other religions.

Indeed, intolerance towards other religions was quite widespread in those days. White man nearly wiped out the Indian population, in an effort to bring them to Christ. Witches were persecuted and burnt, for not following Christ. These days the constitution is interpreted to mean that witches have the right to practice their religion. It is highly unlikely that people would have accepted the constitution in those days if they had thought that God means any God, including the Wican God or the Native Indian Gods.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I cautiously agree that a Day of Prayer would be nice, but I have reservations about it. It could become a money maker, of which I am against. Prayer (deep prayer) no Zen, or shouting and clapping of hands with phrases like "praise the lord" and a minister, or priest, pass their donation plate, with diamond studded pinky ring, What is truly useful is a thoughtful reflection upon our recent behaviour and in the quiet of our own room. A bedroom perhaps. Because speaking to our Lord is personal, One receives more from it, in a private space of our choosing = no distractions = and from my experience, in a very simple way, I feel closer to the oneness of Him.

The day of prayer may be nice, I suppose that depends upon one's point of view. If some private religious organization (or several organizations together) want to hold a national day of prayer, nobody is stopping them. But the question is whether the government should sponsor the day of prayer, should give it the official backing of the state.

Suppose tomorrow an Atheistic organization wants to hold a day of non prayer, a day where they want to raise awareness as to how any kind of prayer is a waste of time and may even have harmful psychological side effects. Should the government sponsor such a day of non prayer?

If the government sponsored the day of prayer, but not the day of non prayer, it is clearly playing favorites. I don't know about USA (as I have said before, anything can happen in USA), but that will clearly be against Canadian constitution.

 

[CDNBear]

Now here I agree with you. Having an official religion has not done Britain any harm.

This is one photo of an IRA bombing...

Still think it's done Britain no harm?

Shall I go on about the State sanctioned protection of the Protestants, while they antagonized the Catholics? Or how many wars were waged under the banners of Religion?

How about how in North America, the Catholics were second class citizens under British Anglican rule?

It's done no harm?

 

[ironsides]

Now here I agree with you. Having an official religion has not done Britain any harm. My attitude with any societal institution is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It applies to monarchy (I am opposed to getting rid of monarchy in Canada) or official religion (there is no reason for Britain to get rid of it).

Now it is Ok for Great Briton and Canada to have an official religion, even though it was started by some dude King Henry IIIV who just wanted to get a divorce? Now that is a reason for having an official religion. Tradition is not always good, I can see keeping the monarchy around, that is who you were and is history. What do you mean the Church of England has not done you any harm, how many Catholics died because Henry wanted a divorce, in both Great Briton and Ireland. It is like our slavery and just as bad, something that must be put behind you.