Day of prayer is unconstitutional
- Thread starter YukonJack
- Start date
Tea Party is very much a political party, it is an arm of the Republican Party. Most of opinion polls tell us that. It is the extreme wing of the Republican Party, the far right Republican base.
Guess they should pray that tea in Boston Harbour is as stooped.
...not quite tepid, I'm afraid....
...not quite tepid, I'm afraid....
The term ‘under God’ is of recent origin, it was inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s, during the McCarthy hysteria. During the Communist witch hunts by Joseph McCarthy, it was considered that Christianity was a necessary counter weight against Communism and the phrase was inserted into the Pledge to emphasize the religious nature of US society, as opposed to Communist nature of USSR.
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.
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.
The Ontario Government officially supports the segregated school system, and McGuinty even actively defended it last provincial election.
So you're the reason some religions are more equal than others in Canada's state-owned public schools, are you?
Well, you have an ally in McGuinty.
it was written into the agreement when certain provinces joined confederation. Or are you one of these people that believe breaking agreements is no big deal?
I agree that I don't see any reason for a state-sponsored 'Day of Prayer', or Christmas, or Easter, etc. Personally, I'd like more of a say in what days I take off. I think it was in Poland if I remember correctly, that the state had eliminated all but the most important statutory holidays a few years ago and instead simply increased the number of days a worker is entitled off in a year. I wouldn't mind seeing that for Canada. Now don't get me wrong. In the UK, it would make sense seeing that the state does have an official religion. In Canada though, though the constitution acknowledges God, it does not acknowledge any particular religion.
If you and I sign a contract, we can change it as long as we agree mutually to do so. Looking at it that way, if all signatories to the agreement should agree to changing the constitution, then there would be no violation of the agreement since all sides would willingly agree to change it. If any party refuse, then yes, I agree that we ought to respect the original agreement or leave confederation. However, if any party should refuse to change the agreement, then that would merely show their lack of concern for the advancement of our society. But I see that you belong to that group yourself. So I guess we continue with the current segregation.
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).
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.
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.
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.
That's actually quite incorrect. The Tea Party's overarching political credo in fact has nothing to do with real Conservatism, which is a political philosophy deeply indebted to institutional constructs, tradition and religious sensibility.
The Tea Party has only one political philosophy, LIBERTARIANISM. You will find many in this party who in fact support abortion, the prohibition of prayer, euthenasia.. anything that invokes a role of government in the moral, administrative or economic life of the country.
More than a few are radical anti taxation activists. But the party as a whole is a polyglut of causes that draw together the simple minded in opposition to government from many irreconcilable vantage points.
It has always been minor key in American politics, comprising perhaps 5% of the population for any sustained period, and it will be the same here.
To show how tunnel visioned its proponents are, it has labelled all government agency..in promoting public health and economic equity as 'communist' or '
socialist'.
This at a time when Liberal Economic agendas of Free Trade, monetarism, deregulation, privatization had decimated the American economy, deindustrialized it, allowed Wall Street of run rampant and corrupt, and caused a vast polarization of wealth, with more and more Americans falling into poverty.
These people are rather stupid, they are led by idiots like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.. and will NEVER form a coherent or viable political agenda.
And they have NOTHING to do the religion of any sort.
Last edited:
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
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
America is not sure if it is a Democracy or a Theocracy. :-?
Thank you Gerry. That means a lot coming from you.
I don't beleive in religion but I believe in fredom of religion so I don't think any government should tell anyone how to beleive. I most defintitley believe in the separation of church and state. If that were possible then war would end.