babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Cons plan "Defence of Religions" Act

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Cons plan "Defence of Religions" Act
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 October 2006 06:22 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An end run around SSM?

quote:

The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives.

Introducing a Defence of Religions Act would breathe new life into an issue that otherwise might have expired, and could become pivotal in an election expected as early as next spring. A solid core of Conservative MPs and socially conservative supporters are determined not to let the issue die without introducing some protections for those who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage.



http://tinyurl.com/h8hx5


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 October 2006 07:20 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What bullshit. If public officials don't want to perform same sex marriages because of their religious beliefs, then they should find a new job.

What if a Jew wants to marry a Catholic and they go to some Catholic public official and he refuses to grant a marriage license to them because it is against his religion for Jews to marry Catholics? Do you think there just might be a huge stink about him discriminating against Jews?

I certainly hope there would be! If your religious beliefs make it impossible to do your job without discriminating against minorities, then you need to leave that job.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 04 October 2006 07:47 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All the power to the Cons... This issue gives them yet another achillies heel for when the combined oppositions force another election.

Though it does bring up an interesting morality question... Is it right to force anyone to do something they beleive is wrong (regardless if it's wrong or not... They beleive it is)?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 October 2006 07:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If I believed intermarriage between black and white people was wrong, would it be wrong to force me to give marriage certificates to mixed-race couples, or to fire me if I refused to do so?

I think the answer is no.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 04 October 2006 07:52 AM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What a joke. People are entitled to protection from being discriminated against under specific protected grounds. To my knowledge, being a reactionary bigot with neanderthal views is not grounds for protection from discrimination. If you hold bigoted, anti-gay views you deserve to get fired.
From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 04 October 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm doing a lil devils advocate with you Michelle, as I do essentially agree with you.

But...

quote:
If I believed intermarriage between black and white people was wrong, would it be wrong to force me to give marriage certificates to mixed-race couples

Why not let this person do what they think is right, and allow someone like myself or you to marry these people as we think is right?


I beleive that is the standpoint that the Conservatives are coming from with this.


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 October 2006 08:05 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Noise, that's cool, and I know where you're coming from. And the devil's advocated argument that keeps popping into my mind, which I haven't wholly resolved yet, is would I be consistent on the question of abortion, and force doctors to perform those as well, or lose their jobs? The answer is, I wouldn't.

But I don't think those are the same situations anyhow - doctors are allowed to specialize in whatever they want to, and they can pick and choose the medical field they want to get into. But what they CAN'T do is, say, have the choice to perform an abortion on me, but not on my friend who is from a minority group.

(Oh great, now I've introduced the "A" word! But I figure it will probably come up anyhow, so I might as well pre-empt it. )

Basically, if you are a public servant, and your religious beliefs stop you from performing the same act for some people but not others (e.g. you will marry people who are straight but not gay, or you will marry same-race couples but not mixed-race, or you will marry same-religion couples but not mixed religion couples, then you shouldn't be a public servant. If you're that religious, then get a job within your cult as a performer of marriages.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 04 October 2006 08:25 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
if you are a public servant

Is a church's pastor preforming these marriages considered a public servant? I'm not sure there.

quote:
If you're that religious, then get a job within your cult as a performer of marriages.

Heh, perhaps this is what this bill is designed to do ^^ If a public servant (one who preform non-religious ceremonies) says they won't preform a SSM, then we've got an issue.

quote:
But what they CAN'T do is, say, have the choice to perform an abortion on me, but not on my friend who is from a minority group.

Could a doctor refuse to do a certain type of abortion (for example late stage abortions)?


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 04 October 2006 08:45 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
Is a church's pastor preforming these marriages considered a public servant? I'm not sure there.

No. This is talking about government employees / marriage commissioners / etc performing (not just issuing licenses for) civil, non-religious, marriages.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: the grey ]


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Noise
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12603

posted 04 October 2006 08:50 AM      Profile for Noise     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess right from the initial article:

quote:
The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.


Good pile of bullshit ^^


From: Protest is Patriotism | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
marzo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12096

posted 04 October 2006 09:06 AM      Profile for marzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper's 'Defence of Religions Act' is obnoxious and repulsive. Under the status quo, the official wazoo of an organized religion gets to refuse to marry couples for any reason they want. For instance, the Catholic church has a ban on marriage for divorced people so those people will just have to get married someplace else. Another example is that many Jewish rabbis actively oppose marriage between Jews and non-Jews. Such couples will have to get hitched somewhere else.
Obviously, it is not the marriage rules of organized religions that need protection because they can do what they want as long as they don't step outside the law, such as child marriages and polygamy.
My personal feeling is that people who want to express committed love for each other don't need preachers and rituals.
A pox on Harper and the preachers who are cooking up this 'Defense of Religions Act'.

From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 04 October 2006 09:17 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Typical neo-con doublespeak: "Defense of Religions Act".

Clearly, it should be called the Offensive Religions Act, as it allows anyone to behave offensively (ie/as a hatemonger or bigot) while hiding behind claims of religious devotion.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 October 2006 10:10 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Globe and Mail: However, there is acknowledged uncertainty about the rights of individuals to publicly criticize homosexual behaviour, to take out advertisements that quote scripture demanding that homosexuals be put to death, [!!!??N.Beltov]or to refuse to do business with groups whose views an individual or group finds objectionable.

For that reason, a Defence of Religions law could face challenges under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Well if individuals, based on their religious views, get the right to "demand that homosexuals be put to death" them I'm all in favour of others having the same right with respect to the members of organizations that these individuals belong to.
"Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" would acquire a whole new meaning.

On second thought - forget that. What a recipie for civil war. The belly of a Conservative is low indeed to stoop to these tactics.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This proposed "Defence of Religions" Act is so freaking outrageous that I think it's a gift to the Opposition to force the next election over. I'm amazed that the Cons can't see the obviousness of how stupid this idea is.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 04 October 2006 11:32 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fascinating how this proposal works so nicely as a red herring.

Most of the issues being discussed are under provincial jurisdiction. A federal law will not affect them. Provincial Human Rights Codes will still prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Solemnization of marriage is also under provincial jurisdiction. All these poor bigotted JPs are NOT Vic Toews' problem.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 04 October 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What we need is a Defence From Religion Act.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 04 October 2006 12:33 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Amen.
From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
contrarianna
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13058

posted 04 October 2006 01:01 PM      Profile for contrarianna     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Reform-conservatives are playing the same card as their neocon counterparts in the US. Despite the faith of their media-monkey Bush, most of the policy makers are hardly religious folk. But right-wing Christianity is treated as the "house religion" and it delivers a massive block of votes.

My position on the topic:
1)Anyone who is in a non-religiously-aligned position such as as a publicly paid for Justice-of-the-Peace must be required to perform any services allowed by law --if they don't they should lose their publicly paid job.

2)Anyone who performs ceremonies specific to to a sect or religion (priest, etc.)should be allowed to restrict there performance to whatever specific personal/institutional requirements obtain (however loony)--as long as the performance does not break the law (eg marriage under the legal age, etc.).

As for "freedom of religious expression", I do not agree with its special mention in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms--and the subsequent interpretations.
"Religious freedoms" of persons should be no more "enshrined" than the opinions of non-religious individuals. The fact that someone adopts, or has been indoctrinated into, a particular "Faith" (ie irrational system) should not mean they are given any less, or more, priveliges beyond that of a non-aligned individual.
For example, during times of a state imposed tyranny of conscription, those with a particular religious faith are much more likely to be given an exemption than those who oppose service by way of a rational position.
Likewise, knives should not be allowed in school regardless of whether it is a supposed religious requirement.


From: here to inanity | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Harper, in the House during QP today, said he had seen no such Bill ("Defense of Religion" Act) so as far as he was concerned, the question was moot.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On a somewhat related topic, the Cons came under heavy attack in the House during QP for cancelling funding to Montreal's Black and Blue Festival.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 04 October 2006 02:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The reason that freedom of religio0n is in the Charter is to protect religious communities from
government oppression or discrimination.

"We don't hire Jews" is a sentiment that has no place in Canada; the same goes for Muslims, Christians, and other faiths.

Religious faiths should be accomodated where doing so has no serious impact on the public policy being undertaken. But where it DOES have such an impact, the person concerned may be removed from office.

So, I would think that a Justice of the Peace, whose job is to perform marriages, should think twice before refusing to perform a marriage which is in accordance with the law of this country.

The policy comes first; and accomodation must occur where it can happen without undercutting the policy.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 04 October 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's an attempt to provide a sop to the fundies, to appease them for the loss of the marriage rights debate. It will not go anywhere.

If it actually does see the light of day, I'll bet it is written vaguely enough that a GLB Justice of the Peace could refuse to perform straight marriages too. Wouldn't that be an interesting pickle for the Cons...

This is just a vote-shoring measure. They want to show their bigots that they are still fighting the 'good fight'.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 04 October 2006 02:59 PM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it is particularly important to remember that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the marriage reference stated that legislation related to who can (or must) perform marriages is ultra vires the federal Parliament, as it falls within s. 92(12) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 October 2006 04:26 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tories split over gay-marriage plan

excerpt:

OTTAWA — A storm of debate has erupted in Ottawa over the Conservative government's plan to allow public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, with Harper government members lending their voices to the howl of protest.

Politicians on both sides of the floor have spoken out against the planned Defence of Religions Act, which is also designed to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations.

The legislation would be brought forward if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage, which is likely to be defeated by a combination of Opposition and Conservative MPs.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quelar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2739

posted 04 October 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for quelar     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Question, Is the service of having someone marry you a right under the charter? (The Cons would easily claim straight marriage is a right to life and liberty)

And if so, it being a government service, would it not be possible to make the case that, despite some jackass refusing to do it wherever he lives, the government would have to get someone there to do the service?

After about the 40th time having to fly someone up to the Yukon, the Con's greed for money will likely overcome their gay-hatred.


From: In Dig Nation | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 October 2006 04:05 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Introducing a Defence of Religions Act would breathe new life into an issue that otherwise might have expired, and could become pivotal in an election expected as early as next spring. A solid core of Conservative MPs and socially conservative supporters are determined not to let the issue die without introducing some protections for those who are uncomfortable with same-sex marriage.


Do they specify which religions will be claimable? I am an ordained minister in the Church of Bob, and I am really good at making stuff up. I think that as soon as this Act passes, it will be against my religion to talk to my co-workers. And bosses. In fact, according to the medieval writings I've come to worship, I'm allowed to defend against unwanted conversations with long pointy sticks. I demand my freedom.

Knowing the Cons, they'll probably have a list of 'approved' religions. Catholic, Anglican, Baptsist, Episcipalian, Lutheran. That's all there is, right?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 05 October 2006 06:25 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
they specify which religions will be claimable? I am an ordained minister in the Church of Bob

Human Rights Commissions have, for many years, used the concept "bona fide religious belief".

While it is fluid at the ends, I believe you will have difficulty showing the ongoing existence of the Church of Bob.

Not only that, but if your beliefs are such that they CANNOT be accomodated within the overall operations and policy of the employer, you may be fired, and would have no human rights claim.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 October 2006 06:29 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I pray that you're wrong, I pray that you're wrong.

Does anyone know where I can pick up a good stick sharpener?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 October 2006 06:44 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by arborman:
This is just a vote-shoring measure. They want to show their bigots that they are still fighting the 'good fight'.

Exactly, however, it willnot shore the voters who ae of the non-neocon variety, in fact it will bring em down.

This is would be too funny if it did not validate the bigots!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 05 October 2006 06:47 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The underlying reason why religious belief is protected has to do with the fact that it is substantially inherited, as is race or sex.

In many countries, such as Ireland, whether you are Protestant or Catholic is just as important to who you are as is your race or sexual identity.

Experience tells us that trying to rip out deeply held religious beliefs only leads to conflict.

Accomodation is not only right, it is smart.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 05 October 2006 07:02 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Huzzah? We're not talking about making ministers marry people against their will within the walls of their own institutions (at least, I'm not). This bill would allow people to legally discriminate on the basis of sexual identity outside the walls of their churches. Justices of the peace, clerks, who knows who else? Why should some narrow-minded medieval Conservative appointee be allowed to spill his infectious hatred beyond his own pew? Or some narrow-minded medieval Liberal, NDP, or BQ appointee, for that matter?

Is the Church of Scientology bona fide?


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 05 October 2006 07:06 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So jeff, are you in favour of the Con position?

Personally I'm very religious and have high morals. I can't stand Conservatives. I think I then have a right to not provide any service to them in the course of my job. Equal protection and all that.

If I didn't like white people due to moral/religious beliefs then I figure I don't need to serve them either.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 05 October 2006 07:25 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Legal furor erupts over same-sex proposal

Defence of Religions Act would violate Charter of Rights, experts warn Ottawa

excerpt:

Government sources told The Globe one option is a Defence of Religions Act that would allow officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriages and protect the rights of people who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations.

Mr. Harper told the House of Commons yesterday the matter was "speculation," and said, "I have not seen such a law."

However, neither he nor any other minister denied that such options are being prepared.

Prof. Cossman called the idea of allowing public officials to refuse to perform same-sex marriage a violation of provincial jurisdiction "in the most blatant and obvious way," and said any such bill would be struck down soon after it was passed.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 05 October 2006 07:40 AM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by marzo:
Harper's 'Defence of Religions Act' is obnoxious and repulsive..

What Defence of Religios Act? Our MP was interviewed yesterday on local radio and he's not aware of any such act.

As for the concept of religious institutions not being obligatd to perform SSM. This has overwhelming support in our riding. It might not be the 'progressive' position but sure is the popular one. The NDP and Liberals are dead in the water in this riding if they bring down the government when and if such a bill is introduced to Parliament.

Myself. As long as an same sex couple can get married legally I don't care one way or another what religious ministers do or don't do. Let them be as ignorant as they want to. This could turn into another issue that sidlines the NDP to the fringes and gives the Greens more room for growth by focusing on the issue that most Canadians do support, environmnetal integrity.


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 05 October 2006 07:43 AM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oops. Duplicate.

[ 05 October 2006: Message edited by: Gollygee ]


From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 05 October 2006 08:38 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gollygee:

As for the concept of religious institutions not being obligatd to perform SSM. This has overwhelming support in our riding. It might not be the 'progressive' position but sure is the popular one. The NDP and Liberals are dead in the water in this riding if they bring down the government when and if such a bill is introduced to Parliament.

Religious institutions aren't obligated to perform anything. Nobody wants to change that. Nobody's suggesting that anyone wants to change that (well, except for you).

Concern has been expressed about rumoured proposals to allow government officials to discriminate. That would mean the federal government telling the provincial governments that they can't tell the provincial governments' own employees to do their jobs.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234

posted 05 October 2006 08:51 AM      Profile for Buddy Kat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mixing religion and state can be dangerous for the neocons. It's not like Canadains didn't know already that the neocons were against same sex partners. Canadians spoke and they want an Ayatollh" and that's what they got.

What gets me is these are same people that allow corporations all these lax rules and deregulation incentives to toxify the nation. Knowing full well the toxic soup will disrupt peoples hormones creating imbalances that can lead to same sex situations.

What , yer not a same sex person yet! By the time mr neocon is done you will be and so will your kids. That would make a good ad..some graphic details on the physilogical effects of hormone disruption could bring Canadains to their sense's.


From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 October 2006 09:46 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
..these are same people that allow corporations all these lax rules and deregulation incentives to toxify the nation. Knowing full well the toxic soup will disrupt peoples hormones creating imbalances that can lead to same sex situations.

What , yer not a same sex person yet! By the time mr neocon is done you will be and so will your kids. That would make a good ad..some graphic details on the physilogical effects of hormone disruption could bring Canadains to their sense's.


TFF!


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 05 October 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Buddy Kat:
[QB] Knowing full well the toxic soup will disrupt peoples hormones creating imbalances that can lead to same sex situations.

I knew I shouldn't have had that chicken noodle before Pride week.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
brookmere
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9693

posted 06 October 2006 03:34 AM      Profile for brookmere     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by contrarianna:
But right-wing Christianity is treated as the "house religion" and it delivers a massive block of votes.


Not up here folks. Except in places like Red Deer where the Cons are invincible anyway.

That 36% that the Cons got is going back down to 30% again. The Cons can kiss all those new seats in Quebec goodbye, for starters.

And BTW Gollygee is just parroting Harper's Big Lie that legalizing SSM somehow obliges churches to perform it. I don't know if Gollygee is lying too or just stupid.

[ 06 October 2006: Message edited by: brookmere ]


From: BC (sort of) | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 October 2006 09:08 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by brookmere:
And BTW Gollygee is just parroting Harper's Big Lie that legalizing SSM somehow obliges churches to perform it.

No the big lie the gollygee is spouting is that there is plans afoot by the left and the gay and lesbian community to make laws forcing churches to be obliged to conduct SSM's. AS gooly geee says:

quote:
As for the concept of religious institutions not being obligatd to perform SSM. This has overwhelming support in our riding. It might not be the 'progressive' position but sure is the popular one. The NDP and Liberals are dead in the water in this riding if they bring down the government when and if such a bill is introduced to Parliament.

Notice gollygee is just suggesting with the "ifs". It is these type of spurious suggestions that are the operant conditioning cues that the religious right is programmed to respond to. They immediately turn the "if" into "it's" going to happen. With never a rational thought that it's not possible, nor would progessives want to take away their religious freedoms, unless it is the self deluded religious belief that they can be bigots and racists and be allowed to be publically.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 October 2006 09:45 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why is gollygee even on this forum? I propse a ban just for being a bigoted right wing ass.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 October 2006 09:52 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I grew up in a Catholic family and part of that faith like many others is a dislike for mixed religion marriages. So a Catholic JP would not have to marry a Protestant and a Catholic let alone a Catholic and a Hindu or a Sikh and a Catholic. A Catholic priest of course has to follow his own religion when perfoming marriage rites in his church. All the court cases reaffirm the rights of religions to adhere to their faith in deternmining whom they should marry. A Catholic JP has a job to marry all people who meet the civil requirements for a marriage license, thats the job they signed up for. It not like the government is forcing them to marry a Sikh.
From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 October 2006 10:00 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Why is gollygee even on this forum? I propse a ban just for being a bigoted right wing ass.

I agree, I mean, just what is thinking with his:

quote:
As for the concept of religious institutions not being obligatd to perform SSM. This has overwhelming support in our riding. It might not be the 'progressive' position but sure is the popular one.

Besides the first sentence being plain awk, and covertly misleading, he seems to think he can suggest in it, that "progessives" are not popular in Canada , and even that we're not progressive, by suggesting that we're not tolerant of religions. Besides the overt notion that there is a "concept" out there, whatever that means, that progressives want churches to be forced into conducting SSM's.

I mean what a pile of inuendo and BS he spouted with just that 1 sentence. And seriously, some out there would just suck it up, without rational thought to the illusive and tenuous utterances of absolute bull shit they just read!

Ban him!

[ 06 October 2006: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 October 2006 10:26 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
It not like the government is forcing them to marry a Sikh.

What are you saying with this comment? Cause it dos not sound to good to me?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 06 October 2006 10:48 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He means that the government is not forcing Catholic churches to start performing Sikh marriages. Or mixed-religion marriages.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 06 October 2006 11:45 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think he's saying that the government is forcing the Catholic JP to get married to a Sikh.
From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 06 October 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A Catholic JP has a job to marry all people who meet the civil requirements for a marriage license, thats the job they signed up for. It not like the government is forcing them to marry a Sikh.
Sorry for any confusion but I meant that the government is not forcing the JP to get married to a Sikh if he or she is a Catholic. It would only require the JP to marry two people one a Sikh and the other a Catholic. The reason I chose that analogy is because not marrying outside ones faith is an actual belief of many "mainstream" religions and therefore a better analogy than not marrying people of different races.

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 October 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Both equally abhorrent positions.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 October 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have been thinking about why would the CRAPPERS, put forth a defense of religions act, other than to try and appease their base of neo-cons.

Because actually what would such an act cover? How far would/could it go?

For example, what if a religion, believed pedeophilia was the correct and only way to go? Or poligamy? Or "spare the rod and spoil the child"? Or stoning?

Would all these things be allowable too, I would imagine, so just who is backing the CRAPPERS trying to push for this "defense of religion'?


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 06 October 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I think it's pretty clear that as things are right now, there is no way that a "Defence of Religion" Act would ever make it past the Charter. And I think it's also pretty likely that the Cons knew this. So why did their Justice Minister, of all people, allow this "underwraps" bill to be leaked to the press?

Is it simply to throw their Con base a bone while they continue to be "moderate"? (As moderate as a party can be that cuts money to literacy, aboriginal rights, women's rights, law reform, etc.) Or, can this, despite a clear sentiment on the part of Canadians that says this is completely not an issue, that SSM rights are put to bed, be the more troubling possibility that the Cons are still intent on "testing the waters" as it were for their bigoted, outdated and soundly defeated neo-con social agenda? Man, if anyone ever tells you again that your vote doesn't matter, just point them to the difference a year makes.


From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 06 October 2006 04:10 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
Is it simply to throw their Con base a bone while they continue to be "moderate"? .

No, I don't think their base is quite that stupid, or at least not that stupid in that way, as they seem pretty paranoid.


quote:
Or, can this...be the more troubling possibility that the Cons are still intent on "testing the waters" as it were for their bigoted, outdated and soundly defeated neo-con social agenda?[QB][QUOTE]

They really trulely believe if they manage the message everyone will turn into them, in my opinion.


Man, if anyone ever tells you again that your vote doesn't matter, just point them to the difference a year makes.[/QB][/QUOTE]


I believe they rigged more than 1 riding, and I wish there was more money put into a system where polls could be checked for validity.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gollygee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13258

posted 06 October 2006 04:34 PM      Profile for Gollygee        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Cons aren't concerned about throwing a bone to their base. Their base is secure. They want to expand their base and try to appeal to the folks in those mixed urban-rural ridings especially in Ontario, B.C and the Maritimes. I doubt if Harper cares two cents about SSM other than how it impacts politics. It's simple thinking. Do the Cons gain or lose more in those urban-rural ridings by banging the drum on this issue? I'd guess Harper has determined it's a losing issue for him and is too risky to pursue at the expense of overcoming the bugaboo of the 'scary hidden agenda'. Harper isn't going to give the Libs and media the ammunition to paint him and his entourage as right wing nutcases in the next election.
From: Creston, BC | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 06 October 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is elementary that the Conservatives are throwing a bone to their base. They need to ENERGIZE the base, make sure they come out and vote.

If the base thinks that the Conservatives are not doing enough to return Canada to the previous century, they won't donate, and they won't vote, either.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 06 October 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the ironies of this current discussion comes from letters to the editor I read in the Post and Globe from people who argue they need Harper's DORA to protect their right to oppose SSM.

Unless police are knocking on the doors of these same letter-writers the day after publication, however, it's hard to see their argument that they need Harper's DORA to defend their rights.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca