Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

SSM - Michael Coren

Today's National Post has a great article by Michael Coren on the current debate on religious rights in this nation... and how the SSM debate is not about granting rights, but repressing the rights of people of faith.

Unfortunately, it's behind a subscriber firewall. If anyone finds a copy online, please let me know.
Beyond tolerance: A quintessentially Canadian acceptance of differences has been transformed into the forced approval of homosexuality

By Michael Coren

When the same-sex marriage issue was being debated before parliament and the courts, many of us argued that the entire issue had ceased being about toleration long ago but was now about affirmation. In other words, a quintessentially Canadian acceptance of differences had been transformed into the forced approval of homosexuality, particularly when it came to people of faith. After a year of numerous costly and exhausting human rights complaints, it appears that we were correct.

Labels:

14 Comments:

  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 06:47:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Simon said…

    Why would anyone care what that fat freak limey Coren has to say?
    Just understand this:my human rights trump your religoius rights any old day. Just like the British government just did by putting ju ju religion in its place.Wow was that a slap in the face. I guess what I'm saying is that toleration works for me as far as religion is concerned. But enter my airspace and you're and your religious freak fanatics are going to get shot down. You see I'm not only a victim of religious bigotry...I've been raped by Jesus...You losers are losing now suck it up...

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 07:23:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Simon, I guess it really comes down to morality... who gets to dictate to whom what is right and what is wrong? Should anybody be seeking to do that to anyone else at all? Why is it that proponents of SSM are entitled to "re-write morality", whereas we are not permitted to hold to the values that we see taught in the Word of God? (regardless of whether or not you disagree with them)

    Yes, I have my own views on what is right and what is wrong, and according to my understanding of God's Word, SSM is wrong. At the same time, according to the laws of this great nation of ours, I'm not permitted to enforce my view of morality on anyone... so I don't. I would, however, like to be able to hold them without fear of prosecution.

    No one should be allowed to force people to change their views on morality, or faith. The Lord Jesus Christ did not call us Christians to do that to others, so I don't. I will not, however, under any circumstances, seek to bury portions of His Word that may seem inconvient, or hard to understand... to do so would be to do you a great disservice.

    The Lord Jesus Christ called us to speak the Truth, which is that all mankind can have eternal life through Him. In the course of history, as God revealed Himself to mankind, He showed us how He feels on certain issues. I seek merely to be His instrument in revealing Himself, His views, and His ways, to you.

    Well, in the end, I think The Most High God will get the final word on all this, so I will simply differ to His judgement.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 07:41:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous drew said…

    "Why is it that proponents of SSM are entitled to "re-write morality",

    Nobody is rewriting morality, they are simply following the moral code they happen to believe in (morality is subjective after all), just like you do.

    whereas we are not permitted to hold to the values that we see taught in the Word of God?"

    Of course you are, you're just not permitted to force those values on the rest of us.

    Yes, I have my own views on what is right and what is wrong, and according to my understanding of God's Word, SSM is wrong. At the same time, according to the laws of this great nation of ours, I'm not permitted to enforce my view of morality on anyone... so I don't. I would, however, like to be able to hold them without fear of prosecution.

    What prosecution are you talking about?

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 07:58:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "What prosecution are you talking about?"

    This guy, the one in Sask.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 08:30:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous drew said…

    My understanding is that he's not facing prosecution, he's facing getting fired for not performing his job.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 08:56:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    Nobody is rewriting morality, they are simply following the moral code they happen to believe in (morality is subjective after all), just like you do.

    So you think morality is subjective, do you? I wonder if you would still think that if you were treated unfairly in any way (ie. someone cutting in ahead of you in a line at the bank or supermarket, someone swiping your parking place, someone who disagreed with you shouted you down while you were trying to speak at a meeting, or (and I sincerely hope this NEVER happens) someone viciously mugged you, taking your property and putting you in the hospital). If there is no objective morality, that it is all a matter of subjective morality (in other words, personal preference), then how would you have any right to complain? The person who treated you unfairly could claim that HIS subjective personal morality and preference allowed him to do it to you.

    My understanding is that he's not facing prosecution, he's facing getting fired for not performing his job.

    My understanding (based on a law degree from the U of S, class of 1981, including a class in Labour Law from Prof Ken Norman who I think was sitting on the Sask Human Rights Commission at the time) is that Human Rights Legislation in Saskatchewan indicates that all employers must make reasonable accomidation to the religious beliefs of their employees. This would certainly include those situations where the government is the employer.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 09:00:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    As a follow-up to my post of a few minutes ago, I should also mention that I also took a class in Civil Liberties from the same Prof Ken Norman.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 09:11:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous drew said…

    So you think morality is subjective, do you? I wonder if you would still think that if you were treated unfairly in any way (ie. someone cutting in ahead of you in a line at the bank or supermarket, someone swiping your parking place, someone who disagreed with you shouted you down while you were trying to speak at a meeting, or (and I sincerely hope this NEVER happens) someone viciously mugged you, taking your property and putting you in the hospital).

    I've had all sorts of unfair things happen to me and, yes, I still know that morality is subjective.

    If there is no objective morality, that it is all a matter of subjective morality (in other words, personal preference), then how would you have any right to complain? The person who treated you unfairly could claim that HIS subjective personal morality and preference allowed him to do it to you.

    Exactly. We all have our own moral codes which we follow (or don't follow as the case may be). It's really not about morality, it's about preference and power.

    My understanding (based on a law degree from the U of S, class of 1981, including a class in Labour Law from Prof Ken Norman who I think was sitting on the Sask Human Rights Commission at the time) is that Human Rights Legislation in Saskatchewan indicates that all employers must make reasonable accomidation to the religious beliefs of their employees. This would certainly include those situations where the government is the employer.

    Hey, if that's the case then I agree that he shouldn't be fired (and my understanding is that he hasn't been yet, and if he has a good lawyer and a fair judge he won't be).

    That said, Prescott needs to get over his persecution (and prosecution) complex. I mean I understand, I used to believe similarly, but you can relax, Andrew. Nobody is persecuting or prosecuting you for your beliefs and I doubt anybody will anytime soon here in Canada.

     
  • At Wed. Feb. 07, 09:50:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "morality is subjective after all"

    I like how Ravi answers people who say that morality is "subjective"...

    "In some cultures, people love their neighbours... in other cultures, they eat their neighbours. Do you have a preference?"

     
  • At Thu. Feb. 08, 08:11:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous drew said…

    I like how Ravi answers people who say that morality is "subjective"...

    "In some cultures, people love their neighbours... in other cultures, they eat their neighbours. Do you have a preference?"


    Exactly, it's all about preference (and the power to act out or punish based on that preference). This really is basic philosophy, there's no way to logically argue that morality is objective.

     
  • At Thu. Feb. 08, 09:24:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    This really is basic philosophy, there's no way to logically argue that morality is objective.

    Fascinating (as Mr Spock would say). Does that mean you see no objective basis for saying the Nazis were wrong to kill six million Jews?

     
  • At Fri. Feb. 09, 07:11:00 a.m. EST, Anonymous drew said…

    Fascinating (as Mr Spock would say). Does that mean you see no objective basis for saying the Nazis were wrong to kill six million Jews?

    If morality is subjective then there's no such thing as ontological right or wrong (or more accurately, there's no such thing as ontological good or evil), just pleasant and unpleasant to each individual. What the Nazis did was certainly unpleasant though, and not something that most people would appreciate, most of all the Jews and all the others they killed.

     
  • At Fri. Feb. 09, 12:06:00 p.m. EST, Blogger Brian in Calgary said…

    to drew

    Thank you for your consistency and honesty. We'll obviously have to agree to disagree, but it has been good to have a civilized discussion.

     
  • At Fri. Feb. 09, 12:17:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous drew said…

    to drew

    Thank you for your consistency and honesty. We'll obviously have to agree to disagree, but it has been good to have a civilized discussion.


    Not a problem, and thank you too. :)

     

Post a Comment

<< Home