I was reading the news today-- I like keeping tab on home.. as most other international students like to do over here and I came across a little article that made me do a double take just because one line was really disturbing.
www.canada.com on the topic of some liberal backbenchers pushing through their own agenda for their own "Christian interests." Don't get me wrong, I don't have any beef with Christians, I have plenty of friends that are and we get along perfectly fine. But the following excerpt was exceptionally troubling:
- Churches do not have to marry same-sex couples.
- Justices of the peace will not be forced to perform civil marriages against their religious principles.
- Faith-based schools and charities will not be punished for denouncing gay marriage.
The first 2 points I'm fine with, perfectly respectable but that last point is a big no-no. First off, it violates the rule of separation of state and religion in the sense that the government is giving immunity to Christian religious communities to push/denounce whatever they please for their own agenda. What's next for religious agendas? Government sanction for Christian schools to denounce things like evolution, big bang theory and etc? They don't need a government sanction to do what they want-- they can do whatever they want already but don't go crying for immunity because they don't want to deal with backlash. It's sick to imagine that some religious institutions want tolerance and want to go as far as they can with their own intolerance.
4 comments:
Pisses me off, too. New name for them: Theocrats. This particular group of extremists is hijacking the meaning of the term 'Christian'.
part of tolerance is allowing others to be intolerant. To be intolerant of their intolerance is... intolerant?
Tolerance, also, does include sanctioning or approving of something. A group can disapprove of one thing while still 'tolerating' it.
a definition of tolerate is to 'put up with'. Not to approve or sanction or not speak out against.
This specific point (3) comes because of a law on hate crimes which was recently passed. The intent of the law was to target violent crimes; however, the literal wording can be interpreted such that the bible (and likely other religous books) is a piece of hate literature (BAN!). Whoops! The canadian system is such that the legislature writes the laws, the judges interpret it REGARDLESS of the intent of the law (really silly, sorta).
Banning a groups religious book is definately 'intolerant', as now you're taking ACTION against them.
Point 3 is covering their asses.
I personally disagree with point 2... that's full out discrimination just for the hell of it. "I don't like gays therefore I don't have to marry them". WHAT???? point 1 is religious, point 3 is religion covering there asses, point 2 is full-out discrimination.
apparently i didn't read point2 close enough. It's also religion based.
I consider point 2 to be a non-issue since a "marrage" does not have to be carried through a religious institution. They are more than welcome to refuse to marry people because it goes against the beliefs of their institution.
I would not consider it abnormal for say Mensa to reject the application of a person with an IQ of 100 because the characteristics of that person does not fall with in their organizational structure.
The difference however is when an organization becomes an active component effecting other people that do not fall within their organization. It would be, for example forcing Muslims to say Christian prayers before they eat because they lived in a strong demographic of Christians. If this set of rules were applied conversely, conflict results.
Point 3 causes conflict because it sets a precident that other organizations would be able to acquire the "right" to denounce what they chose with immunity give that power to only one group of people and the result is a dictatorship. Unless people adhere to the policies of the dictatorship, conflict results.
For a democratic system to be preserved, laws should be applied uniformly and indiscrimately. Injustice is a product of inconsistentcy and henceforth "unfair."
Religion as defined by www.dictionary.com is "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." The word *belief* does not give one organizaton a mandate to force other people to follow their institution. They have *no right* which is the issue.
To illustrate, suppose that point 3 in question was changed to "Muslim-based schools and charities will not be punished for denouncing Christianity." In all fairness Christians would be outraged if this occurs assuming this case. I consider point 3 to be unethical because because it does not follow "a set of principles of right conduct" (cf: definition of ethical www.dictionary.com).
Post a Comment