From the Criminal Code of Canda. Note the get out of jail free card for religion.
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject;
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
From what I’ve read and heard – and do remember that this is third hand at best, I’d wager that a randomly chosen gay man would be able to “perform the duties of the job.” There are several examples of predominantly homosexual kings who did their duty of fathering heirs.
What he would be, compared to other candidates for the job, would be undermotivated.
Seriously, as I understand things, Ghandi and other really good people can get into heaven even though they aren’t even a Christian at all and never said a Hail Mary or took Mass or anything: yet if you merely VOTE to ALLOW the CIVIL rights of marriage to extend to homosexuals, you are putting your immortal soul in danger.
If that’s not already a downright insane mixup of priorities among traditionalists, I don’t know what is.
With respect to issues of civil freedom and equality you are getting closer to the truth. It is obviously hypocritical to say that a Catholic politician should be forced to vote in accordance with Catholic doctrine in one area of civil affairs and not others. I don’t know how much more simply it can be put.
“Lacks standing” isn’t the right phrase, of course; everyone in Canada has “standing” to advocate whatever they please as long as they aren’t starting riots or armed insurrection. And everyone has standing to call them assholes. Free speech and all that.
One of the Catholic churches sacraments is Communion.
The Catholic Church prohibits Communion to non Catholics
I am not Catholic
The Charter allows them, under freedom of religion, to prevent me from taking communion in the Catholic church unless I am Catholic.
I am Anglican
The Anglican church also has the sacrament of Communion.
I may take Communion there.
The Catholic church has no right to tell legislators that it should be illegal for non Catholics to take the sacrament of Communion.
Now change the sacrament to Marriage and now make it civil marriage.
It is Simple. They have no right to try to forbid gay marriage outside of their own jurisdiction. The Church should concern itself with its own affairs and not put pressure on its parishioners who are politicians. I think they are behaving immorally in that the job of the Politicians (ideally) is to serve the public good not their own personal agendas or concerns, the Church is trying to currupt that.
Let me just make it clear that I am not in any way in favor of locking up priests or anyone else for speech. What I am in favor of is ripping the cassock off this document and exposing its purveyors and anyone else who hides behind “religion” to justify base bigotry.
Well, sure it does. It would be foolish of the Catholic church to do so, a bill like that wouldn’t pass, and if it did, it would be overturned in violation of the charter, but the Catholic church has the right to tell legislators that, just like any group has the right to lobby for any law or policy they think should be enacted.
I guess I find it galling that they are sticking their nose in an area (civil marriage) that has nothing to do with them and that they willingly try to pressure politicians to continue to deny others some of the freedoms the rest of us take for granted.
It annoys me that they waste time and energy on this issue when they have many more pressing and nastier issues of their own that need their fullest attention.
The thing that chaps my ass is that they are arguing that the definition of marriage ought tho be restricted to their religion’s definition of it. On the grounds of freedom of religion.
Of course, that leaves me without the right to marry whom my religion says I can, but I guess my freedom of religion (not to mention that of the largest Protestant denomination in the country) can go hang.
Wow. So a group like the Klan would be outright illegal in Canada?
If so, that’s a significant disconnect between US & Canada. Worth noting for all those who think we’re alike.
re, the OP: Unfortunately, this sort of meddling in politics by the Church is a dual-edged sword. There’s a US judicial nominee being filibustered now. As I understand it, his faith underwent a significant grilling. Meaning, how much would it affect his upholding the law.
See, if the Church wants faith to supercede law, it’d best not be surprised once there’s no more faith-full lawmakers.
Wow. So a group like the Klan would be outright illegal in Canada?
If so, that’s a significant disconnect between US & Canada. Worth noting for all those who think we’re alike.
re, the OP: Unfortunately, this sort of meddling in politics by the Church is a dual-edged sword. There’s a US judicial nominee being filibustered now. As I understand it, his faith underwent a significant grilling. Meaning, how much would it affect his upholding the law.
See, if the Church wants faith to supercede law, it’d best not be surprised once there’s no more faith-full lawmakers.
I don’t think the KKK are 'zackly illegal, they’re just not allowed to say anything that could be construed as promoting hatred. Which doesn’t leave 'em much to say.
Haven’t heard much from them or groups like them since Ernst Zundl was squelched and thrown out.
I haven’t been following the latest round of judicial nominees but I believe you’re talking about our old pal, much discussed on this board, AG William “Drop Them Dildos” Pryor. The issue was not his religious beliefs but the extent to which he would inject his beliefs into his rulings to the detriment of precedent and the Constitution, and also an ad campaign which claimed that he was opposed by Democrats because of his Catholicism. A democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee, himself a lifelong Catholic, was deeply pissed that Republicans would claim that the Democrats were engaging in anti-Catholic discrimination.Cite
Admittedly, probably not that many, but it seems to me that most legislators who believe they’ll be going to hell if they support gay marriage because the Catholic Church says so, already oppose it.
