Canada and Christianity

[TMA_1]

Now I am not sure about all of this, and it would be foolish to be too brash about all this stuff. So I ask that if I make an error in any of my information please correct me.

In canada, there have been steps made for certain parts of sharia law to be established for muslim peoples. I know this sounds unbelievable, but this is what I have heard. frankly i have a hard time believing this, so I want to know if anybody can correct me on this.

Another hting is that certain parts of the new testament will be stricken out of bibles written in canada. Parts containing condemnation of homosexuality and the like. because it is considered a hate crime.

Now in the canadian equivelant of the constitution, it says that people have a right to practice their own ethics and religion. Also that the government can only restrict free speach to what is neccisary, and not to the point where it becomes undemocratic.

This is dangerous though, and not just for christians, but for everybody. Not only are individuals unable to practice christianity, but if they do they can face legal action. here is an example.

A friend of mine went to the swiss air crash memorial, and she was friends with the pastor who was going to give an elugy. the pastor was going to give a speach, but she was told to give the written speech to a government offical in order to confirm that it contained no hate speech. Later she was not allowed to mention jesus because it could "offend others". while all that time Jewish and muslim leaders quoted from the old testament and the koran! these are our spiritual brothers, they should be defending christianity from this. Jews, muslims and christians need to band together for this, but sadly it seems christianity bares the brunt of these attacks.

For people who dont believe, this is still dangerous! the new testament is at least roughly 2000 years old. The texts stem back to documents as old as 40 to 50 A.D. These are spiritual texts that are historical treasures, written long ago. Though I still hold these texts as inspired work of God, those who dont believe it still should understand that these are cultural and spiritual values that should be protected under freedom of religion. Good christians,muslims,buddhists,hindus,jews and others dont attack abortion clinics or collective groups supporting gay and lesbian rights, but we have a right to disagree.

Not only this, every group such as mahayana buddhism agree that abortion is wrong, as it is murder to blatantly kill any living thing. Dont beleieve me? look it up. Also most sects of buddhism disagree with homosexuality, as sexual intercourse is frowned upon outside the bounds of procreation. Same with hinduism, islam, orthodox judeism. There are exceptions. Such as many reformed jews and even reformed buddhists in america are okay with abortion and gay lesbian rights.

still though, many of these religions disagree with many issues that america and other nations support. What are people going to do, restrict all spiritual brethren of worshipping in our beliefs? doesnt anybody see danger in this? even those who dont believe?

if I have made any errors with information, please correct me, I know though that canada is starting to restrict on certain religious practices out of fear of "hate crimes".

[Andrew]

Never heard of these stories, but they could easily be true.

The minorities always blame the majority.

If other religions were attending the swiss air crash memorial (other religions that died in crash) then it is only polite that they don't read something if it is a public thing, same goes for the nonchristian people, they should not say something about thier "god".

Soon enough, saying that someone is tall or short will be a hate crime. Yah for free speech.

Mixing of religion is an awkward thing, just like mixing protestants and catholics, each has their own set of rules/practices. PEI is historically divided between the two religions(even in politics we had to have a protestant and catholic run for each party in each district =4 people to vote for)

http://www.americandaily.com/item/3689

Quite frankly keep the law as it is, as inputting every religions laws into law would just stagnate the law. ;)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850

Cant wait to see the first woman to be stoned.(rocks)

[SurlyPIG]

"In canada, there have been steps made for certain parts of sharia law to be established for muslim peoples. I know this sounds unbelievable, but this is what I have heard. frankly i have a hard time believing this, so I want to know if anybody can correct me on this."

I havn't heard anything like this, but I tell ya, if our government adopts *ANY* part of Sharia law that isn't completely coincidental and already in line with Canada's values, I'm joining an Alberta separitist group faster than pre-teen girls flock to boybands.

About the anti-homosexual biblical lines, I think you got the story wrong. If I remember right it was the owner/editor of a newspaper that refused to print lines a paid add that quoted anti-homosexual lines from the bible. It had nothing to do with law or the bible in general. So you don't need to worry, they aren't banning the Bible or the Qur'an or Mein Kamph or anything like that.

[SurlyPIG]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35850

Cant wait to see the first woman to be stoned.(rocks)

Well, that does it. This is the last straw. I'm sick of this crap. There's no way I'm going to sit idly by while those jackasses in Ottawa use our taxdollars to enforce that backward horseshit. If these people want to live under Sharia law that badly, they can relocate to any one of the numerous religiously opressive Islamic countries, which most of them are undoubtedly from anyway. They won't be missed.

Other than a complete clergy takeover leading to a church-run state, this is about the absolute worst thing that a nation can do to civil rights and religious freedom. This is a shameful day to be Canadian.

[Acriku]

In all actuality, many parts of the OT and NT are not exactly for kids, and it can be interpreted that the bible speaks out against homosexuals, so atleast Canada is being consistent, while the U.S. puts up bibles in children's libraries while banning books that have the word "nigger" in them, even if it isn't meant for hate. Hooray to Canada for being consistent.

[Egeides]

So, Lethal, when will we see you form an "Independant Alberta" movement? ;D

I had never heard of this Sharia thing. And I really wonder if it was including parts that are going against Canadian laws. Perhaps not. The author talks as if the whole Sharia was going to be included while he says that stoning women wont when he says "possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery."

And I really wonder if what the author concludes is right: "possibly paving the way to one day administering criminal sentences, such as stoning women caught in adultery." I'm not too sure about that since I enver heard of one of our government officials approving such things but I did saw the opposite. So I'd really like to know where the author is taking this from. And so one about the rest the author assumes, like that "Sharia" means everything in the Sharia. He kindda presupposes that it means all the Sharia, while he says that stoning women is still not in.

And no, I do not believe it makes me "shameful" to be Canadian. I am ME and no one else. I have no responsabilities in what other Canadians are doing. So if it's not connected to me, I can't be ashamed of it except irrationally.

The source:

What is this source exactly? WorldNetDaily.com? They have very right-oriented publicity, and I this specific article doesn't say some elements. I also found some other interesting articles such as http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35420 and I wonder if this source is oriented towards ONLY what is against their values (Christianity, etc.) or if they'd give the same treatment to others. Why? I saw alot of "people are going against Christians", alot of "other religions are forcing their beliefs", etc. So what's WorldNetDaily and are they showing only the parts they want, without saying that Sharia is in fact only one or two things in the Sharia?

I even found a link to a magazine saying "How to recover America Judeo-Christian roots by going on the offensive" and that Church shouldn't be separated from State.

[TMA_1]

acriku, the bible is not racist or evil, maybe in your eyes. calling a person "nigger" is evil because it attacks something somebody is. Homosexuality is an action. NO matter how you put it, to constitute a person being a homosexual or lesbian, he or she has to perform oral or anal sex. That is the act of homosexuality or lesbianism. people of other races cant make the choice of taking off their skin, and why would they? homosexuality is a different matter all together. In fact ther are articles out there that show many black leaders are in an uproar for homosexuals comparing their plight to the civil rights movement.

In all actuality, many parts of the OT and NT are not exactly for kids

That is pure opinion acriku, you know that man. ::)

I cant see how you think canada is being consistant where america is not. Look at the sharia law, I think it is inconsistant to put a purely religious law in the books, while others attack the bible. The sharia is heavily influenced by the koran, in fact near the end of the book in the later chapters, the koran lays out most of the laws of islam. so where is this consistancy you are talking about?

[Edric O]

Can you say "panic-mongering"?

Of all people, Ace, I would never have expected you to blindly believe a piece of news from a website without checking that website's credibility first. And it's not as if they even try to hide the fact that they are a hardcore right-wing media source!

So far, this story about Sharia law in Canada is about as credible as something you would see on Fox News...

Trying to create tensions between Christians and Muslims is nothing new for the conservatives.

[Acriku]

acriku, the bible is not racist or evil, maybe in your eyes.

True it is not racist, but I never said it was. However, it being evil can be argued. But that was not my argument, so I won't persue that path.

calling a person "nigger" is evil because it attacks something somebody is. Homosexuality is an action.

What is the difference? Is not homosexuality the nature of the person, or atleast part of it? Being a homosexual is not something you decide you want to do today, but not tomorrow, it is something that is part of your nature. Of course, you can coax the mind, rather harshly, into thinking it is heterosexual, but it is difficult to tell if the person has really been changed, or just brainwashed into being another person.

and why would they?

And why would homosexuals want to change, since you are saying it is possible to change on their own?

In fact ther are articles out there that show many black leaders are in an uproar for homosexuals comparing their plight to the civil rights movement.

It may not be as widespread, or dire, or horrible, but they are fighting for their rights just as well, and I'm sure that the bible doesn't help the homosexuals in their fight for their rights that others take for granted.

That is pure opinion acriku, you know that man.

I'll leave what an impure opinion is up to you, but tell me this: does it make sense to excuse a child from reading a book with violence, adult situations, and genocidal killings, and let/make them read both Testaments? Certainly not to me.

I cant see how you think canada is being consistant where america is not. Look at the sharia law, I think it is inconsistant to put a purely religious law in the books, while others attack the bible. The sharia is heavily influenced by the koran, in fact near the end of the book in the later chapters, the koran lays out most of the laws of islam. so where is this consistancy you are talking about?

Well I explained how they were being consistent, atleast with what you brought up in your first post and restrictions on book content.

[TMA_1]

some of what you said could make sense acriku, and is a good defense, so I wont debate on that, but here.

I'll leave what an impure opinion is up to you, but tell me this: does it make sense to excuse a child from reading a book with violence, adult situations, and genocidal killings, and let/make them read both Testaments? Certainly not to me.

I would have to disagree here, it is a 2000 year old text of history. You have read great greek mythology, which is read in 6th grade, parts of it have things that movies would rate R. I mean it can get bad.

Edric, before you say things so brashly, watch for what I said.

I asked if what I said was true, and asked for corrections. Before attacking, try and watch to see that maybe i wanted to get the full story, and nobody yet has corrected me. If I am wrong, correct me and dont post stuff like that silly. ::)

[Acriku]

Believe me, the greek mythology taught in middle school is extremely washed down, and rinsed into a Disney movie. The only brutal mythologies I read was in 9th grade, in Latin I, reading the Aeneid, and then in Latin II, reading Metamorphoses.

[TMA_1]

hmm, we read direct translations... of course the teacher was the one reading them, but we all had follow along books.

you see my point though dont you? that it is good to seperate the modern from the old. The old and classic works shoudlnt be judged, as they are treasures, information of a time that had completely different values (in other people's opinions, not mine, but historically speaking this is truth). you do see what I mean with this dont you?

[Acriku]

I don't see how it being a thousand years old (or two in this case) makes it less harmful for the child, or less inappropriate. How could a parent find it appropriate simply because it is very, very old? Let it be cherished by those who can understand it, and tolerate it, and whose parents wouldn't complain if their children were accessed to what would be immediately discarded if were modern.

[TMA_1]

because it is somewhat disconnected from how our culture is now, same with any book that is really old. It loses some of it's reality (sadly). Of course i see it as just as relavent and important now, but again as I say looking at it from a semi objective viewpoint (really impossible for me) it seems tht it shouldnt be treated like any modern text.

[Acriku]

There is no basis for what you are saying. This immunity you're giving to very old texts is not something that I would find practical or even appealing.

[TMA_1]

hmm, then you disagree with most who hold historical and honorary treasured texts as above other books of liturature. Modern liturature can be judged easily by us as it contains ideals from our time reference, historical works are often written with different modes of thinking, and a different idea of time.

[SurlyPIG]

Edric: Of course I double-checked the source (well, actually, I quadruple-checked it). The only thing I took from that site is the actual news, I very much expected them to blow things out of proportion to the point of lying, so I read about it elsewhere:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/87502.php

http://www.quran.ca/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=133

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000237.php

Hopefully I am taking this the wrong way. Hopefully any judge with an ounce of sanity left will simply throw all of these "final and binding 'agreements'" out of court.

[Edric O]

Alright, now I'm worried. Well, actually, "worried" is an understatement. What the HELL is going on? Since when has time started flowing backwards? I would have expected Islamic countries to slowly start coming out of the dark ages and adopt Western law, not the other way around!

And what's even worse is that it's not only the Muslims who are going insane. Instead of trying to fight this dark age backwardness with secular equality before the law and the values of free speech, growing numbers of people answer barbarity with more barbarity. It seems that we will soon have a choice between fundamentalist Islamic law and fundamentalist Christian law...

[Mahdi]

I'd like to point out that neither the Canadian government nor courts have anything to do with this. It is, in fact, just a bunch of muslims who have gotten together and said "Lets make the Sharia law!". You could band together 10 people who want to outlaw reading, and it would be basically the same thing.

The arbitration law they are reffering to has nothing to do with the Sharia, it simply says that if you sue someone and decided to use an arbitor instead of go to trial, then the arbitors decision is final and cannot be appealed. It has no criminal application. The only way Sharia law can be applied with it is if one muslim sues another, agrees to an arbitor, and the arbitor follows sharia law. Then, the arbitors decision still cannot violate any civil rights or Canadian laws. If it does, the decision is void, and if it is enforced by the people involved, they will be charged, tried, and convicted.

[TMA_1]

I would have expected Islamic countries to slowly start coming out of the dark ages and adopt Western law, not the other way around!

I am suprised edric, that is extremely ethnocentric, and something I wouldnt expect you to say.

[Edric O]

I was talking about places like Saudi Arabia, not places like Turkey...

Ok, it was a horrible choice of words altogether...

[SurlyPIG]

Mahdi, I understood that from what I'd read. My concern is that since both parties agree to the arbitration that the decision made by the arbitor (who is following Sharia law, or variants therof) can be officially enforced by a secular Canadian judge as if it is any other kind of arbitration. Now, if I were a judge, there would be no way in hell I'm going to sign my name onto a decision made by an arbitor that is purely following religious doctrine. That's what I would assume any good judge would do. After all, a Canadian judge should enforce only arbitrations made by arbitors following Canadian law, not Sharia law or anything else for that matter. The only thing that worries me is that there is actually judges who support this idea (!).

I am suprised edric, that is extremely ethnocentric, and something I wouldnt expect you to say.

Ethnocentric? Maybe. Incredibly on-the-nose accurate? For sure.

[Mahdi]

ACelethal: As long as nothing the arbitrator decides violates an individuals civil rights or Canadian law (which an arbitrator cannot do), and both people entering into the arbitration agreed on the arbitrator and the guidelines he/she would be following, why not sign it? If the decision is fair, violates no laws, and agreed upon by the participants, what does it matter if the basis for the decision is the muslim, christian, or hindu faith? Throwing out a decision on that basis would be ridiculous.

[Edric O]

To clear things up:

No culture is "superior" to another. A quick glimpse at history will show you that Western civilization is guilty of more murders, atrocities and bloody wars than any other. Any Westerner who attacks Islamic civilization on the grounds of its "violence" is being a total hypocrite.

However, I wasn't talking about culture in the post that TMA quoted. I was talking about the code of law. And no one can deny the fact that the code of law in fundamentalist Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran looks like something out of the Middle Ages. Not because it is Islamic, but because it is dictatorial and it violates basic human rights. All cultures are equal, but all forms of government are NOT equal. Democracy is better than dictatorship; freedom is better than tyranny.

Or, to put it another way: The problem with fundamentalist Islamic countries is not that women wear traditional clothing - the problem is that they are forced to wear it. If they did it out of their own free will and it was not encoded in law, then I would have no objections to it.

[Acriku]

How it is hypocrisy for an American who isn't violent to attack a group of Islamics for being violent? You're attributing past violences with the modern person.