Canada fines woman for illegal worship

Well this is a bit ridiculous, eh.

A Canadian judge fined Paula Celani $44. Her offense:

On a Sunday morning two years ago," reports Graeme Hamilton in Canada's National Post newspaper, she and "about 80 members of her Catholic lay group gathered in a hall they had rented from the city.

They watched an inspirational video, they prayed and they capped it off with a potluck lunch. "We had a beautiful day," Celani recalls.

Apparently it is illegal in Montreal (which I guess means against a city-ordinance, not provinical or federal law) to pray on public property (even if it is rented). Celani's lawyer is suing claiming the law is unconstitutional.

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

So much for religious liberty huh.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/11/catholics-fined-for-illegal-worship.php#ixzz1ekGpkaZQ (Gamespot won't let me link).

And on a similar note apparently the FCC is making it harder for small religious broadcasters to be exempt from the Closed Captioning Requirements which may make some shut down. If the feds want to force them to Close Caption why don't the feds help them pay for if they can't afford it?

Wow, Canada has gotten even better, I love those people and their neutral values :D

If the United States is smart they will boycott all exports and refuse to import to Canada until they repent for their atheism.

Well this isn't good:

With the western world captivated by such bestsellers and movie franchises as Harry Potter and Twilight, Africa is seeing the darker side of the occult. Several countries are battling a resurgence in child sacrifice — as native witchdoctors promise health and prosperity if a human child is ritually mutilated, then murdered

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/11/pope-warns-against-witchcraft.php#ixzz1ekKH8r1g

Wow, Canada has gotten even better, I love those people and their neutral values :D

parkurtommo

So much for religious liberty huh.

whipassmt

F*** that. People who don't agree with me should be preventd from gathering by force.

i was going to defend this until i saw that it happened in montreal, montreal is occupied by a large amount of french people and as such i feel like the fact that they are french speaks loud enough about why this was allowed to happen

Wow, Canada has gotten even better, I love those people and their neutral values :D

parkurtommo

That's just a dumb law, they rented it they should be able to pray there if they wish

If the United States is smart they will boycott all exports and refuse to import to Canada until they repent for their atheism.

StRaItJaCkEt36

Omg they prayed!?

Lock 'em up!

i was going to defend this until i saw that it happened in montreal, montreal is occupied by a large amount of french people and as such i feel like the fact that they are french speaks loud enough about why this was allowed to happen

linkin_guy109

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

whipassmt

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

Can we get a source other than a blog?weezyfb

alright mine as well try and come up with an argument for this, im assuming that the basis of the bi law which caused this to happen was one which basically says no worship is allowed in a public place and a hall like the one they rented can most likely be considered a public place and as such there worshipping in public was against the bilaw so they were persecuted, end of story :)

alright mine as well try and come up with an argument for this, im assuming that the basis of the bi law which caused this to happen was one which basically says no worship is allowed in a public place and a hall like the one they rented can most likely be considered a public place and as such there worshipping in public was against the bilaw so they were persecuted, end of story :)

linkin_guy109

[QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]

alright mine as well try and come up with an argument for this, im assuming that the basis of the bi law which caused this to happen was one which basically says no worship is allowed in a public place and a hall like the one they rented can most likely be considered a public place and as such there worshipping in public was against the bilaw so they were persecuted, end of story :)

BranKetra

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

THE_DRUGGIE

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

People should have the freedom to practice their religion.

alright mine as well try and come up with an argument for this, im assuming that the basis of the bi law which caused this to happen was one which basically says no worship is allowed in a public place and a hall like the one they rented can most likely be considered a public place and as such there worshipping in public was against the bilaw so they were persecuted, end of story :)

linkin_guy109

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

THE_DRUGGIE

Do you think we should allow religious people to live in public housing projects? I mean, they might pray or some other nonsense in their house, which is public property.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]

alright mine as well try and come up with an argument for this, im assuming that the basis of the bi law which caused this to happen was one which basically says no worship is allowed in a public place and a hall like the one they rented can most likely be considered a public place and as such there worshipping in public was against the bilaw so they were persecuted, end of story :)

THE_DRUGGIE

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

Palantas

Do you think we should allow religious people to live in public housing projects? I mean, they might pray or some other nonsense in their house, which is public property.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="linkin_guy109"]

alright mine as well try and come up with an argument for this, im assuming that the basis of the bi law which caused this to happen was one which basically says no worship is allowed in a public place and a hall like the one they rented can most likely be considered a public place and as such there worshipping in public was against the bilaw so they were persecuted, end of story :)

THE_DRUGGIE

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

Palantas

Do you think we should allow religious people to live in public housing projects? I mean, they might pray or some other nonsense in their house, which is public property.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/09/protesters-plan-to-shout-all-night-to-disturb-popes-sleep.php

Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. Where do you draw the line?BranKetra

We draw the line on the side of the Constitution, in the United States, anyway. We can't allow religion to use public assets. People applying for government assistance should have to register their religion, and if it's anything but "Atheist" or "Undecided," they should be closely monitored. For example, we can't have people on food stamps using public money to buy food items that might be used in a religious ceremony. That's a violation of church and state. It might be simpler just to deny registered religionists any type of government aid.

thats complete BS, people should have the right to follow any religion they wish

In general people should be able to do what they want on public property provided it isn't disruptive or obscene, i.e. no blocking traffick or walking around nude, flipping people off etc.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Exactly, that's what I'm getting at. Where do you draw the line?Palantas

We draw the line on the side of the Constitution, in the United States, anyway. We can't allow religion to use public assets. People applying for government assistance should have to register their religion, and if it's anything but "Atheist" or "Undecided," they should be closely monitored. For example, we can't have people on food stamps using public money to buy food items that might be used in a religious ceremony. That's a violation of church and state. It might be simpler just to deny registered religionists any type of government aid.

That's pretty extreme, but it is in line with Constitution, so I can't argue with it.BranKetra

Also, while we of course agree that public property should not be used for a religious ceremony, what about the secondary use of public property by religionists? Example: People use the public roads to drive to a place of worship. Persons entering a private religious property should have to pay a toll, determined by the distance to their house, taken from the address on their driver's license. (Frequently practicing religionists could of course buy a "fast pass" as with normal highway tolls.) Should we tax people who wallk? On the one hand, they are using public roads or sidewalks, but on the other, they're being environemntally friendly. That's a tricky one.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]That's pretty extreme, but it is in line with Constitution, so I can't argue with it.Palantas

Also, while we of course agree that public property should not be used for a religious ceremony, what about the secondary use of public property by religionists? Example: People use the public roads to drive to a place of worship. Persons entering a private religious property should have to pay a toll, determined by the distance to their house, taken from the address on their driver's license. (Frequently practicing religionists could of course buy a "fast pass" as with normal highway tolls.) Should we tax people who wallk? On the one hand, they are using public roads or sidewalks, but on the other, they're being environemntally friendly. That's a tricky one.

However, if these people paid for a private gathering, even if on public grounds, does this law still stand? It wasn't as if they were holding an open service.

BranKetra

That's a good point. I should rethink my last post. We can't allow any use of public property by religionists, even if rented. I don't see why anyone should be allowed to drive to a religious center. That's utilizing the public roadways. Religious centers should only be allowed to purchase private land to build their own roads/walkways.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

However, if these people paid for a private gathering, even if on public grounds, does this law still stand? It wasn't as if they were holding an open service.

Palantas

That's a good point. I should rethink my last post. We can't allow any use of public property by religionists, even if rented. I don't see why anyone should be allowed to drive to a religious center. That's utilizing the public roadways. Religious centers should only be allowed to purchase private land to build their own roads/walkways.

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

If the United States is smart they will boycott all exports and refuse to import to Canada until they repent for their atheism.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Because the property is still public regardless of temporary rental.

Palantas

Do you think we should allow religious people to live in public housing projects? I mean, they might pray or some other nonsense in their house, which is public property.

Definitely not. If I lived in one of those and had someone praying, I would bust down their door and put them under citizen's arrest.

It interrupts my beauty sleep, but it's my civic duty.

[QUOTE="I"]

That's a good point. I should rethink my last post. We can't allow any use of public property by religionists, even if rented. I don't see why anyone should be allowed to drive to a religious center. That's utilizing the public roadways. Religious centers should only be allowed to purchase private land to build their own roads/walkways.

BranKetra

It's not supressing them. It's just ensuring that we honor the First Amendment and don't support religion. If religious centers don't have the money to operate, then they'll just have to shut down. Religionists will have to worship at home (as long as they're not using any public resources, of course, like government assistance for heat/electricity in the winter).

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="I"]

That's a good point. I should rethink my last post. We can't allow any use of public property by religionists, even if rented. I don't see why anyone should be allowed to drive to a religious center. That's utilizing the public roadways. Religious centers should only be allowed to purchase private land to build their own roads/walkways.

Palantas

It's not supressing them. It's just ensuring that we honor the First Amendment and don't support religion. If religious centers don't have the money to operate, then they'll just have to shut down.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

THE_DRUGGIE

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

LJS9502_basic

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

thats complete BS, people should have the right to follow any religion they wishTH1Sx1SxSPARTA

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No it's not. If you rent the space you should be allowed to do what you wish on it as long as you don't trash it or commit illegal acts.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

LJS9502_basic

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

...are you talking about renting civil servants to trash/commit illegal acts on them?

I don't agree with that either. Seems Canada is not so free....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't agree with that either. Seems Canada is not so free....foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't agree with that either. Seems Canada is not so free....foxhound_fox