Canada fines woman for illegal worship

You make vague hit and run statements and when asked to present evidence for such you try to imply the user asking should. and you won't admit you spoke in error.LJS9502_basic

As an Atheist all i can say is....

Good job Canada. The less Religion the world has the better. Canada is always a step ahead of every country. Weed will become legal. Riligious ppl can go lick the curb.

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

Omega-316

Seems simpler just to ban it outright.

[QUOTE="Omega-316"]

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

Palantas

Seems simpler just to ban it outright.

[QUOTE="I"]

[QUOTE="Omega-316"]

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

alexside1

Seems simpler just to ban it outright.

I don't care how much you hate it, it doesn't give you right to ban it.

Did I state that I have the right to ban it?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You make vague hit and run statements and when asked to present evidence for such you try to imply the user asking should. and you won't admit you spoke in error.foxhound_fox

How does being a non Christian kill a political career when non Christians are still in politics? Where is the evidence of this.....oh that's right...you don't have to back up your statements....just post opinion and accuse other users for not doing your job. What I always do is read the post as written....I'm not adding context where none is found...but as usual when called upon for not making a point...you jump on the person for correcting your mistake. Eh....same old same old.

PS...I still await your proof that everyone elected in the US is a Christian.

As an Atheist all i can say is....

Good job Canada. The less Religion the world has the better. Canada is always a step ahead of every country. Weed will become legal. Riligious ppl can go lick the curb.

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

Omega-316

[QUOTE="Omega-316"]

As an Atheist all i can say is....

Good job Canada. The less Religion the world has the better. Canada is always a step ahead of every country. Weed will become legal. Riligious ppl can go lick the curb.

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

LJS9502_basic

You, and others, are taking a bit of an extreme position in my opinion.

Reasonable limits on the "right" to assemble and worship have been in place in civilized/free countries for many, many years. Simply requiring people who want to have a religious ceremony to rent a private property instead of a public one isn't THAT big of a deal.

I mean, is that REALLY that onerous of a requirement?

In my opinion, people are more upset about the absurdity of the group getting fined after renting the building than the size of the fine itself or the fact that they need to rent a different building next time.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Omega-316"]

As an Atheist all i can say is....

Good job Canada. The less Religion the world has the better. Canada is always a step ahead of every country. Weed will become legal. Riligious ppl can go lick the curb.

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

nocoolnamejim

You, and others, are taking a bit of an extreme position in my opinion.

Reasonable limits on the "right" to assemble and worship have been in place in civilized/free countries for many, many years. Simply requiring people who want to have a religious ceremony to rent a private property instead of a public one isn't THAT big of a deal.

I mean, is that REALLY that onerous of a requirement?

In my opinion, people are more upset about the absurdity of the group getting fined after renting the building than the size of the fine itself or the fact that they need to rent a different building next time.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You seem to want to curb freedom.....which makes a country restrictive and frankly....not free. Sounds delightful....

LJS9502_basic

You, and others, are taking a bit of an extreme position in my opinion.

Reasonable limits on the "right" to assemble and worship have been in place in civilized/free countries for many, many years. Simply requiring people who want to have a religious ceremony to rent a private property instead of a public one isn't THAT big of a deal.

I mean, is that REALLY that onerous of a requirement?

In my opinion, people are more upset about the absurdity of the group getting fined after renting the building than the size of the fine itself or the fact that they need to rent a different building next time.

I'm referring to more to the general sides I see developing in the thread.

Was it silly to actually enforce the fine after the mistake (renting the building out) was made by someone else? Yes. But is the law on the books? Yes. Is it that big of a deal as how the TC presented it as being? Nowhere close.

Ultimately, I view this as an incredibly minor deal. It's a fine about the size of a parking ticket and easy to avoid in the future. Nothing in this implies that the right of Christians to worship and assemble is being put under undue stress.

Sometimes law-making runs amuck. If Canada has robust guarantees for freedom of speech, this law will be struck down by a higher court. Elraptor

Was it silly to actually enforce the fine after the mistake (renting the building out) was made by someone else? Yes. But is the law on the books? Yes. Is it that big of a deal as how the TC presented it as being? Nowhere close.Ultimately, I view this as an incredibly minor deal. It's a fine about the size of a parking ticket and easy to avoid in the future. Nothing in this implies that the right of Christians to worship and assemble is being put under undue stressnocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]Sometimes law-making runs amuck. If Canada has robust guarantees for freedom of speech, this law will be struck down by a higher court. nocoolnamejim

If the government doesn't want expressive activity on a nonpublic forum, it should refrain from making that forum accessible to the public in the first place.

As for the money, I don't think the amount of the fine is important at all. It's the premise underlying it that bother some of us.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]It continually amazes me how Christians can find ways to believe that they're being actively persecuted worldwide when, by and large, Christianity is the dominant religious influence in most of the Western world. It's a $44 fine people. It's less than the price of a new video game. This is not the modern day equivalent of the Romans feeding Christians to the lions. Pay the fine, quit being babies, and next time rent out a private property to have your ceremony in. Problem solved. Yeesh.Elraptor

Granted and no argument. Persecution of Christians DOES occur in parts of the world. But when someone highlights a $44 fine from a judge in Canada and tries and draw large, widespread conclusions along the lines of "so much for religious liberty huh?" it just is silly.

While in certain parts of the world, Christians are still sporadically persecuted for their beliefs, I find the way victim-hood act in countries like the U.S., Canada and most of Europe to be "crying wolf" if you will.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]Sometimes law-making runs amuck. If Canada has robust guarantees for freedom of speech, this law will be struck down by a higher court. Elraptor

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]Sometimes law-making runs amuck. If Canada has robust guarantees for freedom of speech, this law will be struck down by a higher court. Elraptor

If the government doesn't want expressive activity on a nonpublic forum, it should refrain from making that forum accessible to the public in the first place.

As for the money, I don't think the amount of the fine is important at all. It's the premise underlying it that bother some of us.

I don't disagree that the mistake made was that the building shouldn't have been rented out in the first place. The fine is silly because the religious group didn't make the mistake, whomever rented the building out did.

But I don't find fault with the underlying law that government buildings shouldn't be rented out for religious observations. My opinion that the law is there for a useful purpose (to keep the government from "endorsing" one religion over another by picking and choosing which religions can rent buildings and hold ceremonies) is a good one.

In my opinion, the fine should be eliminated because they're being assessed a fine for someone else making the mistake of renting out the building, but that the group (any group) should not be allowed to rent government property for religious purposes going forward.

[QUOTE="Elraptor"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] The thing is, I don't really see this as that bad of a law. All it says is that you can't hold religious ceremonies on public (government) property. To me, that's not an unreasonable restriction. It's simply a separation of church vs. state thing and avoids the potentially sticky issue of the government de facto establishing or supporting one religion over another. The mistake that was made here was some paper pusher shouldn't have rented the property out in the first place if there is a law on the books against religious ceremonies on government property. But, ultimately, it's only $44. The religious group in question can simply rent out some private office building next time or something.LJS9502_basic

I could get behind that idea.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]I can see that side of the argument, certainly, but the fact is that the government did choose to rent out the property to a private group. They then had a right to assemble on that property and engage in expressive activity. The idea that a prayer--on property voluntarily rented out by the government--somehow offends the separation of church and state is fanciful. If the government doesn't want expressive activity on a nonpublic forum, it should refrain from making that forum accessible to the public in the first place.nocoolnamejim

I could get behind that idea.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's the way to settle the problem...make her pay the fine and refund the rental money. Seems fair to me....LJS9502_basic

I could get behind that idea.

With a celebration of course. And while I know basketball isn't really your thing, it's what I'm most happy about this morning so...

Eh....same old same old.LJS9502_basic

But I don't find fault with the underlying law that government buildings shouldn't be rented out for religious observations. My opinion that the law is there for a useful purpose (to keep the government from "endorsing" one religion over another by picking and choosing which religions can rent buildings and hold ceremonies) is a good one.

nocoolnamejim

If you look through the thread, I have a lot of helpful suggestions on how to prevent use of public property by religionists.

• Confiscate visiblereligious paraphenalia from persons on public property.
• Create a special toll for persons using public roads to attent religious services.
• Make persons in assisted housing sign a pledge not to perform religious ceremonies in their home. Monitor them to ensure compliance.
• Deny government aid to religionists, or at the very least, sect clery/ministers/leaders.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Which would cost more: allowing these "problems" to happen or using your "solutions?"Palantas

Doesn't matter how much money it costs.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Eh....same old same old.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

But I don't find fault with the underlying law that government buildings shouldn't be rented out for religious observations. My opinion that the law is there for a useful purpose (to keep the government from "endorsing" one religion over another by picking and choosing which religions can rent buildings and hold ceremonies) is a good one.

Palantas

If you look through the thread, I have a lot of helpful suggestions on how to prevent use of public property by religionists.

• Confiscate visiblereligious paraphenalia from persons on public property.
• Create a special toll for persons using public roads to attent religious services.
• Make persons in assisted housing sign a pledge not to perform religious ceremonies in their home. Monitor them to ensure compliance.
• Deny government aid to religionists, or at the very least, sect clery/ministers/leaders.

Those seem a bit over the top to me.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Which would cost more: allowing these "problems" to happen or using your "solutions?"BranKetra

Doesn't matter how much money it costs.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

Doesn't matter how much money it costs.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]Yes, it does.

BranKetra

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Palantas is a master of sarcasm.....LJS9502_basic

It seems I'm not the master of sarcasm in this thread.

But I don't find fault with the underlying law that government buildings shouldn't be rented out for religious observations. My opinion that the law is there for a useful purpose (to keep the government from "endorsing" one religion over another by picking and choosing which religions can rent buildings and hold ceremonies) is a good one.nocoolnamejim

I agree it's possible to just blame this incident on the misapplication of a fundamentally viewpoint-neutral law. Based on what I can see in the articles, though, it sounds like the law is over-broad and discriminates on the basis of speech content without any compelling justification. If this article is accurate, the underlying law is a zoning regulation. The violation arose from the defendants' act of worship in an area of the borough that was not "zoned for places of worship." :? I don't want to rage too hard without even seeing the text of the law itself, but it sure sounds ridiculous. An area has to be "zoned for places of worship" before people can lawfully engage in "prayer, religious song and religious celebration"? So a group of people standing in that part of the borough cannot lawfully join hands and utter a prayer out loud? What about a single individual who whispers a prayer? If this law says what that article claims it does, the real problem isn't an isolated mistake by the government worker who rented the hall; it's a far more fundamental problem with the zoning bylaw itself.

It seems I'm not the master of sarcasm in this thread.

Palantas

They shouldn't have done it on public property, simple as that.

[QUOTE="one_plum"]

Canada and the US have different concepts of freedom.

LJS9502_basic

Why do you think Canadians and Americans on this forum always argue why each other's healthcare system is flawed? Canada is more on the side where everyone should have about the same quality of care while US is more about those who can afford it should have the freedom to have better health care.

US values the right to bear arms and believe that stripping guns away from people is a violation of their freedoms. People from other countries couldn't care less about that.

You can compare all you want, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree what you (and the consensus of your country) consider as freedom.

[QUOTE="Omega-316"]

As an Atheist all i can say is....

Good job Canada. The less Religion the world has the better. Canada is always a step ahead of every country. Weed will become legal. Riligious ppl can go lick the curb.

Its alright to practice a religion. But IF advertised then if i had it my way that should lead to prison for months. You want to pray? Stay home.

LJS9502_basic

I don't agree with him, but this comes across as quite hyprocritical when you support your fair share of freedom-restricting measures or laws.