Three cheers for the Supreme Court of Canada

[viking mama]

You mock yourself by posting this kind of drivel.

What right are you standing by again? The one the Supreme Court of Canada said they don't have? And I'm the Nazi?

Seig Heil!

I didnt say the SC was wrong on their point to rule against this particular model as they did,..but I offered options to city council I felt would not be struck down...and yet maintain the acknowledgment that greater committment is often accompanied by a greater spiritual or meditating component.

Do they still raise hands to the square to swear oaths (before whom) or place the other on a bible when committing to telling the truth in courts of law? I would suspect that is struck down too. Well, that's the image I invoke. I would be making a spiritual committment to do so and to help me remember all that was necessary to the procedings to the best of my ability. If you have no understanding of that - I'm sorry. Losing that component for some people ,..eliminates another level of accountability. Attend a 12-step meeting sometime, a joga class, a prayer meeting or spiritual revival... offer-up a personal, heart-felt, sincere and questioning prayer, put it out there into the universe,..and see what happens....give it a try....before you scoff at its worth in exercising and encouraging the use of our spiritual muscles which have become widely known for amplifying success in many worthy causes. What are you afraid of?! Ahhhh,.. well, just continue to enjoy the 'ego' of self...as you have it, then.

You seem to believe that compromise has no place in City Halls or government..in ways other than in 'sterile' or 'gutting' absolutes. Good luck stearing society towards Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", then. We're almost there. What will be left after marginalizing religious influence from government leadership and our learning institutions,...(like refusing to uphold certification of a law-school because their students wish to attend university with a morals code to optimize their environment)? What's to come? Some say it will be the continuing erosion of the rights of parents and further dissolution of the family home. Who needs 'parents' anyway,..just make huge 'incubating' baby factories'? More jobs, right?

I guess I'll just continue to hold down ranks with 'John the Savage'. I much prefer to colour my world and be continually inspired by it. Our society has taken awhile to evolve. 'Excessive' sterility from religion in our institutions and in our governing bodies should NOT be the goal from here. I've seen what happens historically when other groups have attempted that.

[Lockout Casualty]

[Lancaster]

Did you even read the article? The exact answer is there.

It's a good thing we don't make laws based on what you personally find offensive or not, huh?

I feel like you need a "birds and bees" discussion on how society functions, what purpose the Charter serves, and how it affects Canadian politics.

Oh, I understand completely. It's just pretty much someone is offended because a religious ritual is performed before a government function. Sure, religion plays no role in government, but either than the initial incantation, are there any actual policies influenced by said religion? Are they mandating everyone tithe? Or the 10 Commandments followed to the letter of the law? Talk about making a mountain from an ant hill.

In this situation, the religion is woven in the fabric of the culture of the city. So unless we're gonna start removing culture as well, this ruling will just be abused further.

Shouldn't this situation also fall under "freedom of speech"? I mean, can't they just say... officially this meeting starts at 7:01 and it's now 7:00, so we're gonna pray for a minute, thus circumventing the ruling?

As for laws based on what I'm am or am not offended, it's very easy. As long as you'r not mentally, physically or whatever abusing, intimidating other people, you're in the clear. Society will be better off if everyone can learn to just tolerate each other and their differences, rather than trying to make sure nobody offends them, because the last time I check the books, there's no law saying you're allowed to live life without being offended (exceptions of libel, hate crimes, etc.)

[thejazz97]

Oh, I understand completely. It's just pretty much someone is offended because a religious ritual is performed before a government function. Sure, religion plays no role in government, but either than the initial incantation, are there any actual policies influenced by said religion? Are they mandating everyone tithe? Or the 10 Commandments followed to the letter of the law? Talk about making a mountain from an ant hill.

In this situation, the religion is woven in the fabric of the culture of the city. So unless we're gonna start removing culture as well, this ruling will just be abused further.

Shouldn't this situation also fall under "freedom of speech"? I mean, can't they just say... officially this meeting starts at 7:01 and it's now 7:00, so we're gonna pray for a minute, thus circumventing the ruling?

As for laws based on what I'm am or am not offended, it's very easy. As long as you'r not mentally, physically or whatever abusing, intimidating other people, you're in the clear. Society will be better off if everyone can learn to just tolerate each other and their differences, rather than trying to make sure nobody offends them, because the last time I check the books, there's no law saying you're allowed to live life without being offended (exceptions of libel, hate crimes, etc.)

Quebec's Charter of values requires state neutrality. As representatives of the State, they are required by law to abstain from having a prayer meeting while on the job.

[Realtor Rod]

Judiciary does not make law, it interprets and applies the law. Laws are made by the legislature.

Stop trying to sound smart or clever, it exposes that you're neither.

Why do you care so much about this? Some small, wanna be their own country anyways, municipality can't pray before meetings. Aren't there way more important things? Education to start. There was a town hall meeting in Abbotsford, they prayed, no one cared. On to business.

[Lockout Casualty]

Why do you care so much about this? Some small, wanna be their own country anyways, municipality can't pray before meetings. Aren't there way more important things? Education to start. There was a town hall meeting in Abbotsford, they prayed, no one cared. On to business.

Because I'm a masochist.

[etsen3]

Meanwhile in 7 US States, atheists cannot hold public office, and in Alabama, they cannot even act as a witness in court.

[RUPERTKBD]

Meanwhile in 7 US States, atheists cannot hold public office, and in Alabama, they cannot even act as a witness in court.

Not that I doubt your word, but do you have a source for that? I'd be very interested in reading more about it.

[Lockout Casualty]

Not that I doubt your word, but do you have a source for that? I'd be very interested in reading more about it.

In Seven States, Atheists Push to End Largely Forgotten Ban

[RUPERTKBD]

In Seven States, Atheists Push to End Largely Forgotten Ban

All I can say is, wow. Still, it appears from the article that these laws are never enforced and would almost certainly be stuck down if enforcement were attempted, but there is no doubt that they are discriminatory and should be scrapped.

The fact that Maryland is one of the states is a bit of a surprise, but the other six? Not so much:

The six states besides Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.