[ShepherdsDog]

Seeing as we are a secular society and the schools receive tax dollars paid by people of all faiths and none the law of the land should triumph. IF a private school (paid for wholly by a church and parishioners) banned the formation of the group they would have a valid point. That's why the clergy can refuse to marry homosexuals and religious groups can refuse to rent their property to them. The Church and State must remain separate and if Vic can't see that he shouldn't be in government.

[raydan]

Unsound Unsound:

raydan raydan:

When Church doctrine goes against the law of the land, which one should win?

Depends, is that "law of the land" respecting constitutional gaurantees of religious freedom?

You shouldn't be able to hide behind religion to break the law.

[Curtman]

Interesting points:

$1:

What Allan introduced so innocuously last Dec. 4 in the Manitoba legislature has now become ground zero in a polarizing debate over whether Allan's Bill 18 violates constitutional rights of religious freedom.

This bill was introduced over 3 months ago. The PC party was in support of this, there was no opposition to the legislation what so ever.

The opposition isn't coming from normal people. Its coming specifically from religious biggots in Vic Toews riding.



When you enter Steinbach, it's like travelling back in time to a place which recently ended alcohol prohibition.

http://updatednews.ca/2013/03/07/anti-bullying-bill-like-persecution-in-steinbach/

$1:

Anti-Bullying Bill Like ‘Persecution’ In Steinbach
Last week, about 1,000 staff, students and parents met in the gymnasium at Steinbach Christian High School for a prayer event in opposition to Bill 18. People at the meeting were also asked to write letters to provincial politicians with their concerns.

The town of Steinbach was founded by Mennonite families fleeing religious persecution in Russia.

Bill 18 is like being persecuted for their beliefs again, Penner said.

Sermon rips anti-bullying bill

$1:

Pastor warns of God's action over gay-group provisions

At his Feb. 24 sermon to thousands of parishioners at Southland Church in Steinbach, Pastor Ray Duerksen specifically cited Hanover and Steinbach councillors, Hanover school trustees, doctors in the regional health authority, MLAs and MPs, police, firefighters, teachers, and media members and said: "God did not place you in your position because you are the only person who can do your job that well.
"If you don't do it, God will set you and I aside, and raise up someone who will."

And Vic is using the charter to defend this biggotry.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Ahh, because atheism has certainly proven itself to be a beacon of tolerance, acceptance, and non-violence, right?

Atheism isn't a club. It hasn't membership. It's incapable of proving itself a beacon of anything.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/world/britains-atheist-church-set-to-go-global/579091

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/religion-society/sunday-assembly-atheist-church-ready-expand-globally

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/good-without-god-atheist-churches-offer-non-believers-community-and-ritual-without-faith/

[Curtman]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Let's see. You go to an institution that expressly states they follow the doctrine of a church.

You go to said institution anyway, and attempt to create an organization/club/student network that goes against the doctrine the institution believes in.

Yeah, I don't see why they wouldn't have a problem with. I'm sure religious schools don't support student clubs that praise atheism either.

First off, they're kids. So it's not actually their choice, legally, to attend these insitutions. They are not necessarily going there because they support the church's values. They have to attend school, and maybe their parents are forcing them to attend a religious institution. Lord knows, the Catholic school kids I knew growing up weren't thrilled with the idea.

Secondly, I'm not sure what the other religious texts say, but the Bible explicitly instructs its followers to kill practicing male homosexuals. It's not much a stretch, to my mind, to allow for legislation to protect gays in a Christian environment.

Thirdly, the "institution" to which you refer is made up of people. Some of those people are the students. They should have a say.

That said, I find Bill 18 to be overly vague. "Diversity"--I know what that means in the activist sense, but not in the legal sense. Does that mean we have to respect the diversity of violent psychopaths?

The entire text of the bill, as it existed at first reading, with no debate:

$1:

C.C.S.M. c. P250 amended
1 The Public Schools Act is amended by this Act.

2 Subsection 1(1) is amended by adding the following definition:

"bullying" means bullying as defined in section 1.2; (« intimidation »)

3 The following is added after section 1.1 and before Part I:

Interpretation: "bullying"
1.2(1) In this Act, "bullying" is behaviour that

(a) is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property; or

(b) is intended to create, or should be known to create, a negative school environment for another person.

Characteristics and forms
1.2(2) Bullying

(a) characteristically takes place in a context of a real or perceived power imbalance between the people involved and is typically, but need not be, repeated behaviour;

(b) may be direct or indirect; and

(c) may take place

(i) by any form of expression, including written, verbal or physical, or

(ii) by means of any form of electronic communication — also referred to as cyberbullying in section 47.1.2 — including social media, text messaging, instant messaging, websites or e-mail.

When does a person participate in bullying?
1.2(3) A person participates in bullying if he or she directly carries out the bullying behaviour or intentionally assists or encourages the bullying behaviour in any way.

4(1) Subsection 41(1) is amended

(a) by replacing clause (b.2) with the following:

(b.2) ensure that a written policy is established respecting the appropriate use of

(i) the Internet, including social media, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and e-mail, and

(ii) digital cameras, cell phones — including cell phones equipped with digital cameras — and any other electronic or personal communication devices identified by the board;

(b) by adding the following after clause (b.3):

(b.4) establish a written policy concerning respect for human diversity, and ensure that the policy is implemented in each school in the school division or school district;

4(2) The following is added as subsections 41(1.5) to (1.:

Appropriate use policy for Internet, etc.
41(1.5) An appropriate use policy established under clause (1)(b.2) may include provisions that prohibit the accessing, uploading, downloading, sharing or distribution of information or material that the school board has determined to be objectionable or not in keeping with the maintenance of a positive school environment.

Respect for human diversity policy
41(1.6) A respect for human diversity policy is to

(a) promote and enhance

(i) a safe and inclusive learning environment,

(ii) the acceptance of and respect for others, and

(iii) the creation of a positive school environment; and

(b) address training for teachers and other staff about

(i) bullying prevention, and

(ii) strategies for promoting respect for human diversity and a positive school environment.

Regard for principles of human rights
41(1.7) In preparing its respect for human diversity policy, a school board must have due regard for the principles of The Human Rights Code.

Student activities and organizations
41(1. A respect from human diversity policy must accommodate pupils who want to establish and lead activities and organizations that

(a) promote

(i) gender equity,

(ii) antiracism,

(iii) the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people who are disabled by barriers, or

(iv) the awareness and understanding of, and respect for, people of all sexual orientations and gender identities; and

(b) use the name "gay-straight alliance" or any other name that is consistent with the promotion of a positive school environment that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils.

5(1) Subsection 47.1(2) is amended

(a) in subclause (b)(i.1), by striking out ", including cyber-bullying"; and

(b) by replacing clause (d) with the following:

(d) a statement that pupils and staff must adhere to school board policies and the provisions of the code of conduct respecting the appropriate use of

(i) the Internet, including social media, text messaging, instant messaging, websites and e-mail, and

(ii) digital cameras, cell phones and other electronic or personal communication devices identified in the code of conduct or the policies of the school board; and

5(2) Subsection 47.1(2.1) is repealed.

6 Clause 47.1.1(6)(b) is replaced with the following:

(b) bullying another pupil.

7 The following is added after section 47.1.1 and before the centred heading that follows it:

Expanded duty to report cyberbullying
47.1.2(1) A person who is subject to a duty under subsection 47.1.1(1) must, if they become aware that a pupil of a school may have

(a) engaged in cyberbullying; or

(b) been negatively affected by cyberbulling;

report the matter to the principal of the school as soon as reasonably possible.

Application
47.1.2(2) Subsections 47.1.1(2) to (5) apply in respect of a principal who believes that a pupil of the school has been harmed as a result of cyberbullying.

8 Subsection 48(4) is amended by striking out "welfare of the school" and substituting "school environment".

Coming into force
9 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

I believe it is this part that the church fears:

$1:

1.2(1) In this Act, "bullying" is behaviour that

(a) is intended to cause, or should be known to cause, fear, intimidation, humiliation, distress or other forms of harm to another person's body, feelings, self-esteem, reputation or property; or

This law defines what they do as bullying.

[Gunnair]

I think Atheism does the same thing to church goers.

[Tricks]

Freedom of religion trumps the freedom of assembly? How about the freedom from persecution? How about the freedom to be who you are and have support from fellow students.

Fuck off Toews.

[Curtman]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Seeing as we are a secular society and the schools receive tax dollars paid by people of all faiths and none the law of the land should triumph. IF a private school (paid for wholly by a church and parishioners) banned the formation of the group they would have a valid point. That's why the clergy can refuse to marry homosexuals and religious groups can refuse to rent their property to them. The Church and State must remain separate and if Vic can't see that he shouldn't be in government.

The only reason they are bound in any way shape or form by the public schools act is because they take public funds.

I'm very grateful to be in agreement with you.

[CanadianJeff]

raydan raydan:

What would Jesus do about bill 18? He'd probably support it with a big thumb's up.

+5

[Lemmy]

Gunnair Gunnair:

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/world/britains-atheist-church-set-to-go-global/579091

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/religion-society/sunday-assembly-atheist-church-ready-expand-globally

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/good-without-god-atheist-churches-offer-non-believers-community-and-ritual-without-faith/

I read the first one and is was so utter-shite that I didn't even click on the other two. Altheists don't deny religion. They abstain. It's like polling grandma's knitting club on its opinions on the latest boy band. They don't care. They don't get it. And they don't care to get it. It's utterly meaningless in their lives. That's how atheists view any discussion of religion.

The people who get all anti-religion aren't atheists. They're something else. They're twisted shit disturbers, but they aren't atheists. If they were atheists, they wouldn't care. They'd shut the fuck up and live and let live.

[CanadianJeff]

You do understand that being what I think we would define "Anti theist" and Atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.

You can choose to care about religion or not but if you lack belief you fulfill the only requirement needed to be an Atheist. There is no magical "right" way to be an Atheist because there is no dogma or set of rules.

Well I think most of us would agree on one very big thing though "Try not to be a complete dick and live your life as best you can."

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy Lemmy:

I read the first one and is was so utter-shite that I didn't even click on the other two. Altheists don't deny religion. They abstain. It's like polling grandma's knitting club on its opinions on the latest boy band. They don't care. They don't get it. And they don't care to get it. It's utterly meaningless in their lives. That's how atheists view any discussion of religion.

The people who get all anti-religion aren't atheists. They're something else. They're twisted shit disturbers, but they aren't atheists. If they were atheists, they wouldn't care. They'd shut the fuck up and live and let live.

I find there's an evangelist athist movement afoot--God is not Great, by Hitchens. The God Delusion by Dawkins. Letter to A christian Nation by Sam Harris. Religulous by Bill Maher. I personally find the evangelical style rather offputting. I always had a lot of resepct for Dawkins's earlier works (The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene) but with the God Delusion I found that the tone was rather angry adn condescending.

[Lemmy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I find there's an evangelist athist movement afoot--God is not Great, by Hitchens. The God Delusion by Dawkins. Letter to A christian Nation by Sam Harris. Religulous by Bill Maher. I personally find the evangelical style rather offputting. I always had a lot of resepct for Dawkins's earlier works (The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene) but with the God Delusion I found that the tone was rather angry adn condescending.

I've read some Dawkins and I've seen Hitchens speak. I agree that that sentiment (angry, preachy, condescending) is there. But those people are not, strictly speaking, atheists, IMO. They're didactic shit-disturbers. Bill Maher too. They're just another brand of morally superior dickheads, just like the twats they criticize. I haven't a whole lot of respect for folks that claim the higher road but refuse to take it.

[Gunnair]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/world/britains-atheist-church-set-to-go-global/579091

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/religion-society/sunday-assembly-atheist-church-ready-expand-globally

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/good-without-god-atheist-churches-offer-non-believers-community-and-ritual-without-faith/

I read the first one and is was so utter-shite that I didn't even click on the other two. Altheists don't deny religion. They abstain. It's like polling grandma's knitting club on its opinions on the latest boy band. They don't care. They don't get it. And they don't care to get it. It's utterly meaningless in their lives. That's how atheists view any discussion of religion.

The people who get all anti-religion aren't atheists. They're something else. They're twisted shit disturbers, but they aren't atheists. If they were atheists, they wouldn't care. They'd shut the fuck up and live and let live.

Catholics have similar negative feelings about Protestants.

[Benn]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Secondly, I'm not sure what the other religious texts say, but the Bible explicitly instructs its followers to kill practicing male homosexuals. It's not much a stretch, to my mind, to allow for legislation to protect gays in a Christian environment.

Ahh the ol' Leviticus 20:13 people who don't understand Christianity (or Christian fanatics / radicals) pull out to show how evil the bible tells Christians to be. If they understood Christianity they would know that normal Christians follow the "New Covenant" set out by Jesus and observed after his sacrifice for us. Specifically what this means is what is taught in the new testament, rules etc. is what is to be followed hard and fast. When Jesus gave himself as sacrifice he became the last sin offering and the old covenant was over. This is why we don't bring sheep to church and hack them up on an alter even though the old testament says we should.

For those who can't wrap their heads around that concept then this one is easy enough. The Ten Commandments trump all others and they were affirmed by Jesus hence remains part of the new covenant. Henceforth Christians can't believe Homosexuals (or anyone) should be killed since it violates the Thou shalt not Kill" Commandment.

The new testament just says the practice is bad and a sin and likely won't get you an express pass to heaven. That said, a lot of things won't.

So don't toss out the Christians support murder crap.

Fat of the matter is by saying they do you hurt my feelings and under Bill 18 if we were in school I could have you suspended for bullying. This is why I'm against the bill, it's simply to vague and shirks enforcement and interpretation on the schools, which means it will be enforced inconstantly.