Talk:Status of religious freedom in Canada/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This article is compltely biased and presents the "Threat" to religion seemingly to come from primarly Gays and Lesbians —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.105.208 (talk • contribs).

First example

Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.[1] Canada has a long history of affording believers the religious freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

In the wiki article there is a statement that the "preamble' makes no mention of which God, later in that section Justice Bezil indicated that this was in reference to the christian god. The supreme court has never ruled on this. And in fact later in artcle it states

Muslim Canadians have also cited the preamble as being important to them: Some have written that "in Canada these are the principles of the Islamic Law which correspond to similar principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which relate to: (1) The Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law (Preamble); (2) Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms (3) Fundamental Freedoms (4) Equality Rights; (5) Multicultural heritage." Since, in their view, Islamic law originated with God, and since multiculturalism would indicate the God referred to in the Preamble would include the Islamic god, then Islamic law should have a place in Canada.[13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Canadians are therefore free to have their own beliefs and opinions, are free to practice religion, and are free to establish media organizations with religious content. Canadian religious institutions generally benefit from charitable organization status, which allows supporters to benefit from tax deductions for their financial contributions.

Notwithstanding the freedoms afforded to Canadian believers by the Charter of Rights, conflicting concepts have resulted in limitations on Canadians' religious freedom rights.[2]

These rights have legal limitations when it somes to "Hate" speech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Freedom_of_expression

Section 27 was applied by Chief Justice Brian Dickson in a different way in the Supreme Court case Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor (1990). In this case, Dickson found section 27 could reinforce limits on freedom of expression (in section 2), specifically hate speech. Section 27, along with section 15 of the Charter (the equality rights), would suggest fighting racial and religious discrimination would be a sufficient objective under section 1 of the Charter for limiting free expression under section 2.

Despite this, section 27 does not indicate that there are built-in limits in freedom of expression based on multiculturalism. Limits are measured in section 1. In R. v. Keegstra, also decided in 1990, the Court wrote that using sections 15 and 27 to limit the scope of freedom of expression contradicted "the large and liberal interpretation given the freedom of expression in Irwin Toy" and at any rate "s. 1 of the Charter is especially well suited to the task of balancing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Canada#Religious_freedom_regarding_homosexuality_views_in_Canada

Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada All three of the main monotheistic religions in Canada (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have sacred texts that have sections that declare sexual relations between people of the same sex as forbidden and sinful.

As stated above Canada is a Multicultural socierty and no determination has been made as to the identity of 'god' in the preamble, the use of the above paragraph from the the "Religious Fredom" article is incorrect in its conclusion that Canada is a christian state and bound by church 'law'

Religious freedom regarding abortion views in Canada Most orthodox religious groups are opposed to abortion, some viewing it as murder. Christians, including both the Catholic Church and evangelical Christian churches, usually hold this position. Some Christian churches that have become more theologically liberal in the last century hold a pro-choice stance. Islam generally has the stance that if the woman's life is at stake, abortion is permissible under the principle of Shari`ah, the lesser of two evils. Moreover, there are a number of traditional scholars which state that quickening is a sign that the soul has entered the fetus. Otherwise, there is a wide range of positions within Islam. Abortions are usually not prohibited through the fourth month. Judaism places the value of the fetus below that of the woman in cases of danger to the woman.

The legalization of abortion in Canada prompted many people who hold religious beliefs against abortion, particularly those who view it as murder, to protest the precedents established by Canadian court decisions.

Religious education issues in Canada Canada has an inconsistent approach to religious education. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently however, with a growing level of multiculturalism, particularly in Ontario, debate has emerged as to whether publicly funded religious education for one group is permissible. Newfoundland for example, withdrew Catholic funding in 1995. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.

Several Canadian public school systems are under pressure to promote LGBT-rights or sex education topics, even in situations where parents are opposed to the idea on religious grounds.

This has nothing to do with religious 'freedom' and simply restates a NPOV staement on abortion and education

Frankly this entire Article is NPOV and must go —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.105.208 (talk • contribs).

• First, I'm glad you agree that the article is NPOV, although I assume you actually meant POV. I don't think it was necessary to reprint so much of the article in the talk section to make the few number of points you have. It would also be better if you used some formatting to distinguish your comments from quotes from the article. Also, you refer to quotes from other articles as if they are from this article.
• I truly don't understand what you are talking about regarding the preamble. The preamble is part of the Charter and, along with the constitution, it is the highest document in the land -- the one we (Canadians, at least) must accept as definitive. This article, like the Charter, makes no reference or assumption as to whether the God referred to is for a specific religion. So that applies to you second point also. The third point that religious education and abortion have nothing to do with religious freedom is your opinion, but does not match any of the many newspaper stories quoted or website content you would find if you did a search on religious freedom in Canada. You'll note from the footnote section of the article that all sources to date are from mainstream media sources or other credible sources.
• I am going to remove the compliant tag from the article. If you think the entire article must go, then mark it for deletion and it will be debated appropriately through that process. Deet 11:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You have none rebutted of the claims that i have placed here with regards to the question of religious freeom in Canada and the effect of legitiamte human rights for gays and lesbians. Im am labeling this as disputed and i will nominate it for deletion unless both sides are rpesented equally —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.110.60 (talk • contribs).

DRCarroll 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 

• I also need to revert your edits to the subtitles, primarily becuase they are inaccurate, but also because they are slanderous in some cases. Take Kempling, for example, he was never found or even accused of violating anyone else's human rights. He was the one pursuing court action, it was not pursued against him. I also don't understand the comment above. If I have rebutted your claims, then why are you pursuing this? Go ahead and nominate it for deletion, but there is no point is leaving a disputed label unless you can explain your points better. Nobody can understand which facts are in dispute. Your original and subsequent points are mostly senseless. A deletion prod will bring any issues to a head, so go ahead. Deet 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am renengaging the NPOV title since you refuse to explain point by point where this article has been laid out in a nuetral manner. Your rebuttals have not explanied from a nuetral point of view were both points of view have been given in terms of Freedom of Religion in light of the Charter of rights and freedoms. None of the points that you have made here explain that whereas freedom of religion is important - using the supposed liscence of freedom of religion allows people to discriminate agasint people who are not members of a church be it christian,muslim, hindu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The articles given in this article supposedly show how religious people have been persecuted because they are forced to conform to the laws that all canadians are to obey, not just the ones that they believe that god menat them too. If you must refer to this so-called "freedoms" as a topic then the topic should not be "Freedom of Religion" but something more to the effect "defiance to the charter based on faith"

DRCarroll 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 

As for your "slanderous" comment they are entirely keeping with the findings of courts and tribunals. Your refusal to see this in light of discrmination merely highlights your lack of nuetrality —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DRCarroll (talk • contribs).

• This article is footnoted far better than average. I addressed each of your points. If you are asking for a "point by point" defense of each sentence in the article, that is an unreasonable request, one I do not owe to someone who has appeared on Wikipedia solely to complain about this one article. As stated before, there is nothing anti-Muslim or hindu in this article. The term "religious believers" is frequently used, not "Christians" unless it is appropriate to a specific point. As I stated before, you can refer to any of the numerous newspaper articles or website searches and you will find issues like the ones raised here. If some believers feel these issues are ones that infringe on their freedoms, you may not agree, but squashing a list that references opinions of those who are feeling angst at speech restrictions, for example, would be an ironic way for Wikipedia to handle the topic. Your attempt to have this page deleted was disengaged by another wikipedia editor who felt your action was in bad faith. You also fail to recognize that much of this article is clipped from the main articles on the given topics, and have already been debated extensively by other editors. Given your lack of clear points, unreasonble requests, ignoring of my point regarding slandering Kempling (a living person -- therefore treated with extra sensitivity in Wikipedia), and your sole existence in wikipedia to complain about this one article, I am now considering your edits to the article as thinly disguised vandalism and will be reverting your unproductive edits. Deet 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have provided direct points to the charter itself and your rebuttals to my challenges are not sastisfactory. As for my point by point claim it is entirely appropriate and relevant to Wiki itself and completly reasonable to Wikipedia since i am labelling this article that it may be biased and leave others for it to judge for themselves. Your definition of "bad faith" fails the test in that your examples of my "bad faith" are from the Charter itself and is dangerously close to being considered more of a personal and perhaps soley a religious agenda rather then an honest attempt to discuss the issue of religious freedom in canada in nuetral point of view. My edits are completely within the very esence of Wikipedia since anyone can edit an article and the very points are laid out in the Canadian Charter itself. Your accuation that somehow "I" am unbiased flys in the face of the acutual intent of Wikipedia and does it a dis-service.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DRCarroll (talk • contribs).

• You can sign with your tag name by adding ~~~~ after your comments. This helps others keep track of the conversation. I don't mind debating the neutrality, I only hope others will weigh-in and will be able to determine exactly what is in dispute here, because it isn't becoming any clearer to me. Deet 02:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, your footnotes to newspapers are often un-linked so a that person who wishes to further explore the are uncertain at best, where exactly are some of these articles you mention? And further to that thta many of these are press releases given s opinions and not as unbiased articles , tht somehow curiously sometimes find themselves posted onto Christian Websites to further thier agenda and thier false sense - ahem - oprression

Footnote 2: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 4: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 5: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 6: Unfindable within first page of google search. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050720/EMARRIAGE20/TPComment/Editorials Is and EDITORIAL and represents the Editors point of view and is not NPOV

Footnote 7: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 8: Found on google search page but not from National Post but reprrited as a Commentray (ie)

           Editorial ergo NPOV here

http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2005/04.001.html

           Not a NPOV source at all i shoulld think

Footnote 9: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 10: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footenote 11: Found hotlinked on first page of google serach to this http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/archives/0905 With an additional hotlink back to the Natioanl Post which does not work. Therefore, no verifiable link means it is uselss as a footnote ven if it wre not used by a totally biased website like Canadian Chritianity

Footnote 12: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 13: found liked to this website on first page of Google search http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Tor_Star_our_kids_deserve_equality_31JAN05.htm

Again an Editorial OPNION piece and not NPOV , much less written by this person

Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios belongs to the Multi-faith Coalition for Equal Funding of Religious Schools; Aaron Blumenfeld, represents the Ontario Association of Jewish Day Schools; M.D. Khalid is an executive member of the Islamic Society of North America Canada; Ripsodhak Singh Grewal is a member of the Khalsa Community (Sikh) School.

Again this is done from the Religious only POV and of course will supoort thier conclusions. UYsless in a NPOV site to butrees your claims of religious freedom in canada

Footnote 14: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 15: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 16: linked here http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/05.000.html http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/040422svend http://www.liquidlewis.com/barb/archive.htm Again an editorial as given as opinion in a non-NPOV manner, useless in NPOV site such as wiki

Footnote 17: linked here http://www.christianity.ca/news/national/2005/02.000.html http://www.canadianchristianity.com/cgi-bin/na.cgi?nationalupdates/050202liberals Same sites same biased opinions

Footnote 18: supposedly for Winnipeg free press , but unfindable. Further the Free Press is paid subscription site only. If your going to reference it it must be publicaly available. Useless for Wiki

Footnote 20: Same as above

Footnote 21: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 24: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 25: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 29: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 30: Unfindable within first page of google search.

Footnote 31: Unfindable within first page of google search.

You have done a dis-service to Wiki ,Free thought and to the idea legitimate non-biased information.

I am reengaging the Nuetrality tag and further adding question to the factual accuracy based on the fact that many of your 'sources' are unverifiable or otherwise Biased themselves —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DRCarroll (talk • contribs).

• Please do not erase my responses to you. That is not productive. Newspaper articles are searchable in electronic form at any library, and are of course completely legitimate references. These are not obscure newspapers or news organizations. You can also refer to the external link (www.religiousfreedom.ca) which discusses many of the same issues, with additional links to the court cases themselves. Deet 03:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am well within my rights to reengage the tag as appropriate should i find the article in question to be in question . If i erased comments to the edit page it was by mistake and i apologize for the mistake.

As for you sources , if these are in fact left by you , you have a reponsibility to provide them easily so that people persuing this subject on the Net and specifically Wikipedia can independently verify them by thelmselves as to whether the sources you have represented as NPOV are in fact that, or simply cover for another agenda . And your excuse of a "Trip to the library" holds no water, it would be as say that i cant post a 'source' to an article if i have it in my scrapbook. Anyone can come to my home and look at my scrapbook - i wont even charge them. Not only do you lack a NPOV but you present sources that are biased, not easliy avaiable, or charge for access to the articles , or even Editorials which are simply Opinions given in these cases by columinsts and to back up thier own pre-conceptions on any particular idea, in this case , the so-called opression of 'christians'

www.Religiousfreedom.ca is pointedly NOT a NPOV source which is directly tied to http://www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/ who in there mission statement the following

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada believes:

The Holy Scriptures as originally given by God are divinely inspired, infallible, entirely trustworthy, and constitute the only supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. There is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Our Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh; we affirm his virgin birth, sinless humanity, divine miracles, vicarious and atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension, ongoing mediatorial work, and personal return in power and glory. The salvation of lost and sinful humanity is possible only through the merits of the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, received by faith apart from works, and is characterized by regeneration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enables believers to live a holy life, to witness and work for the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church, the body of Christ, consists of all true believers. Ultimately God will judge the living and the dead, those who are saved unto the resurrection of life, those who are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

And in regards to Abortion

The Bible teaches that God gives life as a gift. Human life has inherent worth and must be respected and protected through all of its stages, beginning at conception.

There is a long page here but in no way eplains a womans right to choose,or a NPOV on that issue, clearly Non-NPOV here.

They do not mention homosexuality per se but this is from their "Marriage and Family" page

Marriage is a lifelong covenant between a man and a woman. Like God’s complementary creation of man and woman, marriage holds great significance in revealing aspects of God’s character and His relationship to humanity. The permanence and monogamy of the marital bond mirrors God’s faithfulness and singular devotion to his church and his church’s singular devotion to him.

Marriage symbolizes and supports the inherently procreative relationship that exists only between a man and a woman. It is also the relationship that forms the foundation of family and community life.

The family is to provide physical, emotional and spiritual care for its members as it enables them to serve God, other persons and creation. Parents have the privilege and unique responsibility of leading their children to know God and his ways as well as the world around them. See the EFC paper on Marriage and Family for a fuller discussion of the evangelical Christian view of marriage.

Obviously a religiously biased ideology based upon a Christian outlook on the world. While at the same time insisting that marriage is for man and woman only in gods eyes , where even a cursory look says that not all chritians believe what these evangelicals believe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson

(portion)

The Rt. Rev. Vicki Imogene "Gene" Robinson (born May 29, 1947) is the ninth bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire in the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. Robinson was elected bishop in 2003 and entered office on March 7, 2004. Prior to becoming bishop, he served as assistant to the retiring New Hampshire bishop. Robinson is best known for being the first openly gay, noncelibate priest to be ordained to the historic episcopate (see gay bishop).

It has beceome clear that your 'sources are often biased, often unverifiable or both. I strongly suggest you to review your commitment to Wikipedia and its strict NPOV philosophy

DRCarroll 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am adding Religioustolerance.org to external links with gives points of view from all faith inlcuding Agnostics and humanists etc etc DRCarroll 07:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you add a sentence or two after each example subtitle for those you think require some context to frame the issues. For example, "Canadians are limited in [some regard] because [whatever you think the appropriate context is]". That way the facts are preserved and your points are made. I don't think you are actually disputing the fact that the limitations exist, you just feel there are good reasons for the limitations. So take a stab at adding some neutral context that you think helps to properly frames the issues.
• BTW, you can find many articles regarding issues (eg. Jim Harris (politician)) that rely heavily on newspaper articles. Funny that not one complaint was raised regarding the Harris article, given it is so well-discussed. Some may want to apply a higher standard to religious freedom related articles (you're definitely not the first), but that would clearly be a double-standard. Here's another good example: Betty Disero. Deet 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

~Alright, I will admit that I'm a Wiki first-timer using the discussion feature, so please forgive me if I unknowingly breach any norms here, please correct me if I'm in the wrong. I would like to agree wih DRCarroll here in saying that I find this article to be quite biased. No, I haven't taken the time to troddle down to my public library and look up your sources, but with a fair amount of knowledge into research methods, I'm well aware that one can find resources to back up ANY point of view. I will agree with your points, Deet, regarding when you say that most religions are opposed to homosexuality, sex education, abortion, etc BUT this being an article on religious freedoms, both sides should be presented. A part of religious freedom, as one can assume from the Charter is freedom FROM religion, and these topics (though they are often discussed in a religious context) do exist outside of the religous vacuum. Your article seems more about using the context of religion to outline the supposed immorality and evil in topics which you are opposed, instead of discussing the actual meaning of religious freedom. Lysithia 15:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have begun the editing process by re-writing the preview section by explaning as best i can the true intent of Section 2 of the charter and its reasonable limitations, citing both the justice department directly and a well known case in canada. Comments are welcome DRCarroll 05:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the name of section 1 to Background of article 2 conflicts to give a more accurate definiton.

Further i have the first sub-section to " religious views regarding homosexuality". Also have removed the more obvious unverfiable claims that 'most' canadians do not support gay rights. And have also made mention that some religions support LGBT rights by linking it to 'lgbt issues and religion'

Have added gay rights views regarding discrimination- needs work. Im straight so i perhaps dont have the historical perspective neccesary to give thier views. Comments and help certainly welcome DRCarroll 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing the paragraph headers and trying to put a NPOV description to the. Shortened some sections and removed others ie "Comments from federal governments" as uncitable, unverifiable or openly NPOV ie The governer generals award for Ms Bishop DRCarroll 10:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• The Bishop reference was "clickable" and completely verifiable. You can't just delete large sections because you have trouble discrediting them. You have deleted 1/3 of the facts from the article. I'm trying to work with you, but you leave me no choice but to revert. Again, I'm less particular regarding the words used, because if they are not neutral (either by you or me), they will be corrected over time. However, I am sensitive to facts being deleted. Deet 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see Deet taht you've been putting your bias back in here. Im reverting it back to the headers i has and reinstating the NPOV tag DRCarroll 21:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've tried it again, instead of a knee-jerk reaction , post some verfiable facts then alter according to a NPOV state instead of just inserting bias DRCarroll 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mediation requested 2 Reverts 3 SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT NEED TO GO 4 POV 5 Did some editing tell me what you guys think:) 6 re-write 7 Re-write 7.1 Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada 8 Free speech 9 Education and religion 10 Other forms of alleged discrimination or threats to religious freedom 11 Comments back to Ansolin on re-write 12 Wisdom at the knee of Ansolin:) 13 Implementation of re-write

Mediation requested

Mediation tag removed as article no longer in mediation

Note. Request for mediation rejected by User:DRCarroll. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Status of religious freedom in Canada and also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 7#Status of religious freedom in Canada. Deet 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

I would endorse some of your edits, but your wholesale deletion of so many important facts does not make sense. As an example, why would you delete the section regarding the Correns? It meets your high standard of having a clickable link reference. It is clearly an important issue (not only was this a large 2nd page story, but it was also the topic of the next day's main editorial story in the National Post). And by the way, it was previously identified in an earlier version as an evolving issue -- a section you also deleted in prior weeks. And it clearly links to faith-based schools in BC. Deet 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT NEED TO GO

Based on the 2001 census, the three main monotheistic religions represent 80% of the Canadian population.[3] As a result, while not all religious believers have this view, a large number of Canadians believe that homosexuality is immoral and that it is their religious right to give public voice to that opinion. The expansion of gay rights in Canada has given rise to conflicts with this belief.

Sorry but that’s just not proof you can say the 3 top religions think homosexuality is a sin but if you want to say most Canadians think it is then you need good and reliable studies that show it .

Examples of limitations or threats to religious freedom in Canada

Many of these conflicts involve complaints against religious believers that are registered with provincial human rights boards, commissions and tribunals. Such complaints are typically inexpensive for complainants to initiate, but costly for the religious believers to defend against, particularly if court appeals are involved.

This should be deleted you can of course use a case to show it if you like

Compelled to affirm contrary moral beliefs

These are examples of the need to separate church and state no one cares how Dianne Haskett personal feels about gays but it can’t affect her job.

Moral beliefs can never supersede the rights of the state so are these even infringements?.Ansolin 08:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It was never even implied that most Canadians think it is a sin. This wording was just trying to provide some useful background on the topic as to why some people think it is. Many people (particularly some younger people) simply do not know the background. The almost exact same wording appears in Same-sex marriage in Canada and has not drawn any complaints.

Re comments on cost to defend... I support amending or deleting as you see fit.

Compelled to affirm contrary moral beliefs - these are important because the courts are demanding not just tolerance, but actual affirmation of homosexuality as good. The courts insist we have "pride" in one side of a morally divisive issue. Similar thing for the marriage commissioners. This is an important distinction because it crosses a significant line. It is more unique in the world than you may realize. I would strongly recommend we keep that section.

If you want to merge or scale-down, on reflection I think the Limited in ability to conduct business according to moral beliefs and Unable to protest moral issues sections are both probably a bit weak. Those points were originally included as they are often mentioned in external religious rights websites.

However, I am firmly against applying logic like "courts say such and such is legal so there is no point in mentioning the other side". Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, so does that mean there should be no discussion in Wikipedia as to gay rights in those places? That would be the extension of your comment "Moral beliefs can never supersede the rights of the state so are these even infringements?" The word infringement is not used in the article.

Deet 10:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

First 80% of Canadians are religious and there for against abortion you have no objection if this is edit or deleted? i`m thinking replacing the line:

As a result, while not all religious believers have this view, a large number of Canadians believe that homosexuality is immoral and that it is their religious right to give public voice to that opinion

With

As a result, while not all religious believers have this view, a number of Canadians believe that homosexuality is immoral and that it is their right to give public voice to that opinion. The Supreme Court of Canada in it's rulings on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has given rise to conflicts with the question of thier beliefs and the protections under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

For an related article exploring the mutli-sided issue, see LGBT issues and religion

Its more balanced

Second you clearly have a lot of anti gay material in the piece this needs to be balanced by explaining the gay side so the article appears NVOP any objection to using DRCarroll explanation?

Third not all religious freedoms are equal do you have any objection to adding what thoughs freedoms are? DRCarroll article has a good section on this?

Forth In 2005, Revenue Canada warned churches to remain silent on the same-sex marriage debate or risk losing their charitable status couldn’t find any information on this on the web could you go into more depth (I find it hard to believe that this is true if only 1 news article was written on it.)

Fifth what are your objections to DRCarroll article.Ansolin 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem with the edits to the background on homosexuality views as described.

I don't have any objection to additional material being added to given additional background, and some of DRCarroll's material could be used (or sections of LGBT issues and religion). But as an article on religious freedom and I don't think it makes sense to (a) make it a redundant version of LGBT issues and religion, or (b) take shots at religious believers. Personally, I feel DRCaroll's edits leaned towards doing both of these. If the existing article is truly unbalanced, I would instead prefer to tone down unbalanced language or points rather than seeking to pile on a bunch of counter-material (not to say that some context wouldn't be helpful).

No objections to adding some colour on why not all religious freedoms are created equal, subject again to my comments in the above point.

Revenue Canada. Well, the problem is that only really only two newspapers in Canada bother to report on religious freedom issues: the Calgary Herald and the National Post. So it could be that the National Post article is the only credible one on the topic (it could also be found on religious website but I understand the problem with that). I remember watching an interview on CBC with a religion reporter from the main Dallas (or maybe Houston) newspaper during the same-sex marriage debate, and the interviewer asked the reporter how many religion issue people were on staff at the newspaper, and the response was something like 11 people full-time. The CBC interviewer almost fell out of his chair and said that is certainly more than the entire number of religion issue reporters of all media types combined in all of Canada. So I'm not sure what to say. Do we not trust the National Post?

DRCarroll's edits. I always told him that many of his edits would be fine. I have two general concerns. First, see my comments 3 paragraphs above re his edits. Second, he deletes so many important facts on a wholesale basis without discussion in each of his recent edits. For example, he deleted all reference to the Peter and Murray Corren discussion that I feel is directly related to this article due to the implications to faith-based schools.

Deet 18:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to have been taken over by an agenda of pushing an anti-homosexual and anti-abortion POV. I saw a whole section talk about homosexuality being a sin. This has nothing to do with the freedom of religion in Canada. Ifnord 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

We're in the middle of an active dialog on improving the article. Why not join the discussion above and help rather than deleting large sections that we are actively discussing? With regards to your specific point that religious freedom never coincides with gay-rights or abortion, that would be a very unique opinion. Even where courts side with gay rights or abortion rights over religious freedom, it always involves judicial recognition that religious rights are involved, even if they are seen as lesser than other rights in the case in question. It also flies in the faces of most literature and just plain common sense. I also beg to differ with your "anti" homosexual comment. Everything in the article is respectful. Deet 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on homosexuality has nothing to do with religious freedom. It is proselytizing on the anti homosexual parts of three religions. What this has to do with religious freedom, I have no idea. It's completely off topic. Similarly with the abortion section, this speaks not of the state of religious freedom in Canada but religious condemnation of abortion. These two sections push a POV not expand the topic of religious freedom. The only freedom I can link it to is, "The freedom I have to talk about my beliefs and that other people are wrong." That's what I get from the article. Ifnord 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This wording was just trying to provide some useful background on the topic as to why some people think it is. Many people (particularly some younger people) simply do not know the background. The exact same wording on the background to homosexuality and religion appears in Same-sex marriage in Canada and has not drawn any complaints. You can't be serious about trying to de-link religious freedom from these two issues. You don't seem to understand the term proselytizing. There is no call to join any religion in the article. Deet 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I provided you with the link to proselytizing but you may not have had time to go there. So let me quote from that article, "...it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not." Same-sex marriage in Canada has the information in the last category (28/30, before the see also and external links). Status of religious freedom in Canada has the condemnation of homosexuality by religions in the second section. And adds a condemnation of abortion in the third. That's why it looks so POV. The two sections add nothing about the state of religious freedom, your "background" is an attempt to point out, "See? Most people in Canada feel this way, so it's wrong." Ifnord 19:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line is: it's a short section, it's neutrally written, it's going to be further edited ("more balanced" according to Ansolin as per the above discussion), and many people (not all) will feel that it is appropriate background to the list of issues described later in the article. It makes far less sense to launch right into those issues without any background. Deet 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't neutrally written. There would have to be indications that some Canadians do approve of homosexual relations. The section used weasel words to claim that 80% of Canadians disapprove of homosexuals, which is patently false. The United Church of Canada is Canada's second largest church and its position is supportive of gay marriage and ordaining gay ministers. So, I have rewritten it to show an opposing viewpoint exists as well. If this off-topic section must be included, it should have a voice from the other side as well. Ifnord 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did some editing tell me what you guys think:)

I dont have any problem with United Church of Canada being mentioned but i do feel the section should end the old way

diddent like what deet said about the 3 Religions so I put some stuff up I think its better not sure about the Evangelical bit though was a bit wordy its taken straight of there web site though the other 2 are from wikipedia

I also added the limitations stuff to the end of the into.Ansolin 04:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Changes are ok. Deet 12:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re-write

I think the article need to be re written to be in keeping with the other status of religion article I think the best is Status of religious freedom in Germany thoughts?.Ansolin 05:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea of re-writing it into a narrative rather than the current list of items, as long as it doesn't turn into a white-washing of the facts. Why don't you take a shot at it in a sandbox and we can comment on it. Deet 03:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I’m thinking more of the scope of the article more then style after reading the other status of religion articles. We need to keep in mind that its one of a series of article all being about religion and government they only gets into people when they act as official agent of the church or government that’s were Ifnord off topic tags start to make sense let me go through my thoughts.

• Homosexuality what was the effect on religious freedom of making gays/ lesbians a protected minority well lets look at mayor religions view on it yes its true they all think homosexual acts are a sin but how about homosexuals them self they seem to have two policies first for members they feel that they are misguided and need to be counseled until they see gods plan that of man women relations and second the official policy of how to treat non members they all go with tolerance(some reluctant some not)no religion advocates discrimination against them. So the only part we care about is discrimination within the church (by that I mean that gays/lesbians can seek legal discourse not judging) e.g.

• • A priest who is found to be gay no longer being able to teach children and suing (that’s an example not saying it happened) or

• • Gay members of a church feeling discrimination and sue

• Abortion first of it not mention in the other articles about half of the countries have it when I thought about it I saw why, its not a religious freedom lets just talk about catholic the other are less stricked.

Cathlics believe that all life is sacred from the moment of creation but the only freedom that a church can have are for its self in regard to other all it can do is council so the only infringements I can see are if the government made members of the church carry out abortions or forced members of the church to have them that’s not happening .

• Education now this one is interesting I notest that none of the other article had anything about this while they had sex ed. And religions that objected to it, so was thinking that we shouldn’t too.

But Canada is special having subsidized religious education that make it an issue in this article. Forcing religious schools Roman Catholic for now but maybe others later to teach thing that go against there religious belief is in my opinion a infringement of there beliefs and we should have a section on it not sure what exactly they teach in the sex ed course but guessing

• • • Abortion is between mother and doctor

• • • Being gay/lesbian is a valid life choice

• • • Masturbation is fine

• • • And Birth control

all thing that are against catholic beliefs.

Anyway you can see that this view might change the out look of the piece so wanted to give you an outline before I began.Ansolin 06:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to let move ahead with a re-write, but we need to stay focused on religious freedom topics. This need to talk about 2 sides to all religious views is not a religious freedom topic, but a broader discussion on differing religious beliefs. I understand the desire to present two sides, but the reason the existing article focuses on one-side of a given issue, is because religious freedom is being inhibited in some fashion to believers of that viewpoint (and I don't mean ever obscure beliefs, but fairly common stuff). So give some thought as to how whether we can avoid language that always requires a long two-sided background discussion as we write this because I don't think that is the way to go for this topic.

Here are the general topics that I would see as must-have in addition to other topics you might want:

• Freedom of speech regarding religious beliefs. The fact pattern around Chris Kempling is a must have. This is a guy who did not use hateful language (and was never accused of that), but was silenced in a way that would be unheard of in other countries like the U.S. This theme will grow over time given what Wikipedia describes as Canada's approach to hate speech (see Freedom of speech and read the Canada section at the top). I know a lot of Wikipedians have trouble with this one because they have always assumed there is plenty of freedom of speech in Canada. But it's simply less and less true. The Hugh Owen case (see the article as currently written) was quite serious before it was over-turned. But even in the decision in favour of Owen there were ominous warnings from the judges as to how the Bible could be hate literature if the facts in the case were a bit different. This issue needs to be tracked.
• Education issues. I think we both agree there are issues here even if we disgree on content.
• Compelling others to affirm a belief. Demanding that others agree with a contrary belief is a growing problem in Canada and again would be unheard of in the U.S. context (e.g., the marriage counsellor issue, and the pride day issue).

But overall I'm flexible regarding a potential re-write. Deet 23:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris Kempling is fine it in keeping with the new sex ed. requirements

Don’t see any relevance to compelling others to affirm a belief the way I see the article it just about government and religion, people only when that are working as official agents of either.

It my belief (show me I’m wrong ) that the church never advocates discriminating against gays/lesbians yes counseling its members but that seems to be all. So Mayor Dianne Haskett wasn’t following official church policy so shouldn’t be in the article

With regard to same sex marriage so far there isn’t any direct conflicted with the church I.e. priest are not forced to do it.I have a case of a Baptist church in Sarnia that would not let a gay person be part of the wedding party and the wedding party might sue but until they do don’t think we can use it.Yes the knights of Columbus were sued but they are not a church just church connected and in my opinion should not be in this article. I had a case of discrimination against a gay man by the KoC but don’t think it has any place in this article printer and b&b operators are again not following official policy so that official bit is a big one.Ansolin 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what religion Haskett is (although I seem to recall that she is a Christian). But she had moral beliefs (or was acting on the moral beliefs of constituents). Implicit in your comments on Haskett is that Wikipedia should determine that she is not allowed to think about or evaluate morality on the job. That may be a reasonable POV argument, but there are two sides to that assertion, and Wikipedia can't just take the humanist side.

Sticking to the Catholic Church for a moment -- it's not a policy of "discrimination" in their minds -- it's a belief that homosexuality is immoral. We're talking about freedom of thought (see section 2b of the Charter) as it applies to freedom of religion, and whether that is being restricted for some substantial portion of religious believers. I don't know what official policy means, but the Catholic Church has been clear about this since its founding.

Deet 02:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That’s the thing though I think catholic official and currant belief in regard to LGBT is counseling for it members and tolerance for non members and we only care about people who are following official church policy not just what that think it is.Ansolin 03:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In any event, in my opinion, Wikipedia does not have the option of limiting religious belief to official Catholic policy alone. Are you saying the homosexuality is not a moral issue to any material number of Canadians? Clearly it is, so I'm not sure where you are going with this. Deet 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No opinion in general but this article seems to me to just be about government and religion and we just can’t have preserved religious belief THIS article just isn’t about people’s beliefs you should take a look at the other article in the series the only time people are mentioned is when they are clearly following church teaching .

With regard to Catholics this is what there site says.

persons of homosexual orientation who, nonetheless, as human beings deserve the respect of all their fellow citizens

No one disputes that same-sex partners can truly love each other and wish to share their life together

http://www.cccb.ca/PublicStatements.htm?CD=464&ID=1688

http://www.cccb.ca/Backgrounders.htm?CD=43&ID=80

That is very selective quotes. Your links are about the Catholic Church's opposition to same-sex marriage and you are extracting the few minor obligatory concessionary wording to make your case.

Here's a more appropriate quote from your links: "Since November 2002, we have intervened time and time again to convince Members of Parliament not to redefine the institution of marriage for the benefit of persons of homosexual orientation..."

There's no doubt where they stand and I don't think it's right to turn that 180 degrees here. Deet 23:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One is one is for homosexuals but don’t see a conflicted with that quote I said that the religion didn’t approve of same sex marriage and it not just Catholics I can’t figure out how to do references but Islam is very tolerant of homosexuals just check out wikipedia same with Jews but prove me wrong show me were they in there currant and official article contradicted the tolerance paragraph.Ansolin 01:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-write

Highlighting that the Bible can be hate literature is POV in a religious rights article? Come on. OK, my first re-write draft can be found at User:Deetdeet/religious freedom. I started with yours, but added some words, removed most bullet lists to make it more of an article. You can see the number of footnotes has dropped from 30 to 19 so that means I've taken out 1/3 of the old facts. I've also deferred to Ifnord and I'm letting the main articles on religion and homosexuality speak for themselves rather than do it here. Deet 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

However, there have been some legal developments in recent years that have been seen by some as an attack on freedom of religious belief. Some of the issues involve some of the views relating to religion and homosexuality, and more specifically given the current demographics of Canada, homosexuality and Christianity. Other issues involve the curriculum and the funding of the education system in Canada.

I find this largely uninformative mine said what the church view were yours just tell people to go else where

The demographics of Canada is this you trying to get the 80% of Canadians are religious back in the article it true sort of but more honestly 20% go to church most Sundays and 30% think it important

I want my into and

Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada

section

there more informative

I have no problem with a small section

Free speech

In reason years the bible itself has been brought under scrutiny with the Hugh Owen case, a Saskatchewan prison guard, who published an advertisement in the Star-Phoenix, a newspaper in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The ad referenced Bible verses related to homosexuality (without quoting them) and drew a line through an image representing a gay couple. A complaint was lodged with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry. The Board ruled against Owen and that decision was also upheld by a lower court. For a time, this set the only legal precedent in Canada for parts of the Bible being deemed as hate literature. On 13 April 2006 the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the previous decisions, but warned that Bible verses could still be deemed as hate literature depending on how they are used.^[1]

Education and religion

I have no problem with this

Other forms of alleged discrimination or threats to religious freedom

Dianne Haskett wasn’t following official church policy so has no place here if you want to write an article Attack on traditional family value in Canada I will help

Canadian marriage commissioners are not part of the church and have no place here

Rest is fine.Ansolin 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments back to Ansolin on re-write

1. Regarding the intros.

Hey, I'm with you on that and I wrote the original intros and I think they are useful; however, those facts seem to cause an adverse reaction with many others (see Ifnord's comments up above somewhere). So I'm deferring to Ifnord and letting those articles speak for themselves rather than get into a bigger intro than desired because everyone seems to insist on a two-sided exploration of all the issues rather than just talking about the issues that result in conflict with religious issues. This way we can get into the freedom topics faster without, as Ifnord says, getting off-topic.

Regarding the demographics, I'm not saying anything in the article anymore, other than pointing to the demographic article so don't read anything else into it other than pointing out that Christianity is by far the largest religion in Canada (compared to Judaism or Islam, which despite our multicultural society are still quite tiny). This is an article relating to religion and we should link to some Canadianized facts at some point for context.

2. Free speech.

I accept your changes and have incorporated into my sandbox.

3. Education.

OK good enough for both of us for now.

4. Haskett and Marriage Commissioners

Here is my rationale:

1. I think belief or concience is very much a factor in those issues. Personally, I don't feel belief (freedom of thought or religion) is limited to official church doctorine.

2. "Traditional family values" and religious belief are over-lapping topics.

3. The authorities are not asking for tolerance, but demanding that individuals (or groups) must bless or affirm homosexuality as good. This is an important distinction because it crosses a significant line. It is unique in the world to my knowledge.

4. I don't think Wikipedia can take the humanist side and say decisions of morality have no place at work (I understand how someone can make that case as a POV, just that Wikipedia can't side that way).

5. These facts are interesting and don't appear elsewhere in Wikipedia, and I think this is as good a place as any. Some Wikipedians think articles should actually be interesting.

6. There is slim chance that all the left-leaning Canadian Wikipedians will allow an article titled Attack on traditional family value in Canada as you suggest. That would be more contentious than this article has been.

5. Kirpan

Can you check your Kirpan edits. I think the issue is already in there a few sentences before. Please merge the two.

Deet 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wisdom at the knee of Ansolin:)

Kirpan 2 different case 1 a kid the other a teacher but lest worry about the bullet lists later we might want to pair them down (or not no big for me)

The intro I meant was mine hehe

Comment. I know, but Ifnord's comments would apply equally to yours or mine. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please check my page for my re writes

User:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada

Haskett and Marriage Commissioners

Were does it stop though (I know with this hehe) lets say a man is arrested for incest but claims to be following his religious conviction “if you want to love god love a child” yes crap but it was the slogan of a group in England I think it was called the man boy love society .

Comment. man boy love blah blah is completely out of line with the 3 main religions in Canada. That's a big difference. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We can go with official religious group opinion or we might as well rename the article lets take usurers historically the church didn’t always people to profit from loaning money what happens if someone steals from a bank was he acting out of religious conviction ?.

Comment. Again, stealing is out of line with the 3 main religions in Canada. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Much more important why do we get to decide I can PROVE that the view stated in my page are true how can we ever choice who’s religious conviction is valid .Right now with used 5 or so religions but there 32,547,200 Canadians and every single one of them has a different interpretation of there religion.

Comment. Again, as explained in the article religion and homosexuality, opposition to homosexuality is not obscure topic like yogic flying, rather it is completely in line with many believers of the three main religions in Canada.

religion and homosexuality, demographics of Canada, homosexuality and Christianity

I’ve add a see also section we can have them there. Ansolin 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks, I didn't previously know Haskett had her own page. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Implementation of re-write

I've tried to address Ifnord's comments and take many of yours into consideration. In an effort to bring some closure, I'm going to archive this talk page and update the article. Hopefully, we can resolve any minor issues left without much issue. Deet 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)