Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings

Wed, 2015-04-15 13:41

6079_Smith_W

Harper's appointees knock another one out of the park. I'm sure he's as happy with this one as he is with the one from earlier this week.

Wed, 2015-04-15 18:25

#3

Mr. Magoo

I applaud any time religious k00Kery has to take a back seat to secular law. When religious types get themselves all hot and bothered about pleasing their deity they typically get to thinking that whatever He seems to want must come first in line before everything else, and that's generally not good.

So... pray silently in your heads. As I understand it, God would actually be fine with that anyway.

Wed, 2015-04-15 19:42

#4

6079_Smith_W

One wonders if they are going to go after the cross in the Quebec legislature, the goofy occult mystical stuff built into the Manitoba legislature, or the sacrificial altar in the Harperite court chambers.

Wed, 2015-04-15 19:56

#5

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
One wonders if they are going to go after the cross in the Quebec legislature

Apparently that had been opposed as well, but the SCOC elected not to rule on that.

Quote:
The Supreme Court did not rule out the presence of religious symbols, because it decided to limit the scope of its investigation to prayer only.

Be nice if they were to change their minds on that, at some point. Not much point telling councillors they can't mutter prayers if huge symbols of religion are front and centre. It's not that different from some Alabama courthouse with a large, conspicuous display of the Ten Commandments.

Wed, 2015-04-15 20:10

#6

6079_Smith_W

There is an upside to a comfier relationship between church and state, of course:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-m...

Wed, 2015-04-15 20:13

#7

6079_Smith_W

Our neighbours to the south are going to stop doing it in light of the ruling, although mayor Fougere said no one complained:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/no-more-prayers-at-regina-cit...

Saskatoon hasn't had prayer at civic meetings since the 80s, though the mayor has had "prayer breakfasts".

Wed, 2015-04-15 20:59

#8

Mr. Magoo

Quote:

There is an upside to a comfier relationship between church and state, of course:

Americans can be strangely consistent about things like this.

But I'm betting those Satanists would be perfectly content if there were NO statues, monuments or other tributes in civic spaces.

Whereas of course the Xtians would be all up on their hind legs if there weren't.

Really, though, expecting councillors to join in a prayer before doing their jobs is no different from demanding that they swear a public oath. It's an oath to one particular God, and surely in many cases to a God they don't really believe in. And that's so fucking creepy.

Thu, 2015-04-16 06:40

#9

lagatta

It is surprising how widespread this archaic practice remains.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/saguenay-right-to-pray-ruling-wha...

The ruling didn't touch on religious icons in legislative buildings. I see no reason whatsoever not to remove the crucifix from L'Assemblée nationale; it was not a part of the original building's decoration; it was installed there by none other by Duplessis. . The current prayer in the Saguenay council only dates back to 2000!

Thu, 2015-04-16 07:26

#10

Slumberjack

The bozo-in-chief of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality has taken issue with unelected judges, and vowing to somehow confront the law of the land.

Quote:
"As a parliamentarian and someone who’s always believed in the rule of law, has believed in the traditions of the British parliamentary system … what we’re seeing now is Parliament is making laws and (legislation) is being overturned (by the courts) on a regular basis,” Clarke said. "One has to question what is the role of the Supreme Court in relation to the duly elected and vested authority of parliaments to make laws versus those who interpret it.”

Thu, 2015-04-16 15:41

#11

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Wouldn't it be nice if we could treat religion much the way we treat underwear?

You choose the sort that make you feel comfortable and supported (or not - some of us are happy to go commando) and no one should interfere with that. You share your choice or display your undies only with those with whom you have a level of intimacy and with privacy.

A good rule of thumb: If you don't know someone well enough to show them your underwear, you should maybe not show them your religion, either. :)

Of course, this makes Mormons and JWs the flashers of the religious world...

Thu, 2015-04-16 16:17

#12

Mr. Magoo

I've long been a proponent of that.

But when my wife was a kid, her family were fundies, and she tells me that such modesty about Christ just isn't an option. The first rule of Fundie Club is "Always talk about Fundie Club". It's not just poor social boundaries for them, it's practically the eleventh commandment. Go forth and share your love of Christ with the world and blah blah blah.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons have formalized this in a way that's probably familiar to anyone with a doorbell, but the rest are just expected to take their opportunities as they come.

The other problem is that proselytizing religions genuinely believe they're doing you the best favour that anyone could possibly do, if they can open your eyes to Christ. So if they have to be a bit sneaky, it's for your own good. If they have to be a bit pushy, or bribe you with free food or shelter, or basically force it on you somehow, they expect that you'll thank them later. And even if you don't, God will.

I don't say this as hyperbole, or out of disdain, but some religions are very much like viruses (either biological or computer) in that their prime directive is to replicate, in any way that's effective. Anything else, like "is this socially appropriate?" or "do others really want me doing this?" is irrelevant.

Fri, 2015-04-17 08:50

#13

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Funny you should mention religious flashers. I have often found it is best to answer the door naked when the Christians and their analogues come a'calling. Run, Jehova's Winless, Run!

Fri, 2015-04-17 09:24

#14

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:

Wouldn't it be nice if we could treat religion much the way we treat underwear?

You mean... I'd have to stop wearing underwear???

Fri, 2015-04-17 11:32

#15

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Unionist, some of us already have...

Fri, 2015-04-17 12:45

#16

lagatta

TMI? Or am I just insanely jealous of anyone who has had two kids and can still go braless?

If one really must know, I have cyclist leggings on (under a skirt) and am heading out now in the lovely sunshine. And no, I don't wear anything under the leggings, but that means they have to be washed after each wearing.

Mayor Jean Tremblay is (in)famous for all sorts of outlandish declarations... the humourists here love him. Along with attacking "ecologists", "Greenpeace" and "intellectuals" for the loss of environmental certification of a local plant (the former had nothing to do with it) and also mentioned people in his region, "des gens qui travaillent comme des nègres": http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/saguenay-mayor-jean-tremblay-in-h...

Fri, 2015-04-17 13:18

#17

Unionist

Perhaps he was channeling Nègres Blancs d'Amérique? Probably not.

Fri, 2015-04-17 15:01

#18

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

lagatta wrote:

TMI? Or am I just insanely jealous of anyone who has had two kids and can still go braless?

Only metaphorically... And I think I just broke my own rule...

ETA: Speaking of kids - Thing 1 will be voting in the next federal election! They're nearly grown up already.

Sat, 2015-04-18 03:40

#19

jas

6079_Smith_W wrote:
There is an upside to a comfier relationship between church and state, of course:

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/heres-the-first-look-at-the-new-satanic-m...

Wow.

Given that American captains of business and state already participate in occult rituals like mock human sacrifices under large stone owls, I would think they wouldn't have any problem with goat sculptures and pedophilic subtexts.

Mon, 2015-04-20 12:11

#20

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
ETA: Speaking of kids - Thing 1 will be voting in the next federal election!

Nooooooooooo.

Mon, 2015-04-20 12:27

#21

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Yeah, tell me about it... Feeling a little long in the tooth this spring. Took her in to have her grad dress fitted and.... She looked like such an adult.... I'm so not ready for this.

ETA: In the interest of not drifting TOO much...

I was really heartened to see that the ruling on no prayer didn't equate the absence of prayer with atheism, but neutrality. The atheist equivalent of prayer would have been a declaration that there is no god. It's a really important distinction.

I'd be down with a moment of silence to reflect on your personal philosophy or faith in lieu of prayer if you *have* to have something.

Mon, 2015-04-20 12:44

#22

Slumberjack

Yeah I'd have no problem with calling it a moment of 'personal' reflection as long as they didn't mumble. I'd be like...I can still here you over there.

Mon, 2015-04-20 12:45

#23

Caissa

Our Thing 1 has announced he is voting for Mulcair in his first election this fall. I guess we have to move to Montreal.

The SCC presented a wise decision. And, I say this as someone who attends church services every Sunday.

Mon, 2015-04-20 12:49

#24

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
Yeah, tell me about it... Feeling a little long in the tooth this spring.

My remark was related to voting itself, not about feeling old because a milestone has been reached. As we know, voting and growing up are two distinct undertakings not to be confused with one another.