"principles" i could give a rat's ass about those kinds of principles. and i question if they are even.
also u thi
also the anti-human rights groups in question aren't doing cheap politics? lmao
way lower than cheap imv.
"Principles? I have principles, but if you don't like them, I have others". (Marx, G not K)
You mean in the case of that restaurant? Businesses are eligible, Sean.
Again (and I may have cross edited it) the groups identified by Abortion Rights Coalition were not churches. They were lobby groups and fake pregnancy clinics. Yet that is the dogwhistle everyone is hearing.
There is more than one conversation going on. The churches were brought up becuase they also call for attacks on human rights. Also they operate some of these organizations and some without any legal divisions.
I really do see them as part of the same problem and don't see why any of them should get money from the government that could support this even indirectly.
Yeah, I agree. Probably four or five.
If some really feel this way maybe they should be out there with La Meute lobbying to shut down the borders. It would be more honest, if not productive.
I am serious. And serious about the comparison to Kellie Leitch (which no one has touched yet). Maybe you should think this one through a bit. Talking to the room, not you personally, Sean.
Let's just review the numbers - 75 percent of Canadians who think this is unfair when it concerns people who are not using funding to actively oppose abortion rights or LGBT rights.
And then those poll numbers. Don't know about you, but I would be really pissed to see Andrew Scheer running the show because someone thinks this is the right hill to die on.
Personally, I would really hate to see the small headway we have made on climate change thrown out the window because of this paternalistic crap.
Personally, I would really hate to see the small headway we have made on climate change thrown out the window because of this paternalistic crap.
And now six conversations.
"If you care about our planet, just give that money to the LifeRight Berry Fest, fergodssakes".
As for Leitch, she was referring to citizenship, which we surely grant to people who don't believe in the equality of the sexes, or who think it's "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" or life begins at conception. Evidently, since it's not money out of our pocket, we're at least complacent about that if not exactly overjoyed, and the public thought Leitch went too far.
I trust we can all see the difference between an immigrant being denied citizenship and some organization having to pay their own worker.
Let's just review the numbers - 75 percent of Canadians who think this is unfair when it concerns people who are not using funding to actively oppose abortion rights or LGBT rights.
What is this even supposed to mean? Those groups are totally eligible.
It's like saying that 99% of Canadians believe it's unfair that 16 year old girls are not allowed to apply for a driver's licence (hint: they are).
ed'd to add:
Suppose I'm applying for a daycare licence, and the form states that applicants must be an adult.
I feel that despite being 51 years old, I'm not as "mature" as an adult should be, so I simply cannot, in good faith, sign that form. So of course I get no licence.
Is it the government's fault, since their form clearly tried (successfully!) to weed out 51-year olds like myself?
Or is it my fault, for creatively misinterpreting the form so as to make myself ineligible and thereby be a martyr?
Would you agree that I'd be the victim in that case, Smith? A victim of a government demanding that I sign something I just cannot bring myself to sign? Should they remove the "adult" part for me next year?
If some really feel this way maybe they should be out there with La Meute lobbying to shut down the borders. It would be more honest, if not productive.
I am serious. And serious about the comparison to Kellie Leitch (which no one has touched yet). Maybe you should think this one through a bit.
"Jamaicans are extremely opposed to gay rights. Most Jamaicans are black. Therefore, supporting gay rights is racist."
"The 9/11 attackers were Muslim. Muslims go to mosques. Therefore, opening a mosque in Lower Manhattan is endorsing 9/11, only blocks from where it happened."
"The majority of Jews support Israel. Israel oppresses Muslims. Therefore, synagogues are Islamophobic."
Here's a La Meute-style transitive property abuse for you: "Immigrants from Muslim countries are less likely to support women's rights. Therefore, allowing Muslim immigration is misogynistic."
And now we have "Many refugees and other immigrants are anti-abortion. Therefore, not wanting government money to be spent supporting harrassing women outside abortion clinics makes you a neo-Nazi." No mention of immigrant women who are grateful they now have access to abortion they never had in their countries of origin. Ignore the fact that, as Magoo quite correctly pointed out, immigrants don't have to check a box certifying they support women's rights before they can immigrate. Ignore the fact they're not blocked from setting up their own religious institutions that oppose women's rights. By God, if we don't subsidize them to try to take away women's rights, we're pretty much Klansmen -- and worse, since we want to "cull" them, blockade their towns, withdraw their individual rights to health care and other government services, and basically lock them in the basement to starve.
It's curious that none of these minority groups have spoken up about the money they're losing, isn't it? Instead it's the usual white Christian suspects. They're eager, as always, to find a minority group that agrees with them, then accuse those who don't of wanting to wipe out that minority. The debate tactic's not only ugly, it's completely intellectually unsound (like if George W. Bush, knowing Christopher Hitchens supported his foreign policy, accused anyone who opposed the invasion of Iraq of wanting to eradicate atheists), but as long as it requires more than ten seconds of thought to refute, it'll keep getting used.
Actually Magoo, a purity test is a purity test. I am just pointing out who it also applies to, since some don't seem to notice.
And I thought I had also pointed out the perils of asking as simple yes-no question about issues that people have radically different understandings of. Given that there are business owners refusing to sign, how long are you going to insist that this is just a question of them not understanding what it means?
Given that there are business owners refusing to sign, how long are you going to insist that this is just a question of them not understanding what it means?
For the entirety of this thread, I've stated that I believe they totally know what it means.
Actually Magoo, a purity test is a purity test.
These are the questions Leitch hoped to introduce to the citizenship process. I'm not we need to add them, but which of them seems to you a "purity test"? Would it be odious of us to expect new Canadians to agree that women deserve equal protection under the law, for example? Do we need to stay in our lane with stuff like that?
- Are men and woman equal, and entitled to equal protection under the law?
- Is it ever OK to coerce or use violence against an individual or a group who disagrees with your views?
- Do you recognize that to have a good life in Canada you will need to work hard to provide for yourself and your family, and that you can't expect to have things you want given to you?
Thank you, cco. You have the patience of a saint.
Signed,
A Lapsed Catholic
@ cco
If you notice who signed that letter of protest, they did. But beyond that, white people and their big institutions might be super vocal about something like this. A lot of other groups that aren't so sure about their place here to begin with will understandably keep their heads down.
But that 75 percent number says something.
As well, it is worth remembering that there are a lot of people who believe that life begins at conception and who would never think of standing in the way of a woman's choice, but who still would never sign a declaration like that, just because it cuts too close to home.
But that 75 percent number says something.
It says that three in four poll respondents either didn't take a moment to read what the form actually said, or didn't understand it when they did.
You say:
Let's just review the numbers - 75 percent of Canadians who think this is unfair when it concerns people who are not using funding to actively oppose abortion rights or LGBT rights.
How many times, and in how many different ways, must it be pointed out that "people who are not using funding to actively oppose abortion rights or LGBT rights" are eligible for summer job funding?
Yes.
They are.
They really, actually are.
This is reminiscent of some of the brouhaha the right brought up in Manitoba under the NDP government when they were in power and insisted that all government construction contracts had to go to firms who hired union labour. I had no problem with that whatsoever since I think a progressive society respects workers' rights. The government has a right to set up parameters for who is eligible for program funding. Just as the various cultural industry programs (tax credits and direct funding) prohibit pornography (not illegal) from accessing that funding, this program also prohibits organizations who might divert government funds to subsidize activities the government feels inappropriate to support.
Yes.
They are.
They really, actually are.
And when the words in the declaration are changed to reflect that I am sure it will be no problem.
Is this discussion still ongoing? The language was clear. The intent was clear. Religious organizations claiming it violates their "core mandate" are either obtuse or disingenuous.
And the real complaint isn't about campaigning against anything. It is about asking people what they believe even if they are doing nothing, like the restaurant owner mentioned in this story:https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/8345446--purity-test-shuts-down-innisf...
Organizations and businesses are legal entities not people. They are incapable of "belief". The form is asking about the core mandate of the organization not the people running it, not the people who belong to it, not the people who shop there or worship there.
If part of the core mandate of a restaurant is to disrespect women's reproductive rights or LGBTQ2 rights that's a problem for me. They should stick to serving food.
They are incapable of "belief". The form is asking about the core mandate of the organization not the people running it, not the people who belong to it, not the people who shop there or worship there.
Well put. If we acknowledge that corporations or other legal entities can have beliefs, or a conscience, it'll be very difficult to put that toothpaste back in the tube.
Yeah, that's what I said Magoo. This isn't about religion. There are businesses and organizations which have also been refused because they would not check that box.
Then those businesses and organizations should check to see if this is a necessary aspect of the business or organization or if the people running them are projecting their beliefs onto the business.
Funny though that it has become a foil for some who wants to see religion wiped from the earth, or who thinks religious people will never listen to reason.
Neither of those claims are true. It isn't a "foil" for anything. Many of us agree that organizations that can't check the box shouldn't be receiving government funding. Some may also be happy to see religions wiped off the face of the Earth. Both can be true without either being a "foil'.
Another result of Trudeau's stunt. As much as he claims religious organizations are welcome, accusing those who have honest concerns of acting in bad faith makes that kind of a hollow offer.
That would be because he did make clarifications concerning core mandate versus beliefs but some, including yourself, insist on making it about beliefs instead of organizational core mandates.
This is a cutting off of support - one that is a lot bigger than I expect some here appreciate. I am asking if it is such a point of principle that you support doing it to people and groups that are not working against LGBT rights or access to abortion, where is your line?
I'll tell you mine. Are they preaching that homosexual sex is a sin? Are they preaching that women who have abortions are killing their babies? That is working against LGBTQ2 and women's reproductive rights because people who believe those things are the same ones trying to change laws.
After all, there are already concerns the government may extend this pledge to other areas. And contrary to the picture that this is primarily white Evangelicals and Catholics. there are plenty of people in communities which are disadvantaged and suffer discrimination - including Indigenous, immigrant, and people in poverty - who have the same values about women, about abortion and about LGBT issues. Some of the projects cancelled were intended to serve those communities.
I would like to hear more about the specific projects, other than the cherry festival, that have been cancelled. I'm not sure what the beliefs of the people being served have to do with anything.
I don't expect many people here agreed with Kellie Leitch proposing that people be asked similar values questions as a condition of immigrant status.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canad...
During the test or the interview, we’ll ask you questions about Canadian:
If it is an outrage when it is a paternalistic discriminatory dog whistle from one politician, why it is perfectly acceptible coming from another? I think the big difference is the assumption about who it will affect, even though both affect some of the same people.
A "dog whistle" in and of itself is not a problem and this isn't a dog whistle. For the sake of argument lets say it is a "dog whistle". Directed at whom? The only answer would be directed at people who support women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ2 rights.
Posters here are not giving Trudeau brownie points for this policy. Nobody believes he is motivated by anything other that political considerations. That doesn't make it a bad policy even if his motives are suspect.
And if you don't recognize that it is a dogwhistle, why the pile-on against religion and religious people - the claims they act in bad faith, will use any opportunity to discriminate, won't listen to reason, and will never be satisfied and looking for any excuse to complain?
You are rewording to create generalizations. No one has suggested that religious people are incapable of reason. Religion is a matter of faith not reason. Otherwise, please prove that God exists.
I am also curious, of you think it is okay to cut communities off from federal funding because of their values, and essentially brand them as untrustworthy and unCanadian do you imagine those values will automatically change, or these people will just disappear?
Again, their values are not in question. Only the core mandate of the organization. It can be run by devil worshipers who think women who have abortions should be burned alive as long as that is not part of the organization's core mandate.
Again, in case you are wondering what I mean by cull (gee, you'd think I said genocide) there's this assumption that other people will just appear and take over. How do you imagine that is going to happen in a small community where most people have those values?
Programs that only run in summer and are fully dependent on students doing the work are not providing irreplaceable core programs. It is quite possible some programs in some communities are unable to continue but other programs in other communities are new because more students have been hired than ever before. Individuals matter but looking at the global picture the program as a whole is helping more people not less.
Is this discussion still ongoing? The language was clear. The intent was clear. Religious organizations claiming it violates their "core mandate" are either obtuse or disingenuous.
THIS
You are rewording to create generalizations. No one has suggested that religious people are incapable of reason.
Pondering, do you want me to repost the quote a second time?
In fact, those of you here who are holding up rational thinking as a standard might want to take a closer look at some of your own, from your earlier comment, to claims about clarity of language, and accusations of obtuseness and acting in bad faith (do I really need to again show that the Trudeau government and the NDP said it was unclear and will likely be changed?)
Why are we still talking about this?
Because the effects are just starting to be felt, people are reacting to it, and it continues to be in the media. Much as some insist we should move on, because there is nothing to see here.
Pondering, do you want me to repost the quote a second time?
Sure if it was general, not specific to faith. For example, the only possible motivation to object to gay marriage is God. I'm sure everyone believes they can reason to the extent of say, deciding whether or not to buy a house.
In fact, those of you here who are holding up rational thinking as a standard might want to take a closer look at some of your own, from your earlier comment, to claims about clarity of language, and accusations of obtuseness and acting in bad faith (do I really need to again show that the Trudeau government and the NDP said it was unclear and will likely be changed?)
The NDP are almost always going to be critical of the Liberals if they have the chance. The Liberals didn't agree it was unclear they agreed to change it. That isn't the same thing.
I hope next year it means exactly the same thing it means this year regardless of how it is worded. I hope the same organizations find it impossible to "check the box". Not because I have anything against these organizations and not because I don't think they do good work. I hope it stays the same so that it becomes more and more obvious that their views are unacceptable to civilized society.
Sure if it was general, not specific to faith. For example, the only possible motivation to object to gay marriage is God. I'm sure everyone believes they can reason to the extent of say, deciding whether or not to buy a house.
Oh. So there are no atheist homophobes then. god made them do it.
Pondering I have posted several examples to disprove that false claim about not listening to reason. Religious groups and religious people have in fact changed their policies to conform with society, in some cases that change has not been forced, and has come from within.
On the other hand, I am guessing it is not god that is preventing you from recognizing that fact, but maybe you might want to reconsider whether your claim is founded on evidence. Fact is, there are some on both sides of this who don't seem too interested in reasoned argument, and considering the perspectives of others. That isn't the fault of any imaginary god.
Oh. So there are no atheist homophobes then. god made them do it.
Even if they exist their belief system is still derived from religion not reason because there is no reason to object to homosexuality.
Pondering I have posted several examples to disprove that false claim about not listening to reason. Religious groups and religious people have in fact changed their policies to conform with society, in some cases that change has not been forced, and has come from within.
Show me an example of the change coming from within not from societal -pressure- not force.
On the other hand, I am guessing it is not god that is preventing you from recognizing that fact, but maybe you might want to reconsider whether your claim is founded on evidence. Fact is, there are some on both sides of this who don't seem too interested in reasoned argument, and considering the perspectives of others. That isn't the fault of any imaginary god.
Disagreeing with your arguments is not the same thing as not listening to reason.
If people want to collectively do good and wish to have government subsidized students doing good with them it is not at all complicated to set up a non-profit to do it. They can still meet in church meeting rooms.
The check box did not prevent any program from going forward. The people running those programs insist on doing it under a religious banner whose core mandate is in conflict with respecting women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ2 rights.
If their primary goal is to help people then by next summer they have plenty of time to organize under a non-religious banner. They could have done it this year.
Even if they exist their belief system is still derived from religion not reason because there is no reason to object to homosexuality.
Oh please. There is no reason for sexism or racism either, but are you going to blame that all on religion too? And if you are going to extend that to atheists supposedly under the influence of religion are you saying we can't think for ourselves either?
What then is the difference between believers and non-believers at all?
Show me an example of the change coming from within not from societal -pressure- not force.
Well how much of a history lesson do you want? We could start with Augustine's point that when evidence conflicts with scripture you follow evidence.
Or the entire Reformation, translation of scripture and publishing of the Bible into common languages. Or the first modern separation of church and state (including secular marriage), which was done by religious fundamentalist Puritans.
Or that the Ottomans decriminalized homosexuality 100 years before western European states did.
Or this, which I doubt any anti-religious person was seriously lobbying for:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-woman-bishop-roman-ca...
Or the fact that churches were critical to that fight for same-sex marriage in Canada. The first two marriages - in 1974 and in 2001 - were both sealed by the power that churches had at a time when equality did not exist under Canadian law.
Or the Amadiyha Muslim community, of which there are many here in Saskatoon, left their home because they are considered heretics in their home countries. There are several other refugees I know of here who were forced out because they were religious reformers.
To suggest that change has only come through outside force is frankly cynical, and deeply insulting to reformers who have suffered persecution, exile, and sometimes death trying to change things. They are doing work that is considerably more constructive than refusing to set foot in a Sally Ann. This armchair criticism is frankly worse than useless.
Here's another twist:
Big diocese in Central Canada exceeds its fundraising goals in response to the attestation.
https://grandinmedia.ca/london-diocese-exceeds-summer-jobs-fundraising-g...
Unlike smaller churches, organizations, and businesses elsewhere in Canada. So who gets hurt here? Seems to me those who have lots of power are doing fine, still getting their projects done. Those who don't wind up high and dry.
And anti-abortion lobbying still happens (along with a a good boost) and those fake counselling centres are still in business.
Honestly, if some of you here don't get that many people who aren't doing anything to oppose choice still cannot sign that attestation, no matter what the government claims it means, and if you don't recognize that the party which should be accommodating to bridge that lack of clarity until the wording gets sorted is the government, we don't really have grounds for discussion here. We will just continue to go back and forth on this.
Oh please. There is no reason for sexism or racism either, ...
Yes there is. In both cases there are groups who benefited enormously through being "higher cast".
We could start with Augustine's point that when evidence conflicts with scripture you follow evidence.
So maybe the churches should follow that approach and check the box instead of arguing against homosexual sex and women's reproductive choices.
Or the entire Reformation, translation of scripture and publishing of the Bible into common languages.
To support the spread of the religion. I didn't say churches never change on anything. They change when it suits them to. They are free to change now. They aren't doing it. That is their choice. Notice there is no force involved.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/regina-woman-bishop-roman-ca...That just makes no sense. Why would a non-religious person have anything to do with the "fight" to ordain women. On top of that the church is not changing.
On June 20, 2018 Francis said, "We cannot do this with Holy Orders (women priests) because dogmatically we cannot. Pope John Paul II was clear and closed the door and I’m not going to go back on that. It (John Paul’s decision) was serious, it was not a capricious thing."[49]
They can call themselves whatever they like they are not accepted by the head of the Church.
Or the fact that churches were critical to that fight for same-sex marriage in Canada. The first two marriages - in 1974 and in 2001 - were both sealed by the power that churches had at a time when equality did not exist under Canadian law.The churches you are referencing changed as a result of society changing. They didn't introduce the idea. Gay men were fighting for the right. Societal pressure is what changes laws which has happened since then. It's about time the churches who felt they couldn't check the boxes catch up to the other churches. As you pointed out gay marriage in churches has been happening for a very long time.
Or the Amadiyha Muslim community, of which there are many here in Saskatoon, left their home because they are considered heretics in their home countries. There are several other refugees I know of here who were forced out because they were religious reformers.So they should get summer jobs funding? Notice, they were forced out for trying to reform their churches.
To suggest that change has only come through outside force is frankly cynical, and deeply insulting to reformers who have suffered persecution, exile, and sometimes death trying to change things.Those reformers are outside forces or they would have successfully made those changes rather than being exiled from the Churches they were involved in.
You are conflating people who attend churches or people who are religious with religious organizations.
They are doing work that is considerably more constructive than refusing to set foot in a Sally Ann. This armchair criticism is frankly worse than useless.Who is refusing to set foot in a Sally Ann?
No one is forcing the Churches who were refused summer jobs funding to change. No one is preventing them from changing. Either way it is entirely up to the churches involved. The congregations should put pressure on the churches, or not.
What is happening is that they are getting the message that their positions are counter to the Canadian Charter and to women's reproductive freedom. They are entitled to continue preaching their opinions on those topics, they are still getting tax breaks, they just aren't getting funding to hire students.
That is not at all forceful. It does not curtail their freedom in any way.
Congregations and Churches are two separate entities. This is a distinction people who are refusing to check the box don't seem to understand.
You think straights and non-trans people don't enjoy the privilege of a "higher caste" as you put it?
Considering their existence isn't criminal as homosexuality was until very recently I'd say it is a pretty stark difference. And the right to spousal benefits and inheritance, and to adopt, and to be recognized as next of kin, and to sponsor for immigration, and to serve in the military, and everything else straight couples have enjoyed that until recently same sex couples have not.
Discrimination is discrimination, and hatred cuts across all lines, much as you want to pin it all on religion, even in the case of atheists.
You think straights and non-trans people don't enjoy the privilege of a "higher caste" as you put it?
Of course we do. We don't have churches preaching against our relationships. Churches are privileged as they use the shield of religion to justify their antiquated ideas.
Considering their existence isn't criminal as homosexuality was until very recently I'd say it is a pretty stark difference. And the right to spousal benefits and inheritance, and to adopt, and to be recognized as next of kin, and to sponsor for immigration, and to serve in the military, and everything else straight couples have enjoyed that until recently same sex couples have not.
Correct. Now we don't give money to organizations that are against equal rights for them. We are evolving. We have rejected the teachings of the church.
Discrimination is discrimination, and hatred cuts across all lines, much as you want to pin it all on religion, even in the case of atheists.
I'm not. Racial descrimination has nothing to do with religion as far as I know.
Religions have been responsible for lots of good in the world in general and in Canada in particular. Churches, including Catholic and Evangelical, have sponsored many refugees in Canada and have helped disadvantaged communities etc. I hope they continue doing that work.
You think that not getting summer job funding over these issues is more likely to result in their digging in their heels rather than changing. I think it's the opposite. It doesn't really matter which one of us is right. While their are ups and downs the trend is towards social liberalization.
How did this become a sidebar?
Of course "atheists" (or just more common "secular folk") can have bigoted attitudes toward reproductive rights or LGBTQ rights too.
And this checkbox agrees. If "Billy Bob's Guns 'n' Grills" doesn't take kindly to two men kissing, and would not hire a gay teen to polish their guns and scrape their grills, they're not eligible either.
Pointing out that non-religious people can also be ineligible only makes it clear that this does not -- despite the bleating to the contrary -- "target" religions.
It targets bigots. Poor, misunderstood bigots, evidently. "Misunderstood" because nobody believes them when they say they're just trying to do what their heart tells them is right. And "poor" because they ain't gettin' no munnee.
I don't think that's how we got there, Magoo. It was Pondering blaming all homophobia on religion, even when it is atheists allegedly led astray by god.
And it doesn't just target bigots. It also targets people who believe life begins at conception, whether they extend that belief to interfering in the choices of others or not.
And some of them are still getting plenty of money - just not the ones depending on this little showcase of Trudeau's progressive cred.
And it's not about religion? Maybe you should tell that to the person who is going on about how religions never change except when they are forced to, and that they will never listen to reason.
I don't think that's how we got there, Magoo. It was Pondering blaming all homophobia on religion, even when it is atheists allegedly led astray by god.
And it doesn't just target bigots. It also targets people who believe life begins at conception, whether they extend that belief to interfering in the choices of others or not.
And some of them are still getting plenty of money - just not the ones depending on this little showcase of Trudeau's progressive cred.
And it's not about religion? Maybe you should tell that to the person who is going on about how religions never change except when they are forced to, and that they will never listen to reason.
How can atheists be led astray by a non-existant God? Western civilization was built on Judeo Christian values. So yeah, I do think it is at the root of homophobia.
Social pressure and force are not the same thing. Denying summer job funds is not using force. They aren't being arrested or attacked.
Churches still have the opportunity to see reason.
We are not pro gay rights because some religions oppose them. Then it would be about religion. This is about women's reproductive freedom and LGBTQ2 rights.
I don't know how many aggressive homophobes you have crossed paths with, but any time I have it sure seemed more to do with toxic masculinity and their fragile egos being threatened than any interest in Jesus. Not to say religion doesn't play a role in some cases, but the current line in some places is that homosexuality is a symptom of capitalism and decadent western values. And 100 years ago it was a slur against the elite and upper class. Claiming it is all just Judeo Christian programming doesn't explain why the nation dominated by the most dogmatic strain of the three - Islam - decriminalized it a century before the supposedly more progressive west did.
This is rather like the kneejerk claim that the root of Islamophobia isn't bigotry, but because they are all Catholics or lapsed Catholics.
And the more general tunnel vision that makes some blame all our social ills on one thing, and one kind of people and assume if you just get rid of that all our problems will be solved.
I don't know how many aggressive homophobes you have crossed paths with, but any time I have it sure seemed more to do with toxic masculinity and their fragile egos being threatened than any interest in Jesus. Not to say religion doesn't play a role in some cases, but the current line in some places is that homosexuality is a symptom of capitalism and decadent western values. And 100 years ago it was a slur against the elite and upper class. Claiming it is all just Judeo Christian programming doesn't explain why the nation dominated by the most dogmatic strain of the three - Islam - decriminalized it a century before the supposedly more progressive west did.
This is rather like the kneejerk claim that the root of Islamophobia isn't bigotry, but because they are all Catholics or lapsed Catholics.
And the more general tunnel vision that makes some blame all our social ills on one thing, and one kind of people and assume if you just get rid of that all our problems will be solved.
Violence is only the extreme form of homophobia. Hate the sin love the sinner is still homophobia. As far as I know indigenous peoples in Canada had no problem with homosexuals or the 2 spirited. It's a cultural thing. Our culture was built on Judeo Christian values one of which has been homophobia.
I didn't say the Church hasn't also done good in the world and advanced civilization. The Pope has spoken up against neoliberalism and environmental recklessness. He has a huge audience and is well respected so it matters. Churches have sponsored many refugees. They create a sense of community and probably reduce mental health problems through providing mutual support in difficult times.
And the more general tunnel vision that makes some blame all our social ills on one thing, and one kind of people and assume if you just get rid of that all our problems will be solved.
Don't poison that well at babble. If it's not all the fault of one thing, and one kind of people, we'll all have to up our game. Thanks for nothing.
I think that someone already mentioned that this policy/program reequirement is not necessarily targeting religion. There are people who are not necessarily religious who think that women should have the whole responsibility of deciding when to continue or stop a pregnancy. There are also secular people who have issues with anything that is not clear cut heterosexual. Whether that societal conditioning is somehow related to religion or not doesn't really matter.
From the article:
Additional changes have been made to the program's eligibility criteria to disqualify any project or summer job that tries to restrict access a woman's ability to access sexual or reproductive health services. Other disqualifying traits include jobs that restrict the exercise of human rights, or that discriminate based on sex, religion, race or ethnic origin.
But yes. Election year, so no surprise they are re-thinking the wisdom of this.
Thank Jesus. Now groups who were previously eligible for funding are eligble for funding.
From the article:
Additional changes have been made to the program's eligibility criteria to disqualify any project or summer job that tries to restrict access a woman's ability to access sexual or reproductive health services. Other disqualifying traits include jobs that restrict the exercise of human rights, or that discriminate based on sex, religion, race or ethnic origin.
But yes. Election year, so no surprise they are re-thinking the wisdom of this.
No actually this was a wedge issue much like the gun registry but to a lesser extent.
But the result
