Trudeau is asking religious Canadians to betray their conscience for federal funding
More on the North of the Border Siliness being instituted by Pierre's boy. Many of my friends on that side of the border are appalled at how he is tearing down Canadian Society in favor of his Utopian Ideals. Most Canadians avoid going places like Toronto as English and French are no longer prevalent languages. Saw this opinion picce form CBC:
Thousands of years ago, before Christians could practice their faith legally, they often faced persecution from the Roman government. If captured, however, a suspected Christian could avoid punishment by performing a simple sacrifice dedicated to the emperor.
To stay on the authority's good side, some Christians crossed their fingers (a concealed symbol of their true allegiance to Jesus) and complied with the government's request. They rationalized that a coerced physical action didn't compromise their true belief.
Most early Christians disagreed with that position. They felt "truth" had "set them free." They would not betray the truth.
Today Christians in Canada, especially those ascribing to a more traditional faith, are being asked to cross their fingers and comply with a government decree. In this contemporary case, though, it's a bit of money — not their lives — hanging in the balance.
Youth summer jobs
It sounds innocuous enough: Trudeau's Liberals have made changes to the youth summer jobs program, which provides grant money to various employers to hire students. The changes, announced in December, got little media attention until now.
Under the new rules, applicants must agree — by marking a box on an electronic form — that they respect charter rights, including "women's rights and women's reproductive rights." The office of the employment minister has said without the confirmation, an organization will not receive funding.
Religious organizations — churches, youth camps, aid groups and so forth — that hire students to assist them over the summer are frustrated. That's because many, especially conservative Protestant and Catholic organizations, believe a child in the womb is as valuable as a child born, and they see abortion as immoral. To give assent to abortion, even via a check mark on a government form, betrays their values and conscience.
Late last week, in an effort to suppress a burgeoning controversy, both Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Employment Minister Patty Hajdu said that the changes were not meant to affect all Christian organizations, but rather, only those whose "core mandate" was one of suppression of abortion rights.
The implication was thus that other religious groups should simply check the box, knowing it was not meant to target them.
This "solution," however, shows a complete lack of awareness of what it means to be ethical. Here, the Liberals are advocating regular Canadians mimic their practice of equivocation and mutable morality, which we've seen in their about-face on electoral reform, as well as the prime minister's own ethical breaches.
That Trudeau and his team are apparently so at ease encouraging conservative Christians and other religious Canadians to betray their conscience should cause many across the country great unease. Even those who are solidly pro-choice will appreciate the dangers inherent in that precedent.
- Churches upset by new abortion clause in jobs program
- Liberals 'imposing' values on groups seeking summer job grants, Andrew Scheer says
Another aspect of the Liberals' reasoning should give the public even greater cause for concern.
When asked to justify holding back grant money from organizations they deem too dedicated to a pro-life position, the Liberals have implied that to give such groups funding would violate the charter and, thus, Canadian law.
Hajdu explained: "Our ministry believes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and these are fundamental expectations of Canadians, and we stand up for those rights — and we [will] ensure that the money that we disperse on behalf of Canadians is not used in a way that violates those hard-won rights."
But here's the thing: there are no rights being violated here.
No right to abortion
Hajdu's nod to "hard-won rights" is a reference to the Supreme Court's landmark 1988 Morgentaler decision. But that decision didn't recognize a constitutional right to abortion under the Charter. While it did nullify Canada's existing abortion law, the Court left it to Parliament to come up with new legislation that would balance the rights of women with the state's interest in the protection of the fetus, within the bounds of the charter.
Indeed, commenting at the time of the decision, law professor Daphne Gilbert wrote, "The Morgentaler decision didn't say a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, it didn't go that far."
Canada is the only Western nation without any law regulating abortion. Successive governments have avoided crafting such legislation for fear of dividing the country, but the Liberals have discovered an easier solution: simply make people believe that a law already exists. (One, incidentally, that just happens to match Liberal ideology exactly).
Conservative Christians and those of other faiths supporting pro-life positions should not be subjected to an ideological purity test to qualify for federal funding. The beliefs they hold about abortion are completely within the bounds of the law and can be voiced upon and advocated for freely and publicly. Even organizations that are solely dedicated to opposing abortion contravene no law.
Their only "crime" is that their values don't align with those of our prime minister. It's ironic that Trudeau insists Canadians support "diversity and inclusion," when he himself does not.
Clearly, the Liberals are letting a particular worldview, and not the law, influence their actions. The danger here is that if a government can pretend a law into existence, it can pretend others out of existence.
We've seen this before. Hail to the emperor.
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
I understand resepcting the law, but if an organization is trying to get funding for youth summer jobs, that really doesn't incorporate abortion. So, the only way that these folks can get money for their program is if they check a box that they agree with their government's position..........Not really free speech.........Buzz, not sure your country is the country you remember.
Where is the link to the article the "resource for orthodox Anglicans" you copied and pasted from?
I posted this directly from CBC (Canadian Briadcasting Services). Go to that article and look up the link.
You are required to post a link to the article per the CoC. Post it please.
Then he should know better.
Yet I asked politely for a link 5 DAYS ago and instead of fixing it today he told me to go look for it.
It is so rare that I get the recognition that I am due.
You may proceed...
I'm not taking the time to go looking for it now. If that displeases you, get off my seed and report me.
Additionally, go and re-read the CoC. Tell me where it says it is required.
Your disrespect for the CoC of this site is duly noted.
It's also painfully obvious the 00Fish was wrong to have confidence in you...
#6 Comments containing material from other sources should have the url cited within the comment.
#7 Posting content that potentially infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary right(s) of any person or entity is prohibited. Copyright infringement is illegal.
Since the content of your seed in copied and pasted IN TOTAL from a copyrighted website and is the work produce of ANOTHER author it is a double violation of the CoC.
Copyright infringement puts Perrie in financial jeopardy.
Actually Gary, you must cite the source where it came from or the real author can come after NT for copyright infringement, so please add the link at the bottom of the article.
I'll see if I can find it. As you know I normally do, but forgot it this time. Please note, the CoC should be changed as it reads 'should' instead of 'must'. Please advise Dulay that his statement accusing me of violating the CoC is something that should be reported to a moderator or R.A. not placed in a comment for that user to make demands of an author/seeder. I understand it probably is something to help satisfy that person's ego needs but is inappropriate as is chastising another user like Dulay did.
This is a member moderated site Spike. As members we ALL have a duty to follow the CoC and to ensure other members do the same. This is especially true when a seed or comment puts the owner in monetary jeopardy.
You begged for it. All you had to do a WEEK ago was to take a minute to look up the source and update your seed. Instead you couldn't be bothered and made ridiculous excuses that the CoC didn't say MUST. You know better and Perrie shouldn't have to be bothered with petulance.
Do not speak directly to me, address the article or be gone. You don't have a right to chastise anyone. Line 1, first paragraph of the CoC.
Not even when a Liberal government was in power. This issue is yet another reason I think the present government is destroying the country to which I owe my allegience. Where is Stephen Harper when we really need him?
Now there are some in this country who would coerce individuals to go against their religious beliefs and deprive them of their free excercise rights or take away their livelihood. These American fascists are as much so as the Canadian regime.
Whom would that be exactly? And how is anyone being deprived of their beliefs?
I said deprived of the free excercise thereof of said belief, not the belief itself. Belief is meaningless without the ability to live and act based on that belief.
And I said free exercise has legal limits. Belief does not. But no one has been denied their religious belief or practice.
They're being forced to make the "Checkmark of the Beast".
That nonsense aside, how are they being denied their beliefs? They can still believe whatever they want. So their beliefs ae not being denied.
Making them check that box is no different than making you check a box affirming your belief in God in order to take part in a Government program. This policy would be unconstitutional in the USA.
I don't see where they're being forced to "check" anything. No one is forced or required to be in a government program. If someone wants in such a program, then they have to play by the government rules. The government isn't forcing itself on anyone in that regard.
The denial of participation is a penalty and that is the Force that is being exerted. Would it be ok if the ability to participate in a government program required people to check a box affirming their belief that "Homosexuality was Wrong" or that "Abortion was Murder" ? It would be wrong and it would never fly, and Pro-homosexuality beliefs or Pro-abortion beliefs aren't even specifically protected in the constitution like Religious beliefs are. Forcing people to check a box affirming things like this constitutes a Litmus Test.
They are free to not apply if they do not want to conform to government standards. If they want government funding, then they must abide by government rules. Otherwise, they can operate using their own funds and/or be privately funded. I certainly wouldn't want my tax money being funded to religious based organizations opposed to individual rights such as abortion.
Luckily Our government doesn't have the Constitutional right to set such Standards. If it did funding for different groups would be dependent on who was in power, the power you'd like to give the Government to defund people you don't like could be used just as effectively to defund those you support.
Government funding of social programs is usually under the purview of Congress.
How would this be unconstitutional in the US? You don't have the right to use government funding to trample the religious views of others or to further your own religious beliefs/agenda while on the job as a civil servant. This idea was clearly illustrated in the example of Kim Davis.
Forcing someone to live by your religious beliefs is not and has not ever been one of our religious rights? What Trudeau is doing is in the spirit of the strict separation of church and state.
Your religious rights under the First Amendment are the right to believe in god and the right to worship as you choose. That is it. You do not have the constitutional right to involve others in your religious beliefs without their voluntary consent, so your religious beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the very same religious rights of others begin.
There is no such thing as pro-homosexuality or pro-abortion. You have the right to believe that both are wrong but you do not have the right to use taxpayer money to further your religious beliefs. All civil servant jobs, with the exception of chaplains in the military, are absolutely secular to protect the religious rights of all people, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. if you don't like those rules then I can only suggest that you find a job in the private sector that does not use taxpayer money to fund it.
Thank goodness he's gone! Mr. Trudeau is a good man.
This article is nonsense.
Denying federal benefits to groups that promote unconstitutional religious ideologies would be a great idea for America.
Um, we're talking about Canada here.
That would be in itself Unconstitutional.
How so?
Because it would deny them the free exercise of their Religion and their right to free speech. In fact advocating for such a law would be a violation of very same law you're advocating for , can you say hypocrisy.
Again, how? Denial of benefits in no way denies anyone of their religion or speech rights. Besides, religious exercise does have legal limits. Religious belief does not.
Requiring a Christian to check a box affirming a belief that goes against their Religious tenents in order to participate in a government program is a Religious Litmus Test and as such would be Unconstitutional. If you still cannot understand then I recommend you take a course in Constitutional Law.
Again, if they wish to apply for government funding (which they are not required to do), they have to agree to the terms set by the entity giving them the funds. If that goes against their tenets, then they simply don't apply for such funding and can fund themselves. Simple as that. Oh, how terrible it must be to respect charter rights, 'including women's rights and women's reproductive rights.' >sarc< That speaks a lot about a religious organization which doesn't have such respect.
I am familiar with Constitutional law, thank you.
A religious litmus test is about requiring that one follows a certain religion in order to qualify.
You are the one that doesn't understand.
Absolute BS. The government cannot promote religious ideas/policies because of the separation of church and state. The actions and [polcies of the state at all levels are to be kept secular for the protection of religious and constitutional rights of all people.
Pass the collection plate one more time if you want to fund for religious policies.
Those poor poor persecuted small c christians. So they've got their bible humpers in Canada too.
That whooshing noise you heard is the 'point' going right over your head.
Why should governments' have an interest in a woman's uterus?
Is this an issue because most governments are run by and for men instead of women (just as most religions are also conceived and run by and for men)?
Very well could be.
I never did understand exactly what the "state's interest" in a fetus was, or why it's interested in the first place. It is a rather vague term which seems more like a means to retain some measure of control over individual rights or choices.
There is no state interest in the sale of cakes, flowers, caterering, photography, etc. either.
But there is a state interest in ensuring those businesses serve everyone equally and follow the law, including anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws. And since businesses produce tax revenue for the town/state, I'd say that gives the state a compelling interest.
So are you saying that the government has no interest in regulating commerce, but government does have an interest in regulating citizens' personal sexual and reproductive lives?
Really? No licensing? No environmental controls? No health regulations?
You're joking right?
There is a definite state interest that all citizens are served equally regardless of religious belief or sex/sexual orientation and gender. Should we allow people to refuse to serve customers of different religions, races, and ethnicities because of the owner's religious views or do you only want to limit the ability to discriminate on LGBT people?
Do you understand the legal precedent that would be established if we allow people to ignore the secular law because of their religious beliefs?
The gist of this is you must check the box saying you conform to the Government's idea of a different social program if you want to be able to get a grant from them (of their own money gathered through taxation). It's simply wrong.
Why is it wrong? The government is simply protecting the rights of all people when it prohibits taxpayer money from being used for a purpose that would discriminate based on the recipient's religious beliefs.
What about people who would be discriminated against with their own tax dollars if this law wasnt in place? The government certainly has a vested interest in seeing that all people are treated as equals, unlike religious belief, which does not seek to do that.
The only people who don't support diversity are the religious people who have a problem with the government prohibiting this money being used for purposes that do not treat all Canadians as equals.
Why is it wrong? When people are applying for funds for summer camps and the like, they have to 'Agree' with the government stance on a particular issue?
So, if you want something from our government, it would be acceptable to you, say Social Security, but before they will give it to you, you have to concur with the Government's position 'that continually raising the debt ceiling is perfectly acceptable' by putting an 'X' in the 'I Agree' box before you receive any funds?
That's what is happening in this case.
I'm surprised that this is news to you or anyone else who is over 21 because all money that comes from the taxpayer's regulatory strings attached to it. If you don't like those regulations then find a different source of funding for your project.
Are you aware that Canada has hate speech laws that prohibit people from attacking LGBT people or other minority groups? This law is required because how could the government fund religious-based hate speech or support discrimination?
This article is just an attempt to stir the pot among people who need to feel that they are being persecuted for their beliefs.
Are you kidding me? An article to stir the pot? WTF is posted here everyday? If you don't like the article, then it's stirring the pot, if you do like it, it is worthy debate?
Why should taxpayer money be used to fund religious activities when religious belief is an inherently divisive activity? Why should I have to pay taxes to fund a religion that treats me as an atheist as someone to be converted or discriminated against?
All religious funding should be from private sources or end it is f you cannot pay for it yourself, unless it treats all people regardless of faith or lack thereof absolutely equally. Any funding of religious activity must have an overall secular goal that is not founded on furthering a religious morality.
Satanists need to open a week-long summer camp and target Christians and use government money for those attempted conversions. Maybe then you will understand how others feel about the government using taxpayer money to fund Christian projects that treat them as less than equal.
That's right! As I said before, if you want something from the government, you have to play by the government's rules. Don't like it? Then don't apply for funding, plain and simple. Pay for something yourself!
A poor analogy. We pay into social security. So it is essentially already our funds due to us when we retire or otherwise cannot work.
Not at all.
It shouldn't and you shouldn't have to.
Agreed.
How would one determine if that is actually occurring consistently?
I believe that most anything posted is worthy debate as long as anyone shows up to debate it. LOL!
What if the U.S. had a box to check to receive federal money? Goes for people, State and Local Governments
"You must uphold the laws of the U.S." Hmm not too much to ask is it?
Some much for sanctuary cities and states.......
Comment removed NV Policy [ph]
The cognitive dissonance of it is breathtaking, isn't it?
Galen, either comment on the story or get off it. This is not a 'hey on Newsvine you said' place. Address the topic or move on.
That goes for you too, Dulay. This is not a place to attack others. Try to remember which site you are on.
It would seem to me that you missed the person who started this thread, OldUSAFGuy might be one of your buds but, he should be included in this since it was his comment that started it.
What US law are sanctuary cities or states violating?
One would think that if such a law existed, AG Sessions would have been in court nailing them left and right. It's been a year and NADA.
In Canada, when the Morgentaller case came up and abortion abecame a legal operation, I never put it together with religious belief. Personally, I only considered it a matter of personal freedom and a medical procedure. However, I was living in Ontario, not in Quebec where the French Canadians are mostly Catholic, so I assume it was more of an issure there.
When I was the senior partner of a law firm back then we did hire summer students and got a government subsidy, but no such requirement existed back then. If such a requirement existed back then it would not have stopped me from taking advantage of the program, other than I would consider it government interference and the imposition of a moral standard, which I consider improper on the part of government.
What moral standard is the government imposing, with the law that keeps the church and state separate?
???
The government can impose laws, but the question of freedom of abortion was a legal, not a religious one, and Trudeau is throwing some fodder to Catholic and religious far right by imposing this condition for summer student subsidy - as they would consider it a moral issue, whereas I consider it a legal one. I hope it's challenged in the courts.
How can this possibly be Trudeau's snack that he tossed to Catholics and others when those very groups are implying that their religious rights are being infringed by being forced to sign paperwork saying that the job money will not be used for anti-abortion or anti-LGBT purposes? I think that you have this backwards, but I am neither a lawyer or a citizen of Canada.
Epistte, you're absolutely correct, and I'm totally wrong with that statement. It was of no benefit to Catholics or to the far right, so in fact it is just an attempt to FORCE his ideal of morality on a portion of society. As I said, it would not have made a big difference to me other than the fact that if potential employers put their beliefs first, it is the students who do NOT get hired who will suffer.
You will note, epistte, that one of the things that sets me apart from some other members of NT, is that I ADMIT when I'm wrong.
NO, that isn't a fact. Since the limitations are part of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, they are rights that ALL Canadians want protected.
I respect you for that. I also admit when I am wrong, which is more often then I like to admit.
stop admitting to denying the admittedly admirable trait of owning up to ones mistake, because no one else would buy it, as it is not admitting anything, to plead and drink the/a fifth.
PS Look out for that Buzz character
LOL. Good advice.
Canada is behind the 8 ball when it comes to kicking out the liberal/globalists.... but they will catch up soon enough.
Cheers
As long as the voters realize what is happening to Europe, especially France and Germany, it's possible that there could be a government change in the next federal election.
Globalization is a given in the next 50 years because worldwide trade and the internet are quickly making political borders irrelevant. Many of opur current problems transcend political borders so we must work togther if we are to surive and thrive. The only question is what form the global government will take. We could create a government based on the US Constitution and the UN Declaration of human rights, corporate government where the people are relegated to an almost feudal state, or somthing else.
I work part time for a Canadian Company......pay time is fun......thy bank with CIBC in Canada, I get paid by check from them drawn on U.S> Funds......no one local will cash their checks....I have to send them to USAA Bank in Texas.....we tried to set up a money transfer instead...CIBC says they would charge $40 per transfer........so globalization is something that they are still working towards..........
If the present trend continues, it will be a world wide caliphate (except, perhaps, in China, where they pull no punches when it comes to dealing with those who try to change government decree, and Japan, where they won't even let it start).
that is a bullshit premise from the word go. regardless how fast we can communicate.
worldwide trade has been going on for many generations without those trade agreements containing rules and regulations. and it can continue for many generations into the future.
the idea that the internet is the basis for the globalist model of open borders is too funny for words so im just going to skip that one.
by the time the dust settles on the recent failure of the liberal world order it will be well over 50 yrs before people are stupid enough to fall for it again.
there will never be a day when we can not simply exchange apples and oranges without a un-elected world government being formed by traitors selling out their countries and cultures to unelected foreign bureaucrats around the world.
Where do you get the nonsense idea that a world government would be an unelected dictatorship? Is this something that Fox News fills your head with? Did you not bother to see where I said that a world government could and likely should be based on the US Constitution with the added benefit of the UN Declaration of Human Rights? Please think and research the idea before you reply with me with a TEAparty screed from the American Thinker, Infowars or Breitbart.
Your problem is that you don't understand how a global government would work so you fear it. Fear is based on ignorance because you are in fear of what you do not understand.
where do you get the nonesense idea we had a choice in their plans to cede our countries sovereignty to a foreign body?
did the bushs ask? did the clintons ask? did obama ask? those traitorus pricks of the past are done with their BS of shutting down our country under the guise of trade deals.
and when it comes to your globalist world I can only promise you one thing.
it will not happen during any of our lifetimes. but feel free to dream about that which you will never see.
it took them over 60yrs to fail this time an it will be well over 60yrs before they make it back to where they were before traitor 44 showed up.
Cheers
Put down the Fox News crackpipe. They were screwing you because that is what under regulated capatamism does to the consumer, the economy and the enviroment in search of profit and low costs.
Of course, we have a choice Get your body to the polls and then in the streets and raise hell if the politicians don't listen to you. Protests brought down the iron curtain, so learn how to mobilize and act. Do you really think that Trump and the GOP have the best interest of working people when screwing them is how they make their millions?
The working people who the most vociferous defenders of laisse fair capitalism do not understand it because if they did they wouldn't defend it. Learn the difference between a market economy and capitalism before you rely on me because you can have a market economy without capitalism.
Source please.
You can’t have a market economy without capitalism. There will be no one world government on this earth until after the 2nd coming under God.
A market economy is not unique to capitalism.
Horse shit. I am a supporter of market socialism. Should I explain to you how that works?
There is no god.
The biblical Jesus was a communist.
Matthew 19:21
Matthew 19:24
50 yrs of watching these criminals bs most everyone else.
it was good fun(for them), but now, their fun is over.
Cheers
oh.. so jesus loved big government huh? LOL
seems to me when they told him to pay a tax? he told them to go fish.
Can you imagine what fun that world would be? Eternal Puritanism. No sex, gambling, alcohol, cursing, weed, or fun in general. Aren’t you looking forward to that? There probably won’t even be bacon.
There won't be a thumper left breathing by then.
Embarrassing conservatives?
Communism refers to a small government of free association and social ownership of all goods if you understood communist theory. Russia was not communist, despite the propaganda.
East Germany claimed to be a democratic republic, despite the fact that it was a violent dictatorship. North Korea also claims to be a democratic republic, despite the fact.
NO, I cant
Who isn't
.
over/under ?
Um, what is a communtist? I suppose you meant communist. In either case, off base.
We can surmise how you react when Canadians have opinions on how we do things...
It's impossible to embarrass people who can't feel it no matter how shamefully they behave.
jesus never said we all own all the stuff in some big collective...
acknowledges individual ownership
and is not the same as
These religious people want to live like Joel Osteen, Jerry Falwell or the Pope, while they force us to live like the Puritans or the Amish. They are hypocrites and everyone has now seen it, except for those who are willfully blind.
The younger generations are rejecting religion at an ever-increasing pace. Good riddance to an illogical idea that should have died a millennium ago.
Jesus wasn't a capitalist. His followers are not to seek belongings or money.
Why is it that an atheist has to educate Christians on the teachings of the man they claim to be a son of god and their personal savior? Shouldn't you already know this?
Some regulations are in place to protect the consumer. Unfortunately, in the US this does not apply as often as it should.
There are valid reasons that other countries ban or reject food grown in the US.
Not really.
But why would any other country want US pink slime?
Article from 2017.... Pink slime is still being sold. Should regulations be in place so that consumers know what they are buying?
and that proves he was a socialist? LOL
being generous to the poor or choosing to live without many possessions is not exactly the same as being told the collective owns everything including the fruits of ones labor.
Socialism is not the sharing of all possessions. It is, in the abstract and in great simplification, the sharing of the resources that are necessary for a society to function.
it is always a game of semantics with those on the left...
let me help you out here.
my land, the business I build on my land, and the profits I make with that business on my land = are my possessions
when some collective decides they can quote "share my resources / results of my labor? that is the day that collective must die.
is that simple enough?
tell ya what,,, they have this socialist paradise known as Venezuela...
I hear they are moving to "forced farm work" for the people because socialism is working so well.
you might want to go on down there and explain to them what they have been doing wrong.
or, you can watch the transition from socialism to communism personally.
Cheers
Here is what you wrote:
Here is what I wrote (and you even quoted it):
See? If you think Socialism is the sharing of all possessions then you do not understand socialism and your opening snark is wholly unearned.
Yeah, mine too. Are you attempting to explain capitalism? To what end?
That would be theft. Venezuela, for example, engaged in theft when it expropriated private enterprises and other resources. Is that your understanding of socialism??
I suggest that your understanding of socialism is in fact too simplistic. Go beyond labels to the underlying concepts; at least get familiar with the fundamentals.
An excellent illustration that you do not understand this subject matter. Venezuela expropriated resources to engage in state capitalism and the unwise practice of attempting to create a command economy (ala the former USSR). Chavez labeled his authoritarian rule as 'socialism'. Labeling works ... people who do not know better accept it.
Best to go beyond a superficial understanding of these concepts if you are going to write such a snarky comment.