Edmonton Christian school: LGBQT's have mental illnesses

[Illuminaughty]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

This happened? What? When? I'm a little out of the loop so maybe I missed this.

Did you see the logo for the Women's march? If there is any room to call somebody any form of "ist", "ism" or "phobic", that's on the left side. You know the side where group identity is the most important thing, dealing with people and opinions on an individual basis is a completely foreign concept.

That should bring you fairly up to speed.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

It wasn't just Al-Queda that was angry about those cartoons, it was a large portion of the Islamic community in Europe. Again look at how you are trying to frame things to force me to engage you on your terms. I was pointing out how you can depict Jesus in any manner, but you can't do that with Mohamed, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to do so in Islamic countries however not in the super tolerant and inclusive West, you know the societies largely built by White Christians.

Bringing up the abortion clinic bombings was a an attempt to straw man and maneuver around my point, you just couldn't help yourself by jumping in on it.

All I'm doing is asking if your view is consistent.

I know plenty of Christians who would be upset about Jesus being depicted in insulting ways, you're upset about the notion of criticising of Christianity right now! lol

I know you read Brietbart and watch Fox News, surely you've heard about the "attack on Christmas." So what, some Muslims can't be mad about a vulgar cartoon depicting Mohammed, but some Christians can be upset because someone says "Happy Holidays" in the tolerant west? Christians in the west get upset about criticism or not respecting Christianity all the time. Religious people, in general, DO NOT LIKE when you criticize their religion.

And if we're talking about the west, why do you keep bringing up Sharia Law and other countries? You know there are other Christian-majority countries outside of the West that hold horrible beliefs right? Female castration? Turning children into sex slaves? Outlawing homosexuality? etc? From Christian nations.

You can find any example, from a beautiful one to a horrible one, of any religion. Pretending that Christianity has cornered the worldwide market on tolerance is naive.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Alright but the alternative is dictating what a Religious school is allowed to teach and whether or not they are allowed to stay true to their beliefs, however wrong those may be. Freedom of Religion after all. Is the answer just doing away with Religious schools then? I know that would make some people very happy. Or should they just edit all the stuff out that might offend someone. I'm not sure there is a good answer. I think part of having freedom, is the freedom to be wrong too.

The rules of the state that dictate human equality and dignity > bronze-age dictates on bigotry that are selectively applied

and isn't even close

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

"Diversity and inclusion" doesn't seem to apply to anybody with a differing opinion.... Interesting.

Firstly, disagreeing with someone is not excluding them from society on the basis of their opinion. Disagreement is a vital part of discourse which is itself a vital part of our democratic society.

Secondly, there is a profound difference between one's sexual identity and one's opinions. I'll leave it to identify the differences for yourself.

[Ace]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

You can start any religious school you want and pay for it with your own money. People shouldn't have to pay taxes that go towards any school that teaches one religion as being the "correct" religion.

I'm not sure if people really realize this, but every child that goes to a private school saves the tax payer money. Yes private schools get public funds, but at a far reduced amount than public schools. The more and more that private schools can perform well, with reduced public funds the more efficient financially education becomes.

We really should support more education options. Whether it's a religious school, sports school, arts school, academic school. (For the record I don't have kids in any of these schools). Having a 100% public school only run and funded by the NDP certainly shouldn't be our goal as a province.

I'm just making the point here, not suggesting your post is against private schools (just the ones you don't agree with)

[GGG]

Except that private schools take the cheap kids to educate while getting a 50% tax payment. They take demographicly the kids most likely to succeed and least likely to need additional support. You also lose the some the cross section of students that create a well balanced class room.

So does a demographicly advantaged student being removed from the average pool of students at a 50% subsidy actually save money and provide a benefit to the province? I think you need more information and research before you can make that a definitive statement.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by GGG

Except that private schools take the cheap kids to educate while getting a 50% tax payment. They take demographicly the kids most likely to succeed and least likely to need additional support. You also lose the some the cross section of students that create a well balanced class room.

So does a demographicly advantaged student being removed from the average pool of students at a 50% subsidy actually save money and provide a benefit to the province? I think you need more information and research before you can make that a definitive statement.

Did you just make that stuff up?!

And lets just assume you didnt make it up, then is the argument that putting smart kids with parents that give #### into a classroom with stupid kids whose parents couldnt care is a benefit? For who?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Ace

I'm not sure if people really realize this, but every child that goes to a private school saves the tax payer money. Yes private schools get public funds, but at a far reduced amount than public schools. The more and more that private schools can perform well, with reduced public funds the more efficient financially education becomes.

We really should support more education options. Whether it's a religious school, sports school, arts school, academic school. (For the record I don't have kids in any of these schools). Having a 100% public school only run and funded by the NDP certainly shouldn't be our goal as a province.

I'm just making the point here, not suggesting your post is against private schools (just the ones you don't agree with)

I'm OK with private schools saving taxpayer money. I'm not OK with my tax dollars being used to foster discrimination in children.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You know there are other Christian-majority countries outside of the West that hold horrible beliefs right? Female castration? Turning children into sex slaves? Outlawing homosexuality? etc? From Christian nations.

Wait... child sex slaves? Female castration (by which I assume you mean FGM)? Which Christian-majority countries are those?

Not that I know why this is even a discussion topic in a thread about a school in Edmonton. This thing is totally off the rails.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Alright but the alternative is dictating what a Religious school is allowed to teach and whether or not they are allowed to stay true to their beliefs, however wrong those may be. Freedom of Religion after all. Is the answer just doing away with Religious schools then? I know that would make some people very happy. Or should they just edit all the stuff out that might offend someone. I'm not sure there is a good answer. I think part of having freedom, is the freedom to be wrong too.

It's a pretty easy answer. When a school, church, mosque, synagogue etc contradicts any of our laws, acts, codes then you correct their behavior or failing that you shut them down. You can't have religious kooks telling kids they can't gather in a club with other uncured gay kids. It's illegal to do that. Bill 10. So that is the end of religious freedom in this case.

[DuffMan]

Discrimination should not be allowed, especially when the reason is Jesus.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

It's a pretty easy answer. When a school, church, mosque, synagogue etc contradicts any of our laws, acts, codes then you correct their behavior or failing that you shut them down. You can't have religious kooks telling kids they can't gather in a club with other uncured gay kids. It's illegal to do that. Bill 10. So that is the end of religious freedom in this case.

You can only legally shut down the school. The others are constitutionally protected forms of freedom of assembly, religion, and association.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

You can only legally shut down the school. The others are constitutionally protected forms of freedom of assembly, religion, and association.

No, just religion. And there are limits to constitutional protection of that sort. Otherwise I could claim I hold religious beliefs that allow me to sacrifice you to Quetzalcotl.

If a law is passed that limits the ability of a Church to exercise religious freedom that includes mendacious hatred directed towards children, of the sort discussed here , they can challenge it on the grounds that it should be struck down, or more likely, read so as not to apply in the context of a Church.

The government would then argue that protection of vulnerable children is a pressing government objective, that the hypothetical law is rationally connected to that objective, and that it's proportional and minimally infringes on the right (e.g. if it were to only forbid things like teaching people bogus medical nonsense like "homosexuality is a disease we cure through prayer" rather than an expression of a religious principle). Then a Court would decide if it's a reasonable limit for a free and democratic society to impose on religious freedom.

So, tl;dr, you can in fact stop Churches from doing egregious things on religious grounds, despite constitutional protection.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

You can only legally shut down the school. The others are constitutionally protected forms of freedom of assembly, religion, and association.

Sent from my ONE A2005 using Tapatalk

What Coris said. Also what i was thinking was along the lines of religious legal counsel. As I understand it and I think it's vaguely different in some provinces, but you can have some forms of religious arbitration in civil matters but they must comply with Canadian established law. So just another example of a limit on religious freedom.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, just religion. And there are limits to constitutional protection of that sort. Otherwise I could claim I hold religious beliefs that allow me to sacrifice you to Quetzalcotl.

If a law is passed that limits the ability of a Church to exercise religious freedom that includes mendacious hatred directed towards children, of the sort discussed here , they can challenge it on the grounds that it should be struck down, or more likely, read so as not to apply in the context of a Church.

The government would then argue that protection of vulnerable children is a pressing government objective, that the hypothetical law is rationally connected to that objective, and that it's proportional and minimally infringes on the right (e.g. if it were to only forbid things like teaching people bogus medical nonsense like "homosexuality is a disease we cure through prayer" rather than an expression of a religious principle). Then a Court would decide if it's a reasonable limit for a free and democratic society to impose on religious freedom.

So, tl;dr, you can in fact stop Churches from doing egregious things on religious grounds, despite constitutional protection.

Time for you to reread the charter then. All of those are part of it. And your conclusion also doesn't follow; any non-peaceful or criminal activity can be prosecuted, but you can't remove someone right to peaceful assembly, religion, or association, regardless of what they teach. You can limit certain practices, but that's not shutting down the religion, or even that particular group. Religious freedom has never meant you can do whatever you want in the name of your religion. It merely means you can voluntarily hold to any set of doctrines you wish to hold. The difference with schools is you can literally shut them down and stop them from operating. You can't do that with ideological or religious groups that regularly assemble.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

Did you just make that stuff up?!

And lets just assume you didnt make it up, then is the argument that putting smart kids with parents that give #### into a classroom with stupid kids whose parents couldnt care is a benefit? For who?

Kids teach other kids,

Having less disruptive kids per classroom is better

Non-coded kids are cheaper to educate than coded kids.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Time for you to reread the charter then. All of those are part of it.

Yes, they are, but they aren't infringed by what we're talking about here. 2(c) has basically no practical force, and 2(d) doesn't apply unless we're literally talking about outlawing a sect of a religion. No one's saying Christians can't get together to practice their religion, it's this particular expression of supposedly religious principles that's being objected to. But maybe you were taking "shut down the Church" literally? If so, sure, I'm definitely with you there, but I don't think anyone was really saying that should happen so much as "they should stop doing that".

And your conclusion also doesn't follow; any non-peaceful or criminal activity can be prosecuted, but you can remove someone right to peaceful assembly, religion, or association, regardless of what they teach.

Yes, you can - section 1 of the charter overrides those freedoms in many cases. All you have to do is make a strong enough Oakes argument. Granted, courts will be loath to do it, but as arguments go, "this is child abuse" is a pretty strong opener.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yes, they are, but they aren't infringed by what we're talking about here. 2(c) has basically no practical force, and 2(d) doesn't apply unless we're literally talking about outlawing a sect of a religion. No one's saying Christians can't get together to practice their religion, it's this particular expression of supposedly religious principles that's being objected to. But maybe you were taking "shut down the Church" literally? If so, sure, but I don't think anyone was really saying that should happen so much as "they should stop doing that".

Yes, you can - section 1 of the charter overrides those freedoms in many cases. All you have to do is make a strong enough Oakes argument. Granted, courts will be loath to do it, but as arguments go, "this is child abuse" is a pretty strong opener.

You still don't know what your arguing against. Please, state what you think my position is.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Hahaha what? Really? State your own position. All I've been doing is responding to your posts.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Hahaha what? Really? State your own position. All I've been doing is responding to your posts.

Except you're not. If you were, you would realize your not arguing against what i said. Asking you to do so makes it clear if your actually responding to what I wrote.

I responding to a post that suggested correcting behavior and failing that literally shutting down organizations including churches, mosques, etc. I simply pointed out, you can't do that. You said, yes you can, only to concede, that, no, in fact you can't. Prosecuting individuals including church leaders is not the same as shutting down the church, as you acknowledge. On the other hand, shutting down a school is literally something that we do when attempts at correcting behavior fail.