I remember in high school, we had an assembly where a First Nations traditional spiritual leader did a blessing. Even though I don't necessarily adhere to their spiritual beliefs, I felt a sense of honour about it.
People get offended way too easily (religious and otherwise). A little bit of tolerance would be nice.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Its the furthest thing from a human rights violation. If this was the inquisition and the person was beaten into converting you'd have a human rights issue.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Perhaps you should have used an example that actually involved a state institution if that was the point you were attempting to make.
I think the situation that this thread is based on is ludicrous and trivial and is equivalent to having your human rights "violated" every time you are in a captive audience and hear someone asking god to keep the land glorious and free.
I think the situation that this thread is based on is ludicrous and trivial and is equivalent to having your human rights "violated" every time you are in a captive audience and hear someone asking god to keep the land glorious and free.
You're still failing to see the major difference, and it is a major one. This is a government official acting in his official capacity, that is massively different than the playing of the national anthem by a private corporation at a sporting event. If you want to get into the playing of the national anthem at am political event then maybe you'd be arguing a legitimate point.
Whatever opinion that someone has here, I hope that you had the same opinion about the city having a native blessing of the Peace Bridge at it's opening.
You're still failing to see the major difference, and it is a major one. This is a government official acting in his official capacity, that is massively different than the playing of the national anthem by a private corporation at a sporting event. If you want to get into the playing of the national anthem at am political event then maybe you'd be arguing a legitimate point.
It is trivial - how is a human right being violated? And the national anthem is played at official state functions - is that violating human rights?
I'd argue it isn't and neither is what happened in Saskatoon. Although I guess when you are settling down to a nice dinner in Saskatoon, the last thing you expect is...
It is trivial - how is a human right being violated? And the national anthem is played at official state functions - is that violating human rights?
I'd argue it isn't and neither is what happened in Saskatoon. Although I guess when you are settling down to a nice dinner in Saskatoon, the last thing you expect is...
Does the national anthem actively promote religion? A Christian blessing is clearly a much more direct promotion of a specific religious belief, couple that with it being delivered by a government official acting in their official capacity and it's quite likely a Charter violation.
Most of you seem to be getting yourselves caught up in the framing of this as a "human rights violation" without taking into account that the terminology applies to a massive range of things simply due to the complaint process in Canada. Nobody is equating it to genocide or torture, it just so happens to fall under that title in the Canadian system. You need to look past the label and actually look at the substance.
It is trivial - how is a human right being violated? And the national anthem is played at official state functions - is that violating human rights?
Let's ramp up the issue and see what it gives us.
Let's say a worse scenario, where in his prayer he evangelized, saying something like "Lord you are the source of all good things, thank you for sending your son to die for our sins so that all who accept would be saved, and we pray that those who don't believe in you, those that follow false gods or no gods at all would come to believe in you."
That's a more extreme case (but still the person praying is practicing their religion), is that a human rights violation?
I think the premise is that it's a basic right to not feel marginalized by one's government because they're promoting one religion over another. If that's the case then the extreme case, then is the actual prayer the same as the extreme case (just less extreme), or is it the same kind of thing?
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Here's the thing. I'm not religious and I don't care if someone is - even if they are a public official at an official event.
If someone wants to bless their vol au vents at an official event, who gives a damn? I may think they are stupid, perhaps misguided, but a human rights violation? Come on.
It is not as if this public official was saying, "god visited me in a dream and as a result all of us gathered here to enjoy this bountiful feast are now compelled by the almighty to take up arms against Regina, bon appetite".
It is trivial and not 1 cent of public funds should be wasted over this 'violation'.
This annoys me somewhat as an atheist. How cares if they had a blessing, everyone should be able to believe in whatever they want.
This is off topic, but beliefs lead to actions. They're not all benign ponderings, and I personally don't take such a cavalier view of them, especially when they mix with politics.
As far as this issue is concerned, keep religion and politics separate. Period.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
If someone wants to bless their vol au vents at an official event, who gives a damn?
As someone who doesn't give much of a damn, I don't give much of a damn, but I can kind of see giving a damn.
The only dose of church I ever get is when I'm at a wedding or a funeral, and luckily that ain't every weekend, so I don't care.
If I was volunteering with the city and had to listen to it at city functions related to that volunteering, I probably wouldn't like it. By the sounds of it, this guy had to hear one measly bit of preachifying, so he should probably just ignore it, but the city should do what it can to leave this stuff out.
To an athiest this should be no different than the mayor saying that he hoped santa would be good to everyone this year. Both involve a prayer to a fictional being.
Really in terms of government the remaining bits of religion in laws, holidays and anthems are just nods back to a christian path. It is okay to celebrage where a country came from.
Also its only because its a religion a large portion of the pop believes in that it becomes offensive. If it was a native blessing everyone thinks its nice to be incorporating tradition or thinks we should quit treating native groups as special. There isnt any thought that it is a religious ceremony.
People become offended when the religion has power
Also its only because its a religion a large portion of the pop believes in that it becomes offensive. If it was a native blessing everyone thinks its nice to be incorporating tradition or thinks we should quit treating native groups as special. There isnt any thought that it is a religious ceremony.
People become offended when the religion has power
From my personal point of view, I disagree. I am opposed to any state-endorsement of religion, period.
Sorry, I thought this was a serious discussion, my bad. I'll let you get back to whatever this is.
Sorry i thought i had brought up santa in my previous post. My comment would have made a lot more sense if i did. Instead i came across as an a$$
My point is what is the difference between Santa and Jesus.
The only difference is that one has a large group of people behind it. I contend that if this person felt there human rights were violated by someone saying a prayer about one imaginary being then they should be offendeded by prayers from any imaginary being. So any politicians comment about Santa bringing presents would have to be a human rights violation as well.
You cant choose which prayors to Imaginary creatures are offensive and which arent.
The only reason there is a claim of human rights being violated is because Jesus happens to be a popular deity.
The only reason there is a claim of human rights being violated is because Jesus happens to be a popular deity.
Or rather Jesus happens to be a deity of a subset of the population.
If someone prayed to Santa, then everyone would be equally confused and/or left out so there's no marginalization going on, no human rights claim.
The Santa equivalence only works from the perspective of a non-believer, because all imaginary beings are imaginary to a non-believer.
For a believer the Santa equivalence doesn't work because a different religion still believes in god(s), so promoting Yahweh over Allah/Shiva/Odin/Wotan isn't the same.
Good angle though, I like it when someone brings up really a different way of looking at it.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Or rather Jesus happens to be a deity of a subset of the population.
If someone prayed to Santa, then everyone would be equally confused and/or left out so there's no marginalization going on, no human rights claim.
The Santa equivalence only works from the perspective of a non-believer, because all imaginary beings are imaginary to a non-believer.
For a believer the Santa equivalence doesn't work because a different religion still believes in god(s), so promoting Yahweh over Allah/Shiva/Odin/Wotan isn't the same.
Good angle though, I like it when someone brings up really a different way of looking at it.
I agree that a believer could have his rights violated but the atheist in this case who is claiming his rights were violated can't. To him at most this was a bunch of words he had to wait patiently thought until it was over. So maybe a failure of Separation of Church and State but not a human rights violation.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Sorry i thought i had brought up santa in my previous post. My comment would have made a lot more sense if i did. Instead i came across as an a$$
My point is what is the difference between Santa and Jesus.
The only difference is that one has a large group of people behind it. I contend that if this person felt there human rights were violated by someone saying a prayer about one imaginary being then they should be offendeded by prayers from any imaginary being. So any politicians comment about Santa bringing presents would have to be a human rights violation as well.
You cant choose which prayors to Imaginary creatures are offensive and which arent.
The only reason there is a claim of human rights being violated is because Jesus happens to be a popular deity.
I get what you're saying. And yeah, you could draw parallels between the two figures.
I'm just saying that it's kind of an absurd point to approach a discussion on.
