Talk:Freedom of religion in Canada/Archive 2

Nichols/Haskett/Kempling

Ansolin, one more thing, Orville Nichols is a direct freedom of religion issue, even according to gay advocacy sites:

Asked about opinions from legal experts that suggest Nichols may have an argument under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms to refuse to perform gay marriages on religious grounds, ...

And according to the Haskett article (which I only just discovered; thank you again), her beliefs are religious also.

In addition, Chris Kempling actually went to court on the basis of freedom of religion. So please let's stop saying these are not related to religious freedom.

Deet 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deet hard to see how you wouldn’t have gotten my point if Dianne Haskett view get in (keep in mind that they are not part of the official church view) than anyone’s could be.

Orville Nichols isn’t a problem the free speak section is, only the bible part is relevant Orville should be in the education section and that’s yours

Also you putting your article up that says that you are no longer listening so I will delete yours and put mine up.

It up too you but I don’t think were to far from getting an article we can be both live with shame that your beliefs on haskett is getting in the way.Ansolin 02:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

POV

This entire article is full of editorials, origional research, and editorials that seem to be in a view that is against anyone who believe that religion is "wrong" or that views that religion shouldn't be legislated. It has a sympathetic tone that violates WP:NPOV. Ardenn 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There some dispute about the article l want to make sure you mean mine User:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada.if you do Please tell me the problems.

With regard to source for the OFFICAL and Current view on religion and gays/lesbians I will put some up.Ansolin 02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, you've edited gay rights in Canada. How can you possibly say this article has a sympathetic tone? There is a complete double-standard in Canadian wikipedia space. Deet 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no commentary either way in this article on "views" on religion and gays/lesbians, but it merely refers people to religion and homosexuality and let's the main articles speak for themselves. Why is that a problem? I don't have a problem with adding background info, but we'll lengthen the article and go off-topic by making a redundant version of religion and homosexuality. Here is the current background section:

Some of the issues involve some of the views relating to religion and homosexuality, and more specifically given the current demographics of Canada, homosexuality and Christianity.

No I mean the bias in the main gay rights in Canada article per Lexiographer's comments on the talk page.

Deet 09:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, you're going to have to be more specific as to one or two original research problems, for example, so we can start to correct any issues, or we should remove the tag. Can you cite the issues of concern that do not appear on other religious freedom websites or books? Also, please identify one or two editorial examples so we can correct them. You can't just put the tag without being specific enough to correct any perceived issue. Deet 02:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I agree with Ardenn. This entire article is a POV rant ... and if you look over the page history, it was a simple redirect until fairly recently. CJCurrie 02:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether it was or wasn't a redirect is irrelvant. This is neutrally written, stories like Peter and Murray Corren have hits in the tens of thousands, and there is an entire global template for this topic. Deet 02:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

There may be a place on Wikipedia for said information, but a POV page like this isn't it. CJCurrie 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

Out of curiousity, separate from the POV issue, which facts are disputed? Deet 02:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Canada has a long history of affording believers the religious freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

• From an historical standpoint, this claim cannot be accurately applied to all non-Christian groups (particularly aboriginal Canadians who follow traditional religions). CJCurrie 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any prohibition in the last 100 years of assembling and worshiping in Canada. Deet 03:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Some forms of aboriginal worship were banned in the 20th century. (For that matter, the Jehovah's Witnesses were a prohibited organization in WW2.) CJCurrie 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I learned something new. Seems like the factual accuracy issue can be corrected with a slight edit to the offending sentence. Deet 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status of religious freedom in Canada

Can you explain the logic of reinserting the afd notice, after I've withdrawn my case for deletion? CJCurrie 03:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I should clarify that an afd cannot decide content disputes, beyond a recommendation to keep but improve. There's no rational purpose for you to keep the notice up, at this stage. CJCurrie 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Remove it and make your edits, but I hope this doesn't turn into a white-washing. Deet 03:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The AfD was withdrawn.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

The fact that this page is devotes so much information to right-wing Christian groups and their response to gay-rights issues is itself an NPOV violation. (Where's the information on left-wing Christian groups that regarded the prohibition of same-sex marriage as an infringement of their rights, I wonder?) A radical restructuring will be necessary to address this problem. CJCurrie 23:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to address each of your points. Not a single Christian group is mentioned in the article (left or right), so that takes care of your first point. Regarding those who wanted same-sex marriage, this article is titled Status of religious freedom. Those groups who wanted to perform same-sex marriage do not currently have any infringement on their beliefs. Hence their absence. It wouldn't bother me personally to include history or context (although it would be a bit off-topic and redundant with religion and homosexuality), or you could create a History of religious freedom in Canada article to go over that point and all the others historical items you mentioned previously. Can you please be more specific? These generalizations are not useful. Deet 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Few things you might want to add

1 Canadian Muslims have established an Islamic tribuna.

http://www.iarf.net/GlobalIssues/Updates/Winter2004.htm

2 Court ruling that suggested the Bible was Hate Literature has been overturned 2006 04 13

http://204.83.249.88/judgments/2006/CA2006/01asp.pdf

3 I think there should be section on how Canada has promoted religious freedom through out the world

THE HONOURABLE LLOYD AXWORTHY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO THE CANADIAN JEWISH CONGRESS

At the United Nations, we have strongly backed the activities of the UN Special Reporter on the Question of Religious Intolerance. Canada was a key proponent of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. We have worked vigorously to promote the implementation of its objectives. Canada has been an active co-sponsor of resolutions opposing religious intolerance at both the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights.

I am pleased to note that China has indicated its willingness to host a visit by a Canadian delegation to engage in a dialogue on issues of religious freedom. Member churches of the Canadian Council of Churches, in conjunction with their Chinese partners, are discussing options for such a continued dialogue.

http://w01.international.gc.ca/minpub/Publication.asp?publication_id=374947&Language=E

few thoughts

What’s the need for the free speech section with the bible hate speech case being over turned .The rest Kempling is about Education and religion and that section all ready has enough case's to make its points.Ansolin 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also the intro try’s so hard to imply thing that it can’t prove that it says nothing at all.

However, there have been some legal developments in recent years that have been seen by some as an attack on freedom of religious belief. Some of the issues involve some of the views relating to religion and homosexuality, and more specifically given the current demographics of Canada, homosexuality and Christianity. Other issues involve the curriculum and the funding of the education system in Canada..Ansolin 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The boundaries of religious rights

Without referencing any one section or sentence, I'd like to get views on Wikipedia's definition of the boundaries of religious rights in Canada. In several of the mini-discussions, some users have wanted to limit discussion of religious rights strictly to restrictions on official institutions (e.g., churches, religious schools). But isn't that like saying women's rights are only infringed to the extent that feminist organizations are limited in their activities (or gay rights are only limited to the extent that Egale is limited in its activities)? Of course that would be considered absurd, because if women were quantitatively discriminated against in the workplace, Wikipedia would note the infringement to women's rights. In the same manner, religious believers are believers all the time, so why would we try to define this so narrowly in the case of religious rights? Do we agree that religious believers have religious rights outside of an official instituation? If not, are we not making a POV decision that belief must be kept private? Deet 03:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The major problem with this article is that it is unbalanced; there is too much focus on the one issue of Christian free speech vs. anti-hate speech laws. There are some major issues that are totally overlooked. Where is the discussion of Sunday shopping or the decades long debates over repealing blue laws? The debate over which holidays should be recognized is also missing. One of the most important issues for Muslims today is the difficulty of finding Halal food and obeying usury laws. How about important issue of the Hutterite opposition to being photographed, and the problems of other groups that reject aspects of modern technology. As a whole the article needs more history, as religious freedom is only a relatively recent development in Canada. There is long hisstory of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and other forms of discrimination that is totally ignored in this article. - SimonP 00:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points and I hope you will help to improve the article accordingly. Regarding the historical items this isn't a history article, its a current status article. We could also create History of religious freedom in Canada to complement the topic. Deet 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One other point, some developments, like Chris Kempling are not about hate speech. He was never accused of hate speech... he was disciplined for publicly expressing what would otherwise be considered common social conservative views. The authorities just felt that was inappropriate given his role as a teacher. And I'll remind everyone again that all legal action was at his initiative... he was pursuing a court remedy (not the other way around). Deet 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

At the present time, neo-pagans, wiccans and other religions that seem to fall through the cracks have no rights for their clergy to marry or bury their fellow believers. Originally, you had to be either a Roman Catholic or Anglican clergy to have marrying and burying rights. Eventually, non-conformist denominations received the rights, but earlier in Canadian history, con-conformists had to be married by Anglican/C of E clergy in order to have their marriage legally registered. Since then, Jewish, Moslem, etc clergy have received the rights to marry and bury their fellow believers. But Canada is blocking attempts to give pagans the right to preside over funerals, or to register marriages. At this time, pagans have a choice of a civil marriage, or being married by a pagan clergy, but who has managed to receive clerical recognition through another religion (like the Unitarians). It is an interesting situation. ~~NackenNacken (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)