Supreme Court’s prayer ban part of elite’s war on tradition

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional for city council meetings to have a prayer before they start.

That’s pretty funny when you think about what is in the actual Constitution, specifically the Charter, that the judges used to ban prayer at council meetings.

The Charter begins with the words, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

If Canada’s elites had their way, this is only the first of many traditional Christian and religious symbols they’d abolish.

  • Alain

    Their sole mandate is to interprets the laws not to make them up as they go. Banning all prayer is NOT neutrality; it is imposing atheism. There is NO religious neutrality here, and as Brian well states we do NOT have a separation of church and state in Canada and never have had. I am neither Christian nor would qualify as a religious person, but this offends me that these non elected activists think they can destroy our history and tradition.

  • Sorry to go OT on you all, but did you happen to catch this news?

    http://rt.com/news/249513-putin-time-poll-russia/

    I think it deserves at least a mention on the front page.

  • G

    Micheal Coren, before he started getting odd asked the legitimate question, Why do we consider judges to be above criticism? He made the point hat every other group in this country can be scrutinized and criticized but not judges.

    Let’s end that.

    We need to start hammering these pompous bastards hard. If a judge is cheating on his wife, expose it. If a judge made a racist joke about black people when he was in law school & drunk quote him. If these pricks want to enter the world of politics then they need to find out it’s a rough sport.

  • William Watson

    Imagine I am an idiot. Also, imagine I am a Member of Parliament. But I am being tautological in my imagination.*

    Also, imagine I am a Rastafarian, and burning cannabis is a mandatory part of my meditation routine that I can reasonably approximate as the closest thing to a prayer that I have. Can I blaze in the House of Commons? Nah, I would be escorted out, parliamentary privilege be damned.

    “war on tradition”
    Slavery was also a tradition. So was not allowing women to vote. We managed to get past these hurdles and get rid of terrible traditions. This is just the latest footprint in the sand. It’s not a war. It is evolution. It’s only natural.

    Pray on your time… Not on public’s dime! And especially, do not malke others do it while on a public dime and time. Not praying doesn’t force YOU to stop praying – it simply says “Not on public’s time”.

    *A wordplay on a Mark Twain’s quote about Congress and idiots

    • Minicapt

      Atheists didn’t rid the world of its traditional of slavery. Nor did they end the tradition of child sacrifice; or establish the tradition of disinterested judges. Also the concept of charity work and the alleviation of suffering. For the most part, movement atheists have been splendidly parasitical.

      Cheers

      • William Watson

        Marx, an avowed atheist, was very strict against slavery, so there is that. And when did you start saying “We don’t sacrifice children, anymore!” when describing your religion? Disinterested judges ought to be obvious for anyone. Atheists are just as likely to do charity as belivers, and secular public health care beats Mother Teresa-styled hospices(Yuk!). How about naming something that only the religious could do? Oh yeah, the proselytising – while doing “charity” that is!
        Socrates, who lived about 2400 years ago, is considered to be the father of the Western Philosophy and way of thinking, as well as science and deduction. He was tried and sentenced to death on the griveous charges of “corrupting the Athenian youth” and “Atheism”. It is the religious that leech off the society in more ways than one.

        • Minicapt

          You are really quite ignorant of what is being discussed, and are basically reciting that which you have heard someone mentioning in passing. There are seven direct errors in your statement above and I think that is commendable for you.

          Cheerios

          • G

            It really doesn’t matter what mouthpieces like William Watson spout off. We could waste time “debating” with these hysterical morons or begin working against the people who give them their power, – activist judges.

            Let little Willy stamp his feet and cry. He’ll do it anyway and you’re not going to convince him to stop. Make better use of the time to figure out ways to stick it to the judges.

          • William Watson

            It is the likes of you an Minicapt that are currently doing the stomping like 12-year-olds. Actually, make that 7.
            Minicapt, you have to show me where the mistakes were made. I had adressed and dismissed all your points. All you did was stomp and say “Seven mistakes”. Well?

        • Against slavery?

          He made his wife go out and work while he sat on his @$$.

          His magnum opus paved the way for some of the most inhumane slavery in the twentieth century.

          • William Watson

            Please read Capital Volume 2 and then come back to me. You are talking about someone who took the teachings to the extreme and then some. Stalin was also educated at the seminary, so there is also that. Oh, he is also a saint in Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches. Quite a feat for a supposed atheist, eh?

          • Yeah, it is.

            Those Orthodox heads sure do like to overlook their own history.

    • Jabberwokk

      Suppose you were Married(Or perhaps you are) and you tell your wife I’ll love you privately but not publicly. How do you suppose that would go?

      • William Watson

        Some things are meant to be private. You would have sex with your wife in public?

        I’d like to quote some bible, Matthew 6:1-6 (YLT)
        1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
        2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
        3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
        4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
        5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
        6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

        If hypocrisy were Uranium, Christianity would blow up the Earth in a fiery fireball.

        • Jabberwokk

          My Argument was not whether or not to have sex in public my argument was would it be acceptable of your wife to tell her that you would only lover privately and not publicly.

          So unless your definition of love is ‘the person i have sex with” (and if it is i see the confusion) then what you have done is created a strawman argument by definition.

          Please address my question.

          As for quoting Jesus about giving to the poor I’m assuming your bringing it up to say that because he said to give privately as not to show off that equivocates to keeping your practices private.

          There’s two problems with this.

          1:)The passage is talking about not making a show of giving. The Pharisees and Sadducee’s(see:Religious) did this as to show off. Jesus did not want giving to become a religious exercise but rather something done entirely voluntary and an entirely willing. That’s why he says that those who do hvae already revcved there reward; they wanted attention and they got it. They were not giving because it is good to give.

          2:) It’s a false equivalency. Just because two things have one thing in common does not mean they have all things in common. Soviet Communism was Atheistic . Would I not be in error if I concluded that that makes all Atheists Soviet Communists?

          As for your last comment hey I get it. It’s been my experience that the barriers to the christian faith are seldom intellectual and when you cut to the core it’s almost always personal. I don’t know who hurt you but forgive them.

          • William Watson

            The problem with your response lies in verse 5, which deals explicitly with prayer:
            “5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men…”

            Which is exactly what the council is doing.

            What I am saying is that “Love of god” can be expressed in many ways. I equate talking to an imagined deity as the same thing to having sex. There are plenty of ways to show affection/love for your partner, it doesn’t have to be sex, just as there are plenty of ways to show your devotion to god, and prayer does not have to be one of them.

          • Jabberwokk

            It’s not much of a Problem because the point of the passage still stands. Which is as I mentioned “The Pharisees and Sadducee’s(see:Religious) did this as to show off”.

            Keep in mind that in the previous chapter(and still within the sermon on the mount) starting at Verse 13 we learn christians are to be the “salt of the earth” and a “City on a hill”. He then makes the claim that no one takes a lamp and puts it under a clay pot. Because that would be dumb whats the point of the light? Verse 16 is the clincher “Make your light shine, so that others will see the good that you do and will praise your father in heaven”.

            So if the council is doing it merely to show off then they have received what they were after. they wanted attention and they got it.

            But is there no room for a man with all the responsibilities and pressures of the day to be humble enough to ask for help? Is that truly worthy of your time to tell him he can’t and shouldn’t?

            I agree Love of God can be expresses in many ways. Certainly uniformity of belief does not mean uniformity of expression.

            Your going to have to help me on:Talking with god = Having sex.

            I agree there are many ways but chiefest among them above all else is communication. Which when a christian prays this is what he/she is doing. But that is what you would deny them and i don’t believe you would deny that of your wife or any relationship you valued. surely not?

          • William Watson

            Blah blah, bible contradicting itself – and the water is wet.

            “But is there no room for a man with all the responsibilities
            and pressures of the day to be humble enough to ask for help? Is that
            truly worthy of your time to tell him he can’t and shouldn’t?”
            He can do it. Noone is stopping him or her from doing so. Just don’t force it on others, that’s all.

            Once again, for you seem to be challenged in comprehending English:
            5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
            6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

            Please re-read my last post the equivalence of the 2 things.

          • Jabberwokk

            Well you can ignore the context if you want but I did try.

            However I’m glad you agree that no should stop people from praying .

            I re-read and I still don’t see how Talking to god is the same as having sex. If that were the case church numbers would be through the roof.

        • This passage concerned hypocrisy.

          Where do the militant atheists stand on hypocrisy? Their vitriol is for all to see.

          • Jabberwokk

            Just keep in mind whats the point in winning an argument if you lose the person in the process. 😉

          • I don’t think William is listening to me.

          • Jabberwokk

            Turns out he isn’t listening to me either -_-

          • (sigh)

          • William Watson

            “Where do the militant atheists stand on hypocrisy? Their vitriol is for all to see.”
            Vitriol is not hypocrisy. Vitriol may be deserved or not. Hypocrisy is when someone reads Matthew 6 while preaching on the street corner.

          • Yeah, it is.

            It’s a badge of honour to purposefully and forcefully remove Nativity scenes that have been in city squares for ages or to rail against prayer to a God militant atheists would rather did not exist.