Talk:Freedom of religion in Canada/Archive 1

message: This article is compltely biased and presents the "Threat" to religion seemingly to come from primarly Gays and Lesbians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.105.208 (talk • contribs) 
First example
Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God.[1] Canada has a long history of affording believers the religious freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.
In the wiki article there is a statement that the "preamble' makes no mention of which God, later in that section Justice Bezil indicated that this was in reference to the christian god. The supreme court has never ruled on this. And in fact later in artcle it states
Muslim Canadians have also cited the preamble as being important to them: Some have written that "in Canada these are the principles of the Islamic Law which correspond to similar principles in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which relate to: (1) The Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law (Preamble); (2) Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms (3) Fundamental Freedoms (4) Equality Rights; (5) Multicultural heritage." Since, in their view, Islamic law originated with God, and since multiculturalism would indicate the God referred to in the Preamble would include the Islamic god, then Islamic law should have a place in Canada.[13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
Canadians are therefore free to have their own beliefs and opinions, are free to practice religion, and are free to establish media organizations with religious content. Canadian religious institutions generally benefit from charitable organization status, which allows supporters to benefit from tax deductions for their financial contributions.
Notwithstanding the freedoms afforded to Canadian believers by the Charter of Rights, conflicting concepts have resulted in limitations on Canadians' religious freedom rights.[2]
These rights have legal limitations when it somes to "Hate" speech
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Twenty-seven_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Freedom_of_expression
Section 27 was applied by Chief Justice Brian Dickson in a different way in the Supreme Court case Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor (1990). In this case, Dickson found section 27 could reinforce limits on freedom of expression (in section 2), specifically hate speech. Section 27, along with section 15 of the Charter (the equality rights), would suggest fighting racial and religious discrimination would be a sufficient objective under section 1 of the Charter for limiting free expression under section 2.
Despite this, section 27 does not indicate that there are built-in limits in freedom of expression based on multiculturalism. Limits are measured in section 1. In R. v. Keegstra, also decided in 1990, the Court wrote that using sections 15 and 27 to limit the scope of freedom of expression contradicted "the large and liberal interpretation given the freedom of expression in Irwin Toy" and at any rate "s. 1 of the Charter is especially well suited to the task of balancing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_Canada#Religious_freedom_regarding_homosexuality_views_in_Canada
Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada
All three of the main monotheistic religions in Canada (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have sacred texts that have sections that declare sexual relations between people of the same sex as forbidden and sinful. 
As stated above Canada is a Multicultural socierty and no determination has been made as to the identity of 'god' in the preamble, the use of the above paragraph from the the "Religious Fredom" article is incorrect in its conclusion that Canada is a christian state and bound by church 'law'
Religious freedom regarding abortion views in Canada
Most orthodox religious groups are opposed to abortion, some viewing it as murder. Christians, including both the Catholic Church and evangelical Christian churches, usually hold this position. Some Christian churches that have become more theologically liberal in the last century hold a pro-choice stance. Islam generally has the stance that if the woman's life is at stake, abortion is permissible under the principle of Shari`ah, the lesser of two evils. Moreover, there are a number of traditional scholars which state that quickening is a sign that the soul has entered the fetus. Otherwise, there is a wide range of positions within Islam. Abortions are usually not prohibited through the fourth month. Judaism places the value of the fetus below that of the woman in cases of danger to the woman.
The legalization of abortion in Canada prompted many people who hold religious beliefs against abortion, particularly those who view it as murder, to protest the precedents established by Canadian court decisions.
Religious education issues in Canada
Canada has an inconsistent approach to religious education. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently however, with a growing level of multiculturalism, particularly in Ontario, debate has emerged as to whether publicly funded religious education for one group is permissible. Newfoundland for example, withdrew Catholic funding in 1995. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.
Several Canadian public school systems are under pressure to promote LGBT-rights or sex education topics, even in situations where parents are opposed to the idea on religious grounds.
This has nothing to do with religious 'freedom' and simply restates a NPOV staement on abortion and education
Frankly this entire Article is NPOV and must go
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.105.208 (talk • contribs) 
* First, I'm glad you agree that the article is NPOV, although I assume you actually meant POV.  I don't think it was necessary to reprint so much of the article in the talk section to make the few number of points you have.  It would also be better if you used some formatting to distinguish your comments from quotes from the article.  Also, you refer to quotes from other articles as if they are from this article.
* I truly don't understand what you are talking about regarding the preamble.  The preamble is part of the Charter and, along with the constitution, it is the highest document in the land -- the one we (Canadians, at least) must accept as definitive.  This article, like the Charter, makes no reference or assumption as to whether the God referred to is for a specific religion. So that applies to you second point also.  The third point that religious education and abortion have nothing to do with religious freedom is your opinion, but does not match any of the many newspaper stories quoted or website content you would find if you did a search on religious freedom in Canada.  You'll note from the footnote section of the article that all sources to date are from mainstream media sources or other credible sources.  
* I am going to remove the compliant tag from the article.  If you think the entire article must go, then mark it for deletion and it will be debated appropriately through that process. Deet 11:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Mediation tag removed as article no longer in mediation
Note. Request for mediation rejected by User:DRCarroll. See: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Status of religious freedom in Canada and also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 7#Status of religious freedom in Canada.  Deet 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation requested

message: I would endorse some of your edits, but your wholesale deletion of so many important facts does not make sense.  As an example, why would you delete the section regarding the Correns?  It meets your high standard of having a clickable link reference.  It is clearly an important issue (not only was this a large 2nd page story, but it was also the topic of the next day's main editorial story in the National Post).  And by the way, it was previously identified in an earlier version as an evolving issue -- a section you also deleted in prior weeks.  And it clearly links to faith-based schools in BC. Deet 02:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: This article seems to have been taken over by an agenda of pushing an anti-homosexual and anti-abortion POV. I saw a whole section talk about homosexuality being a sin. This has nothing to do with the freedom of religion in Canada. Ifnord 13:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're in the middle of an active dialog on improving the article.  Why not join the discussion above and help rather than deleting large sections that we are actively discussing? With regards to your specific point that religious freedom never coincides with gay-rights or abortion, that would be a very unique opinion.  Even where courts side with gay rights or abortion rights over religious freedom, it always involves judicial recognition that religious rights are involved, even if they are seen as lesser than other rights in the case in question. It also flies in the faces of most literature and just plain common sense. I also beg to differ with your "anti" homosexual comment. Everything in the article is respectful. Deet 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on homosexuality has nothing to do with religious freedom. It is proselytizing on the anti homosexual parts of three religions. What this has to do with religious freedom, I have no idea. It's completely off topic. Similarly with the abortion section, this speaks not of the state of religious freedom in Canada but religious condemnation of abortion. These two sections push a POV not expand the topic of religious freedom. The only freedom I can link it to is, "The freedom I have to talk about my beliefs and that other people are wrong." That's what I get from the article. Ifnord 18:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This wording was just trying to provide some useful background on the topic as to why some people think it is. Many people (particularly some younger people) simply do not know the background. The exact same wording on the background to homosexuality and religion appears in Same-sex marriage in Canada and has not drawn any complaints. You can't be serious about trying to de-link religious freedom from these two issues. You don't seem to understand the term proselytizing. There is no call to join any religion in the article. Deet 19:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided you with the link to proselytizing but you may not have had time to go there. So let me quote from that article, "...it is also used to refer to other religions' attempts to convert people to their beliefs or even any attempt to convert people to another point of view, religious or not." Same-sex marriage in Canada has the information in the last category (28/30, before the see also and external links). Status of religious freedom in Canada has the condemnation of homosexuality by religions in the second section. And adds a condemnation of abortion in the third. That's why it looks so POV. The two sections add nothing about the state of religious freedom, your "background" is an attempt to point out, "See? Most people in Canada feel this way, so it's wrong." Ifnord 19:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bottom line is: it's a short section, it's neutrally written, it's going to be further edited ("more balanced" according to Ansolin as per the above discussion), and many people (not all) will feel that it is appropriate background to the list of issues described later in the article. It makes far less sense to launch right into those issues without any background. Deet 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't neutrally written. There would have to be indications that some Canadians do approve of homosexual relations. The section used weasel words to claim that 80% of Canadians disapprove of homosexuals, which is patently false. The United Church of Canada is Canada's second largest church and its position is supportive of gay marriage and ordaining gay ministers. So, I have rewritten it to show an opposing viewpoint exists as well. If this off-topic section must be included, it should have a voice from the other side as well. Ifnord 21:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I dont have any problem with United Church of Canada  being mentioned but i do feel the section should end the old way
diddent like what deet said about the 3 Religions so I put some stuff up I think its better not sure about the Evangelical bit though was a bit wordy its taken straight of there web site though the other 2 are from wikipedia  
I also added the limitations stuff to the end of the into.Ansolin 04:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Did some editing tell me what you guys think:)

message: : Highlighting that the Bible can be hate literature is POV in a religious rights article?  Come on. OK, my first re-write draft can be found at User:Deetdeet/religious freedom. I started with yours, but added some words, removed most bullet lists to make it more of an article. You can see the number of footnotes has dropped from 30 to 19 so that means I've taken out 1/3 of the old facts. I've also deferred to Ifnord and I'm letting the main articles on religion and homosexuality speak for themselves rather than do it here. Deet 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: Dianne Haskett wasn’t following official church policy so has no place here if you want to write an article Attack on traditional family value in Canada I will help
Canadian marriage commissioners are not part of the church and have no place here 
Rest is fine.Ansolin 04:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other forms of alleged discrimination or threats to religious freedom

message: 1. Regarding the intros.
: Hey, I'm with you on that and I wrote the original intros and I think they are useful; however, those facts seem to cause an adverse reaction with many others (see Ifnord's comments up above somewhere). So I'm deferring to Ifnord and letting those articles speak for themselves rather than get into a bigger intro than desired because everyone seems to insist on a two-sided exploration of all the issues rather than just talking about the issues that result in conflict with religious issues. This way we can get into the freedom topics faster without, as Ifnord says, getting off-topic.
: Regarding the demographics, I'm not saying anything in the article anymore, other than pointing to the demographic article so don't read anything else into it other than pointing out that Christianity is by far the largest religion in Canada (compared to Judaism or Islam, which despite our multicultural society are still quite tiny). This is an article relating to religion and we should link to some Canadianized facts at some point for context.
2. Free speech.
: I accept your changes and have incorporated into my sandbox.
3. Education.
: OK good enough for both of us for now.
4. Haskett and Marriage Commissioners
: Here is my rationale:
::1. I think belief or concience is very much a factor in those issues. Personally, I don't feel belief (freedom of thought or religion) is limited to official church doctorine. 
::2. "Traditional family values" and religious belief are over-lapping topics.
::3. The authorities are not asking for tolerance, but demanding that individuals (or groups) must bless or affirm homosexuality as good. This is an important distinction because it crosses a significant line. It is unique in the world to my knowledge.
::4. I don't think Wikipedia can take the humanist side and say decisions of morality have no place at work (I understand how someone can make that case as a POV, just that Wikipedia can't side that way).
::5. These facts are interesting and don't appear elsewhere in Wikipedia, and I think this is as good a place as any. Some Wikipedians think articles should actually be interesting.
::6. There is slim chance that all the left-leaning Canadian Wikipedians will allow an article titled Attack on traditional family value in Canada as you suggest.  That would be more contentious than this article has been.
5. Kirpan
: Can you check your Kirpan edits. I think the issue is already in there a few sentences before. Please merge the two.
Deet 03:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments back to Ansolin on re-write

message: Kirpan 2 different case 1 a kid the other a teacher but lest worry about the bullet lists later we might want to pair them down (or not no big for me)
The intro I meant was mine hehe
: Comment.  I know, but Ifnord's comments would apply equally to yours or mine. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. man boy love blah blah is completely out of line with the 3 main religions in Canada.  That's a big difference. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. Again, stealing is out of line with the 3 main religions in Canada. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. Again, as explained in the article religion and homosexuality, opposition to homosexuality is not obscure topic like yogic flying, rather it is completely in line with many believers of the three main religions in Canada.
religion and homosexuality, demographics of Canada, homosexuality and Christianity
I’ve add a see also section we can have them there. Ansolin 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.  Thanks, I didn't previously know Haskett had her own page. Deet 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wisdom at the knee of Ansolin:)

message: I've tried to address Ifnord's comments and take many of yours into consideration. In an effort to bring some closure, I'm going to archive this talk page and update the article. Hopefully, we can resolve any minor issues left without much issue. Deet 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation of re-write