Talk:Freedom of religion in Canada/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Nichols/Haskett/Kempling

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: NPOV

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

message: Can you explain the logic of reinserting the afd notice, after I've withdrawn my case for deletion?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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status of religious freedom in Canada]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  Few things you might want to add 

message: 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)
thread_title: few thoughts

message: 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)
thread_title: The boundaries of religious rights

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unbalanced

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled