32% of the world is Christian. The majority view is that Christ is of no meaning. Does the pastor have to explain the majority view when he mentions Christ? The majority view is that virgins don't have babies and the only way to turn water into wine includes sugar and fermented does he need to express this view?
I count myself firmly in the atheist category if we are going to compel him to state majority views we don't have freedom of religion in the slightest. I might find Christian beliefs backwards and a detriment to human development but the state has no place to interject in this .
Regarding the last line in your response, which Hayek and George F. Will would rush to agree with, I highly recommend the book "Bearing False Witness" by Rodney Stark. Real eye-opener regarding Christianity's contributions to science, culture, civilization, commerce, etc., as well as centuries of anti-Christian propaganda.
In terms of your greater point, that's absolutely right. Similar reasoning comes into play with Catholic schools in Canada. The law guaranteeing them similarly requires them to be explicitly Catholic, so the gay-ification of Catholic schools and their apostasization threatens their separate status, and it all comes back down to freedom of conscience, religion, and expression.
When the only publishing presses and the only organizations are the Catholic Church all art and science is quickly in the title of the Catholic Church. Some of this was positive some of it was negative I have always held the belief that Man created God and not the other way around. For all the good that mans creation of god has provided in structure and inspiration it has provided countless examples of backwards movement. But neither here nor there the quickest way to make sure I get a contract in writing is to tell me you are a christian.
The Catholic School system in Ontario made a choice to accept public funds and as such they opened several doors that conflict with their beliefs. They accepted billions in funds and upon doing that they accepted that they would need to teach things that they might not agree with. I can't related this to other provinces which have different funding relationships. Your freedom of conscience, religion and expression cannot be at the hands of tax dollars. If the public is funding it through taxes they have a right to insist on the usage of their tax money. If you want to fund a school system directly through your personal tuition fees or through donations at a religious institution (how the Catholic Schools system was previously funded and how Jewish private schools to this day are funded) you get to set the rules, when the choice is made to collect public funds obtained through taxation the taxpayers regardless of membership get a say in what is said and done.
In this case however the Church and Pastor in question are not receiving public funds while they may accept the attendance of all who wish to attend they can also refuse them if they chose. As they are not taxpayer funded it has nothing at all to do with the public at large what is taught or expressed unless it violates the law. If a pastor can promote faith healing then they can legally promote faith healing.
Well if a judge can force a Christian minister to note majority secular views on anything in what they preach then you don't really have a Christian religion then.
32% of the world is Christian. The majority view is that Christ is of no meaning. Does the pastor have to explain the majority view when he mentions Christ? The majority view is that virgins don't have babies and the only way to turn water into wine includes sugar and fermented does he need to express this view?
I count myself firmly in the atheist category if we are going to compel him to state majority views we don't have freedom of religion in the slightest. I might find Christian beliefs backwards and a detriment to human development but the state has no place to interject in this .
Regarding the last line in your response, which Hayek and George F. Will would rush to agree with, I highly recommend the book "Bearing False Witness" by Rodney Stark. Real eye-opener regarding Christianity's contributions to science, culture, civilization, commerce, etc., as well as centuries of anti-Christian propaganda.
In terms of your greater point, that's absolutely right. Similar reasoning comes into play with Catholic schools in Canada. The law guaranteeing them similarly requires them to be explicitly Catholic, so the gay-ification of Catholic schools and their apostasization threatens their separate status, and it all comes back down to freedom of conscience, religion, and expression.
When the only publishing presses and the only organizations are the Catholic Church all art and science is quickly in the title of the Catholic Church. Some of this was positive some of it was negative I have always held the belief that Man created God and not the other way around. For all the good that mans creation of god has provided in structure and inspiration it has provided countless examples of backwards movement. But neither here nor there the quickest way to make sure I get a contract in writing is to tell me you are a christian.
The Catholic School system in Ontario made a choice to accept public funds and as such they opened several doors that conflict with their beliefs. They accepted billions in funds and upon doing that they accepted that they would need to teach things that they might not agree with. I can't related this to other provinces which have different funding relationships. Your freedom of conscience, religion and expression cannot be at the hands of tax dollars. If the public is funding it through taxes they have a right to insist on the usage of their tax money. If you want to fund a school system directly through your personal tuition fees or through donations at a religious institution (how the Catholic Schools system was previously funded and how Jewish private schools to this day are funded) you get to set the rules, when the choice is made to collect public funds obtained through taxation the taxpayers regardless of membership get a say in what is said and done.
In this case however the Church and Pastor in question are not receiving public funds while they may accept the attendance of all who wish to attend they can also refuse them if they chose. As they are not taxpayer funded it has nothing at all to do with the public at large what is taught or expressed unless it violates the law. If a pastor can promote faith healing then they can legally promote faith healing.
This is some serious dystopian shit. What the fuck, we're turning into Chyna.
We're worse than China. Canada is a failed state. All because some boomers are scared of the coof.
State compelled expression certainly would breach the speaker’s charter rights.
Well if a judge can force a Christian minister to note majority secular views on anything in what they preach then you don't really have a Christian religion then.
Fuck this judge. Commies are gonna commie.