Faith no place in Canadian public spaces. National post article

[Greg Dent]

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-decides-that-faith-is-now-banned-from-canadas-public-spaces

 

Trinity Western University suffered a stinging loss in the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday, which found that law societies in B.C. and Ontario were justified in not accrediting the university’s prospective law school because of its policy on premarital sex. But no one should harbour any illusions that the pain will be limited to the small Christian school in B.C.’s Fraser Valley.

The impact of the court’s decision against TWU will seriously afflict the engagement of religious communities with public life across this country, regardless of whether it’s the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army or Muslim and Jewish charitable organizations.

 

More on the site. Wondering what this will mean for us, If anything.

 

Further down in the article.

 

As the court determined only a few weeks ago in the Wall case — which upheld a Jehovah’s Witness community’s right to ostracize an unruly member, even though this affected his livelihood — religious groups are free to regulate themselves within the close confines of their communities and places of worship. But outside? In the public square? Their freedoms are now at the mercy of secular interest groups and such quasi-state actors as law societies and other professional regulatory bodies.

 

Last coment by writer

 

 

TWU’s loss, then, is Canada’s loss as well. We should all prepare ourselves for the sting of once-basic freedoms being increasingly denied.

Ray Pennings is Executive Vice-President and Co-Founder of the faith-based think-tank Cardus.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Greg Dent

[Ahuvah]

On the issue of premarital sex? Since we don't have exclusive schools and the children of Jehovah's Witnesses are already doing a fine job as a group standing up to peer pressure in schools for the general public, and upholding Jehovah's high morals it shouldn't mean a thing.

 

If you are meaning though - what does it mean for religious freedom in general - we know and expect the tide to go against more than it is now.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something in your question, if I am then I profusely apologise.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Stormswift

[Greg Dent]

Read the article there is more to it than that. You have to read the whole thing!

 

[Ahuvah]

Restriction that will affect us ... is the limit of religous practices in public places and the expectation on students to accept the position of others lifestyles that conflict with the scriptures certainly make it harder. I get that.

But isn't this going in the direction we need it to though? We all know it's going to get harder before things get better, and for some MUCH harder.

It's going against the UN Charter ... but it wouldn't take much for the UN to change the charter.

[Greg Dent]

The fact that they are saying faith has no place in public spaces is a concern for public preaching. The person that wrote the article stated that it is leaning toward changing charter rights in Canada. It has nothing to do with the UN. The Supreme Court stated that we have the right to do what we want in our congregations but outside of those bounds are we going to find talking about the truth as Jehovah teaches us under attack? read the article please. The whole article.

[Ahuvah]

The article talks about being against Canadian Charter rights you are correct, but will end up in the UN I'm sure.

 

I just don't understand the concern ... we take our instructions from Jehovah and the slave, all this indicates is it's marching to the tune of prophecy and Jehovah is in the drivers seat. (Or at least will be when his time is right).

 

We need to focus on the kingdom not get too concerned about the storms around us even if they look scary. 

Its good to hear these news articles because the result is us unifying with our Brothers and Sisters, and consolidating our trust in Jehovah.

 

Thank you for sharing. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Stormswift

[Stavro]

"Public" generally means government-owned or government funded. In this case, the school asked for official government endorsement (along with the tax dollars it brings), and they were turned down. The school was not banned from enforcing their rules, they were only told that they could not use tax dollars to promote their message.

 

Since we do not ask for special use of public spaces, seek government endorsement, or spend government dollars, this should have no effect on our preaching activity whatsoever.

[Greg Dent]

Yes that is true. I was concerned that the writer saw for himself the slippery slope it lays out. 

[Stavro]

9 hours ago, Greg Dent said:

Yes that is true. I was concerned that the writer saw for himself the slippery slope it lays out. 

Perhaps, perhaps not.

 

Personally, I view it as an unambiguously good thing when the government refuses to endorse or fund religious teachings, because official endorsement is only one step closer to state-run religion, which never turns out well for anyone.

 

If this case were a ban on the teachings and rules, yes, I would be concerned there might be a slope. But this is NOT a ban of any type, and the only people who are calling it a ban are those who think that religion is automatically entitled to government endorsement.

[Qapla]

I could not read the entire article since the website insisted that I either pay for access or allow advertising I don't want .... I use an adblocker and they will not allow access with it turned on.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Qapla

[Greg Dent]

Want me to copy it here? 

 

[Qapla]

Not sure if this covers the exact same details ..... but it is a link to the situation that seems to give free access

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-supreme-court-upholds-provincial-law-societies-right-to-reject/

Edited June 16, 2018 by Qapla

[Shawnster]

6 hours ago, Greg Dent said:

Want me to copy it here? 

 

If you choose to do so, please do that in a pm.  

[thebluebaron]

On 6/16/2018 at 3:56 AM, Greg Dent said:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-supreme-court-decides-that-faith-is-now-banned-from-canadas-public-spaces

 

Trinity Western University suffered a stinging loss in the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday, which found that law societies in B.C. and Ontario were justified in not accrediting the university’s prospective law school because of its policy on premarital sex. But no one should harbour any illusions that the pain will be limited to the small Christian school in B.C.’s Fraser Valley.

The impact of the court’s decision against TWU will seriously afflict the engagement of religious communities with public life across this country, regardless of whether it’s the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army or Muslim and Jewish charitable organizations.

 

More on the site. Wondering what this will mean for us, If anything.

 

Further down in the article.

 

As the court determined only a few weeks ago in the Wall case — which upheld a Jehovah’s Witness community’s right to ostracize an unruly member, even though this affected his livelihood — religious groups are free to regulate themselves within the close confines of their communities and places of worship. But outside? In the public square? Their freedoms are now at the mercy of secular interest groups and such quasi-state actors as law societies and other professional regulatory bodies.

 

Last coment by writer

 

 

TWU’s loss, then, is Canada’s loss as well. We should all prepare ourselves for the sting of once-basic freedoms being increasingly denied.

Ray Pennings is Executive Vice-President and Co-Founder of the faith-based think-tank Cardus.

The article should be read with a pinch of salt especially when written by a member of Christendom who has a vested interest.

 

However, what has not been lost on me is the lies he writes about Jehovah’s people in the article.  Lies that I would have preferred not to read.

 

When someone is disfellowshipped, they are not ostracised or persecuted.  They are free to carry on with their lives and means of employment without fear of repraisals and recriminations from us.

[Greg Dent]

Ostracize can mean to block or remove with prejudice. I think that is what he means and it is what we do to someone that leaves Jehovah. We do not communicate with him at all.

[Greg Dent]

From Dictionary.com

 

os·tra·cize

ˈästrəˌsīz/

verb

verb: ostracize; 3rd person present: ostracizes; past tense: ostracized; past participle: ostracized; gerund or present participle: ostracizing; verb: ostracise; 3rd person present: ostracises; past tense: ostracised; past participle: ostracised; gerund or present participle: ostracising

1. exclude (someone) from a society or group.

   "a group of people who have been ridiculed, ostracized, and persecuted for centuries"

   synonyms:

   exclude, shun, spurn, cold-shoulder, reject, shut out, avoid, ignore, snub, cut dead, keep at arm's length, leave out in the cold; More

   antonyms:

   welcome

   • (in ancient Greece) banish (an unpopular or too powerful citizen) from a city for five or ten years by popular vote.

Origin

mid 17th century: from Greek ostrakizein, from ostrakon ‘shell or potsherd’ (on which names were written, in voting to banish unpopular citizens).

 

SO he did not Lie about us at all. Its just not a word we use a lot or hear a lot.