"TORONTO, July 10, 2009 - The Catholic Civil Rights League commented today on the filing of a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission against the Bishop of Peterborough for discontinuing the service of two homosexual men as altar servers at a parish church in the diocese."
...
"The decision about who can serve on the altar is a matter of Church governance."
And that is that, Ms Barbara Hall"
Read more from Catholic Civil Rights League
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
If there was a Muslim Civil Rights League, and it told the Human Rights Commission to mind its own business about hijabs and women's rights, would that be ok?
How about the Ku Klux Klan or a Skin Heads Civil Rights League? Are they also free to beat up, murder and harrass whoever they please if it's in their policies?
Gee, maybe we have a Human Rights Commission because WE NEED ONE! Organizations cannot be allowed to practise discrimination against people by claiming their particular beliefs make it alright for them to do so.
"God told me it's ok" is not an acceptable excuse for bigotry.
"If there was a Muslim Civil Rights League, and it told the Human Rights Commission to mind its own business about hijabs and women's rights, would that be ok?"
If a mosque expects women to cover their hair, to not worship amongst men, and such like, then what business is it of me to coercively enforce my cultural values on their stupid religion. My issue is with the secular state entering places of worship and telling them how they should worship. All I request is the freedom to be able to criticize, ridicule, hold in contempt both their beliefs, and their disgusting Mohammed.
"How about the Ku Klux Klan or a Skin Heads Civil Rights League? Are they also free to beat up, murder and harrass whoever they please if it's in their policies?
What an utterly stupid suggestion. No person or organization is permitted to commit criminal acts such as murder and assault. No one is permitted to counsel criminal acts. If such counsel is made by any organization, it is not a matter for any human rights commission -- it is a matter for police enforcement and crown prosecution. Rightly so.
"Gee, maybe we have a Human Rights Commission because WE NEED ONE!
We don't need Big Brother telling us how to wipe our asses in church, what side of bed to wake up on, to sit up straight, and only use words that engender submissiveness to The State's edict. Not only do I want The State to stay out of my bedroom, but also out of my mouth. Unlike you, I do not trust The State, nor do I trust The Bureaucrazy. Just because it has the phrase [Human Rights] in its name doesn't mean it is about that, any more than the Ministry of Truth in Orwell's 1984 is about Truth.
If Mr Corcoran was dismissed from employment, or prevented from employment, there would be a valid case. I'm a non-Catholic, so tell me what is at stake for me about how the Catholic Church conducts its worchipping procedures.
I want assurances that I have the freedom to ridicule, mock, hold in contempt, criticize, etc. any aspect of Catholic behaviour or belief.
I don't want to have the coercive power of The State doing it in my name.
"Organizations cannot be allowed to practise discrimination against people by claiming their particular beliefs make it alright for them to do so."
I share that same value insofar as it concerns employment and housing. The State should intervene. I'm not big on The State forcefully meddling in how a religious organization conducts its own internal rituals.
"God told me it's ok" is not an acceptable excuse for bigotry.
Then why do we not use the Human Rights Commission to forcefully enforce the equal rights of women, gays and others, inside every mosque in the land? I would think that you would endorse The State imposing that regulation on every Muslim mosque. The State should exercise the power of the State to force mosques to have gay imams. Would you endorse that force?
Where did you get the idea that I support and trust "the State" and its bureaucracy? I never said that.
Simply believing in the existence of an institution does not mean I absolutely agree with every single position or decision it has ever taken.
After all the years I have spent at work hearing tales of woe from people who want to file human rights complaints, I can attest that many of their grievances are irrelevent and trivial. While important to the individual, most complaints are not human rights issues at all and certainly won't go very far officially.
But then there are the cases that are genuine and those victims are in desperate need of re-dress. These are the cases we need human rights commissions for, and likely always will. That is why I support them, imperfect as they may be.
BTW it doesn't look to me like your sacred Canadian right to be obnoxious is being threatened by anybody. Rant on my friend.
But then there are the cases that are genuine and those victims are in desperate need of re-dress. These are the cases we need human rights commissions for, and likely always will. That is why I support them, imperfect as they may be.
I do not support imperfection when it has enormous power, especially unaccountable power, and power without an ethics code in place. Most government institutions have an ethics code; the HRCs do not. I would expect HRCs to be bound by fundamental concepts of justice -- they are not. Absolute power corrupts, and the HRCs have become corrupt, because no one has taken them to task over the past few decades that they have been in existence. It is only in the past couple years that any criticism of their behaviour has come about. The HRCs have been getting a free ride because they have the phrase 'Human Rights' in their name.
My record of opposition to HRCs goes back to 1978, when the Peoples Republic of Poetry recreated Two Minutes Hate on Parliament Hill.
BTW it doesn't look to me like your sacred Canadian right to be obnoxious is being threatened by anybody. Rant on my friend.
And it is a sacred right, and I defend it vigorously. I not only defend it, I presume to expand it. Not just here, but everywhere on the planet. However, I have had a string of dirty tricks by the Powers of The State, intercepting and withholding my mail, causing me the loss of employment, causing me loss of housing, and other dirty tricks. So I am aware of my rights being threatened. And it is not just Canada, but also interference by local communists as well as abroad. I don't mean criticism, but criminal acts, including threats of violence. However that is mild to the countless death threats experienced by acquaintances, eg, Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji. There are a few other compatriots who have to endure death threats and acts of violence because of their words. It is why I had two Muslim bodyguards attend to me during two of my performances in Toronto two years ago.
So be careful Deb that your ignorance of certain specific things doesn't lead you to utter the baseless opinion that my rights are not threatened.
I think Deb O'Connor has been liberally imbibing of the crazy juice. Maybe she checked her brains in at the door ?
Deb Deb Deb, come back to earth. Take off your tin foil hat.
Telling a homosexual man he can not be an altar server is not discrimination.
By your tortured reasoning, you would probably also say that a convicted rapist out on parole would have his human rights violated if he was told to stay away from the woman he once molested.
Actually Sanwin, I share Deb's belief that it is discrimination when the Catholic Church declines to have active homosexuals engaged in the liturgy.
I diverge from Deb because I don't support the The State using its coercive power to make the church act against its ludicrous beliefs, whereas she wants The State to have more coercive power in instances such as this.
Seperation of State and Church.
The complainant, Mr Corcoran, has requested The State to force the "Bishop to preach a sermon at St. Michael's Church."
The complainant has requested The State to "I would like the Catholic Archdiocese of Peterborough to publish an article written by the Bishop in the regularly published diocesan news magazine..."
What kind of sincerity can one expect from the church when it is forced to do such things under duress?
Post a Comment