How much is it worth to you to keep your moral values? Is it worth $23,000?
When Christians express concerns that "hate crime" laws will quash freedom, many in our culture don't think anything like this can happen. They believe the stated intent of "hate crime" laws: to protect from discrimination.
Ignoring for a moment the nonsense of the idea of "hate crime" laws, we are seeing more and more proof that not only are such laws useless in bringing justice, they trample all over the freedoms of others, especially when that freedom involves a person's right not to endorse, support or facilitate something they find immoral.
The situation is getting bad in England, where foster parents had their foster children taken away because they refused to sign "sexual equality" guidelines. Others have objected to the distribution of pro-homosexual literature, only to be warned by the police of flirting with a "hate crime."
Focus on the Family already must not transmit shows on the radio in Canada which discuss homosexuality in a negative light.
Just this week, the Christian Post reported that a Christian ministry in Canada has been fined $23,000 and 2 years wages and benefits for "discriminating" against an employee who violated her work contract:
Connie Heintz claimed discrimination against Christian Horizons after she said she was “subjected to a poisoned work environment” and pressured into quitting her job after she entered a homosexual relationship – which was in violation of her work contract back in 2000.
In line with its Christian foundation and principles, the ministry requires that all its employees sign “morality statements” vowing to abstain from immoral behavior, including pornography, pre-marital, extra-marital, and homosexual activity as a condition of employment.
Heintz obviously knew what behavior was expected of employees of this Christian ministry, and unless I missed it, no one put a gun to her head and forced her to work at this ministry.
Yet the Orwellian thought police in Canada consider it perfectly acceptable to trample on this ministry's religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of association.
This kind of thing is already starting to rear it's ugly head in the United States.
Unless good people stand up and say "Enough is enough," this type of politically correct assault on freedom is going to get worse.
20 comments:
This was an excellent ruling. It demonstrates that religious freedom cannot be used as an excuse to foment hatred and spout bigotry. Bravo for the OHRC, I hope Christian Horizons appeals this to the supreme court of Canada so their appeal can be denied and a legal precedent set. This is a huge victory for individual rights over a tyrannical religious corporation and their efforts to enshrine the right to discriminate against homosexuals.
A "tyrannical religious corporation" that Heintz came to work for willingly, and signed the morality agreement on her own willingly. You have an interesting definition of "tyrannical", Anonymous. Especially when the ministry is "dedicated to caring for the disabled." And that her former employer even went so far as to assist her in finding another job.
Thanks, Anonymous, for an insightful and telling glimpse into the radical, rabid mindset behind this kind of assault on freedom.
Not every action of the institution is tyrannical, just their actions with respect to homosexual employees. Certainly it is no less tyrannical than if Canada were to ban religious belief outright and then offered to find the Christians a country that would take them. I say have what ever beliefs you want, but it's time to stop using them to justify hatred and bigotry.
Anonymous, religious faith is a basic human right. Homosexuality is a sexual practice--an unhealthy, unnatural one at that. The two don't even come close to existing on the same plane.
If someone insists on performing homosexual acts, they have that right, but they do not have a right to do so while in the employ of an organization which considers those acts immoral. If they want to practice homosexuality, they should work somewhere that the employer doesn't care.
Homosexuals have no right to force their morality--or lack thereof--on others.
Bob sexual orientation is a basic fundamental human right here in the nation of Canada. Like it or not, we are a sovereign democratic nation and we have chosen to make it so. It does not matter if you agree or if you don't, you are not even a Canadian and as such have no say in how we choose to govern ourselves.
Homosexuality was banned for years due to religion, but then so were interracial marriages, and religious opposition to homosexuals almost perfectly mirrors the opposition that existed to interracial marriage. It is just an extension the same religious tyranny that minorities have been subjected to for years.
If you actually read the law, and the ruling you will see that the ruling conforms to the law. In fact the Human Rights Tribunal had no option but to rule as it did. Perhaps Christian Horizons should not have taken government money and government contracts it is possible they may have been exempt in that case. (although the ruling states otherwise)
I realize that since I'm not a Canadian I have no say in what goes on there.
My concern, beyond the concern over basic human rights anywhere in the world, is that my country may follow yours down the same immoral and tyrannical abyss...as we are already doing, just a little farther behind you.
Legal does not mean moral. It should but as this ruling proves, it often doesn't.
The Bible says nothing against interracial marriage, but it says A LOT against homosexuality.
America was founded on Christian values, and we have led the way in freedom since the beginning. You have only to look around the world over the last 100 years at nations that abandoned or rejected Christian values to find some of the most brutal, oppressive places in human history.
Your country and mine are heartily working on emulating their failures.
Bob, using the bible as you authority is a logical fallacy, you are appealing to a authority whose authority is unproven and unprovable. I could counter with quotes from any number of books of dubious origins as well and I'm sure you'd reject them as a authoritative source for the same reasons that I reject the bible as such. I've not heard a single reasoned argument on why homosexuality is immoral, just the boiler plate "because the bible says so." I say, "so what?". Look at your history Bob, Christians have no monopoly on morality and have committed some of the most atrocious crimes in history in the name of religious freedom, this is not much different, except that now, finally, peoples eyes are opening to the fact that just because people say they are following the laws of god does not make it so.
What makes gravity work? How does it work, for that matter? Even though we see its effect, it remains unproven. So it is with God and his truth.
It is true that some Christians and some Christian institutions have committed terrible crimes. But those terrible things were done CONTRARY to the teachings of the Bible, not in accordance with them.
The values of Christ have brought the greatest peace and prosperity and freedom and human dignity that the world has ever known...when those principles are followed.
But beyond what the Bible says on homosexuality, nature itself teaches that it's wrong.
Our sex organs were obviously created for reproduction. When those organs are used exclusively in ways where no reproduction can possibly occur--even when everything is working correctly--that tells us they are being used improperly...even according to nature.
The tremendous risk of disease and suffering that come with homosexuality should also be sending us a message. Some 72% of AIDS cases in the States come from homosexual behavior (that's a Centers for Disease Control statistic, not some Right wing contention). Homosexuals also have a much higher rate of every kind of STD you can think of.
Homosexuals experience much greater anxiety, depression, substance abuse and suicide. Some moral sense inside us tells us: "It ain't right."
I felt that sense when I was living a heterosexually lascivious lifestyle. My conscience was eating me up, and no amount of drinking or carousing would quell it. The only thing that brought me peace was deciding to live the way God said human beings should.
I realize not everyone will choose that, and it's their right. Even God doesn't force people to live morally. But if we choose not to, we go against Him and we go against nature, and we go against what is healthy and best for society.
While it may be our right to do wrong, we shouldn't expect to be applauded for it or accommodated in it.
Regarding a previous post about being a leader in freedom, remember Bob that your Christian nation used the bible to justify slavery. When did the US abolish slavery, when did Canada? the UK? When did people of color gain the right to vote in the US? When did women? My point is the US has no monopoly on freedom, and that the US was a Christian nation provided little comfort to those who were victims of the good white Christians.
I see in your post stats (link?) about how the homosexual lifestyle can be unhealthy, and an assertion that it is unnatural (homosexuality does exist in the natural world too) but no reason as to why it this make it immoral. Working as a missionary in disease infested regions unhealthy, and flying on the aircraft to get there is unnatural. Does this make missionary work immoral? Of course not, it's a straw man argument.
Instead of deflection and straw man arguments, how about about a reasoned response to why homosexuality is immoral, example "murder is immoral because it deprives another person of life without their consent." or "discrimination against homosexuals is immoral because it deprives that person of human dignity, and the right live by their own conscience." That you feel it is immoral is of no consequence, I'm sure we could find a Hindu or a Muslim that would feel to the very depth of their core that your lifestyle or beliefs are immoral. Those people would have as much of a monopoly on morality as Christians do, NONE.
I don't think you want to get it, Anonymous, because I've already explained it, but I'll give it one more try.
Homosexuality is immoral because God says it is; God is the only objective arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. He says it's wrong because it violates his design for human sexuality, which is one man and one woman for life.
Beyond that, there really is no objective morality. You can say it's immoral to murder someone because it deprives another person of their life without their consent. But so what? Big deal. If I can murder you, what makes that wrong? What gives you the right to that life in the first place? If I step on an ant or cut down a tree, is that immoral? Murder is immoral because we are created in the image of God, and God has stated that it's wrong to murder.
The US does have a dark blot on its history in allowing slavery; recall, though, that slavery came here from Britain. Britain did get rid of it earlier than we did, but Britain wasn't as dependent on it as our South was; we had been working on getting rid of it in the North since even before the Revolution.
And I'll say again: while some may have tried to justify slavery Biblically, they were twisting the scriptures for their own ends, not following it according to what it clearly teaches--that everyone is free, everyone has value and dignity in the eyes of God, and that we are all related, being descendents of Adam.
Finally, regarding your middle paragraph, there is merit in working as a missionary in disease-ridden areas; the missionary is carrying out Christ’s mandate to love our fellow man and help them. There is no merit in carrying out an unhealthy sexual practice that violates God’s design for human sexuality. And flying to perform missions work isn’t unnatural; the natural principles of aerodynamics, physics and mechanics are what allows the aircraft to function.
I know it’s tough to accept it when we’re doing something immoral and unhealthy (I’ve been there), but all the wishful thinking in the world doesn’t change reality. I’ve explained it about as well as I can without being tremendously repetitive.
Bob, except that you can't prove that god says it is immoral. All you can do is bandy about a book written by man that claims, without evidence, to be the word of god. As I already pointed out this is a logical fallacy, local fallacy and reason are incompatible. Heck you can't even prove that this god of yours even exists so he can hardly be a reasonable excuse for bigotry or a valid source of morality.
I really like your point about aerodynamics etc... Wouldn't God have given wings if he meant us to fly? Just as god would have given men compatible sex organs if he intended them to have sex. The principals of physics, and the shape of the penis and the anus is what allows homosexuals to have sex, so how can it be less natural than flight?
Basically your position is that because a god who cannot be proven to exist is believed by many to have proscribed homosexuality, it is immoral. I think there is plenty of evidence for objective morality, just look at the proportion of atheists in the prison population compared to the general population. Statistics, since you seem fond of them, would seem to indicate that atheists are in fact more moral by societal standards, and their morality can be nothing but objective.
As I said before, your comments indicate you don't want to understand. That's your prerogative, and probably a sign of some of that "wisdom" mentioned in Romans chapter one.
I'll exercise some more of that wisdom you reject and decline to further answer a fool according to his folly.
Thanks for reading, though.
Ahh, ad hominem, the last refuge of a weak mind. Mighty Christian of you, thanks. :)
Simply an analysis and a practical conclusion.
You can't prove to someone that an apple is red if they're blind and can't see it or simply don't want to see it.
You also can't prove an apple is red when that apple doesn't exist either, but it's pretty easy to demonstrate that the apple exists if it does.
Had you actually performed any analysis then you would have responded to the argument instead of going the route of ad hominem. Your head seems just full of logical fallacies, I suggest some post-secondary education in critical thinking and logic, but I doubt you'll take my advice.
Can you prove God doesn't exist, Anonymous?
Again with the logical fallacy. Lack of proof of gods existence is evidence that god does not exist. But logically one cannot PROVE non-existence, the burden falls to those who claim existence.
Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Prove that Shiva, or Odin, or Zeus et al. do not exist. It is not possible, it is a logical fallacy.
Atheism is not the belief that god does not exist, it is the belief that no gods exist. I'm sure on most gods we would agree, I just believe in one less god than you do.
Absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence. To the people of Europe in 1200 AD, there wasn't a shred of proof that North America existed. What a surprise when Columbus ran into this continent.
It'll also be quite a surprise when some people run into the God for whom they saw no "proof."
I know God exists because He communicates with me daily, and He's changed my life in ways that defy natural explanation, and I see Him at work just like you can see the wind at work without seeing the wind itself.
But I understand your inability to accept this. Just as I can't prove that an apple is red to a blind person, and I can't prove in words on this blog that there's a blue piece of paper sitting below my monitor, so I can't prove God exists.
I think God keeps it that way, because even when Adam could see God face to face, he still chose to rely on his own wisdom rather than what God had told him. I think God is looking for people to inhabit the next life that are able to believe Him WITHOUT seeing him face to face.
In the end, if I'm wrong, I'll just be worm food when I die and it won't matter. If you're wrong...
I never claimed that adbsence of proof is proof of absence, just that it is evidence. I stated that disproving existence is impossible, I accept that i will never disprove the existence of god.
Your take on what will happen if each of us is wrong is also too simplistic, it is nothing but a repackaged Pascals wager. What if we are both wrong and there is a god, just not the Christian god? he could be angry with me for not worshiping him, and furious for you for worshiping a false god, or in the wrong way. Perhaps the polytheists have it right, or maybe Scientology... The point being that Christianity do not have a monopoly on the truth or morality. They sure like to, in their self-righteous smug way, believe that they do but it is nothing but self-delusion.
I don't think they're being smug and self-righteous about having found the truth, as long as they realize it isn't THEIR truth. A person doesn't have anything to be smug or self righteous about when they realize they didn't do anything to manufacture truth or deserve God's favor.
It's POSSIBLE there could be a different god out there. But I have yet to see a single claim made by Jehovah proven to be false, so I tend to take Him at His word that He's the only one around. If a bunch of dudes made up the whole "God thing," I'd expect to see a boat-load of errors. But I haven't seen a single instance where God has been proven wrong.
Post a Comment