$144 fines for religious worship

[Alceste]

Not to mention the CCRL. I am willing to defer judgment until more information is available. You, on the other hand, seem committed to denigrating the Catholic group. It may turn out that you're right but that renders your smear efforts no more noble.

My disdain for the group has everything to do with their story being associated with a "think tank" - a euphemism for "propaganda outfit" - and nothing to do with them being Catholic. My disdain for the PR industry is hardly a secret around here. It's not a "smear" to question narratives generated by an industry populated entirely by dishonest scumbags who intentionally publish fiction as "news" for profit or political gain.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's hope you're right.

 

[Alceste]

Let's hope you're right.

Or what? "Secularism is out of control"?

 

[Magic Man]

Not to mention the CCRL. I am willing to defer judgment until more information is available. You, on the other hand, seem committed to denigrating the Catholic group. It may turn out that you're right but that renders your smear efforts no more noble.

Nice hypocrisy. Do you have anything other than this drivel?

 

[painted wolf]

Secularism isn't about wiping out religious expression, despite what the anti-secularist movement wants people to fear. Such groups have been trying to spread the "bogeyman" of "they are going to make christianity illegal any day now" for decades.

Secularism is about removing government pressure to worship or not worship in a particular way. Not about forcing people to not worship.

Even if the hyperbolic headline were accurate, it still wouldn't be secularism that is the problem. It would be state atheism.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Secularism isn't about wiping out religious expression, despite what the anti-secularist movement wants people to fear. Such groups have been trying to spread the "bogeyman" of "they are going to make christianity illegal any day now" for decades.

Secularism is about removing government pressure to worship or not worship in a particular way. Not about forcing people to not worship.

Even if the hyperbolic headline were accurate, it still wouldn't be secularism that is the problem. It would be state atheism.

wa:do

Not a likely turn of events in Quebec. They are 87% Catholic.

 

[painted wolf]

Not a likely turn of events in Quebec. They are 87% Catholic.

Honestly it's not likely in any secular democratic nation. Doubly so in those that have large numbers of religious believers.

wa:do

 

[Falvlun]

Even if the hyperbolic headline were accurate, it still wouldn't be secularism that is the problem. It would be state atheism.

wa:do

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't know how "state atheism" could be the problem in this case.

More likely, over zealous regulations that sound good, but have unintended, ridiculous consequences when they are actually followed to the letter of the law.

 

[Falvlun]

That probably depends on the scale of it. If it's just a few people coming over for a quiet evening, that'd probably fall under some reasonable definition of normal residential use. However, I remember a case that happened in Toronto a year or two ago where hundreds of people were visiting a house every weekend for worship services in a large multipurpose room in the house. The neighbourhood would be overwhelmed with parked cars, traffic and noise every week. I don't think that this person's neighbours should've had to put up with that... and in the end, By-Law Enforcement decided that they shouldn't.

But that obviously wasn't an issue in this case. It was a public building that is apparently meant to be rented out for large gatherings. Why should a religious gathering be any different than grandma's 100th birthday party?

I don't think it is analogous, because the main reason I gave the garage sale example wasn't because it's infrequent; it's because a garage sale is ancillary to a residential use: at a legitimate garage sale, you aren't trying to make a living, and you aren't selling off inventory you specifically bought to sell; you're just trying to offset some of your cost of living by getting rid of unwanted items.

I think a one-day religious service is a lot more like a one-day trade show or seminar, which very well could be done as a business, even if it's infrequent.

I don't think the distinction is all that relevant. The purpose, according to you, for zoning for religious services is so that they don't create a regular nuisance in residential areas. Just like a yard sale everyday may create a nuisance, a popular bible study may create problems in residential areas. But, a yard sale every once in a while, like a gathering of believers every once in a while, is not all that offensive.

I really can't think of why an infrequent religious gathering should be banned.

 

[gnosticx]

complicated.....iluminati protocol of offering an alternate lie,vice or organisation to give people some hope so they can go back into this world unquestioning and then take it from them.. could give many examples but that opens too many cans of worms...thats why its been done so successfully...simply programming through shock and frustration....sorry may not b answer u want but ......

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that obviously wasn't an issue in this case. It was a public building that is apparently meant to be rented out for large gatherings. Why should a religious gathering be any different than grandma's 100th birthday party?

Honestly, I don't really see the rationale in this case. We've got a meeting hall that's presumably intended for assembly-type uses, so hopefully it'd be able to handle the requirements of an assembly whether there's a crucifix at the front of the room or not.

However, I could say the same about all sorts of other zoning situations. Does it really make a measurable difference to the community if, for instance, a vacant space in a plaza gets used as a bank, store or an office? Probably not, but often a particular zoning will allow one of these uses but not the others.

There is one other issue, though: often, these sorts of meeting happs are provided as a community service, subsidized by taxpayer's money. If this is the case, then renting it out to a religious group would be effectively a subsidy of that religion.

 

[Falvlun]

Honestly, I don't really see the rationale in this case. We've got a meeting hall that's presumably intended for assembly-type uses, so hopefully it'd be able to handle the requirements of an assembly whether there's a crucifix at the front of the room or not.

However, I could say the same about all sorts of other zoning situations. Does it really make a measurable difference to the community if, for instance, a vacant space in a plaza gets used as a bank, store or an office? Probably not, but often a particular zoning will allow one of these uses but not the others.

Yeah. I don't know much about zoning regulations, but this sort of arbitrariness seems, well, arbitrary. Regulation for the sake of regulation.

There is one other issue, though: often, these sorts of meeting happs are provided as a community service, subsidized by taxpayer's money. If this is the case, then renting it out to a religious group would be effectively a subsidy of that religion.

I don't think that is a problem as long as they equally rent out to all religions, as well as secular groups. The government is not required to abolish religious expression on its property in order to satisfy separation of church and state; they are just required to not favor any over the others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah. I don't know much about zoning regulations, but this sort of arbitrariness seems, well, arbitrary. Regulation for the sake of regulation.


I don't think that is a problem as long as they equally rent out to all religions, as well as secular groups. The government is not required to abolish religious expression on its property in order to satisfy separation of church and state; they are just required to not favor any over the others.

I don't disagree. I mean, my own high school rented out space on weekends to religious groups (and I even made good money myself running lights in the school theatre for groups like the "Miracle Tamil Assembly of God") who simply applied for a permit like anyone else.

I don't have a problem with religious groups having equal access to municipal space as non-religious groups. My point in all this is that seemingly arbitrary laws and rules happen in every area, so it's a bit much to point to them as an example of some sort of war on religion when a religious group has to deal with the sort of frustration that every sort of group has to deal with from time to time.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps I missed something, but I don't know how "state atheism" could be the problem in this case.

I was only talking about the headline... not the whole story. Which implies that people are being fined for worshiping in general, not for violation of a zoning regulation.
The headline makes it sound like people are being ticketed for going to church or praying at dinner. :sarcastic

If that were the case (which it isn't), it would enforcing state atheism not secularism.

More likely, over zealous regulations that sound good, but have unintended, ridiculous consequences when they are actually followed to the letter of the law.

That was my original point as well.

wa:do

 

[Falvlun]

My point in all this is that seemingly arbitrary laws and rules happen in every area, so it's a bit much to point to them as an example of some sort of war on religion when a religious group has to deal with the sort of frustration that every sort of group has to deal with from time to time.

Good point.

I agree it's a bit hyperbolic to claim it's a war on religion, however, because freedom of religion is such an enshrined right, I suppose we tend to be more vigilant regarding its censure than we do for most other things.

I was only talking about the headline... not the whole story. Which implies that people are being fined for worshiping in general, not for violation of a zoning regulation.
The headline makes it sound like people are being ticketed for going to church or praying at dinner. :sarcastic

If that were the case (which it isn't), it would enforcing state atheism not secularism.

That was my original point as well.

wa:do

Ah, gotcha. I agree with you and Peng. The conclusion that this is a purposeful campaign against religion is a bit of a stretch and misleading to boot.