Rights trumped (Calgary's Catholic Bishop hails new PM's invocation of God)

Calgary Sun ^ | February 26, 2006 | Bishop Fred Henry

[GMMAC]

Rights trumped
Prime Minister's call for God's blessing
offers hope for free religious expression

By Bishop Fred Henry


Calgary Sun
February 26, 2006

The brief prayer, "God bless Canada," uttered by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the end of his election victory speech sent shock waves through much of Canadian society.

Although taken aback by such an unexpected conclusion, I was absolutely delighted and yelled out a loud "yes" in the solitude of my living room and pumped my fist in the air reminiscent of Tiger Woods reaction to sinking an impossible putt.

Why? All too many of our politicians and public figures have been inclined to be timid, even apologetic, in professing or witnessing any belief in God.

Rather than forbidding the mention of God, here was a prime minister actually mentioning God and asking for a blessing, this constituted nothing less that a modern day resuscitation.

The prime minister's conclusion, of course, dovetails perfectly with his call for government accountability and integrity, as ultimate accountability must be rendered to God.

Furthermore, his reference to God reflects our nation's history, the spirit of the founding fathers and mothers of our nation, our national anthem, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which begins: "Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

Immediately, the Charter proceeds to list our fundamental freedoms.

The first one is the freedom of conscience and religion. The second is freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.

In the Supreme Court case, known as Big M Drug Mart case, Chief Justice Dickson established the nature of religious freedom in broad terms: "The essence of the concept of freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination ..."

Regrettably, it's mostly been downhill ever since.

After asserting our fundamental freedoms, the Charter then begins to spell out rights -- first democratic rights, then mobility rights, followed by legal rights, then equality rights, etc.

Section 15 (1) reads: "Every individual is equal before and under the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

More recently, not only has "sexual orientation" been read into the Section 15 (1) of the Charter, but the courts have ruled that protection for homosexual practices is part and parcel of the protection for "sexual orientation."

In 2002, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that the owner of a print shop, Scott Brockie, could not refuse to provide services to an organization even if the organization's fundamental purpose violated his religious conscience.

Brockie, an evangelical Christian, had refused to print letterhead and stationary for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

The court narrowed the acknowledgment of Brockie's religious beliefs. He could only refuse to print materials the content of which actually offended his beliefs. Meanwhile, he was fined for offending the dignity of his gay-rights accusers.

In 2005 a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal ruled a Knights of Columbus Council was entitled to cancel a hall rental when the Council learned the rental was for a lesbian "wedding" reception.

Nevertheless, beyond comprehension, the panel proceeded to rule that the complainants had suffered an affront to their "dignity, feelings and self-respect" and the women were therefore awarded $1,000 each.

All of this despite a number of efforts being made by the Knight to accommodate the couple in question with other options.

In 2002, the B.C. College of Teachers disciplined distinguished educator Chris Kempling for conduct unbecoming a teacher, giving him a one-month suspension. His supposed crime boiled down to writing letters to the editor and an opinion piece in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer questioning the wisdom of promoting the homosexual agenda.

Numerous appeals proved unsuccessful.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear his freedom of speech case, prompting Kempling to state: "This is a victory for the enemies of free speech and a sad day for all Canadians who value the free exchange of ideas in the public square. Everything that I have publicly written about homosexuality is backed up by solid research data.

"I stand by what I have written. People need to remember that I have never been asked to retract any of my public statements, nor has any human rights complaint ever been laid against me. I was simply expressing a social conservative point of view shared by millions of Canadians."

Since the Constitution Act of 1982 was passed, we have witnessed a new set of trump-rights to sexual gratification and expressive behaviour that over-ride the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Charter.

As more and more social issues pass into the courts, there is less of a role for democratically elected bodies. As a result, not only is there less government of the people, by the people, for the people, but consensus building and compromise disappear. There are then only winners and losers and God help you if you are not on the politically correct side.

When a prime minister asks for God to bless the country, this gesture symbolizes the hope that the public square, that common place where people of all faiths and walks of life meet, work, study, debate, play and worship, might after all respect and defend our fundamental religious freedoms.

"God bless Canada" deserves a resounding "Amen."

Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to webmaster@calgarysun.com

[GMMAC]

Let Bishop Henry know of your support: bishopfh@rcdiocese-calgary.ab.ca

[GMMAC]

PING!

[pissant]

Indeed it was refreshing. Maybe harper can stop the europeanization of Canada, and restore pride in its history and culture, which includes the honoring of God.

[CondorFlight]

As one French politician said, he wished he could end his speeches with "God bless France" the way Bush can say "God bless America".

But in some countries, mentioning God is worse than non-PC; it comes close to being a crime.

[Tribune7]

Great news.

God Bless Canada.

[pissant]

It was looking that way for Canada, to be honest. That could easily change with courageous leadership.

[Wiz]

ping

[Salvation]

A bump for this Canadian!

[NYer]

Bishop Henry has been an outspoken denouncer of Canada's trip down the slippery slope of secularism. He has prayed long and hard for his country. Those prayers deserve a resounding ......

Amen!

Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[Hermann the Cherusker]

As one French politician said, he wished he could end his speeches with "God bless France" the way Bush can say "God bless America".

But in some countries, mentioning God is worse than non-PC; it comes close to being a crime.

France has goen down the sewer in the past 100 years because of the timidity of Catholics to proclaim their faith and seek the blessings of God for their country, people, and government.

The meek shall inherit the earth. The timid shall inherit the Gulag.

[Mrs. Don-o]

bump

[Grig]

Harper has been saying this for a while now. Made a bit of a stir at the start of the 2004 election.

God Bless Canada

[GMMAC]

Two things somewhat amused me when I went to your link above:

* the 'made in the USA' logo on about half the items is more than a little ironic with its inadvertent (?) parroting of the left's habitual criticism of Harper's use of the phrase.

* the flag used in the illustration sure looks pretty darned wrinkled:
presumably it wasn't among the "free" ones Sheila Copps personally sat on prior to shipment while she was Chretien's ever flag-dispensing Heritage Minister.

[concrete is my business]

Hi GMMAC.

Maybe you can clear something up for me.

My understanding is it is bad etiquette to ever wear ones flag except as a shoulder patch on some uniforms.

I was brought up during the 60's and remember all the commotion when the USA flag started being worn on some clothes.

The issue would cause fistfights between WW2 vets and hippies.

An urban Canadian myth has grown that Americans will not wear their flags on their backpacks overseas like Canadians do because so many overseas hate the USA so Americans wear Canadian flags on their backpacks and pretend to be Canadian.

On the other side I have heard Americans say that a Canadian flag on a backpack is the international symbol for "Please Do Not Hurt Me".

I think both attitudes denigrate the flags of both countries.

Any ideas on proper flag etiquette?

[GMMAC]

Over more than two centuries, Americans have, quite rightly, generated a considerable amount of formal etiquette in relation to the proper display, handling, etc. of "old Glory".

On the other hand, we have a de facto Liberal Party symbol which they imposed upon the nation a mere 41 years ago.

The former is steeped in history & stained with patriots' blood while the latter looks for all the world like a beer label & has little or no similar sacrifices or traditions attached to it.

In short & IMHO, looking for any common propriety in their treatment would begin - at the kindest level - by comparing and/or equating "apples & oranges".

Somewhat sadly, there is no Canadian equivalent to:

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

[goldstategop]

The most stupid thing Diefenbaker did was to introduce a Bill Of Rights. Canada did fine without it for the first century of its existence. Then Trudeau gave Canadians the Charter Of Human Rights and Freedoms. Here we are in the Left's Canadian Dystopia where all rights are equal - except of course, if you are a committed Jew or Christian.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[GMMAC]

Agreed.
... and the second was his stubborn and pig-headed clinging to the Red Ensign during the 1964 "flag debate" when we could easily have had the superior design which he derided as "the Pearson Pennant" as shown below in the upper left:

[concrete is my business]

Interesting info on the flag debate.

Thanks GMMAC.

[GMMAC]

As I recall some of the arguments, three leaves stood for the three principal "founding" English speaking (thus Scots & Irish as well), French & Aboriginal (e.g. Indians, Eskimos, etc.) peoples with the counter proposed single leaf supposed national unity.
The blue end bars were the Atlantic & Pacific Oceans.
Eventually, and to be fair pushed by Diefenbaker's foolish obstinacy & pro-British whining, the Liberals resorted to anti-Americanism - and not withstanding the obvious same colors of the British Union Jack - opposing any "red, white & blue" design.

I suppose it's somewhat different for those who've been brought up with it & never known anything else but, personally, I've never liked & continue to detest the damned thing!
While the Liberals' phony nationalism & hypocritical, self-serving use of the flag over the years a a virtual party symbol has doubtless served to entrench my feelings, I think I'd likely have been a lot happier with either of the blue barred designs.

[Grig]

That is funny, but I don't think there is a Canadian company that does what cafepress does. If there is I would like to know about it. The flag looks like it is flying in the wind to me.