Talk:Freedom of religion in Canada

Previous archives

Relationship between certain claims and religious freedom

There are a number of passages in this article which don't seem to have a clear relationship to the question of religious freedom. For instance, "During the 2004 federal election and 2006 federal election campaigns, some sitting Members of Parliament used the term "scary" to describe some Conservative Party candidates or the entire party due to the beliefs of some of its members."

I don't see how rude remarks constitute any sort of attack on religious freedom. I'm perfectly entitled, for instance, to say that I disagree with the position that a given religion takes on a particular matter, or even that I find certain religious positions to be "scary" - obviously that doesn't constitute an assault on religious freedom. So I'm not sure what justifies this particular passage (and there are several others) being in an article on the Status of Religious Freedom. --Ggbroad 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, I don't see how anything in the final section "Comments by Federal Gov't Officials" relates to the question of religious freedom. If I criticize what you say, I'm not necessarily attacking your freedom of speech; if I criticize you for your religion, I'm not necessarily attacking your religious freedom. Most of what is in this section consists of various remarks - some of them admittedly quite rude - but none of them seem directly related to the question of religious freedom, except perhaps the one in which the Minister said that the Catholic church should keep its nose out of Canadian legislation, since the Church (in Canada, at least) obviously has a right to express its views on matters of legislation. But even that one seems marginal. So, before I delete the section, perhaps we could hear some arguments in favor of its retention?--Ggbroad 12:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Chinese government officials make statements like "The Falun Gong is a troublesome and scary religion", does this relate to the issue of religious freedom in China? Deet 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy isn't an appropriate one, since China has no constitutional guarantees on the freedom of religion, no history of defending of freedom of religion and, on the contrary, has an established history of persecuting the religious by the most dreadful means. By contrast, members of the Liberal Party, the NDP, etc., possess no means by which to persecute Christians, etc., and there's no particular evidence that they have any intention to. In any case, the point stands: if I criticize you it does not, as a point of logic, mean that I am denying you your rights. The article lists a few trivial instances of Members of Parliament making rude remarks - this is not functionally related to the issue of religious freedom. Your freedom of religion does not include a freedom from criticism nor a freedom from having rude, mean-spirited, and in most cases even hateful remarks directed at you.--Ggbroad 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your points Ggbroad I have thought for a long time that this article doesn’t represent the state of religious freedoms in Canada after all Canada has one of the best records of in the world.

I have always thought that much of the article is off topic my thinking is that we should only care about the official view of religion’s in Canada not the religious view of individuals if this view is correct then there is no relevance to the homosexual stuff out side of religious education in school I can site references if you like.

I also feel there should be more pro Canada stuff e.g. how Canada is trying to bring religious freedom to the world.Ansolin 04:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So we want to take out potentially abusive comments by federal government officials relating to religion because that's supposedly off-topic, but then put in comments about Canada's foreign policy approach, because that is supposedly on topic? And the rationale is that we want more "pro Canada stuff"? Why don't we stop trying to put pro or anti-Canada stuff in the article and just put in the NPOV facts without worrying about spin. If a consensus feels the comments by federal government officials are not relevant, then I can get my head around taking it out. The article is finally relatively stable so I'm not in favour of big changes beyond that. Deet 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally see no reason to add foreign policy stuff at this point, but I have yet to see a defense of including a few trivial remarks by gov't officials about religion. By themselves mean nothing - I could find many remarks about the value of religion and the importance of its defense from federal gov't officials, too. But I also suspect that there will no group consensus, since this talk page seems quite inactive. --Ggbroad 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about NPOV

I am concerned about the last section of this page that contains quotes that show apparent attacks on freedom of religion, as it contains almost entirly liberal quotes of inappropriate comments that often have been withdrawn and applogised for. If this section is to remain I think it needs to be re-balanced with NDP and Conservitive comments. Thanks. 206.208.37.2 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]