Canadian National Public Radio Broadcasts Call for State Control of Religion

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by -Cp, Jul 19, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    That'd suck if this passed:

    Canadian National Public Radio Broadcasts Call for State Control of Religion Especially Catholicism

    OTTAWA, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just as Senate approaches the final vote on the gay 'marriage' bill, C-38, Canada's national public radio CBC Radio has aired a commentary by a retired professor from the Royal Military College calling for state control over religion, specifically Catholicism. While parliamentarians dismissed warnings by numerous religious leaders and experts that such laws would lead to religious persecution, former professor Bob Ferguson has called for "legislation to regulate the practice of religion."

    "Given the inertia of the Catholic Church, perhaps we could encourage reform by changing the environment in which all religions operate," Ferguson began his commentary in measured tones yesterday. "Couldn't we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood. "

    Ferguson continued, "Of course the Vatican wouldn't like the changes, but they would come to accept them in time as a fact of life in Canada. Indeed I suspect many clergy would welcome the external pressure."

    The former professor pitched his idea as a boon to religious freedom. "We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions," he said. "They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?"

    Ferguson, would see religion regulated by provinces in the same way professions are regulated. "I am an engineer so the model I am thinking about is rather like the provincial acts regulating the practice of engineering," he said. "For example, engineers must have an engineering degree from a recognized university or pass qualification exams. They must have a number of years of practical experience and pass an ethics exam. The different branches: mechanical, electrical, civil and the like have a code of practice that applies to everyone. Why can't religious groups do the same?"

    Continuing his comparison Ferguson stated, "I envisage a congress meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers' P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification."

    Ferguson also suggests 'obvious' prohibitions on religion including preaching of 'hate'. "I won't try to propose what might be in the new code except for a few obvious things: A key item would have to be a ban on claims of exclusivity. It should be unethical for any RRP to claim that theirs was the one true religion and believers in anything else or nothing were doomed to fire and brimstone. One might also expect prohibition of ritual circumcisions, bans on preaching hate or violence, the regulation of faith healers, protocols for missionary work, etc.," says Ferguson.

    The retired professor concluded his comments aired on CBC yesterday morning saying, "Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions. Yes religion can be a comfort and a guide, but we cannot take rules from our holy books and apply them to the modern world without democratic debate and due regard for the law."
     
  2. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    You know, no offense to Canadians or anything, but some of you seem to have pretty high opinions of yourselves to think that a 2000 year-old institution is going to switch things up just because Canada tells it to.
     
  3. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    Whoever wrote the piece, does absolute garbage. I listened to that very broadcast and what your "source" doesn't reveal was the interviews with clergymen who oppose the idea right after. Whoever believes this piece, well I have a tiger warding stone to sell ya too.
     
  4. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    SO this retired guy DOESN'T think the government should regulate religion? Of course the clergy are against it. What in the piece is false? Are you just angry the naked totalitarian truth of the left is exposed like a hairy nut sack?
     
  5. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    The retired guy is a nobody. Who cares. The station wasn't calling for state controlled religion, the prof was. It would have been an intersting interview, I wonder what the interviewer thought of the guys opinion.
     
  6. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    Again, retired prof's opinion.
     
  7. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    I understand. I just wonder which part Isaak says we shouldn't believe.
     
  8. Said1
    Offline

    Said1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    12,087
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Somewhere in Ontario
    Ratings:
    +937
    -Cp's thread title (unlinked).
     
  9. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    The article is misleading, by purposely leaving out information opposing their view. Point. Set. Match.
     

Share This Page