Canada becoming a socialist, anti-christian state

[Alfred]

So tell me....if homosexuality, homosexual marriage and abortion are NOT moral issues, what are?? Are Gulags next for Canadian anti-pagans? And it appears that Canada is even more "progressive" on this issue than is Europe.
------------------------------------------------

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Christians face threat
pushing Bible beliefs
Churches to lose tax-exempt status
for denouncing same-sex marriage?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 14, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com


While an American pastor is the subject of federal investigations for delivering a pro-George Bush sermon on July 4, Christian churches in Canada are now facing the loss of their tax-exempt status should they become involved in partisan politics.


The Canada Customs and Revenue Agency has met with legal representatives of both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to warn them of the action in connection with this year's campaign.

According to LifeSiteNews, churches are not only admonished against recommending certain candidates or political parties, but they also face crackdowns for speaking out on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

"The best thing for a charity to do, especially during an election, is to stay away from those issues," Dawna Lynn Labonté, a spokeswoman for the minister of national revenue, told the news agency. "There are certain issues, especially during election times, that are very political."

The gag order on religions is said to cover all moral issues, even poverty.

"Taking out a full page ad before Christmas on homelessness might not be considered political, but doing the same thing the week of an election might be considered political," Labonté said.

The policy is being blasted the group Concerned Christians Canada which says the government is subverting democracy, abrogating basic religious freedom and attacking the nation's Christians.

"For 30 years, the Liberal Party has waged undeclared cultural war against evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics in Canada; this CCRA action is an official declaration," said the group's chairman David Krayden. "Christians and persons of all religious faiths need to know that this Liberal government is working to undermine free speech and compromise freedom of religion. Concerned Christians Canada will ensure that Christians know who their political enemies are in time for the next election."

In April, Canada approved a law some say makes the Bible itself "hate speech," as critics claim it will criminalize public expression against homosexual behavior.

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the issue of churches having their tax-exempt status threatened is also hitting home in the U.S.

At least two organizations are monitoring the content of Sunday sermons by American pastors and threatening to report churches to the Internal Revenue Service if they hear political messages they deem inappropriate under federal guidelines on tax-exempt status.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, headed by Barry Lynn, filed a complaint with the IRS against Ronnie Floyd, pastor of the First Baptist Church of Springdale, Ark., accusing him of preaching a sermon promoting President Bush's re-election July 4.

The complaint challenges the church's tax-exempt status as a religious organization.

The local Democratic Party is supporting the IRS probe, saying the sermon should be "investigated thoroughly."

According to a statement by the Democratic committee, the party, "looks forward to the day when all citizens may vote their conscience without their political beliefs being dictated to them by politically involved religious leaders, regardless of denomination."

"American democracy is rooted in the principle of the separation of church and state," the statement continued. "The Washington County Democratic Party remains committed to maintaining this value and belief if only in our small corner of the state."

Associate Pastor Alan Damron of First Baptist replied in a prepared statement: "Contrary to the statement by the Washington County Democratic Party, 'separation of church and state' is not in the United States Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees the right for all to speak on political, social, moral, and biblical issues. The Constitution includes pastors and churches. There have been American religious leaders past and present who did not and have not withheld their opinions about social issues or moral issues and/or politicians who supported or opposed various American rights. If the pastors or churches are not protected by the First Amendment, then neither are professors, or non-profit, tax-exempt educational institutions. The July 4th sermon of Pastor Ronnie Floyd exemplifies the best of our American tradition of freedom and democracy. The message did not violate any IRS provision by any stretch of the imagination, and is most assuredly protected by the First Amendment, that protects us all, even those who may disagree with us."

The church itself issued a statement: "The alleged letter of complaint to the Internal Revenue Service from Mr. Barry Lynn of the 'Americans United for the Separation of Church and State' is nothing more than a threat to pastors and our churches in America, attempting to intimidate the church into silence. This threat 'to take away our tax-exempt status' based on a July 4 presentation has no credence at all. Pastor Floyd did not violate any laws, nor did he or the church endorse a particular candidate. An attorney who specializes in First Amendment issues and political activity of non-profit organizations has viewed the message presented on July 4 and calls Mr. Lynn's accusations unfounded. Mr. Lynn attempts to intimidate pastors and churches by baseless allegations during every election cycle."

The statement pointed out that the Internal Revenue Service has not taken away the tax-exempt status from any church in the history of our nation for political reasons.

"It appears that some people have two rule books, one for liberal, and one for conservative politics," the statement continued." The fact is that history does not support the baseless threats hurled against conservative churches. Since 1934, when the lobbying restriction was added to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), not one church has ever lost its tax-exempt status."

[Eugeenie]

O.K. -- I'll bite.

Various thoughts on this matter:

As to "socialism" in regards to Christianity, I think if you read the message in the New Testament -- at least the red letters -- it seems Jesus was a bit of a socialist, himself (or Himself in deferance to your religion). His tirades against the Scribes and Pharisees in the book of Matthew show some consistant themes -- themes such as the rejection of entrenched systems of power and privelege, caring for the concerns of common folk and other themes that indicate an attitude that were it expressed today might be interpreted as being of a socialist bent.

As to the separation of church and state, I might also refer you to Jesus, since he/He was asked why he wasn't more involved in politics. His own answer to this question might also suffice as to a path to follow.

Morality is a bit stickier issue, but did Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality? I don't know that he did. You have to look pretty darn hard to find much mention throughout, and aside from Paul's Corinthian letters, is there really very much mention of homosexuality in the whole N.T.? The emphasis placed upon this seems to far outweigh it's actual occurance in your bible, and from the sounds of so many Christians, I would think Jesus spoke of homosexuality above all else. He didn't, and so I would hope that might give a clue as to it's importance in the scheme of things.

I can't imagine Jesus suporting abortion, though, so would agree with you on this one from a moral/Christian perspective. Seems to me that the "do unto others (or do not do unto others what you would not...) maxim might be a useful tool in determining what falls within the realm of morals and what are simply social mores. I can't imagine too many people choosing to not be, which is the result of abortion, so see this as a moral issue. Homosexual acts do not fall into this realm as long as they are consentual and conducted beteen two adults since there is no victimization involved. There may be social mores against it, but I don't see it as a moral issue.

I didn't see anything in the article to convince me that Christians are facing any sort of threat. Nobody is telling Christian churches what they may or may not preach, only that they will lose tax exept status if they cross the line into the realm of politics. Is it a church or is it a p.a.c.? When the time comes when churches are told what they may or may not preach on an absolute basis, I might join you in protest, but this decision does not do that -- it only says that there will be certain consequences when churches become political action commitees. Did they go too far by blurring the distinction between overt partisan politicking and politicking in issues closely related to election platforms in general? Who knows? I might even agree that they might have possibly crossed a certain line, but the thing is -- those pastors who are really politicians instead have become so adept at creating their political message that it probably doesn't matter what the government says. It can be overt, it can be read between the lines, or read between the lines that are already between the lines. Message is message.

Don't worry, though -- as a Christian, you are in the majority. Actions that limit the abilty of the majority to impose their will upon the minority are a necessary part of a free society.

Even if they don't always work.

[David_in_NYC]

Canadian socialism is at its high-water mark. They've begun to envy the US, particularly our health-care system (as messed up as it is, it's still the world's best), our economy, our freedom, functional federalism, and so on. So be a little bit patient and you will see the pendulum in Canada swing away from its current travesty (a government so dysfunctional it can't even grow pot) and towards some form of liberty-based society.

[KettleWhistle]

Socialism is an economic system that has nothing to do with regulation of religious establishment. Other than that, why such preoccupation with gay marriage? I find the gay "lifestyle," or as I prefer to describe it, sexual fetish, pretty disgusting, but we live in a free world. I believe in a free world people should be free to define marriage anyway they please, as long as it's concensual. I applaud Cananda for recognizing that, and I think religious groups need to stop trying to write the Bible into constitution. The law gives you right to practice your religion in your church. Stop trying to prevent other people from living their lives the way they chose.

To quote Justice Clarence Thomas on the subject:"The Constitution is a positive document that may be formed by religious beliefs, but they are not in the document. Sometimes people think that you ought to pull out the Constitution and put the Bible next to it. That’s not the way it works."

[Alfred]

I came to realize early in my life that I was born anti-Gay. It took me awhile to accept myself and my situation. But over the years I have come to better understand my feelings and I realize that God made me anti-Gay. I remember Liberal kids laughing at me and my orientation. But I could not lead a double life...a life of lies. I had to come out of the closet.

It is not my fault. I hope you can accept me as "An American Anti-Gay" and realize that I was born this way....there is nothing I can do about it. You need to be tolerant and accepting. There are many anti-gays in America and in fact, in the world. Anti-Gays should not be criticized or ostracized. We are people too.

There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.

Again, please be caring, tolerant and progressive by embracing my anti-gayness.

[KSO]

I came to realize early in my life that I was born anti-Gay. It took me awhile to accept myself and my situation. But over the years I have come to better understand my feelings and I realize that God made me anti-Gay. I remember Liberal kids laughing at me and my orientation. But I could not lead a double life...a life of lies. I had to come out of the closet.

It is not my fault. I hope you can accept me as "An American Anti-Gay" and realize that I was born this way....there is nothing I can do about it. You need to be tolerant and accepting. There are many anti-gays in America and in fact, in the world. Anti-Gays should not be criticized or ostracized. We are people too.

There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.

Again, please be caring, tolerant and progressive by embracing my anti-gayness.

How did your parents react when they discovered this?

[Alfred]

How did your parents react when they discovered this?

It was a shock to them. But I think, deep down, that they were anti-Gay too, but were too embarassed to come out of the closet...after all, they live in California where that kind of thinking is not allowed.

[KettleWhistle]

What a thoughtful response, you should pat yourself on the back. In the future you may consider spelling liberals as "lieberals," or possibly "libruls."

There are many of us who were born anti-gay and you you cannot force your morality upon me and my fellows. Because it is not my fault that I was born anti-gay. We anti-gays have a concept called marriage and now you are trying to destroy something dear and meaningful to us. Your lack of tolerance and hetero-phobia are trying to destroy our sacred bondings between man and a woman.

As for forcing morality, perhaps you ought to purchase a mirror and glance into it. The only people trying to force their morality on others are those like you. I know it must be a big revelation to you, but gay marriage will not stop heterosexuals from marrying, or you from living the lifestyle that you chose.

P.S. BTW, I am a very happy heterosexual, and I have no problems accepting people for who they are. I couldn't care less if the faggots are the way they are because they are born that way or not. I support freedom of choice and civil liberties for everyone, and that includes your right to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church, where it belongs.

[Ahava]

What a thoughtful response, you should pat yourself on the back. In the future you may consider spelling liberals as "lieberals," or possibly "libruls."

As for forcing morality, perhaps you ought to purchase a mirror and glance into it. The only people trying to force their morality on others are those like you. I know it must be a big revelation to you, but gay marriage will not stop heterosexuals from marrying, or you from living the lifestyle that you chose.

P.S. BTW, I am a very happy heterosexual, and I have no problems accepting people for who they are. I couldn't care less if the faggots are the way they are because they are born that way or not. I support freedom of choice and civil liberties for everyone, and that includes your right to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church, where it belongs.

Great post!!
I wholeheartedly agree.

[Alfred]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom? I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

But then you ARE practicing your religion on others aren't you Oh, and would the "freedom of choice" that you ascribe to go so far as to allow States to decide whether to allow abortion or not?

Oooops, abortion and homosexual marriage are not moral issues... I forgot.

Question for the enlightened.

What is the definition of a "moral issue" and therefore ok for church going people to talk about?

[KSO]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom? I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

But then you ARE practicing your religion on others aren't you Oh, and would you "freedom of choice" that you ascribe to go so far as to States deciding whether to allow abortion or not?

Oooops, abortion and homosexual marriage are not moral issues... I forgot.

Question for the enlightened.

What is the definition of a "moral issue" and therefore ok for church going people to talk about?

And freedom of Religion (and from religion) and democracy are not traditional American values?

[Ahava]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....who is forcing their morality on whom? I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

Ridiculous analogy of course, the BLue T-shirt club, but if I go along with it..all I have to say is that it sounds pretty communist: the group should be homogenous and there is no choice for different people.
You want to portray America as 'club'? Don't you think the country is a tad too big for that?
And oh, the length of certain values tells about the worth of it? What about age old values that women should stay home and aren't allowed to work? Not to mention Muslim age old values..

[KettleWhistle]

If you joined the Blue T-Shirt club and then sued to force the club to allow red T-Shirts.....

Are you trying to tell us the homosexuals are suing your church to force it to accept them?

I seem to remember freedom of religion, the Ten Commandments, morality, marriage, abortion is bad, homo's stay in the closet etc. as being traditional American values for oh, about 200 years.

You forgot genocide, slavery, segregation, and sex discrimination that were among those values for a good part of those 200 years.... But if only Strom Thurmond won that election from the Liebruls, we'd still might've had these.

What is the definition of a "moral issue" and therefore ok for church going people to talk about?

You might've missed it in my first reply to you, but I fully support freedom of speach, including discussion of abortion, homosexuality, etc., in religious institutions.

[Alfred]

AJL: if Gays get their marriage recognized then all States will be forced to recognize it. It has something to do with the Constitution. So yes, they are trying to force their morality on the rest of us by judicial fiat. And the trend is that in the next 5 years churches will be sued for not allowing Gays to be Bishops etc. You already see it with the Boy Scouts of course.

Personally, I don't care what they do behind closed doors....you notice I say behind closed doors. As long as it doesn't involve children, or as many Gays are trying to push: "consenting children." So they can do whatever they want. Just don't force their views on schools curriculums, force their views on marriage or kill any criticism of them under the guise of "hate crimes" and I don't have a problem.

I do have a problem pumping billions into AIDS research when there are more worthy diseases to go after. Gays should learn how to spell CONDOM and let science try to cure cancer.

The purpose of this thread was to show that a Liberal (or Liebruls...not sure what you are attempting on that one) government very soon makes speech contrary to the Liberal view "hate speech" and bans it. Even in churches. It is a trait of theirs that coincides with their history. Liberals, by their actions are very racist and close-minded (although their words would never betray that trait).

I support freedom of choice and civil liberties for everyone, and that includes your right to practice your religion. Just keep it in your church, where it belongs.

Good point. That is what this thread is all about. Canada says NO to "keeping it in your church." They can't even criticize homosexuality behind closed doors in their church. They have the Canadian PC Police listening to churches.

(shouldn't they be in Mosques looking for terrorist training via the pulpit??..ahh, but the REAL enemy is not Islamic radicalism, it is Christians and their awful morals.)






CRIMENETDAILY
Guilty verdict for 'homosexual Christ' actor
Man seeking sex with boy, 14, was really e-chatting with police

________________________________________
Posted: August 17, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A New Jersey actor who reportedly played prominent roles in a homosexual-themed play paralleling the life of Jesus Christ has been found guilty of seeking sex with someone he thought was a 14-year-old boy he met on the Internet.

Steven Shriner, 42, was convicted of attempted sexual assault, attempted luring/enticing of a child, and attempted criminal sexual contact. He faces up to ten years prison when sentenced Nov. 5.
"The verdict sends a loud and clear message that individuals who use the Internet to seek out and prey upon children will be uncovered, arrested, prosecuted and sent to jail," said Vaughn L. McKoy, director of the state division of criminal justice.
"The Computer Analysis & Technology Unit will continue to patrol the Internet to identify sexual predators lurking behind the monitor to prevent them from luring unsuspecting children."
According to the Trentonian newspaper, Shriner allegedly used his home computer in January of last year for the "express purpose of meeting and having sex with a boy."
Deputy Attorney General Charles Ouslander said Shriner entered a sexually explicit chat room, thinking he was conversing with a teen boy, whose screen name was Timpit6668. In reality, Shriner was speaking with investigator Brian Damiani who was typing on his undercover computer at the Hughes Justice Complex in Trenton.
Shriner allegedly sought to meet Timpit6668, discussing the location and activities in which the two would engage.
He also sent a video clip of himself masturbating.
"I have more ; ) ," Shriner allegedly wrote, according to printouts of the conversations.
The Trentonian says authorities closed in on the suspect at a pizza place in Hamilton, N.J., when he showed up and flashed his lights, which was the agreed code.
Armed with a search warrant, authorities recovered 24 images of suspected child pornography involving kids between the ages of 8 and 10.
Defense attorney Will Anklowitz said Shriner believed he was dealing with someone who was 18 years old at the time he entered the porn site, since a disclaimer at the chat room's entrance stated users must be at least 18.
Shriner himself testified, "I never believed that I wasn’t talking to an adult."
Shriner reportedly portrayed the characters of both Mary and the apostle Peter in "Corpus Christi," a production of the Chicago-based Ulysses Theatre Company about a victim of "homophobes" in a Texas high school who eventually performs miracles for his 12 disciples.

[Mediocrates]

I imagine though that attempting to procure sex from any 14 year old is already covered under existing criminal statutes is it not?. That the offender is gay seems besides the point, legally.