God kicked out of City Hall: Supreme Court Ruling

[Glacier]

This topic has been rehashed over and over again in other threads in the past, but to remind you, everyone of any faith and of no faith at all can influence the government. The government cannot exclude anyone from expressing their opinions or lobbying simply because of their worldview, religion, cultural background, sexual orientation, etc.

[Tacklewasher]

This topic has been rehashed over and over again in other threads in the past, but to remind you, everyone of any faith and of no faith at all can influence the government. The government cannot exclude anyone from expressing their opinions or lobbying simply because of their worldview, religion, cultural background, sexual orientation, etc.

I really don't see how that is relevant to the topic? Yes, individuals will attempt to influence based on personal beliefs, but the church does not, and should not hold any sway over the state. That's why I like our current lack of laws on abortion, hope the same happens for assisted suicide and think the SC has made the correct ruling here. Despite some of these views not being held by the majority.

[Glacier]

I really don't see how that is relevant to the topic? Yes, individuals will attempt to influence based on personal beliefs, but the church does not, and should not hold any sway over the state. That's why I like our current lack of laws on abortion, hope the same happens for assisted suicide and think the SC has made the correct ruling here. Despite some of these views not being held by the majority.

That's what I was saying, but any organization such as a church, humanitarian group, and think tank can give their input, and furthermore, anyone who has ties to any such organisation can run for political office and fight for the things they believe in. So yes, they are allowed to have their say with the state just as much as any other group. The constitution holds supreme in the land, however, so obviously politicians and the courts must always keep that in mind when passing laws.

Technically speaking Canada is a theocracy since the Queen is the head of state and the state religion (Anglican), and she gets her power from God, though in practise Canada has adopted the American (and later French) concept of separation of church and state (as has most of Europe) because the God-head and state religion are really ceremonial and traditional concepts rather than actual powerheads. I think that everyone wants a secular state, but what that means in practicality is not always entirely clear.

[Tacklewasher]

That's what I was saying,

So you agree with me.

Apology accepted.

[I am Canadian]

I'm surprised Kelowna have not made a decision yet in regards to prayer:

With the next public hearing not scheduled until Tuesday, Mayor Colin Basran said council has the opportunity to get further clarification on the ruling before making a decision regarding prayer

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/13 ... n#comments

Saguenay Mayor has:

Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay said Thursday he will comply with the judgment even though he doesn’t agree with it.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... e23985315/

In 2001, according to StatCan, Catholics accounted for only 20% of Kelowna's population versus 93% for Ville Saguenay. Also, the Supreme Court ruling comes at a cost for Ville Saguenay, $53,000 payable by the taxpayers.

[goalie]

Here are Kelowna's options according to Castanet article:

These include:

- Suspend the recital of a prayer at Tuesday evening regular meetings. This option would ensure Council is compliant with the SCC decision.


- Continue with the recital of a prayer at Tuesday evening regular meetings. Note non-denominational prayers were still considered by the SCC to be religious in nature. Council would be continuing with a practice the SCC has determined is contrary to law. The City would be open to legal challenge. A challenge could be made at either the Supreme Court of BC, or to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Multiple challenges could be made to either or both bodies, although there is some question whether such a complaint would fall under the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s jurisdiction.


- Replace the prayer with a moment of personal silent reflection at Tuesday evening regular meetings. This option provides for individual silent prayer to any deity or deities of a person's choice, while also providing an opportunity for others to reflect in any secular manner as they see fit.
Council will review the options at its Monday morning meeting.

Or how about none of those options! Just start the damn meeting and get to business.

[Corneliousrooster]

I prayed they would remove prayer from council chambers and my prayers were answered! Prayer really does work!!!!

I am amazed that in 2015 this still is being discussed and debated. Anyone can and should believe what they like - but when you go to WORK you are there to WORK - not delve into a shared fantasy ( that may not be shared by all of your co-workers) on company time, be it government, schools, what have you.....

If you don't trust your decision making ability without the involvement of a prayer, how on earth do you expect your constituents to have faith in your judgement as a representative of the peoples wishes?

[dakoda62]

the Supreme Court decision determined historical tradition was not a valid reason to continue the practice.
If that is the case then, "Native rights" must all also be turfed as most are based on the same "historical tradition"

[I am Canadian]

How can the City of Kelowna challenge a Supreme Court decision? Isn't it the highest court room in the country?

[Option 2 is to] continue with the recital of a prayer at Tuesday evening regular meetings. Note non-denominational prayers were still considered by the SCC to be religious in nature. Council would be continuing with a practice the SCC has determined is contrary to law. The City would be open to legal challenge. A challenge could be made at either the Supreme Court of BC, or to the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Multiple challenges could be made to either or both bodies, although there is some question whether such a complaint would fall under the BC Human Rights Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

[goalie]

the Supreme Court decision determined historical tradition was not a valid reason to continue the practice.
If that is the case then, "Native rights" must all also be turfed as most are based on the same "historical tradition"

shoving imaginary characters down other peoples throats is not a right apparently. What were those SC judges thinking?

[the truth]

you want to pray,pray at home or your church.end of story