I wrote here some days ago about what I think and believe is the correct difference between secularization and “laicism”. Well, looks like there are some people that do not make that difference and consider that it’s OK to impose their morals on the citizens.
five feet of fury. (performing fallaci-o.):
“Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America, was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn — a Canadian author who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never mentioned by name in� news reports — referred to only as “a� Catholic website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the website was Catholic Answers.
While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum.� Moreoever, popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission complaint, published a description of the unnamed� Catholic forum. Several details match, including the screen names of two participants to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.”
The message in particular was this:
Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like millions of other people throughout the world and the ages – many of who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.
(…) Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against homosexuals.
Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV, Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals and treat them with the dignity due every human person. “The basic view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the sinner,” Father told me during an interview. “Opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.” This is the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to any homosexual act.
Father De Valk, the author of the post, did not make any remark asking homosexuals to be punished, yet the mere different thought/belief from the rest of the people, can constitute in itself a “hate crime”. Is this respect for other people’s beliefs? Is this freedom to belief? Looks like that not, but this is the ultimate goal of Canadian “anti-hate” legislation, according to this book.
The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a “hate crime” and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that “no-go areas” for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.
So now there are voices claiming that perhaps they were threatened with arrest because they could possibly being telling Muslims “convert to Christianity or you would die in Hell“. Hey, is that a “hate crime”? Don’t make me laugh!!! But the best is the title: “Where they Christian soldiers?” No, they were Christian jihadis, who were threatening Muslims with “Convert or we will kill you by committing suicide”. These journalists…. what do they take before writing this kind of articles?