Boazy,

"116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." - Constitution cited Boaz

Individuals are free choose with regards to their beliefs. Moreover, a belief system is not to be imposed. Seems clear to me.

The Queen's Office, as Chief of State, "if" within the Commonwealth, would appear to a contradiction. Again, only "if", that Office maintains the holder to be Defender of the Church of England and a disbeliever in in transubstantiation [as in the Coronation Oath]to come under the Commonwealth.

- Think we ae drifting.

[Boazy, please check back at the Jesus' birth discussion]

Another gross "misinterpretation" from Boazy:

<< I think you agree with me that a State school can have prayer if it wants to, even in main assembly as long as those present are informed that it is not compulsory for them to personally engage in that prayer while it occurs. >>

I can't speak for Pericles of course, but it seems to me that your claim of agreement on that issue is just a tad presumptuous. The contemporary interpretation of S.116 with respect to State schools is that they should generally not make religious observances of any sort, except in the cases of secularised festivals like Easter and Christmas.

If my kid's State school proposed to have any kind of prayer at a general assembly, they would be so swamped in protests from non-Christian parents that they would never go ahead. Besides me, I know of other parents who have registered objections to the idiotic chaplaincy program as well.

Even if the school somehow put such an issue to the vote, unless it was unanimous it would discriminate against non-Christians and would therefore contravene the spirit of the Constitution.

Try again, Boazy. My, we have come a long way from hysteria based on false reports about homophobes being supposedly persecuted, haven't we? You really are a desperate bigot, aren't you?

Oly.. re Jesus Birth..will return of post limit doesn't stop me.

TAMMY.. it does not matter how much you might object to what I say, you are being intolerant. Wonderfully illustrating exactly the problem.

-"He says such and such"
-"I don't like what he says"
-"I don't want him to say it"

All taken together="intolerance"

Now..if you actually had something resembling some facts or an argument, I might hold you in higher regard.
But base intolerance of different views is shabby to say the least.

I've shown the intolerance of Canadian Human Rights Commissions.. Star Chambers, skilfully exposed by Ezra Levant who used his own video at the meeting which otherwise would have been 'behind closed doors'.

It cost him over $100,000 and his magazine folded. Quite a price to pay for exercising free speech.

Canada has laws which prohibit 'offensive' or critical things being said about 'protected classes' of people.

BUT... they have porn freely available on 8:30pm timeslots and justify this by saying 'They can change the chanel'

Bill C10 provides for financial assistance to Art groups, and the movie industry but NOT for Porn..and oooooh didn't the Porn industry kick up a stink and yell "CENSORSHIP".

Perhaps the government actually disocvered some true morality eh?

In the USA the ACLU is defending...wait for it..NAMBLA

This is the same ACLU which fights tooth and nail against prayer in schools.. they support NAMBLA?

The Canadian CCLU has a problem. Some of its members are Jewish Lawyers. They are trying to both support Ezra Levant but STILL support the anti hate laws at the same time.
See this.

http://www.ccla.org/2008-02-06%20Free%20Speech%20and%20Human%20Rights.pdf

They claim they were opposed to the "anti hate laws".

But look at the boxed last paragraph.

They want their cake and to eat it too.

Definition:

FACT:

Normal dictionary:
- something that is true, something that actually exists, or something that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation (as distinct from interpretation, inference or speculation);

In philosophy:
- something which is the case, that is, the state of affairs reported by a true proposition and is verifiable;

In law:
- a piece of information used as evidence and subject to challenge and rebuttal but eventually accepted or rejected in final determination;

In journalism:
- a piece of information used as part of a report or news article widely acknowledged according to reliable sources to be indisputably the case;

On OLO e.g. Mr BOAZ:
- a statement plucked from right-wing Christian sources or the Bible that helps prove a prepared position or bludgeon an oppositional position;
- a statement, when it is true but does not suit your position, that you can ignore, indeed must ignore and never concede;
- any statement you would like to be true;
- any statement of opinion that you prefer at a given time for a given argument;
- any statement that you care to stipulate is true.

I've got to hand it to you Spikey, you are exceptionally observant.

One thing that really strikes me as odd, or perhaps not so odd, is the conflict in positions in the way many 'Christians" seem to live their lives (at least many of the ones around here). It must cause a lot of congitive dissonance.

For example, there is postion that we must not let others dictate how we lead our lives or alter our behaviour because of them and that freedom of speech is paramount. Fair enough. This appears to be the case for Muslims, homosexuals and 'political correctness'.

But the complete opposite appears to be true when it comes to pedophiles. In fact the restriction on free speech and arbitrary judgements on what is art or pornography abound. In this case, we must all restrict our behaviour and actions just in case a random pedophile gets off on a picture or someone gets called a slut in 20 or 30 years time, however unlikely this appears to be.

Which is it? "Free speech" or "free speech only when we want it"?

BUGSY.. at least you raise an important question, unlike spikey who just makes an ad homimen. (Spikey.. don't bother I'm immune to them)

The issue of "free speech or free speech only when we want it" is one of those difficult areas of life.

EXAMPLE Canada apparently now has a most enlightened show called 'Young people f*_king
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm200120064/tt0913445

And.. no matter what we do or don't think of such content, it does at least raise the question about how far we venture in the arena of media content for domestic consumption.
After all.. if YPF is ok.. then why not the next step.. why not real people from some porn site on regularly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCGDv58kuO0 that should give you some entertaining moments...

For me it all raises the issue of values. If we don't have 'A' limit or boundary..then where will it all end? we both know the answer to that.

The changes to magazine advertising content 'adult' personals etc..and the plethora of hard core porn sites.. 'thats' where..

Then will be fulfilled the 'fall' part of "the Rise and Fall...of the West"

No society has ever survived it's own decadence.

So.. back to Canada and Human Rights. I maintain that left wing and minor non/anti Christian religions see these as a tool to futher both their faith profiles and also to supress criticism of their activities.