 |
 |
Friday March 12, 2010
|
World
Church : World
In his conclusion, he drew attention to Britain, where the situation is already far worse than in Australia, and to the United States, which is just beginning to experience the first effects of state-sponsored religious intolerance. There was no mention of Canada, no doubt because the Cardinal is unaware of how far the situation has deteriorated in this country, following the introduction of the Charter of Rights by then-Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1982. The Charter gave judges the right to re-interpret it as they see fit. One consequence has been that government-sponsored, pro-homosexual human rights commissions have been bullying Canadians to accept the homosexual lifestyle and agenda for decades. Another has been the elevation of politically correct thinking as the rule for policy-making. Following are highlights of Cardinal Pell’s address. Defend freedom of religion and conscience Christians must fight “anti-discrimination” laws that inhibit freedom of religion. Discrimination against people based on “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” leads to “anti-discrimination laws which do not respect fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion and conscience.” He took aim at a recent paper delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission, which begins: “The compatibility of religious freedom with human rights is the subject of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area.” “Let us spell this out,” said the Cardinal. “The clear meaning of these words is that religious freedom is not a human right and may not be compatible with human rights.” He then turned the enquiry around and explained that “all of this simply underscores the need for a different sort of inquiry; not into whether religious freedom is compatible with human rights, but into whether this enquiry of the human rights commission is compatible with human rights.” The Cardinal noted his lack of optimism about the project, because right from the start, he said, the commissioner, Tom Calma, was reported as expressing his concern about a “growing fundamentalist religious lobby” in matters such as same-sex relations, stem-cell research and abortion. Cardinal Pell warned that the Australian government might demand a greater role in managing religious freedom — religious people in Australia (might) expect much more government restriction and interference, ‘even if gentle and gloved.”’ He also took aim at two remarks Calma reportedly made: “The first is that religion is somehow opposed to reason, irrational. The second is that the opposition to the destruction of human life involved in, say, abortion, depends upon premises peculiar to religion and not upon simple principles of justice common to all humanity.” International agreements protect basic rights He explained that, “The rights to marriage, to family, the recognition of the family based on marriage as the fundamental unit of society, the rights of parents to determine the moral and religious education of their children and the rights to freedom of religion, belief and conscience are all recognized by the major international human rights agreements. The problem for the commission and those who share its world view is that human rights often stand squarely in the road of their particular secular agenda, a radical autonomy project which the extreme left, the anti-religious left is pushing … This is the main reason why these inconvenient rights have been read-down, reinterpreted and displaced by other, newer “rights,” such as those to abortion, euthanasia, anti-discrimination and same-sex marriage, and all they carry with them.” He warned that the wording of the human rights law in Australia “significantly exceeds the limitations allowed in international instruments, which only permit some rights to be limited in times of genuine national emergency.” The wording, “gives judges and other decision-makers an enormous discretion to reinterpret, redefine or simply ignore human rights if there are more important priorities set by the government of the day.” Man and the state “Setting public policy is one of government’s most important responsibilities. Government is a creation of civil society. It is not government which creates civil society. In Catholic social teaching, we speak of the concept of subsidiarity. Its basic principle is that, wherever possible, social responsibilities should be carried out at the lowest and most local level of organization, unless this is beyond their capacity and resources. This principle of subsidiarity is directly opposed to the totalitarian principle, in which the individual is understood to exist to further the purposes of the state. “In Australia today, anti-discrimination is becoming a de facto priority of public policy ... We have to stop using the word ‘exemptions,’ because it suggests that religious freedom is a government grant or concession, not a fundamental human right. We should insist that these rights be protected.” Cardinal Pell’s observations are directly applicable to Canada, where the developments described above have been at work for several decades, but without any clarion call from spiritual leaders, except from Bishop Fred Henry in Calgary, who was himself threatened. Some current European examples of the same trend are the following: Ireland’s constitution is on trial in the European Court of Human Rights, because of its defence of human life from the moment of conception. The court will debate whether Ireland’s laws violate(!) the European Convention on Human Rights, which stresses the “right to respect for private and family life.” British legislators are attempting to stamp out homeschooling, which opponents say will mean the effective end of the rights of the family in education. The bill will follow recommendations that homeschooling families be subjected to spot checks by local authorities and that authorities interview homeschooled children without the presence of their parents. As reported in the December 2009 issue of C.I., seven judges of the European Court of Human Rights have ordered Italy to remove crucifixes from the public schools of the country. Now, Spanish Catholics are facing the same assault, as the government asserts that since Spain has no national religion, Catholics cannot have public displays of their religious symbols. The Lithuanian government – which passed a law on the “protection of minors against the detrimental effect of public information,” prohibiting promotion of “homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations” among children under the age of 18, to go into effect in March 2010 – had its law condemned by the European Parliament. Many other Europeans fear what they see as obnoxious E.U. interference in life and family matters (C-FAM.org, Nov. 12, 2009). Real human rights under attack in Canada Justice E.C. Wilson of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued a strong ruling on December 3, upholding the right to free speech of Alberta youth minister Stephen Boissoin. In 2008, the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) had fined him $5,000, to be paid to Darren Lund, his accuser, and ordered Boissoin to desist from ever again speaking out against the homosexual lifestyle. Boissoin had earlier written a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, complaining about the imposition of pro-homosexual teaching in schools. Lund, today a member of the faculty at the University of Calgary, denounced him to the AHRC for “hate speech.” After the verdict, Boissoin’s lawyer, Gerald Chipeur, expressed his belief that “the ability to express one’s conscience is a fundamental human right protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” One hopes he is right. It is certainly protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But the federal government of Stephen Harper and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has not given the slightest indication that it intends to do anything about the existing legislative threat of HRCs to undermine and overrule the Canadian Charter’s clauses on freedom of speech, conscience and religion, even though the issue has been red-hot in the media for two years. The Canadian Constitution Foundation of Calgary also intervened on behalf of Mr. Boissoin. On December 15, 2009, another appeal began, this time in the Ontario Divisional Court, against the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT). In April 2008, the OHRT ruled against the evangelical social service agency Christian Horizons. Mr. Gottheil of the OHRT stated that the agency could not insist on faith requirements for moral behaviour in its hiring, nor require employees to sign agreements attesting to such requirements. Gottheil also imposed a heavy fine, to be paid to the complainant. Christian Horizons operates more than 180 residential homes for people with developmental disabilities and serves about 1,400 people. Although it is funded by the Ontario government at $75 million a year, the agency relies on the religious commitment of its evangelical and Christian employees to help it carry out this charitable work. The Gottheil ruling threatens the work of all social and education agencies that rely on religious faith commitments to operate. Committed atheists are looking forward to the day when these agencies are crushed. But society should be very afraid when that day comes, as should nominally Christian politicians who are constantly counting votes to see what aspect of their faith they can conveniently throw overboard. God will spew out the latter, while the first will perish by their own blindness. The Catholic Civil Rights League, among others, is intervening on behalf of Christian Horizons. It deserves your support (www.ccrl.ca). Some notes The December “Church and World” feature, “The Persecution of campus pro-life groups,” also placed elsewhere on our website, has found resonance in the secular media. The December 28, 2009 edition of Maclean’s magazine (circulation 600,000) covered the same story on page 42. And the annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 2009, issued by the U.S. Department of State, lists Catholic Insight for the second year in a row as the subject of a requested judicial review by the Federal Court. The CHRCs dismissed the complaint against C.I. for allegedly promoting hatred of homosexuals. C.I. understands that if the application is not acted upon by the Federal Court in the year of submission (2008), the appeal is moot. Pray that it is so. United States In the United States, too, so-called discrimination is a growing concern for ordinary people. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal that sets anti-discrimination principles against religion. Here, it is the University of California’s Hastings College refusing to recognize the Christian Legal Society (CLS) which calls upon its leadership and voting members to adhere to traditional Christian beliefs in their behaviour. In 2004, Hastings College withdrew its funding from CLS because of what it called “discrimination” against other religions and against “sexual orientation.” The CLS has argued that if campus diversity requires everyone to become like everyone else, there is no diversity. Nevertheless, the school won in federal court in 2006 and was the ruling was upheld on appeal. The implications here are the same as in the Ontario Christian Horizons case: all faith-committed agencies and institutions are in danger of losing government support, even though they render great services to society. Now it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. A note from Deborah Morlani re: the Stupak amendment against abortion It seems many pro-lifers have the impression that the Stupak amendment, which removed abortion from the House of Representatives’ health legislation (Dec. 7), means no funding at all will go to abortions. This is incorrect. One site that has been forthright and explicit about the implications of the Stupak amendment, and its consent to fund the killing of some babies, is the American Life League. (Here is one article from the ALL on the problems with the amendment: http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog.php?id=2839) SECTION 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING a) In General— No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15284081/Stupak-Amendment-to-HR-3962-Rev-108) Other references are: ”The passed Pitts-Stupak amendment still allows the killing of unborn children conceived from rape or incest or when the life of the mother is threatened by a pregnancy” (LifeSiteNews.com, November 13, 2009). "The amendment restores long-standing federal policy against the use of government-appropriated funds for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is deemed at stake" (LifeSiteNews.com, November 17, 2009). To be quite honest, I am glad to find out that you did not know that supporting the Stupak amendment means supporting the funding to kill some babies. Those of us conceived in rape and incest have been horrified watching our fellow pro-lifers, including our shepherds at the USCCB, the U.S. bishops, support so vigorously a law that would fund the murder of babies like us. Surely, if such a law were brought before them that stated “no funding for abortions except in cases of Jews, blacks, and those with Down’s syndrome,” no one would hesitate to quickly reject it! Why would they not, then, reject it for babies conceived in rape, incest, or over the life of the mother? I don't get it. © Copyright 1997-2009 Catholic Insight
|
|
Latest: World |
 |
 |
 |
