Michael Coren a Canadian TV Host and columnist, writes this guest editorial in the National Review on the topic of how well the secular humanist policy has run in Canada, and he asks us to take warning.
He writes in part:
Four years ago, a Christian organization in Ontario that works with some of the most marginalized disabled people in the country was taken to court because of its disapproval of an employee who wanted to be part of a same-sex marriage. The government paid the group to do the work because, frankly, nobody else was willing to. As with so many such bodies, it had a set of policies for its employees. While homosexuality was not mentioned, the employment policies did require that employees remain chaste outside of marriage, and marriage was interpreted as the union of a man and a woman. The group was told it had to change its hiring and employment policy or be closed down; as for the disabled people being helped, they were hardly even mentioned.
In small-town British Columbia, a Knights of Columbus chapter rented out its building for a wedding party. They were not aware that the marriage was to be of a lesbian couple, even though the lesbians were well aware that the hall was a Roman Catholic center — it’s increasingly obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents. The managers of the hall apologized to the couple but explained that they could not proceed with the arrangement, and agreed to find an alternative venue and pay for new invitations to be printed. The couple said that this was not good enough, and the hall management was prosecuted. The human-rights commission ruled that the Knights of Columbus should not have turned the couple down, and imposed a small fine on them. The couple have been vague in their subsequent demands, but feel that the fine and reprimand are inadequate.
As I write, two Canadian provinces are considering legislation that would likely prevent educators even in private denominational schools from teaching that they disapprove of same-sex marriage, and a senior government minister in Ontario recently announced that if the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of homosexuality or gay marriage, it “would have to change its teaching.”
He mentions some other points.
- It’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. [Meanwhile the number of so-called homosexual marriages performed is minuscule.]
- A well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.
- The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage.
- A marriage commissioners contacted by a gay man eager to marry his partner under the new legislation happened to be an evangelical Christian, who explained that he had religious objections to carrying out the ceremony but would find someone who would. He did so and gave the name to the man wanting to get married. Even though the gay couple had had their marriage, they decided to make an official complaint and demand that the commissioner be reprimanded and punished.
In the comments section, one secular humanists pens this, hardly an advertisement for toleration and accommodation:
Those of us who are not Christian are getting awful tired of religious people forcing their views down our throats…and I think you will all find that we are going to start using some strategies that you will not like in the least. We have tolerated your religion for far too long, and it is time to push it into the realm of the private. In other words, keep your religion to yourself and feel free to believe whatever you want. But it is time to start rolling back all the non-secular laws that have been stealthily injected into our system.
A friend of mine claims I write about the pro-homosex lobby all the time, and that I hate gays. To the contrary, I think perhaps I do not write about this lobby enough, for they are the ones who actually hate gays.
I don’t call the lobbyist “pro-homosexual” because they have contempt for the person suffering homosexuality. I call them “pro-homosex” The lobbyists are only supporting and cheering the act of sodomy, not cheering the man who suffers it. A chaste and temperate gay man is both inconceivable and abhorrent to the lobbyists. A man cured of the syndrome, they abhor even more, to the point of denying his existence.
Or, to be specific, the lobbyists are cheering and applauding the breakdown of the moral imagination, the loss of character, the dissipation of healthy and sane manliness, which springs from and leads to a sophisticated agnostic indifference to questions of sexual morality.
To make this point, allow me to quote from THE EVERLASTING MAN by GK Chesterton:
“Let any lad who has had the look to grow up sane and simple in his day-dreams of love hear for the first time of the cult of Ganymede; he will not be merely shocked but sickened. And that first impression, as has been said here so often about first impressions, will be right. Our cynical indifference is an illusion…”
The vice that Chesterton is too old-fashioned to name aloud is now being shouted from the rooftops with all the perverse pride the vicious have for vice; and voices raised against being silenced, by pressure in America, by law in Canada.
My point is that it is that lad, and his sanity and simplicity, which is the enemy of the pervertarians. They care nothing for the perversion itself. Most pervertartians are happily married heterosexuals with 2.5 children. It is the IDEA of perversion that they like, the moral grandeur of not making any moral judgments and hence being free of all condemnation. And so the only thing on which they pass moral judgment is moralism, also called being judgmental.
It is the cynical indifference the lobbyists love and seek, and the illusion. They are not seeking the good, much less the interests, of the homosexuals: the absurdly minuscule number who have taken advantage of the make believe marriage in Canada attests to that. The absurdly high number of prosecutions for those who dare voice even the mildest opposition attests to their real purpose, whether they admit it or no.
To be sure, some of the pro-homosex lobby are homosexuals. This is not odd. You could also find Jewish Nazis in prewar Germany, or Blacks in the antebellum South who were anti-Abolitionists.
But just in case I have spoken too often and too bluntly on the topic, let me merely note the legal theory involved in the comment that “it is time to start rolling back all the non-secular laws that have been stealthily injected into our system.”
The idea that the marriage law was safely secular contract back in the remote past, and subtle Churchmen injected non-secular attitudes making marriage a sacrament in the law without the alert public being aware of the deception is beyond nutbaggering barking moonbattery, and well into flat-earther territory.
Let me indulge in an immensity of understatement by saying the comment is not historically accurate.
As far as I know, nor Anglo-American Common law has ever treated marriage as a secular contract between two or more persons of any sex or degree of consanguinity, nor Civic law, nor Canon law, nor the Code of Napoleon, nor the Code of Justinian, nor the Mosaic law or the Code of Hammurabi. Perhaps there is a cave painting of the Neolithic which supports this odd legal interpretation, but no written law since the invention of writing.
Since the days of the French Revolution, the revolutionaries so eager for heaven on Earth have produced nothing but hell.
They have no interest in toleration, nor justice, nor reason. They do not love gays; they only hate God. The destruction of the Church their goal. They will throw the gays under the bus as quickly as they threw women under the bus. (Or are there feminists protesting the treatment of women under Sharia law of which I am unaware?)
Are you offended that the Church denies to polygamists and to pederasts and other types of perverts the sacrament of marriage?
She does not deny to them the sacrament of baptism and confession.
* * *
As a postscript, let me off my advice to my fellow Christians. We are fighting the wrong enemy if we fight the homosex lobby. No fault divorce is the enemy. The sexual revolution is the enemy. Gay marriage is a non-issue: it is merely the vultures gathering to a body which has long been lying motionless in the wasteland. Let us first revive the body by eliminating no-cause divorce laws; let us begin again to enforce the laws against adultery and fornication. Once the body is on its feet again, the vultures will seek weaker prey elsewhere.