Tag Archives: Bullying

Polemics

Is there a bullying epidemic against gay students?

6 Comments

From the Lilley Pad – the blog of Canadian journalist Brian Lilley.

Excerpt:

We are being told it is part of a bullying epidemic, specifically an anti-gay bullying epidemic. We are told that suicide rates are huge.

Now the numbers don’t back this up.

We’ve talked before on this show that men between 35 and 54 are the most likely group to commit suicide, men in their 90s have among the highest success rates compared to attempts.

Teen boys, specifically gay teen boys killing themselves is tragic, just as every suicide is but it is not an epidemic.

Neither is there an epidemic of bullying in Canada or the United States.

In an op-ed in the Saturday edition of the Wall Street Journal, Nick Gillespie detailed how bullying rates in the US have bounced from 28% of kids being bullied in 2005 to 32% in 2007 and then back down to 28% in 2009 the most recent year available.

Here in Canada the rate sits at about 25% of children reporting bullying, a number that has remained fairly steady and is similar to the 20-22% reported by a pair of academics who have studied this issue across Canada.

What are kids bullied about most often?

You would think from the news media that it is sexual orientation but it’s not.

Body image is by far the leader, followed by grades or marks, cultural background, language, gender, religion and then income.

So what is driving this?

I’d say it is an agenda and that agenda was on display last week at the Ontario Legislature.

We’ve discussed the attempt by the McGuinty government in Ontario to force Catholic schools to let kids set up and run their own gay-straight alliance clubs even though such a club would go against Catholic teaching.

Well now it is clear they don’t care. Liberal cabinet minister Glenn Murray selectively quoted from the Catholic Catechism last week. He read the part saying that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” a fancy way of saying they are not the normal way sex is performed. As a gay man Murray obviously would object to that and many of you might as well. But here’s what Murray said next that should worry everyone.

“I have to say to the bishops: ‘You’re not allowed to do that anymore.’”

He is now trying to dictate and bully a religion on what its doctrine should be.

He wants to tell Catholics what they can believe, what they can say, what they can teach.

You don’t need to be Catholic to be concerned that the Ontario government has gone from being co-parent to co-pastor as well.

Forget separation of church and state, in Ontario the McGuinty government will tell you what to believe in your house of worship.

Like the Redford government in Alberta trying to tell homeschooling parents and private schools what they could teach, even about faith, this is disturbing but not a surprising step for the progressive left.

At its heart, this is about control.

Read the whole thing.

Brian Lilley actually talked about this issue on Sun TV, with another Canadian conservative Michael Coren. The video is worth a look.

News

UK government: Christians do not have right to wear a cross at work

10 Comments

Tom sent me this article from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.

In a highly significant move, ministers will fight a case at the European Court of Human Rights in which two British women will seek to establish their right to display the cross.

It is the first time that the Government has been forced to state whether it backs the right of Christians to wear the symbol at work.

A document seen by The Sunday Telegraph discloses that ministers will argue that because it is not a “requirement” of the Christian faith, employers can ban the wearing of the cross and sack workers who insist on doing so.

[…]The Government’s refusal to say that Christians have a right to display the symbol of their faith at work emerged after its plans to legalise same-sex marriages were attacked by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain.

A poll commissioned by The Sunday Telegraph shows that the country is split on the issue.

Overall, 45 per cent of voters support moves to allow gay marriage, with 36 per cent against, while 19 per cent say they do not know.

However, the Prime Minister is out of step with his own party.

Exactly half of Conservative voters oppose same-sex marriage in principle and only 35 per cent back it.

There is no public appetite to change the law urgently, with more than three quarters of people polled saying it was wrong to fast-track the plan before 2015 and only 14 per cent saying it was right.

The Strasbourg case hinges on whether human rights laws protect the right to wear a cross or crucifix at work under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols.

They want the European Court to rule that this breached their human right to manifest their religion.

The Government’s official response states that wearing the cross is not a “requirement of the faith” and therefore does not fall under the remit of Article 9.

Lawyers for the two women claim that the Government is setting the bar too high and that “manifesting” religion includes doing things that are not a “requirement of the faith”, and that they are therefore protected by human rights.

They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.

I think that many of the people in the UK who push for the marginalization of religion from society are probably the same people who decry the decline of moral standards. It is a secularist fantasy that people will act as they ought to act when people think that there is no way that the universe ought to be. The UK is self-destructing because they are cutting themselves off from the ground of morality, and one of the pillars of Western Civilization.

News

Fascism: Canadian Supreme Court overturns right to religious liberty

6 Comments
Map of Canadian Provinces
Map of Canadian Provinces

UPDATE: Please vote “no” in this poll if you think tthat the Supreme Court is wrong.

Life Site News announces the death of religious liberty in Canada.

Excerpt:

In what’s sure to come down as a devastating blow to parental freedom, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously rejected this morning the pleas of a Christian family to have their child exempted from the Quebec government’s mandatory ethics and religious culture course.

“Exposing children to a comprehensive presentation of various religions without forcing the children to join them does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe the freedom of religion of L and J,” the justices wrote in the majority decision.

The high court’s ruling, released at 9:45 Friday morning, comes in the case of S.L. et al. v. Commission scolare des Chênes et al., which involved a Catholic family who took their school board to court after it refused to grant their child an exemption from the province’s controversial ethics and religious culture course (ERC).

The course, which seeks to present the spectrum of world religions and lifestyle choices from a “neutral” stance, was introduced by the province in 2008 and has been widely criticized by the religious and a-religious alike. Moral conservatives and people of faith have criticized its relativistic approach to moral issues, teaching even at the earliest grades, for instance, that homosexuality is a normal choice for family life.

Despite provincial legislation allowing for exemptions from school curriculum, the Ministry of Education has turned down over 1,700 requests, and had even moved to impose the course on private schools and homeschoolers.

Critics warned that a ruling against the family would have frightening consequences for parental authority and risked emboldening provincial governments across the country as they move to impose their own versions of “diversity” education.

To me, what this means is that in Canada, the state decides what children will believe, not the parents. The state will tax parents in order to pay for government workers and government programs. And the state will use these government entities to make the children believe in the state’s values.

What is ironic to me is that Canadians likely voted to grow government. There are a lot of people in Canada who think that it is a good thing for government to help the poor. Many, many economically illiterate Christians also voted to grow the size of government over the last few decades. They voted to empty their own pockets by raising tax rates. They voted to entrust secular leftist bureaucrats with more and more power. They voted to let the state educate their children with public schools and government-run day care. They voted to let government provide health care instead of letting individuals earn and save to pay for it themselves. They voted for taxes that are so high that women cannot afford to stay at home and homeschool their children – they have to work and hand their children off to strangers.

It is very important for Christians to understand that if they believe that it is government’s job to redistribute wealth from rich to poor, then they voted for this. If you believe in “social justice” then you are opposed to religious liberty – and the free practice of Christianity itself. Many, many Christians who don’t study economics and don’t get their economic views from the Bible think that it is a good thing to vote for bigger and bigger government funded by higher and higher taxes. Christians in Canada seem to be proud of their self-inflicted secularism. They think that taxpayer-funded abortions and taxpayer-funded sex changes are a great idea – because “health care is a right”.  They think that taxpayer-funded abortion and taxpayer-funded sex changes are authentic Christianity, supported by the Bible.

I have had Christians in Ontario tell me on Facebook that they are pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-family but that they favor allowing a secular government to force all taxpayers to pay for abortions and sex changes. That is what Canadian Christianity amounts to, in many cases – because they don’t understand economics, and what economic policies promote and secure rights – including the right to religious liberty. The right to religious liberty is only guaranteed when government is limited and the free enterprise system is strong. We need to stop deciding our views of politics and economics based on feelings and peer pressure and the desire to appear “compassionate”. We need to ask what the Bible says, and study economics in order to find out what guarantees the liberty we need to live out authentic Christian lives.

I think it’s time for Christians in Canada to get serious about applying the Bible to all of life – including economics.