×

Loading...
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务
Ad by
  • 推荐 OXIO 加拿大高速网络,最低月费仅$40. 使用推荐码 RCR37MB 可获得一个月的免费服务

@

有信仰的自由,也有不信仰的自由。在世俗社会,还是政教分开好。

本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛This might interest you: Prayers at Quebec city council meetings violate constitutional rights: Supreme Court

Read full article

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer.

In a unanimous decision today, the country’s top court said reciting a Catholic prayer at council meetings infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.

The ruling puts an end to a nine-year legal battle that began with a complaint filed by atheist Alain Simoneau and a secular-rights organization against Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay.

In 2011, Quebec’s human rights tribunal ordered an end to the prayers, demanded that a crucifix in the city council chamber be removed and awarded damages to Simoneau.

When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others

But the outspoken mayor fought back, raising money from supporters through the city’s website. Tremblay said it was a battle for Quebec’s Roman Catholic heritage.

The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the tribunal in 2013.

The appeals court expressed some reservations about religious symbols in the council chamber, but concluded the city imposed no religious views on its citizens.

FilesJean Tremblay It ruled reciting a prayer does not violate the religious neutrality of the city and if the recitation interfered with Simoneau’s moral values, the interference was trivial.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case last year.

While the case was before the courts, the prayer was replaced by two minutes of silence.

Ottawa City Council began its work Wednesday without its usual morning prayer following the decision.

Mayor Jim Watson said the city would withhold the prayer and review its practice in light of the high court ruling.

“Minutes ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued (a) ruling on whether a municipal council’s recitation of a prayer before a meeting offends the Charter protection of freedom of conscience and religion,” Watson said in a statement. “As the Supreme Court has determined that reciting a prayer may contravene a municipal government’s duty of neutrality on matters of religious belief, and as it will take some time to fully assess this lengthy decision, City Council will not say a prayer this morning and will be reviewing this practice to ensure that the City of Ottawa conforms to the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

As the Supreme Court has determined that reciting a prayer may contravene a municipal government’s duty of neutrality on matters of religious belief … City Council will not say a prayer this morning and will be reviewing this practice to ensure that the City of Ottawa conforms to the Supreme Court’s ruling

Council meetings usually begin with Watson asking people to stand as he recites a short two-line prayer that begins “Almighty God …” After a minute of silence, O Canada is sung and the meeting begins.

The legal melee was one of several high-profile cases in recent years that have dominated the social discourse in the province, centred on themes like identity, values and religion.

The Supreme Court said Canadian society has evolved and given rise to a “concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs.”

“The state must instead remain neutral in this regard,” the judgment said.

“This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.

“When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”

Tremblay is only expected to address reporters on Thursday.

Sent from SavySoda News App for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad


Sent from my iPad更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Sign in and Reply Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 枫下茶话 / 社会 / 有信仰的自由,也有不信仰的自由。在世俗社会,还是政教分开好。 +1
    本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛This might interest you: Prayers at Quebec city council meetings violate constitutional rights: Supreme Court

    Read full article

    OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer.

    In a unanimous decision today, the country’s top court said reciting a Catholic prayer at council meetings infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.

    The ruling puts an end to a nine-year legal battle that began with a complaint filed by atheist Alain Simoneau and a secular-rights organization against Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay.

    In 2011, Quebec’s human rights tribunal ordered an end to the prayers, demanded that a crucifix in the city council chamber be removed and awarded damages to Simoneau.

    When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others

    But the outspoken mayor fought back, raising money from supporters through the city’s website. Tremblay said it was a battle for Quebec’s Roman Catholic heritage.

    The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the tribunal in 2013.

    The appeals court expressed some reservations about religious symbols in the council chamber, but concluded the city imposed no religious views on its citizens.

    FilesJean Tremblay It ruled reciting a prayer does not violate the religious neutrality of the city and if the recitation interfered with Simoneau’s moral values, the interference was trivial.

    The Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear the case last year.

    While the case was before the courts, the prayer was replaced by two minutes of silence.

    Ottawa City Council began its work Wednesday without its usual morning prayer following the decision.

    Mayor Jim Watson said the city would withhold the prayer and review its practice in light of the high court ruling.

    “Minutes ago, the Supreme Court of Canada issued (a) ruling on whether a municipal council’s recitation of a prayer before a meeting offends the Charter protection of freedom of conscience and religion,” Watson said in a statement. “As the Supreme Court has determined that reciting a prayer may contravene a municipal government’s duty of neutrality on matters of religious belief, and as it will take some time to fully assess this lengthy decision, City Council will not say a prayer this morning and will be reviewing this practice to ensure that the City of Ottawa conforms to the Supreme Court’s ruling.”

    As the Supreme Court has determined that reciting a prayer may contravene a municipal government’s duty of neutrality on matters of religious belief … City Council will not say a prayer this morning and will be reviewing this practice to ensure that the City of Ottawa conforms to the Supreme Court’s ruling

    Council meetings usually begin with Watson asking people to stand as he recites a short two-line prayer that begins “Almighty God …” After a minute of silence, O Canada is sung and the meeting begins.

    The legal melee was one of several high-profile cases in recent years that have dominated the social discourse in the province, centred on themes like identity, values and religion.

    The Supreme Court said Canadian society has evolved and given rise to a “concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs.”

    “The state must instead remain neutral in this regard,” the judgment said.

    “This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.

    “When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”

    Tremblay is only expected to address reporters on Thursday.

    Sent from SavySoda News App for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad


    Sent from my iPad更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
    • 圣经里也是要求分开的, 路加福音20:25 耶稣说:“这样,凯撒的物当归给凯撒, 神的物当归神"// 魁北克这个是个传统习俗问题,就象美国总统就职要手按圣经宣誓, 不懂就别扣帽子。
      He said to them, "Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
      • 是最高法院的裁决,帽子说从何说起?
        • 人家说 "it was a battle for Quebec’s Roman Catholic heritage" 文化遗产, 不完全是宗教问题。好多地方政府就是在过去的教会建筑里,要从文化里彻底剔除出宗教,就要先把历史改了。
          • 当年安省在讨论是否在穆斯林社区实行Shania law时,支持者的argument 也是为了继承穆斯林的历史和文化heritage....但在一个现代的世俗社会,拿“继承一个历史的传承” 是不够有法理依据了, 尤其是涉及到政教分开的时候 。
            • 你真明白,假明白。Roman Catholic heritage是加拿大文化遗产,不是法律,所以法院要废除自然就有争议。 穆斯林Shania law是加拿大文化遗产?
              • 当然有不同之处,一个是加拿大白人移民的历史文化传统,一个是加拿大穆斯林移民的历史文化传统,一个来得早些,一个来得晚些。都是占了人家印第安人的地盘。扯远了,两件事归根结底,都是想用宗教的仪式和礼法来管理,约束,或者影响世俗社会的一种企图, 结果都是没成。
                • 只要一提宗教问题,你就死机。//西方律法和基度教本来就千丝万缕的联系,比如十戒。这归根到底是个文化问题。就像中国是佛教文化,虽然本身的宗教是道教,你非让大家都改穆斯林就是有文化阻力啊。 +1
                • 一边去吧。女王的称谓有一个就是基督徒的保护者。穆斯林要找文化应该去沙特。这都不知道还来辩? +1
            • 就像香港法官带假发,您可以认为很可笑,很无聊,很要修改。但来一群人要求法官都带包头巾也不容易通过
              • 带假发很可笑,却是他的自由,如果法官要求底下所有人都带假发,就是另外一回事情了。一个是自愿,一个是要求别人,很不同的。
                • 这根本就不是自由,这是一个仪式,文化遗产。
                  • 如果一个“文化遗产”影响了人们的自由,就会被challenge, 像我这个例子,就会被废除。
                    • 没人说不可以更改啊? 你可以要求废除,信的人也可以要求改为默祷2分钟,自己祷告自己的神; 什么都不信的可以利用这两分种打打磕睡; 不是更尊重所有人。干什么非要打到一方你才开心?
    • 世俗社会,无法无天
      • 看来工业革命大航海前的中世纪宗教社会是您的理想国。
        • 貌似人类取得进步全靠你们搞基的?还记得索多玛往事吧?那比中世纪早多了。
    • "Tennessee House votes Bible as official state book" - 按凯撒之说,这么做可也不符教义呀。
      • 这只是个bill不是law,个人提啥动议都成,穆斯林多了还要古兰经做official state book呢。
        • House已经通过了,再往后走走就是law了。
          • 美国是个以基督教立国的国家,通过也不希奇。
            • 美国宪法的政教分离也是传统。田纳西即使立法通过,州长也不veto, 也过不了最高法院那一关。
              • 既然是这样,就更不用激动啦。有制约机制啊,基督教也没说唯我独尊。
            • 个人理解,美国的国父们是用god来against king,洪秀全也用过。政治家有几个是真教徒?
    • 国歌也改了吧