Tag Archives: freedom from religion

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES

Lies, Atheism and the Pro-Abortion Movement

Not all atheists are pro-abortion and not all in the pro-choice movement are atheistic, but I have come to the conclusion that most are. What drew me to this conclusion? Let me explain…

In my position as president of Bus Stop Bible Studies I have had the opportunity to work with a number of crisis pregnancy centres, posting advertising panels inside buses with various Canadian transit companies to promote their compassionate ministries. We first posted panels with the North York Pregnancy Care Centre (now Pregnancy Care Centre) back in 2010. In the past five years there has been the occasional complaint but nothing of any consequence. In that same time the number of PCC locations in the GTA has increased to six, such is the demand for their services.

In mid-May, 2015 a certain Linda Star started an on-line petition in an attempt to get the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to remove the current PCC advertising panels. “Remove anti-choice ads on the TTC” reads the petition headline. What I found so amazing, and so disturbing, is that one individual can post a petition, the basis for which are lies and fabrication, and get 15,000 signatures in a matter of days. I guess this is one of the downsides of the social-media world in which we now live.

Below is the specific advertising panel used as the basis for the petition:

As I reviewed the written comments on the petition website I noted a number of recurring themes, so I copied and pasted a completely random selection of 1,090 comments into a spreadsheet and conducted some simple analysis based on key words.

Here are some conclusions I was able to draw:

The Pro-Choice community are not interested in choice – they are almost exclusively interested in access to abortion. Even though the co-sponsor of the bus ads is the JFJ Hope Centre adoption agency, apparently this is not a viable ‘choice’ for the pro-aborts. Of the 1,090 comments analyzed there were 18 references to adoption – all of them conveyed negatively:

“We don’t need Ads promoting Adoption on the TTC.”

“I think more woman should have abortions to help control the population. There are way to [sic] many people on this planet and I think if someone wants a kid they should adopt.”

“Pregnancy Care Centres are guilty of false advertising. They purport to provide information about options, but they only provide information about placing a baby for adoption, or raising it on your own. They do not provide information about the possibility of termination.”

The pro-abortionists are anti-religion or seemingly deny a moral compass. Of the 1,090 comments there were 164 direct references to religion, again all in the negative. 100% of the comments deny or exclude that the life of the child has any bearing on the conversation – all that matters is the woman’s right (choice) to kill her unborn child. The word choice was referenced to 412 times.

Reduced to an absolute, abortion is either moral or immoral. It is either right or wrong. Why would I suggest that the choice of abortion is a moral absolute? Simply put, the outcome of an abortion is an absolute – a dead human (there is no other specie it could be). One can argue the semantics of whether one calls this other living entity a child, a baby, a fetus or a zygote, but every living being has its origins at the moment of conception.

This bring us to question the definition and purpose of morality. One dictionary definition of morality is “Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. The extent to which an action is right or wrong.”

Comment left on petition: “a mythical god should not be used to influence the right of personal choice.”

There are three possibilities with regard to (an individual’s) morality:

It’s personal. My definition of what is right and wrong are the attributes that determine what I consider to be moral or immoral. The only logical conclusion is anarchy – anything goes. My sense of right and wrong is as valid as any other individual’s and therefore I am accountable to no one.

It’s societal. A simple majority of 50 + 1 establishes the rules. As goes the crowd goes (even when led by an articulate but deceptive ideologue such as the likes of Hitler and any number of the current political leaders) so goes right and wrong. Unfortunately the silent (moral?) majority remains silent and the noisy few establish the rules.

It’s an absolute. If morality is an absolute then there must be a Moral Law Giver. This Moral Law is that which distinguishes those that are pro-life and those that are pro-death. And let me be very clear, to be pro-choice is to be pro-death because the only ‘choice’ that is in question is death.

This brings us back to the reasoning for my drawing the conclusion that most pro-death/choice individuals are atheist, it is simply because they deny the reality of any moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are completely contradictory to their whole worldview and belief systems.

Ignorance. The other conclusion I have come to is that most pro-choice supporters are woefully and tragically ignorant of the facts and what an abortion entails. In the United States (and one would assume that Canadian statistics are comparative) 36% of abortions are carried out when the baby is 9-weeks or older and requires the killing and dismemberment of the baby by one means or another.

Lies. It has been said the abortion industry could not exist were it not for lies.

“A friend of mine was intentionally lied to at one of these “Crisis Pregnancy Centres” when she was a vulnerable, scared teen-ager seeking information and options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. These ads, and the well-funded deceptive organizations behind them, must be exposed, and stopped. All women have the right to make health decisions based on their own personal, moral, religious, and material circumstances – and have equal access to unbiased, honest information and services. Support “Options for Sexual Health”!

This is the typical rhetoric from the pro-death/choice camp. Obviously, the most glaring lie is that PCC’s don’t present choices – this is exactly what they do – and they will encourage their clients to make ‘right choices’.

As for being ‘well-funded…organizations’… all abortions in Canada are 100% government funded. Abortion clinics are for the most part very profitable companies pulling in an average of $2-million per year each.

Pregnancy Care Centres on the other hand are all not-for-profit, charitable organizations mostly run and supported by volunteers. Being ‘well-funded’ is as far from the truth as one can imagine. One can view their financial statements of the Government CRA website.

“I find this false advertising offensive!” Of course, if this were false advertising one wouldn’t be allowed to post it on Canada’s transit systems. Typically it is statements such as these that are so patently false.

Below are the key words analyzed:

CHOICE/CHOICES	412
WOMEN	384
(ACCURATE) INFORMATION/INFORMED	353
ABORTION	178
DECIDE/DECISION	170
RELIGION/RELIGIOUS	164
FALSE	99
PROPAGANDA	96
(WOMAN’S) BODY	79
LAW/LEGAL	66
MISLEADING	55
ANTI-CHOICE	53
RIGHTS	39
PRO-CHOICE	23
GOD	17
LIES	16
MORAL/MORALITY	12
ANGRY	8
BIBLE	3

A Selection of comments posted on the petition:

“a public institution, in this case the TTC, should not be supporting a specific political viewpoint.”

“A publicly owned corporation like the TTC can not be allowed to propagate religiously inspired mis-information.”

“A safe abortion is a woman’s right in Canada and I oppose any organization that impedes a woman’s right to correct information and free choice. Please remove the offending adds.”

“A woman needs factual and unbiased opinion when facing such an important decision; this is NOT a religious issue, but a health issue. This organization’s position is the remove the constitutional right of women to make a well-informed decision.”

“A woman’s body is her own! SHE will decide what to do NOT anyone else!!”

“Abortion is a sin, but denial of choice is a greater, more venial sin!! If there was no sin in the world it would already be paradise.”

“Abortion is a legal medical procedure and a basic human right for women and the shaming of women choosing this option HAS TO STOP.”

“Advertising for places that lie to the public should not be allowed in Canada.”

“Anti-choice ads oppose public health policy and seriously endanger women’s psychological and physical health. It is scandalous that a public service like TTC would publicize such anti-health and anti-women advertisements. TTC must remove the advertisements immediately. Maybe TTC should also apologize to women and to public health authorities.”

“Anything using religion as a weapon or providing incorrect information to force people into life choices, shouldn’t be allowed.”

“As a Christian I am very opposed to the anti-choice groups presenting themselves as “the” Christian choice. It is not.”

“As a physician, I’ve long wanted these ads gone, and am glad to sign this. The centres advertise that they’re there to “provide options,” but they’re not – instead, they present the option *they* think you should take, which is completely inappropriate. Currently, women in Canada are *technically* entitled to “safe and affordable” abortions, however, in reality, that doesn’t happen – the wait-times in Kingston are ridiculous, such that I’ve had to send patients to Toronto; we can’t even get a timely ultrasound to know if they’re far enough along to terminate. On top of that, any woman who’s been unlucky enough to have to face an unwanted pregnancy, and who has chosen to terminate, will probably agree with me that abortions in Canada are done without adequate analgesia – in the US, you have to pay for your abortion, but at least you have the option of anaesthetic. In Canada, you get given a token amount of medication, and contrary to what abortion clinic websites say, women do *not* describe the procedure as “uncomfortable,” but rather as “very painful,” and I base this on having worked at a Toronto clinic for 3 years. A bit off-topic, but worth adding! By all means, make your own choice, should you become pregnant, but just as God doesn’t belong in the bedroom, neither does he belong in the doctor’s office. Signed!”

“as a woman, i have the choice to act on my own body. brainwashing is unacceptable”

“Because choice is paramount.”

The Colon [ : ] and the Charter. The most important punctuation mark in Canada

Leave a reply

CHARTER+of+RIGHTS.jpg

In 1960, a pivotal moment in Canadian history took place. It was the year when the Canadian Bill of Rights, officially titled “An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” came into existence. This remarkable document was not only voted on but also signed into law by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. And right above his signature, in a powerful statement, Diefenbaker boldly proclaimed:

“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think is right, free to oppose what I believe is wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and for all mankind.”

These words encapsulated the essence of what it meant to be a Canadian—a citizen of a nation that cherishes and safeguards individual liberties. The Canadian Bill of Rights, though partially absorbed into the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, still holds legal weight to this day. However, the Charter has surpassed its predecessor in significance. It now proudly stands as an integral part of the Constitution, the highest law of the land—a testament to Canada’s unwavering commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of its people.

bill-rights-eng

In the realm of legal documents, even the smallest details can hold immense significance. Such is the case with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Interestingly, these two foundational texts share an almost identical introductory clause. It begins with the profound words: “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”

Screenshot 2023-06-06 at 2.15.13 PM

What sets this clause apart is its concluding punctuation mark—a simple colon [:]. This unassuming symbol holds the key to understanding the profound nature of the text that follows. It signifies that the introductory clause is not a complete sentence but rather a contextual introduction to the subsequent list of articles. Everything that unfolds after those two vertically aligned dots must be comprehended in the light of the words that precede them. The absence of this contextual foundation renders the articles of the Charter devoid of meaning. For instance, the recognition of the rule of law is indispensable for the enforcement of any section within the Charter.

While commonly referred to as the preamble, labeling this clause as such undermines its true essence. It is the very heart and soul of the Charter—an embodiment of its principles and values. The heading that precedes this introductory clause amplifies its importance, boldly declaring: “CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 (80) PART I CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.” This proclamation further solidifies the foundational nature of the introductory clause, emphasizing its indispensable role in shaping the Canadian legal landscape.

Imagine a charter as a powerful document, a grant of authority that bestows rights upon its recipient. In this case, it is the Federal and Provincial Governments of Canada who formally recognize and acknowledge the recipient’s prerogative to exercise those specified rights. However, it’s important to note that the granter retains superiority or sovereignty, while the recipient acknowledges a limited or inferior status within the relationship. This historical understanding of charters still holds true in modern usage.

Now, let’s delve into the controversy surrounding the introductory clause of the Charter, with its pivotal colon. Interestingly, the controversy primarily revolves around recognizing the supremacy of God and not, except for anarchists, the rule of law. Here’s the intriguing dilemma: regardless of its controversial nature, acknowledging the supremacy of God is the most crucial and fundamental aspect of the Charter. Ignoring it simply because it sparks debate would undermine the Charter itself. Just as removing recognition of the rule of law invalidates it, so too does the omission of God’s supremacy. It is through God’s supremacy that the rights listed within the Charter gain their context, and it is the rule of law that upholds and protects these very rights.

The statement affirming the supremacy of God remains etched into the original document, signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II and accepted on behalf of all Canadians by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on April 17, 1982. It holds a permanent place within the Charter, as indelible as the ink used to print it. Even if there were attempts to remove God’s supremacy, it would require physically altering the document itself. No amendment, no matter how widely sanctioned by provinces and territories, could erase it. As long as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists, the interpretation of God’s supremacy must endure. In fact, back in 1999, NDP MP Svend Robinson proposed the removal of the mention of God from the preamble, but his efforts led to his relegation to the backbenches.

Some argue that recognizing the supremacy of God contradicts Section 2 of the Charter, which upholds freedom of thought, conscience, opinion, and religion. However, this is not the case. The Charter specifically grants the right to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Similarly, one is free to hold the opinion that the Charter may have flaws, but it does not grant the lawful right to ignore it. In a notable Alberta Court of Appeal case, Justice Belzil emphasized that the preamble of the Charter acknowledges Canada’s Christian heritage, and courts should not misuse Section 2’s right to freedom of religion to erode the traditions rooted in this heritage.

The concept of the “separation of Church and State” is often invoked in discussions, but it is important to note that this is an American idiom and is frequently used out of context. In Canada, the situation is quite the opposite. Through the Charter, the Federal and Provincial Governments implicitly recognize the supremacy of God and, by extension, His church.

The significance of the rule of law mentioned in the Charter’s preamble was carefully considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Manitoba Language Rights case (1985). The court underscored the importance of the Charter’s preamble by affirming that “The constitutional status of the rule of law is beyond question.” One cannot simply negate one part of the preamble while endorsing the other. The interconnectedness of the principles must be acknowledged.

Theologian Douglas Farrow astutely points out that the word “Whereas” indicates that all sections of the Charter should be understood in light of the principle recognizing the supremacy of God. This includes the rule of law, which follows the supremacy of God in the preamble. Farrow argues that the rule of law is difficult to explain, interpret, or uphold without reference to the supremacy of God, as the development of the rule of law stems from Canada’s religious foundations. Essentially, a consistent moral law or right cannot exist without a Moral Law Giver.

On their website, the Canadian Secular Alliance poses an intriguing question: “If Canada officially recognizes the supremacy of one particular God, in what sense are Canadians free to choose their own religion and follow their own conscience?” However, the Alliance overlooks an important aspect. Within the boundaries of the Charter, individuals are free to exercise and follow their religion or lack thereof, as well as their conscience. For example, one can practice witchcraft or Satanism, but offering child sacrifices as an expression of these beliefs is not protected by the law. The legal recognition of the Biblical principle “You shall not kill [murder]” (Exodus 20:13) reasonably places limitations on the rights of those who engage in such practices.

In a related vein, Section 7 of the Charter declares that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”Additionally, Section 15 emphasizes that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.” Unfortunately, the Government of Canada has yet to recognize and include unborn children as part of the “Everyone” protected by the Charter. Unborn children are subject to significant discrimination based on age (their rights are typically only recognized at nine months), sex (gender-selective abortion), and mental or physical disability (with around ninety percent of children diagnosed with Down syndrome in Canada being aborted). It is worth noting that there is no explicit provision in the Charter granting anyone the right to end the life of a conceived child.

God, who is supreme, says of the unborn child, “Before you were in the womb, I knew you.” Jeremiah 1:5.

We would be a much more virtuous country if we took the Charter’s colon seriously (no pun intended).

The Canadian Bill of Rights – PDF download

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – PDF download