There are a number of sayings of Jesus that can suggest context-free principles. It’s kind of like mathematic models.

There’s an principle of “diagnalization” in mathematical proofs used to rule out some propositions. The statement “There are no truthful statements” is a good example of a statement that nullifies itself. It must be nonsense, because in the normal context of evaluating statements there must be at least one case where it could be true. There can be no instances where this could be true, for we could not even say that we understand the sentence and mean it. By this, we pretty much know–if we can know anything at all–”There is at least one true statement” must be true. Of course, if that is the case, I’ve made another one: that it must be true. It might be the brute fact that there are no true sentences, but only that there are can ever make sense, we cannot pretend to convey any knowledge that way.

In the same way, we can counter absolute relativism, or even unqualified relativism. Any earnest apologist knows the technique. It’s just an isomorph of the above. Again, the universe can possibly resemble the universe proposed by relativism, but it cannot do so and be relativistic in that aspect at the same time and be communicable in that same sense. So you’ll find the Special Pleading universes of “Everything is relative except in that everything is relative.” The framework of the universe and our understanding of it are two different facts–or at least I think so.

I always try to council fellow apologists that rational order is not an absolute, but it is the only profitable assumption. (I interpret this as an illustration between the benefit of a positive assumption (a proto-faith) as opposed to a strict constraint to negative fact.)

We can always build on the assumption “Things make sense.” Until we accept this as a basis, all other discussion is noise.

So even though I’m using principles within the Christian perspective, I’m not simply using them in the conventional Christian way. The idea behind Jesus is God in human context–the Word made flesh. I can use implications in this, illuminated by Jesus himself, and not be restricted to a traditional Christian commentary. If you’ve read much Lewis, then you’ve seen these principles in action.

Now, to the HRC. If the HRC creates a climate hostile to Christians, then they’ve exposed a person or a group to hatred or contempt. Since “likely to expose” is a lesser level, it is already satisfied by the actions. Anything they would have said to influence this is then, by their definition “hate speech”. Thus if they are wrong in their assumptions, they could well fail their stated goal in this area.

The idea that Christian principles can be construed as “hate speech” relies on the idea that moral judgments working on a similar thinking group of people can result in private citizens enforcing that judgment (even if just through negative actions associated with hate or contempt). And again, if there were any self-proclaimed enforcers as a result of the HRC’s action, they again would fail in making a difference between their moral judgments and the Church’s.

So we have to believe that given an admirable HRC, enforcing moral censure on a person or persons does not result in a sort of moral indignation in like-thinking persons.

This is where they need to create a difference in kind, in order for it all not to fall apart. A potential, untested human nature that separates from an already exhibited human nature (and an accepted interpretation) on sheer stipulation alone that people who side with progressives are more orderly than those that don’t (likely, because of their “hatred”). Of course, you can’t create a difference by stipulation, so in the event that human nature allows self-appointed enforcers–of whatever the moral order is–as an innate part of social norming behavior, there is an argument that you are exposing the censured to public contempt. This argument would always be valid, until what you insisted as necessary human reaction in one case can be ruled out.

That’s why I said it was self-oblivious. Because it overlays assumptions onto a pattern of social norming behavior, i.e hateful actions, as a result of the pronouncement of social norms. But seeks to engage in norming behavior without even the admission that it could be likely to expose the other group by the same perhaps innate pattern. Thus they have to believe that they have remade man, just as every other naive progressive movement before them.

You seem to be saying simply that everyone is losing liberties and rights under these fascist commissions. Agreed. Never thought the contrary.

But these last decades there are always more attacks against anything remotely smelling of Christianity and it’s principles than anything else. Just like in the US.

I see the racket side of HRC, (wish the PM would!) but I fail to see why you don’t think Christians have been losing rights and others gaining them. That was my main point in that statement you take issue with.

Christains have lost rights and are losing rights every year.
Others are gaining rights – like gays – which no one can deny.

What about the pastor fined and constrained for his comments on homos? Is that not a major loss of rights? Even though not written clearly in legislation?

Has anyone ever tried to sue a gay for saying disgusting things of the church or christians? Never heard of it. And if they did would they obtain gain of cause? Doubt it, but I could be wrong.

Sihks gained the right to carry concealed daggers to school while all others are prohibited from such. And Christians lost the right to traditionally accepted public confessional schools.

How else can we explain the widely publicized “accomodements raisonables” and Taylor/Bouchard commission in Quebec?

We in Canada, like the rest of the world, are suffering from the proverbial “boiled frog” syndrome. Slowly Judeo/Christian values are being “boiled” away, denied and ridiculed. The “frogs” barely react.

Anyway, it seems that I’ve either missed your point or you’ve missed mine. So please clarify if you will.
Thanks

Stephen B has aptly put his finger on a central issue:

The problem is that many who are prone to abnormal behavior try to normalize it by joining with others of the same mind set. In a spirit of solidarity, they try to remake society in their own image and likeness, and they don’t mind that the proposed change is at the expense of the common good. Under those circumstances, it is no longer possible to keep the focus on the behavior and away from the person, because the person has now embraced a “movement.” That means that the criticism of the behavior must now shift to criticism of the group, because it has now been made a group issue. Again, the HRC has decided that we may not confront, speak, or even think (yes I said think) of those groups in a negative way. Hate crimes are, in fact, thought crimes, even when they are not always articulated as such. That is what makes them so dangerous. In some parts of Europe, you can be thrown in jail for speaking about the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. The United States and Canada are well on their way to reaching this stage.

In short, once a society accepts that there is a need for reformation from longstanding wrongs [historically in the West this was pioneered by the prophetic dimension of the Judaeo-Christian tradition], then there is a second level of issue. Namely, false reformation, in pursuit of the “normalisation” of self- and socially- destructive or oppressive conduct.

Q: So, how do we reliably discern the true from the counterfeit?

A: By looking under the hood: ethical analysis.

Namely:

1 –> For a community to be worth living in across time, there has to be a mutual recognition of ourselves as equally being human beings who should be respected.

2 –> As Locke therefore cited from Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity in Ch 2 Section 5 of his 2nd essay on Civil Gov’t, to lead up to the points and principles of rights, justice and liberty:

. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.

3 –> Our equality under or Creator who made us in his image as moral agents is thus a self-evident premise of morality and governance, thence of liberty and justice. Anything that tends to undermine this fundamental equality is destructive to the community and threatening to individuals in it.

4 –> This brings up another theme SB raised, when he spoke of hating sin while loving sinners. Namely, that we must respect the individual but since that individual is a responsible moral agent living in a community of other equally endowed moral agents, we must not condone self- or socially- destructive destructive and/or oppressive behaviour and agendas. (And, especially when the word-magic of “science” or that of “rights” or “equality” are trotted out to persuade us to accept injustice. Hence, inter alia, the punch in Expelled, and of course that in the Mark Steyn case now directly in view. Today, they have come for the Sternbergs, Gonzalezes, Pastor Greens, Ezra Levants and Mark Steyns. If they get away with this, they will come for us soon enough, and — as Martin Niemoller so poignantly noted not so long ago — there will be no-one there to stand with us in defence of liberty. So, we must stand together NOW!]

5 –> This brings up the delicate balance of rights and responsibilities, thence the role of justice and government as an institution of justice. For, “your right to swing your hand ends where my nose begins.” (A right is a binding moral claim we exert on others because of our inherent dignity as God’s creation. That means that rights are mutual. It also means that some behaviours cannot be rights, as they tend to the destruction of the individual or the community that sets up the context for justice and mutual benefits and prosperity.)

6 –> Next, we instinctively know that societies that allow some to get away with destructive arm-swinging and prevent protest or appropriate restraint or response, fall into chaos. Sadly, there are too many historical examples of this. And not a few current ones. [For instance, if we allow judges and agenda-driven advocates to redefine key terms and institutions without serious pause to see just what they are pushing for and where ti will lead, that runs right into the 1984-type situation where words lose their proper meanings, and become tools of destructive deception and oppression. If words like "rights" and "equality" can be redefined, so can "justice." In this case, "hate" and "contempt" seem to have been improperly re-defined, in service to highly questionable agendas, not least those sitting on the Judge's bench.]

7 –> Enter, Denyse’s point [and behind it both Locke's and Hooker's; beyond them lie Paul and Jesus and Moshe]: the magistrate, the one in Rom 13:1 – 7 who wields the sword of justice, is sometimes just as likely to become the dangerous arm-swinger as anyone else.

8 –> Thus, we the people, perhaps acting though our spokesmen and/or lower magistrates interposing themselves, have a right to restrain, correct, reform and if necessary remove such offending authorities.

9 –> Thus, the force of the relevant paragraph of the US DOI of 1776:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers [Cf Rom 13:1 - 7] from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

10 –> Now, when you have a court set up to prosecute thought crimes, using vague assertions and the like, which has a longstanding record of 100% convictions, then you have prima facie evidence that you are looking at once creeping, now accelerating despotism. And, when we see the perversion of rights being used to suppress hard-won liberty, that is manifest injustice.

11 –> Canada, my sister Commonwealth country, faces two alternatives: [1] descent into the dark night of tyranny, or [2] waking up and stoutly resisting tyranny before it is so firmly established that it will take rivers of blood to break its destructive iron-fisted hold.

So, Denyse, you have the support of this Jamaican.

For, much is at stake.

GEM of TKI

I didn’t think it was that subtle. But perhaps I should frame it a little bit more. I’m taking a look from the language taken at face value. We have a law that seeks to discourage any speech that is likely to expose someone to hatred or contempt.

I can accept that if I said “Muslims shouldn’t speak” I have gone over the line. What would be their judgment? An injunction on my speech.

I have to agree that that would be a reprehensible comment on my part, so I want to propose another case. What if I wrote a comment “Mr. Makkinejaad should have held his tongue,” about a case where I really believe that it would have been prudent, but somebody implies that it really means “Muslims shouldn’t speak.” (Because I’m Christian and some other Christian recently said something similar) and the HRC agrees. Or what if I quoted an Imam whose idea was that in a specific case “Muslims shouldn’t speak,” and the HRC ruled that it is likely to to expose someone to hatred.

The idea that I’m speaking hate, suggests that it is a hateful thing to want to suppress the voice of another. Their decision is to suppress my voice, regardless of whether their interpretation is the best one.

If the right to speech is dear, then injunctions against it are a grave act. Provided that the HRC is doing a good job and has the backing of the public, how can you prevent the all-too-human contempt against those whose abuse of their freedoms is so great as to deserve such injunctions.

You’ve already separated Boisson from the respectable members of society. You’ve just changed the definition of decency. It’s still likely that people will be viewed as indecent–especially those groups that are already more inclined to say things that can be interpreted as “hateful”.

Some U.S. press is covering this subject.

JJ: You seem to be making a very, very, subtle point, in which case you must use the most concrete language at your disposal. I am not sure what you are driving at here. The whole idea is to shape society so that it promotes virtue and discourages vice. We want society to hate bad behavior and love good behavior. A good culture is one in which it is easy to be good. A bad culture is one in which it is easy to be bad. The HRC is saying that Canadians may not discourage (what they perceive to be) bad behavior and that they may not, therefore, try to influence the culture for the good.

Beyond that, I am not getting your point. Are you saying that those who criticize bad behavior are violating the Christian imperative which bids us not to “judge?” As Christians, we are to hate the sin and love the sinner, which means that we must be circumspect and judicious in calling attention to bad behavior. If we hold to that standard, we can then hope that society will follow our lead and not be unduly harsh in enforcing the minimum moral standards for a well-ordered society. We want society to think of good behavior as “in” and bad behavior as “out.” If civilized people don’t tell society which standards to embrace, then the barbarians will do all of the shaping.

The problem is that many who are prone to abnormal behavior try to normalize it by joining with others of the same mind set. In a spirit of solidarity, they try to remake society in their own image and likeness, and they don’t mind that the proposed change is at the expense of the common good. Under those circumstances, it is no longer possible to keep the focus on the behavior and away from the person, because the person has now embraced a “movement.” That means that the criticism of the behavior must now shift to criticism of the group, because it has now been made a group issue. Again, the HRC has decided that we may not confront, speak, or even think (yes I said think) of those groups in a negative way. Hate crimes are, in fact, thought crimes, even when they are not always articulated as such. That is what makes them so dangerous. In some parts of Europe, you can be thrown in jail for speaking about the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. The United States and Canada are well on their way to reaching this stage.

So. My free speach may therefore expresses my hate. It can be my hate for you or your values.

If it hurts your feelings – then I simply don’t care. Shoudl I be penalized for hurting your feelings? If so, let God handle it. But maybe your/whoever’s mere existence might hurt my feelings. Then they shoudl be punished..right?

Difference is, I can live on and be an adult about it without crying like a baby at some pseudo court’s tit.

Okay. That’s off my chest… for now.

A related link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....a/hate.php