Here, Gil Dodgen points us to a story of a couple convicted of holding bible studies in their home. What’s interesting, to a foreign observer, is the astonishing comments in response:
Eric Anderson at 1. It seems this is a violation of a municipal code section. While it is possible someone is using the code section to unfairly single them out, it’s not clear from the article that anything nefarious is going on.
Oh, okay. Let me get this straight: In the United States of America, well known internationally for yakking up a storm about “freedom,” a government can come along and make anything it pleases illegal – and the only problem is if someone breaks the government’s rules? Yes, fine, we understand. Or not, as it happens.
Excuse me, I forgot. I only took two years of American history in school. I must have missed the part about the Americans breaking away from Britain so that they could found a society and culture where government polices every aspect of life. Stirring.
Canadians didn’t join the Revolution precisely because we feared “the law of three thousand tyrants.” Or as one of our notables put it: Better one tyrant three thousand miles away than three thousand tyrants one mile away.
Eric is happy with his three thousand tyrants, and who am I to spoil his fun? Just tell them not to come to Canada, Eric.
Yes, because here’s the bad news: There are bible studies – and other religious events – going on all over Toronto every night. No one would bat an eye at a procession of Buddhist monks around a nondescript house somewhere. Or a Catholic parade in the streets. Oddly, Canada is much more secular and has much less personal freedom in some respects than the United States (a subject of serious controversy just now). But no one would tolerate the kind of thing Eric Anderson thinks is just the way the heads break.
Better still, Paragwinn says,
2. Apparently, the bible-study couple felt that ‘section 9-3.301 of the Capistrano Municipal Code, which prohibits “religious, fraternal or non-profit” organizations in residential neighborhoods without a conditional-use permit’ [from the article], didnt pertain to them. How moral of them. And this has WHAT to do with ID? That ID is not religious nor require supernatural intervention?
WHAT that has to do with ID is this, and it’s embarrassing to have to spell it out: Governments that feel free to make and enforce such rules can easily be parasitised by Darwinists demanding the right to persecute anyone who examines their claims critically.
Oh wait, there’ve been a bunch of cases like that in the US recently …
Please, guys, tell me you’re not Americans. If you are, and you are representative, congratulations on proving that Canada was right, two centuries ago. Our current trainloads of useless adminbots know way better than to push it so you would have to get a permit to pray with your friends. That’s revolutionary thinking all right. But of what kind?