Tuesday July 19, 2005
- Canadian National Public Radio Broadcasts Call for State Control of Religion, Especially Catholicism
- Toronto Man to be Evicted from Apartment for Displaying Sign in Favour of Traditional Marriage
- Bush To Announce Supreme Court Nominee Tonight at 9PM EDT – Not Gonzales
- Abortion Drug Company Boasts That 460,000 American Babies Were Killed in Five Years
- Abortion Drug RU-486 Company Admits to Death of Five Women
- Anaesthesia for Unborn Babies Prior to Late Term Abortion – Bill Signed by Minnesota Governor
Canadian National Public Radio Broadcasts Call for State Control of Religion, Especially Catholicism
OTTAWA, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Just as Senate approaches the final vote on the gay ‘marriage’ bill, C-38, Canada’s national public radio CBC Radio has aired a commentary by a retired professor from the Royal Military College calling for state control over religion, specifically Catholicism. While parliamentarians dismissed warnings by numerous religious leaders and experts that such laws would lead to religious persecution, former professor Bob Ferguson has called for “legislation to regulate the practice of religion.”
“Given the inertia of the Catholic Church, perhaps we could encourage reform by changing the environment in which all religions operate,” Ferguson began his commentary in measured tones yesterday. “Couldn’t we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood. “
Ferguson continued, “Of course the Vatican wouldn’t like the changes, but they would come to accept them in time as a fact of life in Canada. Indeed I suspect many clergy would welcome the external pressure.”
The former professor pitched his idea as a boon to religious freedom. “We could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions,” he said. “They will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can’t religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?”
Ferguson, would see religion regulated by provinces in the same way professions are regulated. “I am an engineer so the model I am thinking about is rather like the provincial acts regulating the practice of engineering,” he said. “For example, engineers must have an engineering degree from a recognized university or pass qualification exams. They must have a number of years of practical experience and pass an ethics exam. The different branches: mechanical, electrical, civil and the like have a code of practice that applies to everyone. Why can’t religious groups do the same?”
Continuing his comparison Ferguson stated, “I envisage a congress meeting to hammer out a code that would form the basis of legislation to regulate the practice of religion. Like the professional engineers’ P.Eng designation, there would then be RRPs (or registered religious practitioners). To carry the analogy to its conclusion, no one could be a religious practitioner without this qualification.”
Ferguson also suggests ‘obvious’ prohibitions on religion including preaching of ‘hate’. “I won’t try to propose what might be in the new code except for a few obvious things: A key item would have to be a ban on claims of exclusivity. It should be unethical for any RRP to claim that theirs was the one true religion and believers in anything else or nothing were doomed to fire and brimstone. One might also expect prohibition of ritual circumcisions, bans on preaching hate or violence, the regulation of faith healers, protocols for missionary work, etc.,” says Ferguson.
The retired professor concluded his comments aired on CBC yesterday morning saying, “Now what is the point of proposing this? I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions. Yes religion can be a comfort and a guide, but we cannot take rules from our holy books and apply them to the modern world without democratic debate and due regard for the law.”
Listen to an audio recording of the commentary:
https://cbc.ca/commentary/media/20050718JUL18.ram
jhw
Toronto Man to be Evicted from Apartment for Displaying Sign in Favour of Traditional Marriage
TORONTO, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The famous line from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a satire on a Marxist revolution and the lies and distortions required to achieve and maintain it, is a comment on the hypocrisy of governments that proclaim the absolute equality of their citizens but give power and privileges to a small elite. In Canada, Christians upholding the meaning of sexuality and marriage have found that Orwell’s axiom is as relevant as ever and equality is often a one-way street.
In one small but very telling case, the axiom can be observed directly in the case of a man living in the notorious “Boys’ Town” neighbourhood of Toronto, an area dominated by seedy homosexual clubs and bathhouses. Lee Konik, who is opposed to legitimizing homosexual “marriage”, is being threatened with eviction from his apartment in Church street for publicly displaying his opinion that marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
In an article appearing in a Toronto weekly, the Catholic Register, reporter Dominic Nicassio wrote that Konik, after attending a Defend Marriage rally, took home a sign that read, “Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman,” and put it in his window where it remained through the annual Pride Week activities. On June 28 Konik was served a notice that informed him that his display of an opinion which differs from that which prevails in Church street and in Canada’s Parliament, had cost him the home in which he had lived for 25 years. The notice specified that he was to be evicted for having displayed a “controversial (sic) worded banner.”
Konik’s situation came to the attention of the Catholic Register when he wrote a letter to the editor asking, “Don’t we have a right to express our feelings and convictions? We live in a society that has freedom of expression and democracy, and we believe that all people are created equal. I am a person, one of the people of Canada.”
Mr. Konik, a parishioner at St. Paul’s Basilica, had previously displayed a sign that read, “Gay Shame” which resulted in his being forced to sign an agreement that he would not put up signs “that may be perceived as being directly or indirectly derogatory toward others, either during Gay Pride period or at other times.” The property manager Philip Eram, when asked if such an agreement violated Mr. Konik’s constitutional rights to freedom of expression, replied, “That would be up to a judge to decide.”
In the repeated experience with Canadian courts, however, Christians opposed to the homosexual political juggernaut, have discovered that while all Canadians may be equal, the politically correct supporters of the new sexual morality, are more equal than others.
“It’s not so much he has no rights, it’s the other way around. It sounds like someone who chose to ignore the rights of others, and the rights of the co-op,” Eram said. Mr. Eram, President of Toronto-based Precision Property Management Inc. however, declined to explain how the expression of a differing opinion could be a violation of anyone’s rights.
To express concerns to Philip Eram:
[email protected]
Read the Register coverage:
https://www.catholicregister.org/modules.php?op=modload&n…
(with files from the Catholic Register)
Bush To Announce Supreme Court Nominee Tonight at 9PM EDT – Not Gonzales
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With word having spread that Bush will not consider Attorney-General Gonzales for the vacancy to the Supreme Court after all, conservative activist groups began over the last week or so to change gears from the defensive to the offensive.
Following a large conference call of nearly 70 conservative representatives, Manual Miranda of the Third Branch Conference said that “There is a wide sense that it was not going to be Gonzales and not [to be] worried about that.” The Hill, US Congress’ newspaper, quoted a ‘conservative strategist’ as saying that “There’s a consensus that the White House has quietly signaled ‘message received’ on Gonzales.”
Early this afternoon, however, White House press secretary Scott McClellan announced that the initial stage of the battle is over and that Bush had already chosen his nominee and will announce his decision tonight at 9pm EDT.
That being the case, all eyes have turned towards the list of women judges that has increasingly attracted the spotlight. Ever since First Lady Laura Bush urged her husband to choose a woman on NBC’s Today Show on July 12, speculation has increasingly focused on the possibility that a woman would replace O’Connor. Conservative strategists have indicated that a conservative woman would be more likely to gain bi-partisan support in the Senate.
“It would be much better for us if we’re fighting over a solid conservative woman,” said Miranda. “It would be disarming and very beneficial.”
Topping the list of potential female candidates, most agree, are the two Ediths – Edith Jones and Edith Clement. Both are perceived as top contenders for the position, although Clement had been presented as the favourite by mainstream new sources. Conservatives, however, agree that Jones would certainly be the better candidate of the two.
“Edith Jones has the sharper definition as a conservative, tagged as pro-life in her perspective,” Hadley Arkes, a professor of jurisprudence at Amherst College, wrote last week for National Review Online. By all accounts Jones perfectly fits the constructionist, conservative mold which Bush has consistently pointed to as his model for choosing Supreme Court justices. Indeed, during a speech at Harvard in 2003 Jones expressed her strong desire for a return to the founding principles of the United States, saying that “unalienable rights were given by God to all our fellow citizens. Having lost sight of the moral and religious foundations of the rule of law, we are vulnerable to the destruction of our freedom, our equality before the law and our self-respect.”
But the outspoken, indisputable nature of her ‘right-wing’, conservative philosophy is likely to draw fire from Democratic senators, making for a difficult battle to gain the senate’s confirmation. For that reason many are pointing towards Edith Clement, who in many respects remains an ideological mystery, as the candidate that will likely be given a more peaceable reception by the senate. When Clement was appointed by Bush to the US Court of Appeals she was confirmed by the senate with a 99-0 vote.
Little is known or readily available about Clement’s judicial philosophy. “She has not dealt, in her opinions, with the hot-button issues of abortion and gay rights; and she has stirred no controversies in her writings or in her speeches off the bench”, remarked Arkes. However, that hasn’t stopped the strongly pro-abortion, pro-gay ‘marriage’ group, People For the American Way (PFAW), from putting Clement on a list of judges that confirm their “worst fears.” The reasons for their opposition to Clement, however, are decidedly unclear, proving just how ambiguous a candidate she is.
Indeed, conservatives seem to have their own reason to fear Clement; in the past Clement has expressed her belief that the Court has ruled on abortion, and that the Court’s previous decision should stand.
As Arkes concludes, in the instance that Bush nominates Clement, “the willingness to go with the candidate without a crisp, philosophic definition may mark the willingness to act, once again, within the framework defined by the other side.” All that remains now, however, until the inevitable senate battle begins, is to wait and prepare. Tonight, at 9PM EDT Bush will finally have the opportunity he needs to prove himself to his supporter base, to follow through on his many campaign promises.
jj
Abortion Drug Company Boasts That 460,000 American Babies Were Killed in Five Years
NEW YORK, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – More than 460,000 US women have used the abortion drug, RU-486, to kill their unborn children since the US Food and Drug Administration approved sale of the drug in 2000, the abortifacient’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, boasted in a press release Monday.
“Mifeprex® has been available in the U.S. for almost 5 years, and more than 460,000 women in this country have chosen it for early abortion since FDA approval in September 2000,” the Danco press release stated.
Campaign Life Coalition spokesman Rhonda Wood told LifeSiteNews.com, “I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement for 17 years,” adding, “it still blows me away that no one is considering the life that is being killed.”
The Danco press release was issued after the manufacturer decided to include a warning on the drug’s label citing potentially fatal side effects.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion Pill Company Claims More Than 100,000 Have Used Ru-486 In U.S.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/sep/02092404.html
Ru-486 To Hit U.S. Market This Week
https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2000/nov/00111402.html
See the Danco release:
Danco Laboratories Announces Updated Labeling for Mifeprex(R)
https://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050718/sfm061.html?.v=16
tv
Abortion Drug RU-486 Company Admits to Death of Five Women
NEW YORK, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Abortion drug RU-486 manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, admitted Monday that there have been five deaths of women using their baby-killing medication, but denied any link between the drug and the deaths.
“No causal relationship between these events and the use of Mifeprex and misoprostol has been established,” claimed Danco Labs Medical Director Richard Hausknecht, M.D., in a release. “Childbirth, menstruation and abortion, whether spontaneous, surgical or medical, all create conditions that can result in serious and sometimes fatal infection, and there is no evidence that Mifeprex and misoprostol present a special risk of infection,” he added.
The press release came as the company decided to include a label warning stating that serious side effects may accompany use of the pill, including death. “Danco is working with the FDA to update the Mifeprex® labeling, Medication Guide and Patient Agreement with this information,” the release claimed.
“It really boggles my mind that there is never the same reaction, when [a drug] has to do with abortion, that there is to [side-effects associated] with other drugs,” stated Campaign Life Coalition spokesman Rhonda Wood, in comments to LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday. Take Vioxx or Celebrex as examples, Wood continued. “Everyone is up in arms,” about the negative effects of these drugs, as reported by the media, she said. “It doesn’t make any sense at all, that no one is considering the chemical effects on women.”
In January, Concerned Women for America (CWA) posted on its Web site public documents revealing approximately 600 serious complications suffered by women who used the abortion drug RU-486. “While not all adverse events are reported, these reports confirm three deaths caused by RU-486, including 18-year-old Holly Patterson, who died after taking the drug in September 2003,” said Wendy Wright, CWA’s senior policy director. “Healthy women who take RU-486 can end up with life-threatening, even fatal, complications. Reports show case upon case of women being rushed to hospital emergency rooms after taking RU-486,” she said.
The abortion pill has been the cause of numerous deaths around the world. Legalized in the United States in September 2000, the pill has been responsible for the deaths of at least five women in North America. In 5-8 percent of cases, RU-486 causes severe complications. Danco, the drug’s manufacturer, has reported at least 400 adverse events since RU-486 was approved in the U.S.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage: Public Documents Reveal Numerous RU-486 Complications https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jan/05012403.html Abortion-Drug Manufacturer Sued by Parents of Teen Who Died Using RU-486 https://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/dec/04122101.html
See the Concerned Women for America report: “RU-486: Killer Pills” https://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1561&departmen…
tv
Anaesthesia for Unborn Babies Prior to Late Term Abortion – Bill Signed by Minnesota Governor
SAINT PAUL, July 19, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, last Thursday, signed a bill that will require doctors to tell women seeking abortion after 20 weeks gestation that fetuses might feel pain during the procedure and offer them the option of fetal anaesthesia. The “Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act,” was supported by the group, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, (MCCL) an affiliate of National Right to Life.
MCCL’s Laura Gese, told LifeSiteNews.com that the passage of the legislation was being seen as a victory by pro-lifers there. “It’s a compassionate bill, wherein, if we have decided that the child has to die, at least he won’t suffer horribly from a brutal death.”
The bill was not directly opposed by the National Abortion Rights Action League, since fetal pain is considered a side issue. Most Minnesota abortions are committed in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy and so the law does not affect them. Medical association opposition was dropped when the bill’s language was changed to preclude felony charges for doctors who failed to comply.
The real value of the legislation is in the message it sends to those engaged in the debate. Gese said that MCCL hopes the bill will have an effect similar to the partial birth abortion bans in raising the awareness in the public of the humanity of the unborn child. Gese said, “It strengthens the Woman’s Right to Know bill,” that required women be given accurate information about abortion and fetal development before abortion.
“It also brings to light the humanity of the unborn child and opens the discussion. It helps people to understand that this is a human being that we are talking about.”
Jim Hughes, National President of Canada’s pro-life lobby, Campaign Life Coalition, echoed this when he told LifeSiteNews.com, “If there’s anything positive it is to show that there is a human being present that does feel pain. And people who haven’t entered the debate yet will come into the discussion and be shown the humanity of the unborn.”
“By the same token,” said Hughes, “it’s certainly not a victory. It’s definitely an admission that these things are going to go on anyway and we can’t stop them yet. It’s a very, very small step forward, but it might cause some younger people to give the issue a second look, and in the end, gain their support for the life of the child.”
hw