In CBC’s world this makes sense

- May 24th, 2012

CBC John Baird storyThis morning CBC posted a strange story about Foreign Affairs minister John Baird and a speech he was giving in Washington, D.C.

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird will be the main speaker at a Washington, D.C., event celebrating religious freedom Thursday night to promote Canada’s planned Office of Religious Freedom.

But the event sponsor’s hardline stance on same-sex marriage and homosexuality is at odds with Baird’s support for gay rights around the world.

There are a couple of things wrong with this opening pair of paragraphs.

1. In the eyes of CBC, a church saying that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is a hardline stance. A few Christian churches have embraced same-sex marriage but not really any of the big denominations that are growing and attracting adherents. This church, the Seventh Day Adventists, are a pretty conservative denomination. Their position on same-sex marriage should not be regarded as a surprise or as hardline.

Also remember that in the United States is a country that is debating same-sex marriage. In every state that has had a straight up vote on just same-sex marriage the voters have rejected it. Yet to CBC, holding this position is a hardline stance.

2. Standing up for religious freedom does not mean you cannot stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians to be free from discrimination. The Canadian government, led by Baird, has called for an end to laws that see homosexuals jailed but they don’t advocate that every country adopt same-sex marriage.

Yet this article would have you believe that if you stand up for freedom for one group then you can’t stand up for the freedom of another group.

That brings me back to the first point, claiming that a church opposing same-sex marriage is a hardline stance. Is it possible that this author thinks that standing up for gay rights should include the government calling on churches to accept same-sex marriage? Is that the next step in the progressive march? Government power over churches and individual belief and worship?

Categories: CBC

Subscribe to the post

8 comments

  1. Brigitte bouchard says:

    Amen!
    My partner and I have been together for 23 years and married July 27th 2003 in Ontario.
    Although most of our gay friends oppose the conservative government, my partner and I are supporting this government whole heartedly. We believe and trust that PM Harper will not re-open the gay issue and that the fight for equality in Canada is over and I’d like like to add that we have no business telling churches what to do. Time for serious debates like the economy, the end of system abuse and the triumph of a good Canadian economy compared to the rest of the world falling apart.

  2. Alain says:

    I think Brigitte Bouchard makes a very valid point, one that the consensus media miss.

  3. Kim Lyvang says:

    This is a tired and stupid argument. If gays and lesbians want to get married, let them. If you do not like it? So what. If you use your religion against it, we should be allowed to make your church pay taxes. Keep your religion away from our individual beliefs.
    Maybe instead of freedom of religion, it should be freedom from religion.

  4. Mark says:

    I have always believed that Gays had a right to be married. What the CBC doesn’t get is the state cannot tell the church whom to marry. If the Roman Catholic Church, Seventh Day Adventists and other more conversative Christian Churchs ( And Islam, Orthodox Jewry, Hinduism and Buddhism) all don’t want to marry Gays, then that is their choice. Churches are supported by their members, they do NOT force anyone to belong to them and they do NOT take tax dollars. Ergo, the government has no business telling them whom to marry.

    I think most gays instinctively know that there is more than enough Christian churches enlightened enough to respect their choice for gay marriage and go there. AT some point, there needs to be a little common sense…..

  5. kjh says:

    Ah, yes. Let the bigotry begin — against the Christian Church.

    The Big Lie is that “if you don’t love my lifestyle, you don’t love me.” Utter nonsense and totally untrue. When I don’t like something my children do, it doesn’t mean I don’t love them. Sometimes I don’t like what they do because it’s hurtful to them or others; it doesn’t mean I stop loving them: hate the sin, love the sinner. We’re all sinners, by the way, whatever our sexual orientation.

    I appreciate Brigette’s comments; let gay people live together and marry according to civil law but don’t insist that the Church, which has existed for over 2000 years — not a reason, Kim Lyvang, to disenfranchise it or punish it — and has provided education, food, shelter, and social programs for countless millions around the world, either “bless” these unions or provide same-sex marriages, an action which is completely contrary to all of the Church’s teachings.

    Kim Lyvang might be astonished to see a world which is free from religion; take Christian churches out of any environment, leaving the provision of education, food, shelter, and social programs solely to government, is a model that’s been tried — and has failed — in every Communist country over the past century. ‘Not a pretty picture.

  6. Carlos Perera says:

    So . . . in Kim Lyvang’s dystopia, churches would be punished for espousing their own moral theology? Gee, feel the tolerance: you get the Ernst Röhm political dialogue award for that one, Kim. No wonder so many homosexuals were prominent in the founding of the Nazi Party! I hope that Moslems, as they wait in the wings for their turn at the helm of Western Civilization, are taking notes.

  7. kjh says:

    Mark: ” … there is [sic] more than enough Christian churches enlightened enough to respect their choice for gay marriage and go there.” You’re right: Any gay couple who wishes to be married in the church can do so in any number of Christian denominations, so why pick on the Christian churches which don’t by conviction?

    Though I very much appreciate your comments, Mark, I wonder about your comment which I quoted above. “Enlightened” is in the mind of the beholder. The so-called “enlightened” Christian churches you’re alluding to are losing members at record rates. OTOH, the Christian churches in North America and around the world, especially in Asia and Africa, which uphold and defend Gospel teachings (check out Romans 1), while at the same time showing compassion and care in their outreach to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation, are growing by leaps and bounds.

    God will not be mocked, whether you think of Him and His followers, aka the Church, as enlightened or not! (Could you enlighten me as to why you consider that churches who are on board with the gay lifestyle, which puts its participants at risk of high rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, violence in relationships, and over 50 opportunistic diseases, including HIV/AIDS, are particularly enlightened?)

    Muchas gracias!

  8. 66Scorpio says:

    Canadians are sort of in the twilight zone on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but many don’t realize it because of the narrative spun by the state broadcaster and its supporters.

Comments are closed.