<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Everyone Disagreeing with the Herald&#8217;s Naomi Lakritz is a Bigot. Better start praying.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://askepticrtn.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://askepticrtn.com/?p=1214</link>
	<description>Knowledge is better than ignorance -- Enrico Fermi</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 00:34:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: askeptic</title>
		<link>http://askepticrtn.com/?p=1214&#038;cpage=1#comment-9837</link>
		<dc:creator>askeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 00:02:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://askepticrtn.com/?p=1214#comment-9837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Really? Well let&#039;s think about your take on representative government. My MP is a heterosexual. Most of them are. So according to you, I should expect plenty of male/female sex among the members of Parliament.  I should also expect active promotion of heterosexuality (go out there kids and have a good time, especially in public parks) and active discrimination against homosexuals (let&#039;s stone them to death like the Bible says) because that&#039;s what people voted for. What nonsense. Sexual orientation shouldn&#039;t have a bearing on qualifications for public office. Neither should religious belief. It&#039;s irrelevant, or ought to be. 

As for the principle of the separation of church and state you are dead wrong as to interpretation. This website is filled with quotes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the American version of the principle. He couldn&#039;t have been more clear as to what it meant. A search on Google will quickly reveal this. 

You are correct in saying that Canada has never formally adopted the principle. Few states have. It is, nevertheless, something that today, is a given basic characteristic of modern liberal democracy. So basic, you really don&#039;t have to spell it out. Like one person one vote. That isn&#039;t in the Canadian Constitution either but it is a characteristic of our democracy to which few would take exception. That&#039;s why the separation of church and state  is referred to as a &#039;Principle&#039;. It is, as Jefferson noted, the most important democratic principle of all because without it, you don&#039;t have a democracy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Really? Well let&#8217;s think about your take on representative government. My MP is a heterosexual. Most of them are. So according to you, I should expect plenty of male/female sex among the members of Parliament.  I should also expect active promotion of heterosexuality (go out there kids and have a good time, especially in public parks) and active discrimination against homosexuals (let&#8217;s stone them to death like the Bible says) because that&#8217;s what people voted for. What nonsense. Sexual orientation shouldn&#8217;t have a bearing on qualifications for public office. Neither should religious belief. It&#8217;s irrelevant, or ought to be. </p>
<p>As for the principle of the separation of church and state you are dead wrong as to interpretation. This website is filled with quotes from Thomas Jefferson, author of the American version of the principle. He couldn&#8217;t have been more clear as to what it meant. A search on Google will quickly reveal this. </p>
<p>You are correct in saying that Canada has never formally adopted the principle. Few states have. It is, nevertheless, something that today, is a given basic characteristic of modern liberal democracy. So basic, you really don&#8217;t have to spell it out. Like one person one vote. That isn&#8217;t in the Canadian Constitution either but it is a characteristic of our democracy to which few would take exception. That&#8217;s why the separation of church and state  is referred to as a &#8216;Principle&#8217;. It is, as Jefferson noted, the most important democratic principle of all because without it, you don&#8217;t have a democracy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://askepticrtn.com/?p=1214&#038;cpage=1#comment-9773</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 17:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://askepticrtn.com/?p=1214#comment-9773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Canadians still have representative government, then it follows that they elect people to represent them. And if people democratically choose to elect Christians to represent them, then there will be prayer in places of governance.  If secularists don&#039;t want them, then don&#039;t vote for them. 

Bear in mind, as well, that the separation of Church and State, which we never adopted in Canada, incidentally, does not mean the separation of faith from State, nor God from State.  It simply means that the State will not legally &quot;establish&quot; any one particular denomination or religion as the State-sanctioned religion of political choice. 

What separation intends to accomplish is the freeing of personal and religious conscience from the totalitarian temptations of State control; it does NOT mean any suppression of religious expression by those members of government duly elected.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Canadians still have representative government, then it follows that they elect people to represent them. And if people democratically choose to elect Christians to represent them, then there will be prayer in places of governance.  If secularists don&#8217;t want them, then don&#8217;t vote for them. </p>
<p>Bear in mind, as well, that the separation of Church and State, which we never adopted in Canada, incidentally, does not mean the separation of faith from State, nor God from State.  It simply means that the State will not legally &#8220;establish&#8221; any one particular denomination or religion as the State-sanctioned religion of political choice. </p>
<p>What separation intends to accomplish is the freeing of personal and religious conscience from the totalitarian temptations of State control; it does NOT mean any suppression of religious expression by those members of government duly elected.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
