The Shotgun Blog
« Religion of Peace Attacks Canadians | Main | Hard Way & Easy Way »
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The trouble with SFU's new image
The controversy over Simon Fraser University's decision to remove two crosses from its coat of arms has flared up again thanks to the university's decision last week to also unveil a new logo and graphics package. The logo, by the way, is simply the letters "SFU" in the bottom right quadrant of a rectangle.
Anyway, news of the new logo has set off a flurry of commentary, on an SFU professors' web forum, about the coat of arms. The best of the entries is the following, from the great and iconoclastic Charles Crawford, Professor Emeritus of Psychology:
The crosses were not the first traditional Canadian symbols to disappear from SFU. The first disappearances that I recall were from the convocation ceremony. Originally the ceremony was framed by two anthems. It began with O Canada and closed with God Save the Queen. A prayer followed our notational anthem. The tradition was that the prayer rotated among the different religions groups on campus. About 10 years ago both the prayer and God Save the Queen disappeared. Since the disappearances I have often felt that the convocation ceremony ends with a whimper. It peters out and people wander from their seats to the reception.
Maybe it was necessary to remove these traditional Anglo-Christian symbols in the interests of diversity. However, it seems to me that many of the ideas that make our diversity possible come through both Christianity: for example, "Do unto to others what you want them to do unto you" and "Blessed are the peacemakers," and our British heritage: for example, the Magna Charta and the British Bill of Rights." My reading of the newspapers and watching of TV suggests to me that there are very few places in the world that respect and value diversity in the way that we do. My question is "How many places are there in the world that think of diversity and value it as we do that do not also have both a Christian heritage and experience with the British concept of democracy and the rule of law?" If I am right in thinking there the number is small, the proponents of diversity might worry a bit about killing some of the geese that laid the golden egg.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on February 11, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834e2cfa453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The trouble with SFU's new image:
Comments
Sounds Canada's version of the movie 1984.
Didn't they erase the population’s individualism /identities by deleting symbols that attached them to their own past?
Posted by: missing link | 2007-02-11 5:39:06 PM
Magna Carta methinks, not charta. This guy has a PhD?
Posted by: George | 2007-02-11 7:32:32 PM
Hey George ... stick this in your criticism. Have you in your non PHD state ever heard of a dictionary?
Main Entry: Mag·na Car·ta
Variant(s): also Mag·na Char·ta /'mag-n&-'kär-t&/
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin, literally, great charter
1 : a charter of liberties to which the English barons forced King John to give his assent in June 1215 at Runnymede
2 : a document constituting a fundamental guarantee of rights and privileges
Posted by: Duke | 2007-02-11 8:21:04 PM
It is where diversity is valued, except that which started the respect for diversity in the first place.
This is what we call the new place, CANADA.
I never saw any problem with singing O Canada and God Save the Queen. This is a proud part of this nation's history and culture. Tragic that it has been removed from schools, and now Universities across this great land, in the so-called fake state of respect for diversity. It we were to really ad diversity, we might add a few songs, but never leave those that made this place what it is today!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-11 11:48:06 PM
Diversity means finding ethnics who will say what you want them to say - diversity of opinion is not allowed.
Posted by: Philanthropist | 2007-02-12 12:13:49 AM
The "Queen" and "Oh Canada" remain an integral part of virtually all University events in the Atlantic Region as far as can be determined. I have not attended a Graduation at one of our Atalntic Canada Universities for years, but the last time I did I was impresssed with the way Dalhousie UN Students
sang "Oh Canada" in both official languages. Multiculturalism has had no impact here and will not have. The "Queen" is and will remain our National Anthem. The Pearson contrived Maple Leaf Ensign is not acceptable in many many Maritime Homes including mine and my late Father's we recognize the Union Flag or as the Soldier's called the Red Ensign in World War II, the Jack Flag with the Union Jack in the corner. My family came to the British Colony of Nova Scotia in 1819
before "Canada: existed. What Simon Fraser U does
out in the middle of nowhere BC means nothing to us. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-12 3:27:19 AM
Jack: Having attended our daughter's MBA graduation at Dalhousie in October of 2004, patriotism is alive and well, O Canada was on the Convocation Programme.
At that time we had the pleasure of a very long speech by the recipient of an Honorary Doctorate of Laws, Wilfrid Creighton, 100 years old in that year.
That is one remarkable person who might tell SFU and a few others about Queen and Country.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-12 6:10:49 AM
McLeod: "What Simon Fraser U does out in the middle of nowhere BC means nothing to us."
I know what you mean but, sadly, what happens at Simon Fraser U. reflects the trend in Canada to denigrate and obliterate both our British and Judeo-Christian heritage. It's happening across Canada--and the more power to Maritimers for not falling for the bogus Maple Leaf rag, etc. But could you get them to stop voting Liberal, please?
That's something I could never understand. I lived for six years in Antigonish and valued and appreciated the Highland Scots' common sense, their sense of duty, their putting a high premium on education, their respect for and encouragement of family life. But I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out why, with those values, they kept the Fiberals in power.
What's the explanation? If we could get these common-sense Scots to vote their conscience, they'd never vote for another Liberal again...
Posted by: 'been around the block | 2007-02-12 6:18:19 AM
When it comes to politics it appears our Atlantic Canadians seem to feel their allegiance to Canada is somehow connected to voting Liberal. It appears it's an undying part of their heritage.
It also defies logic. It goes entirely against what most of them believe in.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-12 6:41:38 AM
Actually the "Highland Scot Nova Scotian" is a myth
perpetrated by Cape Breton politicians. Most are Scots Irish like us, My Father's family came from Ulster in 1841. THe Ulstermen created British Canada for the most part, and also most of what is now the United States. General Washington valued "his Ulstermen" as his best soldiers. Our families have grown up in the traditional British values which in actual fact created this Country. We have an opportunity now with Stephen Harper to refocus those values. In the UK today the British Government is saying to Immigrants" if you do not learn to communicate in English" you will receive no financial or related benefits. Needless to say, I have no use or sympathy for "multiculturalism"
whatever. My well educated professional daughters think I am a bigot - which I have assured them I am - so are all my partners. Ladies" "The Queen"
Macleod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-12 6:44:10 AM
As the song goes "Twas the Scots that built this Country"!!
Look who's taking her down.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-12 6:51:53 AM
Yes Indeed. The real Highland Scots Heritage is found in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, with small
enclaves in Nova Scotia and P.E.I. Scots in Nova Scotia from the Estate of the Duke of Argyle came to Pictou NS on the Hector (Hector Ship) but they moved
on to North and South Carolina (they would have gladly hanged the owners of the Notorious Ship and burned it). Most of the Fraser Highlanders who formed the bulk of Amherst's Army on the Plains of Abraham
and who conquered French North America settled in
Quebec and what is now Ontario, plus New England.
Hudson's Bay (The Selkirk Scots) created what is now Manitoba - there is nothing dull about Canadian History - MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-12 10:53:23 AM
Jack tell your daughters, as I tell mine, that you would only be a “bigot” if you were saying that you were special and outsiders could not join you in your values. In fact, an argument can be made that it is the multi-culti’s who are the bigots.
Because mulit-culit’s want to keep people in their respective silos as evidenced in France. If you aren’t born French you can’t become French in a “pur laine” sort of way.
However, it’s not bigoted to say that you believe in a set of values that have been proven to be liberating the world over and that newcomers are welcome to join in .. Ulster, Scots or not.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-02-12 11:27:21 AM
nomdenet is so typical of white liberal hypocrites. The appearance of racial rectitude is perhaps their most highly-regarded virtue, because it's a throw away and it comes at essentially no cost.
They don't have to live with their gangsta friends, in the Jane-Finch corridor, they don’t have to have aboriginal neighbors, they don’t have to send their children to schools where no one speaks English, and they don’t have to invite Somali refugees to their dinner parties. They can be racially respectable without doing anything. Just gush about the things they can carefully avoid: integration, and diversity.
It's the same with the newcomers. They can live in their monolithic monocultural neighbourhoods.
"If it weren't for the snow and salt in the parking lot, Plaza McLaughlin Village outside Toronto could as easily be in New Delhi. There is goat and lamb for sale at the Doaba meat shop. The latest Bollywood hit, Guru, is at West End Video. You can do your taxes, go to the doctor and book a flight in Punjabi. And the clock in the photocopy shop shows the time in New Delhi. The only Caucasian faces are the officers at Brampton's community policing station.
Amrita Kumar-Ratta, 17, dances with her mother and younger sister at their home in Brampton, Ont. 'I am Indo-Canadian,' she says. 'Although I have grown up in Canada, I want to get married in India. My Indian-ness has always been with me.' (Kevin Van Paassen/The Globe and Mail)"
And are quite happily separated from their Caucasian "countrymen".
"York Region Superintendent Vicki Bismilla, who is in charge of equity issues for the board, has watched the ethnic transformations of whole schools, such as Armadale and Coppard Glen, in Markham.
More than 80 per cent of the student populations at the schools, built in what used to be mostly white neighbourhoods, now speak English as a second language.
Asked if that transformation is the result of immigration or white flight, Bismilla is unequivocal: "White flight, big time.''"
And while those Anglo-Celts who founded the country argued for consideration of refugees in legitimate circumstances, they still believed that Canada had the right to remain overwhelmingly European. Self-determination of a nation's demography is a fundamental right. Only lying self-loathing white hypoctites are contemptuous of it, because they of course, are morally superior beings, and it takes so little effort.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-12 1:35:31 PM
Anglo-Celts who founded this Country never in my lifetime argued for consideration of Immigration
- interest in Refugees ended after the so called Hungarian Revolution. The fact that all the "ethnics" immigrants who came to Ontario (Toronto)
of varying shades, religions, colors, primary loyalities elsewhere was contrived by the Liberal Party of Canada, I know, I was there, in Toronto
the good which all of us said at the time would ruin the Greatest City in Canada, which it did.
Many of the men I served with in the RCAF became Police Officers in Toronto who warned local pols what they were facing with ignorant and ruthless black hoodlums from every half assed country on the Globe - and they too, were right. They had to go out on the streets and face the bastards. Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-02-12 1:50:39 PM
"Anglo-Celts who founded this Country never in my lifetime argued for consideration of Immigration"
Consideration for "refugees", Macleod, not immigrants.
"The attitudes of the Reverend Claris Silcox illustrate the restrictive notions of human rights among Anglo-Canadian activists. Deemed the 'United Church's most vigorous and effective foe of anti-Semitism,' Silcox wrote articles condemning anti-Semitism in the 1930s. He even supported the admission of Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, at a time when this stance was highly unpopular in Canada. Between 1940 and 1945 he served as the director of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews. Yet Silcox also stated in 1941 that Canadians were justified in seeking to keep their country 'dominantly and overwhelmingly European.'"
http://www.utpjournals.com/product/chr/821/821-PATRIAS1.html
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-12 2:38:35 PM
"- interest in Refugees ended after the so called Hungarian Revolution. The fact that all the "ethnics" immigrants who came to Ontario (Toronto)
of varying shades, religions, colors, primary loyalities elsewhere was contrived by the Liberal Party of Canada, I know, I was there, in Toronto
the good which all of us said at the time would ruin the Greatest City in Canada, which it did."
The Diefenbaker Tories were no different, Macleod.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-12 2:42:45 PM
There’s no such thing as race. There is such a thing as cultures, some good, some that should just die out in a Darwinian way.
Multi-culti’s say all cultures are equal; therefore it is OK to do what DJ suggests which is to keep cultures in silos. SFU no longer wants to represent core Canadian values; it doesn’t want to spend time and energy explaining to special interest groups that our history means something to us. So SFU let’s our history dissolve. That would be fine with me if it were a private institution.
The SFU situation underlines why we need to privatize universities. SFU no longer represents Canada anyway, so why should the taxpayers fund them. If SFU says there’s no core Canadian culture that it wants to represent, then we don’t need SFU as a government funded institution.
Those of us that understand the dangers of multi-culti being mistaken for tolerance are now saying, it is necessary to integrate with our society if you want to immigrate to Canada.
DJ is like the Liberals and SFU who all see opportunism in victimization. He bangs that drum because it makes him feel superior. He has no respect or tolerance for the idea that people of all cultures who come to Canada want the same thing, freedom and opportunity.
Provided everyone assimilates into the democratically established values that we’ve agree upon.. all are welcome. If they don’t want to assimilate don’t come here. If they don’t like the masthead on our taxpayer-funded universities, they should fund their own. That also goes for the secular extremists that were born here and don’t grasp what it takes to get and keep our liberty.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2007-02-12 2:42:55 PM
It's the loyalties elsewhere that we all should be concerned with. We accept people from all over the globe and many, if not most, have zero history with us. They have to adapt to our society, not the other way around as the Lefties are wont to promote, enabled by our Charter and Multiculturalism policies.
Under our Multi-Culti policies and Charter Rights those people have the same rights we have as soon as they land on our soil.
Over time we will have a Canada so revamped she will not resemble what she was successfully built on. In very short order we will have challenges in our Supreme Court and presto, we'll have something called 'Sharia Law',with no idea what it is.
Many of the people who came from countries run by those laws are happy to escape them but our Charter gives Zealots the license to keep control.
The values that built this Country would serve any human on the planet to live a peaceful, productive and happy life. Those values were Judeo-Christian.
Anyone who does not abide our way of life should not consider living here.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-12 2:49:29 PM
"Multi-culti’s say all cultures are equal; therefore it is OK to do what DJ suggests which is to keep cultures in silos. SFU no longer wants to represent core Canadian values; it doesn’t want to spend time and energy explaining to special interest groups that our history means something to us. So SFU let’s our history dissolve. That would be fine with me if it were a private institution."
If nomdenet actually believed what he writes, then he would support the Reverend Silcox's position. Core Canadian values in 1940, which is part of our history, was the right to self-determination. Homogeneity, much to nom's dismay, does not produce "silos". Homogeneity, as Israel discovered, enhances survival.
"DJ is like the Liberals and SFU who all see opportunism in victimization. He bangs that drum because it makes him feel superior. He has no respect or tolerance for the idea that people of all cultures who come to Canada want the same thing, freedom and opportunity."
nomdenet, like all self-loathing white liberals, bangs the drum for diversity, for the simple reason that it makes him feel morally superior, to his white co-racialists. Why the founding European peoples of Canada must accept these economic migrants is, of course, never explained. His superiority to his exclusionist brethren is feel good no cost racial rectitude. It's not as if he will ever live in North Regina, or Jane/Finch or Parkdale. It's not as if Brampton's monolithic Indo-Canadian community really cares. The default mode for ethno/racial groups is segregation. It is a fundamental principle of evolution. Group altruism enhances reproductive fitness and any group that eschews it are doomed to dimminishment and ultimately extinction.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-12 3:05:19 PM
You're just kidding right DJ - thanks for the lecture, but it's time to get serious. MacLeod
Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-02-12 4:27:28 PM
What ever happened to fighting for our rights, when are we going to stand up for our country and all that it was founded on, including judeo-christian ethics. I am sick and tired of letting the minority dictate the rules in our society. Its a shame our universities have bent over to the vileness of multiculteralism or atheism or whatever their actual motive be. Whatever happened to our sense of pride in being Canadian. Last time I checked 80.1% of the population still claimed to be of european descent and 77% of Canadian identified themselves as being "christians" (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant).
Posted by: Redneck Ryder | 2007-02-12 4:49:50 PM
But what is multiculturalism anyway?
Was there ever anyone who, being proud of their culture, was actively suppressed by the Canadian or Provincial Government from maintaining that culture in their own home or community?
What is multiculturalism except government sponsored support for competing culture along with it's values, with the idea of making new unassimilable immigrants more comfortable at the expense of the founding culture and it's values?
Is the goal of the government to create a revolutionary environment through Chaos, while bribing new immigrants for votes, thus leading to a War Measures style crackdown?
How many Provincial flags contain no religious symbols?
We see the thin end of the wedge.
Is the wedge Communism/Atheism or is it Islam?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-12 6:23:25 PM
Actually, I feel there is a very small percentage of individuals who are actually causing the majority of the problems.
They know who they are.
They are the ones who go around "being offended" all the time, and demand others not do something, as when they exercise their culture, the existence is an insult to them. What it appears they are trying to do is get everyone to stop doing their way, and when there is nothing, institute submission.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-13 10:38:12 AM
Multiculturalism is a means to bring stability to a potentially unstable situation. Mass migration is encouraged because cheap labour benefits the few. However, cheap labour, whether its the New York City riots in 1863, the Vancouver riot or the Christie Pits riot, is resented by the dominant group because it undermines wages and, especially in those days, takes food off the table. If you didn't fight your family starved. Multiculturalism is a divide and conquer strategy. No one group is dominant so alliances must be made to gain ascendancy or political power for your group.
The model for say, Toronto, is
"Sao Paulo -- a city of 18 million, populated by the fantastically wealthy and the severely poor with little in between -- is, by some accounts, a vision of future urban life in the developing world. As homicide and kidnapping rates have soared to record levels, civilian helicopter traffic here has become what industry executives describe as the busiest on Earth. Helicopter companies estimate that liftoffs average 100 per hour. The city boasts 240 helipads, compared with 10 in New York City, allowing the rich to whisk to and from their well-guarded homes to work, business meetings, afternoons of shopping, even church.
"We have become prisoners in our own homes," said Ellen Saraiva, the elegant wife of a construction magnate, as she sat in her tasteful living room in a heavily guarded building in Sao Paulo's fashionable Jardims neighborhood. After a series of high-profile kidnappings on nearby streets last year, she and her husband paid $35,000 to bulletproof their understated gray Volkswagen. The armoring cost twice as much as the car.
"I pray to God every time I leave my building," she said. "I live in fear for myself and my family. One of my daughters is studying abroad right now, and as much as I miss her, it makes me feel at peace to know she is not here living through this nightmare."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42332-2002May31
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-13 11:36:44 AM
DJ,
The solution to poverty is not through fear, but through wealth development.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-13 4:26:42 PM
Looks a lot like this logo...
http://www.spd-offenbach-queich.de/SPD_Logo1.jpg
Posted by: Splendor Sine Occasu | 2007-02-13 7:44:37 PM
What's the bloody big deal? A university is not a church, so why should it be seen to "belong" to a religion -- never mind only one religion?
Simon Fraser University does not serve only Christians. Why should a Christian symbol be a necessary part of its logo?
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-02-13 7:48:39 PM
"The solution to poverty is not through fear, but through wealth development."
The point is there is no solution to poverty because differences are inherent. Conflict will be lessened through homogeneity. In an entirely white society high IQ people will disproportionately be wealthier than low IQ people. However, high IQ whites are more likely to help their low IQ brethren than low IQ blacks. Ditto for blacks, yellows or browns.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-02-13 8:25:01 PM
Well, Chimera, since the Fraser Family Crest motto is,
"All My Hope is in God" even a ponce like you can draw the obvious conclusion that naming a University after Simon Fraser leads to certain Christian Traditional symbols and the whole point of naming it after Simon FRASER was what again? To honour him maybe?
http://www.myducksoup.com/scotland/fraser.shtml
Oh, and lets not forget that most European Universities had Divinity Colleges at their core when they were founded. Sure I know you want to scrap all Christianity as well as it's traditions. That's why you are such a rabid supporter of SSM.
If people are so offended they can found their own profane Universities, IF they can take time out from being offended that is.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-13 9:38:46 PM
Speller:
Further to your point, all early educational institutions developed through the church, which has a well-established tradition of compassion throughout history.
During most of humanity's history, the state was interested only in waging war against other tribes and the church was the only unifying social movement.
Slavery was abolished in the US with a large role played by the church.
Education, health care, social welfare were all church responsibilities and it was done on a voluntary basis, with plenty of money left over to build beautiful churches which people took great pride in.
Tithing, at most was 10% ... much less than the onerous forced taxation the state has imposed upon its slaves.
It truly is a sick time when many people do not understand the state has never been good at delivering compassion. Don't believe me? Look at your next pay stub and ask yourself if you're getting your money's worth.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-02-13 9:58:11 PM
Not only was(were) the Church(es) heavily involved in providing education, but it also provided health care and social services. Citizens (particularly atheists) who want to deny Christian influence and history in these realms don't seem too grateful for establishing these public institutions.
Posted by: Shane O. | 2007-02-13 10:54:44 PM
I've got an idea - anyone offended at the influence/role of Christianity in our society can refuse to have anything to do with every public institution that has a Christian history to it.
Posted by: Shane O. | 2007-02-13 10:58:00 PM
Chimera,
It is not whether it should, but that it has been for some time.
The politically cvorrect mess with everything.
The politically correct reduce everything to nothing. No one is permitted to have anything, let alone be the founder of whatever.
Then the very same idiots who reduce everything to nothing, deconstructing the very fibre of our society, then say that terrorists are freedom fighters.
Truth is the very threat to our society would love it very much if we actually do destroy every last bit of reminant of the religions that founded this nation, Canada. Why, because then they can come in and set up their own.
They have been trying this one around the world.
It is a fact:
"When the United Nations took up the Palestine question in 1947, it recommended that all of Jerusalem be internationalized. The Vatican and many predominantly Catholic delegations pushed for this status, but a key reason for the UN decision was the Soviet Bloc's desire to embarrass Transjordan's King Abdullah and his British patrons by denying Abdullah control of the city.
The Jewish Agency, after much soul-searching, agreed to accept internationalization in the hope that in the short-run it would protect the city from bloodshed and the new state from conflict. Since the partition resolution called for a referendum on the city's status after 10 years, and Jews comprised a substantial majority, the expectation was that the city would later be incorporated into Israel. The Arab states were as bitterly opposed to the internationalization of Jerusalem as they were to the rest of the partition plan.
In May 1948, Jordan invaded and occupied East Jerusalem, dividing the city for the first time in its history, and driving thousands of Jews — whose families had lived in the city for centuries — into exile. The UN partition plan, including its proposal that Jerusalem be internationalized, had been overtaken by events.
After the Arab states' rejection of UN Resolution 181 and, on December 11, 1948, UN Resolution 194, establishing the UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion declared that Israel would no longer accept the internationalization of Jerusalem.
From 1948-67, the city was divided between Israel and Jordan. Israel made western Jerusalem its capital; Jordan occupied the eastern section. Because Jordan — like all the Arab states at the time — maintained a state of war with Israel, the city became, in essence, two armed camps, replete with concrete walls and bunkers, barbed-wire fences, minefields and other military fortifications."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf20.html#a
So, from where I am coming from, it is important that other religions berespected equally, and that means leaving relics where they be, and not permitting the politically correct to remove a symbol, just because they believe it is not relevant.
In the end, doing just that, is basing an action on a belief, even if it is not recognized as that in the first place.
If you did not believe that the symbols were irrelevant, you would leave them alone, out of respect of the people who put them there in the first place.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-13 11:13:18 PM
Speller, SYF, and Lady:
Simon Fraser University is NOT a religious institution! So why should its logo, or coat of arms, or what-have-you NECESSARILY have to show a religious symbol of any kind?
"Sure I know you want to scrap all Christianity as well as it's traditions. That's why you are such a rabid supporter of SSM."
A plus B equals Q?
I don't want to scrap all of christianity, and it's absurd that you should say so. I would like it a lot if christians actually lived up to the things they try to force upon everyone else, though. Things like "do unto others" and "love thy neighbor" and all that good shit.
Same sex marriages have nothing to do with religion, but with social integrity. Civilization will never arrive unless ALL people treat each other well; and that includes allowing for peaceful differences if not outright respecting them. I don't understand the bent of anyone who hates another human being based on what gender his bed partner/life partner happens to be. How is this different from hating someone for the color of his skin, or for his other-than-yours religion?
How is hatred and bigotry a christian thing?
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-02-14 1:59:41 PM
Well, hatred and bigotry is a human thing.
It is hatred and bigotry that is causing the people who founded institutions to be stripped of their traditions.
Let's take SSM. It was hatred and bigotry against Christians that caused the homosexuals to demand, even though homosexuals already had access to all the legal benefits of marriage, that they could profane the sacred institution of marriage by expanding the definition to include their profane 'unions'.
It was done simply to strip Christians of one more tradition and grind their faces in it.
The same thing is happening here with Simon Fraser University. Even though non-Christians have access to all the programs and benefits of the institution, the hatred and bigotry these unbelievers have toward Christians and traditions started by Christians compel the unbelievers to destroy yet one more tradition.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-14 2:35:34 PM
Speller:
COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE!
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-14 2:41:45 PM
"It was done simply to strip Christians of one more tradition and grind their faces in it."
Forgive me if I don't quite follow your line of...logic, was it?
Are you trying to tell me and everyone else that because gay men and women now have the right to marry someone of their own gender, christians cannot get married?
No, gays did not have ALL the legal benefits of marriage. The most important things that was gained here was next-of-kin status. You take it for granted until you find yourself in a situation where it is required in order for you to function properly.
"Profaning the sacred." What an emotion-laden pile of crap. There is nothing profane about love. And there is nothing sacred about marriage.
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-02-14 3:13:40 PM
Well homosexuals aren't next-of-kin.
next of kin
n., pl. next of kin.
1. The person or persons most closely related by blood to another person.
2. Law.
The closest relative of a deceased person.
(used with a pl. verb) The relative or relatives entitled to share in the personal property of one who dies intestate.
in·tes·tate (ĭn-tĕs'tāt', -tĭt) Law.
adj.
1. Having made no legal will: an intestate parent.
2. Not disposed of by a legal will: intestate lands.
n.
One who dies without a legal will.
So for lack of a will, which costs less than a marriage, your kind decided to profane a sacred Christian institution.
If you believe that, either you are stupid or you mistake Chritians for being stupid, or perhaps both.
I won't try to explain sacred to you, Chimera.
For you, it would be an impossibility to understand. Of course one has to understand sacred before profane has any meaning as these words are antonyms.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-14 3:37:06 PM
Well, congratulations. You managed to look up the definition of next-of-kin UNDER AMERICAN LAW.
This is Canada. Marriage partners, for legal purposes, are next-of-kin.
You don't have to explain either sacred or profane, although it might be entertaining to have you try. I am a member of the clergy.
And just precisely what do you think is "my kind"?
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-02-14 3:51:29 PM
Chimera:
"And there is nothing sacred about marriage."
I do not have thoughts that I feel I want to post regarding the coat of arms at SFU, but this comment of yours has caught my eye. Marriage is indeed quite sacred. I believe that the following Scriptures do imply God says marriage is sacred.
This one teaches that because marriage is until death parts a couple, the remarriage of a divorced person is adultery. It also teaches that in marriage it is God who joins a man and a woman together in a special union called "one flesh".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2010:2-12;&version=49;
This teaching of marriage is so strong that (although a Christian is commanded not to marry a non-Christian) a Christian is not permitted to divorce a non-Christian spouse and the children from such a marriage are holy to God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207%20:12-14;&version=49;
This one indicates that marriage is actually a picture of how Christ has a relation with His people (His church) that He desires to make holy and blameless.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205%20:23-33;&version=49;
This one describes an event yet future in Heaven when Christ has His people all together with Him; in this reference they are described as the Bride of Christ
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2019%20:7-9;&version=49;
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-02-14 4:07:48 PM
"This is Canada. Marriage partners, for legal purposes, are next-of-kin." Chimera
Yeah well in Canada, thanks to your kind, we have SSM too, for legal purposes.
Do you like circles?
That obviates the point that a will costs less than a marriage how, Einstein?
"And there is nothing sacred about marriage."
Posted by: Chimera | 14-Feb-07 3:13:40 PM
"I am a member of the clergy."
Posted by: Chimera | 14-Feb-07 3:51:29 PM
LOL. Did I tell you I was an Apostle?/
Posted by: Speller | 2007-02-14 4:21:26 PM
One sure thing, same-sexers getting together won't be creating any more kin folk.
In order to do their part to keep their genetics alive they will have to rely on medical technology or step out of their sacred vows, blessed by church sacraments or Civil unions they have fought so hard to acquire.
Posted by: Liz J | 2007-02-14 5:02:23 PM
Brent: "I believe that the following Scriptures do imply God says marriage is sacred."
Feel free to believe anything you like. DO NOT, however, insist that I or anyone else have to share your belief. That is the biggest part of the problem here.
Essentially, what you are saying here is that only christians, muslims, and jews can be married because only they adhere to a set of beliefs codified in a book that was published so long ago that no one even remembers who the authors were. Not only that, but almost no one can read the original languages in which it was written, so there's almost no way of telling how close today's interpretation is to the original thoughts.
So, atheists can't be married? Buddhists can't be married? Hindus can't be married? Mithraics can't be married? If this is true, there's a whole lot o' gleeful fornicatin' goin' on by a whole passel o' folks who are just determined to have themselves a good time makin' their own babies (or not, as they choose) in spite of the hollow bellowing of the followers of the great-white-bearded-daddy-in-the-sky.
Speller: "LOL. Did I tell you I was an Apostle?"
Let me guess...Peter? ;D
Liz: Gays are not sterile. They are perfectly capable of having their own offspring. There are also heterosexuals who need modern technology/medicine in order to procreate. And here you, too, go with the "sacred" thingie. This is only "sacred" to a narrow sampling of the human population. It is not across-the-board.
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-02-15 2:01:38 PM
Chimera,
You stated:
"Civilization will never arrive unless ALL people treat each other well; and that includes allowing for peaceful differences if not outright respecting them."
The issue is that something, that is part of the history of the campus, and not that it is a religious institution, was removed, because for some reason, it offended some people.
If, as you say, "ALL people treat each other well; and that includes allowing for peaceful differences if not outright respecting them" then it would mean leaving well enough alone. The idiotic outrage that people had, that there were crosses there, lead to the removal, which is a sign of disrespect. The respectful thing would have been to leave it alone. But, they had to go offending people, and hurting people, by removing the symbols.
Next thing you know, they will be trying to remove the Star of David from the Parliament Buildings, in Ottawa.
And maybe, they will replace them with the symbols of the Union, or some stupid looking moon whatever!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-02-15 2:41:44 PM
Liz, you say: "...(the cross) was removed, because for some reason, it offended some people."
Not so. Go back and read Terry's original piece, where it says: "SFU vice-president Warren Gill says the change will avoid any possibility foreigners might think the institution is private and Christian, rather than public and secular."
Posted by: Chimera | 2007-02-15 3:24:33 PM
Lady mon amour,
It's the Christian people who've dicided to get the crosses off the walls. There's no pressure from other religions...they even find the move a bit strange.
But when you choosed to live inna society that is "religion free" in public institutions, you have to put your mouth were your money is.
You can be not in favor of a "religious free" system but when people from specific regions had massivly choose to give themselves a religious free society...you will admit that there's moves like this that have to be done.
This is not easy sh*t. In the same time, you cannot aking things to some while keeping the same things to others. This way, they will have no options to bring kirpan to schools or it will be very clear that a public pool isnt negociable with religious concerns. We live in 2007 and the world is changing. We didnt ask for a clash of civilisation inna our backyards but we now have to deal with reality. For myself who's a catholic, I'm not in favour of getting rid of those symbols who are part of my heritage. But for the general good it's better this way. Sad, but a more intelligent move. It's "buying peace" with some who, if not, would have all the lattitude for imposing their own religious signs and beleifs to the others. With a "religious free" deal for pubic area & institutions...their is no "passe droit".
Get it, and fast...cause it's innevitable.
By the way: If my cross got bumped...yours will follow.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-02-15 3:42:03 PM
If this man is the iconoclast you say he is, then why is he so married to the idea of Christian hegemony in every corner of Canadian life? At any rate, he is mistaken when he claims that the roots of diversity lie in Christianity. The roots of diversity lie in Creation. God created a diverse world in which variety is the norm, not the exception. It is very good. That's in the Bible, you know.
Face it. This is not a Christian nation. There is no Christian nation, save the Reign of God. If you were the great upholders of the Faith you claim to be, you would know your Bible well enough to be aware of that. Stop wringing your hands and start welcoming the change that heralds the nation you apparently consider yourself citizens of.
Posted by: Jennifer Woodroff | 2007-03-20 11:48:26 AM
If this man is the iconoclast you say he is, then why is he so married to the idea of Christian hegemony in every corner of Canadian life? At any rate, he is mistaken when he claims that the roots of diversity lie in Christianity. The roots of diversity lie in Creation. God created a diverse world in which variety is the norm, not the exception. It is very good. That's in the Bible, you know.
Face it. This is not a Christian nation. There is no Christian nation, save the Reign of God. If you were the great upholders of the Faith you claim to be, you would know your Bible well enough to be aware of that. Stop wringing your hands and start welcoming the change that heralds the nation you apparently consider yourself citizens of.
Posted by: Jennifer Woodroff | 2007-03-20 11:48:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.