Well, we heard yesterday that our provincial government may relent and let the Reverend Joanne Sorrill have her REV JO license plates after all. I think I am still allowed to refer to her as "the reverend," a designation that has been around for a long time but may be outlawed in our perniciously anti-religious society.
You may sense my sheer disgust about this situation. Actually it is cumulative. There have been too many occasions over the years where bureaucrats have decided that religion is hazardous to our health, even as they bemoan the decline in values and decency in our culture.
In October the Bowmanville ministerial asked Clarington Council to declare Spiritual Care Week in the municipality. Even though this is a broadly recognized initiative across North America which is both ecumenical and inter-faith we were told no, too religious.
Does our council feel that the work of chaplains in hospitals and jails and nursing care facilities and mental health centres is without value? Many of these chaplains are paid, in part, through taxpayers dollars and they do a fine job, respecting all traditions.
Why does council have the right to simply say no to this recognition? Will they end up telling churches with publicly visible crosses that they must be taken down because they are offensive to those who are not Christians?
Why do school boards and local governments quash any religious expression even at times of the year, such as Christmas, that are specifically religious? When our son was in grade eight he wrote a letter to his principal, unbenownst to us, asking why the Holiday Concert couldn't still be a Christmas Concert which respected other faiths. When she dismissed his concern he sent the letter to the city newspaper and received an outpouring of support.
The goal of governments which supposedly represent me is not to act as though religion does not exist. It is to ensure freedom of religion and spiritual expression for all its citizens.
What a long blog entry! Don't get me started!
You may sense my sheer disgust about this situation. Actually it is cumulative. There have been too many occasions over the years where bureaucrats have decided that religion is hazardous to our health, even as they bemoan the decline in values and decency in our culture.
In October the Bowmanville ministerial asked Clarington Council to declare Spiritual Care Week in the municipality. Even though this is a broadly recognized initiative across North America which is both ecumenical and inter-faith we were told no, too religious.
Does our council feel that the work of chaplains in hospitals and jails and nursing care facilities and mental health centres is without value? Many of these chaplains are paid, in part, through taxpayers dollars and they do a fine job, respecting all traditions.
Why does council have the right to simply say no to this recognition? Will they end up telling churches with publicly visible crosses that they must be taken down because they are offensive to those who are not Christians?
Why do school boards and local governments quash any religious expression even at times of the year, such as Christmas, that are specifically religious? When our son was in grade eight he wrote a letter to his principal, unbenownst to us, asking why the Holiday Concert couldn't still be a Christmas Concert which respected other faiths. When she dismissed his concern he sent the letter to the city newspaper and received an outpouring of support.
The goal of governments which supposedly represent me is not to act as though religion does not exist. It is to ensure freedom of religion and spiritual expression for all its citizens.
What a long blog entry! Don't get me started!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion has got you started and others as well. The article in from the Star about Rev. Jo has apparently been passed around in workplaces all day. Our committee was in the church sanctuary tonight getting ready for the first Sunday in Advent and there was much discussion about this topic and that of wishing people "Merry Christmas". The consensus was the we will wish people Merry Christmas, and you and others have "got many of us started".
ReplyDeleteHi Nancy,
ReplyDeleteIt was somewhat therapeutic to vent yesterday. You and the others who were part of your conversation are right. We need to "keep the faith" in whatever ways we can, including saying "merry Christmas."