Hmm, I think there are two questions to answer here. First of all, yeah, there is absolutely an attack on Judeo-Christian values. Just one example of that is that in Canada, Christian ministers can't read bible verses condemning homosexuality, because that is considered hate speech, and America seems to be leaning closer and closer to that as well. And not only Christian but other religions as well have their freedoms limited by "Equality Laws" that work for the acceptance of all people and walks of life. And media isn't helping much in that regard, rarely painting religion in general in a good picture.
Second, is there a war on Christmas? I would say no. Christmas has ceased to be simply a Christian holiday, but almost a national one that even those who are not religious do, which I find amusing as the origin for Christmas was even based on Christianity. Starbucks might not have written "Merry Christmas" or whatever on their cups, but there is no way in hell that anyone is going to try to get rid of Christmas because of how much money it brings in. So much money is thrown into this holiday whether it be into decoration or gifts. Tree farmers, retail organizations, even the government doesn't want to see Christmas go because of how much money it brings in for them, and money will always win.
(P.S. - My viewpoint is as a Christian who does not celebrate Christmas btw)
We have a different approach towards rights in Canada than what they have in the United States. We treat any one right less as an assumption and are more interested in keeping that right in balance with other rights and values as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For example, curtailing speech is justified if it is proportional to the objective of "tackling causes of discriminatory activity to reduce the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination."
I'm not sure what you mean about the claim that Christian ministers can't read bible verses condemning homosexuality. There were two major ruling about speech laws concerning homosexuality, one in 2003 and one in 2013.
Bill C-250 was passed by parliament in 2003, and is an amendment to the Criminal Code concerning hate speech. It's so short that I can quote its entirety right here:
2nd Session, 37th Parliament,
51-52 Elizabeth II, 2002-2003
HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
Bill C-250
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda)
R.S., c. C-46
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Definition of "identifiable group"
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
2. Paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
The first part of the act, put into context, amended the crime of hate speech to include sexual orientation as one of the "identifiable groups" covered by the law. The second part is actually a defence against hate speech - one would not be convicted of hate speech, if he or she was making a good faith argument rooted in religious belief. So it seems that Christian ministers can read bible verses condemning homosexuality, they just can't do it in a way that incites hatred or in a way that's not theologically genuine. And I've read a lot of examples of Christians condemning homosexuality that doesn't involve inciting hatred or blatant gay-bashing so that kind of speech exists and is protected.
In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld hate speech laws condemning speech that would expose certain groups to hatred. In the same stroke, they actually struck down a provision banning speech that "ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of" identifiable groups - basically, hurting feelings. They also added guidelines for how hate speech laws should be applied.
First, these laws must be applied objectively, which is difficult in the case of subjective emotion, though not impossible, the judges ruled. The key is to focus on the effects of hate speech, not the intent of the speaker.
Second, hate must be understood to be the extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification," but nothing less.
"This filters out expression which, while repugnant and offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks causing discrimination or other harmful effects," they wrote.
Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others.
"The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination," they decided.
"The difficulty of establishing causality and the seriousness of the harm to vulnerable groups justifies the imposition of preventive measures that do not require proof of actual harm," the judgement reads.
Based on these legal decisions concerning homosexuality and hate speech, I cannot conclude that there is an assault on Judeo-Christian values in Canada, at least not in the legal sphere. Those decisions which you seem to cite do not involve a blanket criminalization of religious speech, as you suggest ("Christian ministers can't read bible verses condemning homosexuality, because that is considered hate speech"), but rather a fine-tuning of hate speech laws over the past decade (adding sexual orientation as a protected class, removing provisions that are unenforceable or undesirable or too broad or weak to be considered hate speech). One continues to be free to condemn homosexuality in Canada, but one cannot condemn homosexuality as the scum of the earth. I think that's a fine balance to have. Without a legal basis, whatever assault on Judeo-Christian values in Canada would have to be societal, and that is legitimate. Societies can pick and choose which values they uphold and which they reject, and if it is the case that Judeo-Christian values are being rejected, it's not like believers of Judeo-Christian religions are being substantially harmed by that.
Kind of a detour from the thread so far, but I would like to remind our readers that Canada is still a lovely place. I don't mean any of this personally, but I will call out inaccuracies where I see them.
Back on topic: if we're to talk about a potential war on Judeo-Christian values, then we have to define what these values are. "What offends me as a Christian" is not good enough. Hurt feelings, in itself, should not justify political correctness, whether it's on the left or on the right.
sauce:
https://news.nationalpost.com/news/...eech-laws-in-case-involving-anti-gay-crusader
