Canada, the compatible

Only weeks after becoming only the third nation on earth to legalize same-sex marriage, the government of Canada is sponsoring calls for the imposition of state controls on religion in the True North, Strong and Free.

Canada's state-owned CBC radio broadcast a commentary from retired Royal Military College professor Bob Ferguson in which he argued for state control over religion, and in particular, over the Catholic religion.

TRENDING: Republicans move to replace GOP canvasser who voted to certify Biden win

"Given the inertia of the Catholic Church, perhaps we could encourage reform by changing the environment in which all religions operate," Ferguson said in his commentary. "Couldn't we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood."

"Of course," noted Ferguson, "the Vatican wouldn't like the changes, but they would come to accept them in time as a fact of life in Canada. Indeed I suspect many clergy would welcome the external pressure."

Ferguson packaged his reformed religious totalitarianism as a guarantee of religious freedoms, arguing his plan, "could also help the general cause of religious freedom by introducing a code of moral practice for religions," he said. "They will never achieve unity, so why not try for compatibility? Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code?"

Beware of those who use such words as "they" in the context of outlining what should be an acceptable belief structure. It makes it pretty obvious that the plan comes from an unbeliever, so it is a case of somebody planning to regulate something that has no effect on them, in the way that an abortion supporter has no personal fear of the abortionist's knife.

To Ferguson, arguing, I remind you, on Canadian state-run radio, Christianity is hate speech. As Ferguson defined religious hate, "A key item would have to be a ban on claims of exclusivity. It should be unethical for any RRP [registered religious practitioner] to claim that theirs was the one true religion and believers in anything else or nothing were doomed to fire and brimstone."

I've always been amused at those who argue that the Christian belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven is "hate speech." How hateful is it to for Someone one doesn't believe exists to deny admission to a place one doesn't believe exists? If you don't believe that Jesus is the way to Heaven, then so what? If you don't believe in Jesus, what do you care if you go to His heaven or not? And if you don't believe in Heaven, then you are being denied entry to a mythical place by a mythical figure. So what's the problem?

It is like arguing that the Tooth Fairy didn't leave your quarter under your pillow. The fact you don't believe in the Tooth Fairy and didn't put a tooth under your pillow in the first place is, to this line of thinking, irrelevant. The quarter should be there anyway. If not, it is because the Tooth Fairy – that you don't believe in – hates you, and that somehow violates you.

Ferguson went on with his vision of a Canadian religious utopia to state religion would be like, say, the regulations for getting a liquor license: "One might also expect prohibition of ritual circumcisions, bans on preaching hate or violence, the regulation of faith healers, protocols for missionary work, etc." Wouldn't want missionaries to violate protocol!

Concludes Ferguson, " Now what is the point of proposing this?" Yes, Professor, do get to the point! Enquiring minds want to know, but I'll bet it has something to do with saving us from the God you don't believe in.

"I do it because I am worried that the separation between church and state is under threat. Religion is important in our lives, but it can become a danger to society when people claim that the unalterable will of God is the basis for their opinions and actions." OK, let's see if I understand the good professor correctly. Using the will of God as a basis for opinions and actions is a danger to society. Gotcha.

But, notes Professor Ferguson, "Yes, religion can be a comfort and a guide, but we cannot take rules from our holy books and apply them to the modern world without democratic debate and due regard for the law."

Well, Professor, if you get your way, the antichrist will already have the legal framework for eliminating any true expression of Christianity. He will only have to step up and enforce your ideas.