#50 – FAITH? Which one?

             FAITH ? WHICH ONE?

 As a result of European religious wars and persecutions , the first inhabitants of the New World legally evolved as such now, in USA and Canada as well we have a full protection of religions, sometimes using the term of “faith”.

If one will carefully read American constitution, especially what Jefferson wrote about this subject or Canadian Charter of Rights will notice the best intentions to protect that aspect of freedom but one can also observes that these legal documents do not clarify, in fact, what religion means.                                                                                                                Strictly linguistic the definition is very simple: “a particular system of faith and worship.”

Former Chief Justice Brian Dickson wrote that the religion freedom includes “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination.”                                                          In another case, our Supreme Court in a majority found freedom of religion encompasses a right to religious practices “”if the individual has a n their sincere belief that the practice is connected to religion.”                                                                                                                   I have a full respect for the learnt minds of our Justices but such interpretations open a flood gate of a lot of aberrations disguised in religions. In this day and age full of political correctness some aberrations or acts against our culture and civilization are defended under the pretences presented as “our faith”.

If we will apply what in logic is called reduction ad absurdum, do we have to accept a “religion “ which believes in human sacrifices?                                                                                  A lot of former civilizations practiced human sacrifices. What will it be if some descendants of those civilization will claim revival of their ancestor faith?

Currently human sacrifice is very rare and almost non-existent in modern India. However, there have been at least 3 cases through 2003–2013 where 3 men have been murdered in the name of human sacrifice implying the practice may still be ongoing in greater numbers in the unpoliced slums.  The Maya held the belief that cenotes or limestone sinkholes were portals to the underworld and sacrificed human beings and tossed them down the cenote to please the water god Chaa The Aztecs were particularly noted for practicing human sacrifice on a large scale Human sacrifice was common in West African states up to and during the 19th century                                                                      In March 2010, a 26-year-old labourer in Bangladesh was killed by fellow workers on the orders of the owners after a fortune teller suggested that a human sacrifice would yield highly prized red bricks

This type of “faith “ is found also within tribes of so called “first nations”. The Pawnee practiced an annual Morning Star Ceremony, which included the sacrifice of a young girl. Though the ritual continued, the sacrifice was discontinued in the 19th century. The Iroquois are said to have occasionally sent a maiden to the Great Spirit.

If descendants of nations who believed in human sacrifices will today desire to revive their “religion” will our justices will agree with them based on their “sincere belief that the practice is connected to religion.”?                                                                                                         It is not clear why we intend to persecute the polygamy when the culprits declare their sincere faith in it?                                                                                                                                   Moreover we, civilized society, based on this notion of “sincere belief” of others whom are so easily accepted without a serious vetting, , should not be revolted if in Canada is practiced female genital mutilation or the wife beating, because everything is based on belief approved by some ideological writing.                                                                                {There is some evidence to indicate that FGM is practised in Ontario and across Canada among immigrant and refugee communities. FGM is considered child assault and prohibited under sections 267 (assault causing bodily harm) or 268 (aggravated assault, including wounding, maiming, disfiguring) of the Criminal Code. But all these sections contradict and are used in defence with what the justice considered “sincere belief}

In Canada (and in USA as well) it is made a serious effort to protect all animals.        However we have in store meat from animals killed in a certain religious way which is a form of slaughtering animals involving killing through a cut to the jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe. … Animals must be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter and all blood is drained from the carcass.(quote from a “religious book”  )                         One, including any of justices , ought not to be vegetarian to be revolted by this form of barbarism.

Using the same argument reduction ad absurdum , Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot can justify their atrocities based on their “sincere” belief in their “religion” which was Marxism, atheism.

I suspect that our judicial system represented by a new generation of justices–not only in Canada- is barren of the traditional principles inherited from centuries and is replaced with a branch of judicial correctness, if I may called it, as such in a veil way to accept anything under the general flag of politically correctness.                                                              The diluted legal system doesn’t understand that it not protects real religions but is aloof of an infiltration of alien ideologies totally in defiance with our civilization and culture.

And this infiltration has a very obvious intention to destroy our existing system and replace it with something which, compering with ours, is barbaric, anacronic.

Johannes de Silentio










Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s