- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
Wow, those are nice digs. I wonder if Billy Graham would be impressed?
My goodness Editor
The way you are ragging on Bateman one would think he was the mayor. (Don't tell Kurt)
I do know the school district would be hard pressed to kick church services out of local school buildings every Sunday. (Some of my family attends at Mountain and also at Dorothy Peacock.) Methinks they are coming to depend on the revenue what with all the new bills for musical instruments being added to the budget.
I am also sure that if Kim starts her own church, Jordan would let you preach every second Sunday, in council chambers. Never know what it might lead to.
Remember, elected officials are always held to a higher standard and if you keep stepping into puddles all the time you are going to get very wet! We are not creating the frequent puddles that Rookie Councillor Bateman manages to hit!
Would you rather it be ignored? There is too much of that already going on with this Council!
Irrespective, this issue at MINIMUM smells extremely ackward to this Editor. Do you think it is ok to be using the taxpayers subsidized & funded hall for self promotion? To keep it at more arm's length, why indeed wasn't a school used instead?
It must be a slow week in the community.....the editor of the LFP goes to great pains at extolling the virtues of one Mrs. Kim Richter (it must be her husband writing the documentary) and slamming rookie councillor Bateman at every turn. I guess the old glass half full person (Bateman) makes good fodder for the glass half empty councillor. Living in a world as dreary as you propose and depict progress would be tough and it can't provide much for a future for the generations ahead, that would be my children!
Lib.Fe.Par., Why don't you try to speak to the specific issues and the questions arising from the these LFP postings as well that obviously so inflame you?
Give us your specific thoughts of disagreement on the details that provoked you other than simply attempting to defend your own personal hero(s). This Editor really would love to hear your real substantial rebuttals on the actual threads we posted herein.
That should be more satisfying to do and probably more personally challenging for you. Your comments consistently pontificate the wonders of "half full"as opposed to half empty. Maybe you should create a blogsite titled Half Full to further elaborate on these! At least our comments strive to sometimes be revealing and amusing as well as irreverant. There's no use crying so we might as well just laugh at things instead. ( I would consider that half full!)
P.S. Which other Councillor besides Richter has been disagreeing all along with out of control spending and capital projects and which Councillor has been all along saying tax hikes were too high and 77% increase in 10 years is unacceptable? Only one I know of and here's a hint, it's not any of the boys on the good ole boys club on Township Council! So do we support her? You bet!
Why don't you ask property owners who plan to retire in 10 years if the prospect of their taxes increasing 77% would make them "dreary" especially if they are at that time on fixed incomes?
Coun. Richter disagrees with everything. She's inherited Muriel's old post, except her track record indicates that she hasn't got Arnason's level of political savvy at the polls. Kim is just a little too disagreeable.
Coun. Bateman on the other hand appears to try and reach out to colleagues with whom he clearly disagrees. That's called political maturity. It may not spell old school success, but it's time that the griping politics of old was sent to the dustbin.
He could hold out for a lower tax, like Richter, but that would just result in a higher tax rate, with two dissenters who have lots of public sympathy but accomplish nothing.
Thanks a fat lot for that, Kim.
And Editor, as for your "At least our comments strive to sometimes be revealing and amusing as well as irreverant."
You should check out the Comedy Channel once in a while. Your idea of irreverrence, as oposed to nasty spite, is a matter of opinion, and I will grant you that, but you need some seriously better understanding of humour.
Obviously another blind follower and hero worshipper who obviously can't or is not capable of addressing the validity of any one of the many specific points this Editor made. Please won't you at least try?
Obviously the defensive wagon train is now circling to protect one of their own.
Kwicherbichen, answer me this, how come your hero was all fire & brimstone (pardon the pun) about the Mayor before being elected and now they are thicker than thieves? Or would you suggest that this is just the the Trojan Horse style of politics? How comforting and honest is that? At least Richter never apparently comprimised her values and she never joined the dark side establishment old boys club either! Maybe she doesn't desire or covet the perks of compliance like others.
This Editor finds it sad that you suggest that game playing compliance and old boys politics is the new better politics! Quite au contraire, that type of politics is the same old and useless BS politics that got us into tons of poop at all poltitical levels. Give me the Chuck Cadmans, Garth Turners and Kim Richters anyday who try to stay loyal to their constituencies and their needs, eloquently say what they think & mean and not pander to the groupthink self serving political wannabees that you obviously idolize! 
I'm speechless. Church and State separation should be a no-brainer! If we agree that liquor stores shouldn't be sited next to schools, then certainly religious sects should certainly be kept OUT of schools!
"You're born sinful and the only way to redeem yourself is to beg forgiveness from an invisible deity who we have to believe in even though he never provides evidence of his existance...and if you don't you will go to hell, forever!" This doctrine is psychological child abuse, pure and simple! It shouldn't be allowed anywhere near State schools!!
And you think I'm wildly opinionated!
The use of public buildings for ecumenical purposes is a longstanding one in our society. Allowing small faith groups to use public buildings at a nominal cost when they would otherwise sit unused is no different than allowing volleyball players to rent school gyms when the schools aren't using them. It benefits the group that is using the facility and helps pay to maintain the facility. On the whole it sounds like a good, positive use of civic facilities and seems like a tough one to argue against.
Pulleezzzz! Don't put Chuck Cadman in the same category with those other lightweights.
Remember also that Chuck, while outspoken, was also capable of compromise. Or did you forget that he staved off an inappropriate election. As a fedlib, you shouldn't forget that.
I'm not circling any wagons for Bateman. I'm just acknowledging that he may shave a couple of percentage points off my tax bill, while Richter would serve up a lot of self-righteous lip, without delivering a penny. She may be right, but a fat lot of good that does for the people paying the bills.
Quaker does have a point, even if it faces up the current.
Kwic, wanna bet that if Richter wasn't there that it would have been the full blown almost 7% tax increase! Thank God (opps sorry Jordan) we have one Councillor who understands finances!
Because without Richter, Jordan and all would probably never have clued in that it was 7% as previously reported at below's link! So thank her for any percentages we save. Unfortunately the root spending problem is still not addressed. Don't you wonder what other stupid things these boys are spending our money on. Bet ya it's in Fort Langley though just like the Golf course!
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...7-tax-
spin.html
Cadman's compromise was voting for what his polled constituents wanted, not political pandering compromise at all as I recall. Saying anything else would be calling Cadman a liar.
So what you are saying is that you still desire politicians that slink around in the background cutting self serving deals as opposed to open, honest and transparent elected govt. As I said sad, very sad. Well, keep electing the likes of this Township Council ole boys club then and you will be very happy obviously with doubling of the tax load in 10 years. I for one am happy that there is an opposition at Township even if it is only one person.
Blair, I certainly hope that Township recoups the cost and more for any renting of it's facilities. 'Nominal' better not be losing money or my hair will go on fire, I guarantee you! But that would not bother Kwich or Lib fed Par!
The stumbling child councillor shows he does not understand the separation of State & Church.
Actually LFP, I would guess that the costs don't cover the expenses. The council chamber is a public space and usually the costs to rent space in public buildings to non-profit groups is below market rate as the point of creating these public spaces is to make space available to the public.
In civil societies one of the responsibilities of governments is to provide venues where citizens can gather and become informed. That's why every community center has rooms available to rent. The placement of high barriers (high costs) to access to these spaces defeats the purpose in their creation.
Admittedly some will argue that faith groups don't fit into the mold of an interested group within a civil society but I would argue that while civil society should be secular in nature being secular does not mean discriminating against religious groups. Instead a true secular society would treat a religious group as co-equal to any other group of similar size and composition. As a consequence, if a religious group asks for a space they should no more be denied it than should a band of rogue philatelists...’cause are there really any other kinds of philatelists? 
If we had jam, we could have jam and bread, if we had bread.
I don't bet on maybes and could bes, LFP Editor.
I only see that Kim shouts and sputters a lot, but she is far too intransigent to get anything substantial accomplished.
I also see that chatting with you is like trying to scratch my way through a brick wall with my knuckles.
Buh-bye.
Kwich, that must be tough for you as your knuckles generally drag along the ground normally. Stay on the issues and not only the individual personalities knucklehead next time, or just make sure to stay across the street! Damn, now you brought me down to your level. Nough said Kwich.
Blair, prelim. report is that for total $70.00 Bateman's church actually books 3 Rooms! The Council chambers/auditorium and two other Township/meeting rooms at the same time! That sure sounds cheap.....cheaper than the school district I would think if you compared gym/auditorium and two additional rooms! Obviously cheaper than competing Langley Hotels/Banquet Halls for sure. Jordan's rental compares to about the price of two KFC family bucket dinners! I will confirm as soon as I get more info.
I wonder if I can rent the council chambers for my nephew's upcoming birthday? It might be cheaper than Chucky Cheese. Perhaps my brother's stag?
My son's cubs meeting? ...
Renting out the chamber sure seems to denigrate the public position of the councillors and the respect of system as a whole. Would we rent out the Legislature or the House of Commons in this way? I doubt this would be allowed.
LFP,
That sounds about right. Being the intrepid soul I am I phoned the Township about renting a room for a meeting and was told that non-profits can rent large rooms at the Rec center (that hold about 60) for $15/hr. I'd guess that the three rooms are probably renting out at $15/hr, $15/hr and $40/hr. Try calling the front desk and see if my educated guess is about right.
I seem to remember being told by the school district that it would cost us $25 an hour to rent a senior gym for indoor soccer practice.
It is my understanding that for-profit rental rates are substantially higher, but since this is a church we are talking about I'm going to guess that they get the lower rate.
On the whole it all sounds pretty above-board to me.
Cheers
Anon,
If you wanted to rent a room for a birthday you could probably do so, I’m sure if you could demonstrate that you were a non-profit organization (with a taxation number) then you could get the lower rate.
As for your other point, I'm not sure why renting of facilities would denigrate them. The activities we are talking about seem pretty appropriate and respectful for the room. As for the stature of the room. It is simply a fancy meeting hall that is used most Monday nights (except in summer). If you didn't rent it out it would sit empty for over 95% of the time. Frankly it seems sensible to try and recoup some of the maintenance/heating costs by renting it out occasionally. As for the comparison to the House of Commons, that’s a pretty long stretch since most communities in BC don’t have full-time chambers and use community halls for their meetings.
I'll try again. I think my original post was lost.
I feel very uncomfortable that a religious organisation is turning the council chamber into a church. In my families tradition (Anglican), a church is consecrated. Whether Jordan's church believes in consecration or not, it still feels like a violation of church and state to conduct a consecrational activity in the seat of local government.
Councellors should not only respect the seperation of church and state, they should be seen to respect the seperation of church and state. In setting up this church in the seat of local government Jordan is alienating and offending secular values.
I will concede that in a democracy, relgious groups should be treated equaly to political groups for example (but not given preferential treatment). If anti-democratic groups like facist or communist parties are allowed to rent the council chamber then maybe you have a point that anti-secular groups should be allowed to hire the chamber also.
I wouldn't have a problem with a church group organising non-proselytising charity work etc on council property...but holding a regular doctrinal church service and worshop actually in the council chamber. That is a step too far, that is offensive.
Please excuse my atrocious typos and spelling.
Quaker,
There is a loooong history in Canada of church and state sharing facilities in communities of all sizes. Heck in many rural communities council business is held in the local church hall as that is the only space available.
Just because our government is secular does not require that our spaces not be shared by both secular and religious communities. I will add that religious groups are not anti-secular but simply religious. Most religious leaders in Christian faiths fully acknowledge and respect the separation of church and state and to imply otherwise (by calling them anti-secular) you are be-smudging their names and reputations.
I’ll go back to a more important point that people seem to miss, Canada has no equivalent to the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Freedom to practice religion is written into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the restrictive view of church and state is not in our legal jurisprudence. Separation of church and state is through common law. As a result common practice (the basis for common law) is how these things are treated in Canada. The long practice of the secular and the religious sharing the same locations is the norm in Canada.
As for your concern with consecration of space. Any time a priest gives last rights in a hospital or at the scene of an accident that space is temporarily consecrated for the activity. Temporary consecration is a norm in religious activities. As a non-religious person myself I’m not sure I understand why this activity concerns you so.
To conclude, The Fraser River Presentation Theatre (note they don’t even call it the Council Chambers) is not only used by Jordan’s church, it is also used by The Willows Church and is regularly used by other groups as well. As an example it was home to MagicFest (featuring Zigster the Trickster) not too long ago.
I'm aware of the traditional blurring of the distinction, such as with Parish Councils in my native UK, and I am aware it is not a formal legislative seperation. However Canada is generally better than the UK in making the distinction.
The issue with consecration is that it is an insulting presumption to dedicate a public space used as a seat of local government to a deity. To me, it feels like a violation of the values which that space stands for. Even if it is legal and above board it is still offensive to people who's world view is free from supernatural and mystical elements.
My "olive branch" would be to allow meetings by church groups or any other organisation...but to actually use the chamber as a Church...that in my opinion is a step too far, that is anti-secular.
I don't support church services in seats of democracy for similar reasons I don't support colleges which require allegiance to religious dogma being granted the title of "university". These actions are degrading to the values of democracy and free inquiry, which I hold dear.
I think it's important for secular humanist opinions like mine to be heard, even if they may be unpopular in some quarters. Now I've had my say. Thank you for reading. I still think you have a lot of good things to say on most issues Blair.
At the moment I tend to agree with Quaker. It overall just really does not sit at all well with this Editor that Bateman's church uses the Township hall. Quaker makes some excelent points as well as about Bateman or any politician having to avoid inappropriate 'appearances' and being at arm's length from any conflict of interest. However, I will still muse about this issue for a bit though.
Given the harsh financial situation that the Township is now in because of the political incompetents on Council, I would at minimum for the Council Chambers auditorium not permit anyone to have a long term regular contract. (eg: Say they were to desire consistent certain week days & times for a year or so.) This should be the rule for all subsidized non profit orgs. unless they pay a much, much larger premium rate. This would then in effect allow corporate business who would pay a profitable premium to be able in a short notice situation have first dibs at getting the chambers/auditorium. In essence profitable bookings should reasonably bump non profitable bookings!
Perhaps non profit orgs. should only be allowed perhaps a maximum one month in advance booking subject to reasonable cancelation for bumping. In addition this Editor believes that the Township should market the room much more to corporations and businesses to make the rentals more profitable for us suckers, the taxpayers who paid the $20 million for the cystal palace!
If Bateman's Church picture can make the chambers look church like surely the Township can at least market the same picture to make it appealing to businesses for their meetings and conferences!;
http://www.jordanbateman.com/upl...ting-
792610.jpg !
http://langleybc.blogspot.com/20...s-
saturday.html 
I have no use for religion, personally. It has been the cause of many horrific wars, and unsavory events in the name of the "respective" deities.
I have no problem with groups, religious or otherwise, renting meeting rooms in the Town Hall. I do not, however, feel they should hold religious meetings in the same room that our civic leaders hold council. There is something about that thought that churns my stomach. Also, I think the rental rates for these rooms should be much higher, to reflect actual costs of staff and utilities, non-profit or not.
Kim Richter is doing a great job. She may come across as angry and uncompromising at times, but I would venture to say that she is doing what her constituents elected her to do. If I had to sit through some of the meetings she does and watch money being tossed around like it grew on trees, I would be even more pissed than she is.
LFP,
So let’s get this straight, if the Willows use the facility as a church they are okay, it is only if Jordan uses the facility as a church that you have a problem? Quaker is very consistent in his message, as a secular humanist he does not feel that religion should be practiced in the (metaphysical) public square. He’s okay with them using other rooms but the seat of power is out. On the topic of conflict of interest I fail to see your point and I think you misread Quaker’s point. The Township has an open system for room rentals. There is no indication that Jordan used any power of his office to get the room, he simply signed up for it (as did the Willows). One has to be consistent in the application of the rules and Jordan has simply followed the rules. As far as I can see there is no conflict of interest here in any real sense nor is there a perceived conflict of interest. As for Quaker, he didn’t indicate a conflict of interest regarding the use of the room, rather he indicates a conflict over a secular official who chooses to carry out a religious observance in what Quaker would describe as a necessarily secular location.
On your second point I will disagree strongly. Non-profits should never get bumped from PUBLIC facilities by for-profit ventures. It goes against all the rules of public space and the role of the public facilities in a free-enterprise society. As I pointed out previously, “In civil societies one of the responsibilities of governments is to provide venues where citizens can gather and become informed. That's why every community center has rooms available to rent. The placement of high barriers (high costs) to access to these spaces defeats the purpose in their creation.” What I did not include is the corollary to that which is that in the free market it is unfair business practice to allow a subsidized private sector provider (i.e. the Township) to compete head-to-head on price with unsubsidized private sector providers (like hotels and private halls). As an example, when I used to work at UVic as a researcher we were required (by law) to charge for consulting services at a rate substantially above the private sector rate because it was considered unfair business practice to have us compete on price since our salaries, overhead etc.. were covered by the University. Since the Township’s costs can be covered elsewhere (through taxes) they have an unfair advantage in any business competition. While it would be nice for the Township to compete against the Holiday Inn Express for room rental rates in Walnut Grove it is simply unfair business practice to do so. I would guess if the Township did as you suggested and “ market the room much more to corporations and businesses to make the rentals more profitable for us suckers” the competition bureau would be knocking down your door with a summons to show cause.
Blair, I feel uncomfortable on BOTH items - That includes church/state and also on the political arms length distance concerns raised. I believe the line was crossed and in my opinion it is inappropriate and at minimum self-serving. Anywhere else would been better advised as it would not have given the appearance of conflict or opportunity for any potential conflict of interest. It was a poor decision. No matter what rational you throw out, you will not convince this Editor to change my opinion. Just curious where did you find out about the other church?
On the second item our taxes are being planned to increase ~77% in ten years! If possible we should maximize other areas of revenue from areas like our airport and any other business revenues possible while being as reasonably fair to non profit organizations as possible.
LFP,
A quick google of the theatre name brought up this web site: http://thewillowscc.com/
Cheers
Your right Blair, it seems Township Council Chambers/theatre may becoming a much more widely used religious groups use venue than we thought before. Because when googling it would seem that besides Bateman's church,
http://langleybc.blogspot.com/20...s-
saturday.html
and the Willow church,
http://thewillowscc.com/
Calvary Chapel,
Christ Covenant Church,
and finally that the
Jericho Ridge Community church may have booking it as well!
http://jerichoridge.com/
Is this what you call niche marketing? Does demand indicate pricing issue?
On the contrary, I would suggest that the large number of groups seeking to use the facilities is an indication of the poor planning that has gone into development in our community. When I moved to Langley a scant seven years ago, Willowbrook was a community of small houses on big lots. Now it is a bustling suburbia of townhouses. Sadly, public facilities have not kept pace with the growth. Particularly hard hit, due to the cost of land, is the space allocated for places of worship...and don’t get me started on the near complete absence of park and field space for all the kids being squeezed into Walnut Grove and Willowbrook. Kids need green space and playing fields and they just aren’t getting them right now! In my view the large number of religious groups seeking space in the Township building is an indication of the severe shortage of space elsewhere and the low cost provided by the Township is a pressure-release valve in my mind.
I agree whole-heartedly with Councillor Richter on this one. Development must pay for itself and in my opinion Council has failed in its responsibilities on this count. Granting exemptions for reduced park space and letting developers build without sufficient space for parking is a recipe for disaster. Of particular concern to me (as an occasional runner) are all those paths that the developers build in their communities that they plan on maintaining for only 2-5 years. The cost to maintain those paths has started to fall on the Township and even worse, the liability when someone slips and is hurt because the Township couldn’t keep every meter clean and safe....aaarghh!!!!
Sustainable development plus a financially incompetent Council is quoted by Cllr. Richter in today's Province and in today's rebuttal letter to the editor in the Langley Times.
http://www.langleytimes.com/port...id=791312&
more=
I agree with your sentiments regarding development Blair. By the way, what does "development paying for itself" mean. Does it mean that the private developer must pay for the new public spaces, or does it mean that the increased tax revenue from the new population pay for the new public spaces, or a combination of the two? Personally I'd like to see more redistribution of the tax revenue collected from higher levels of government down to municipal government to help with these costs also (without increasing the overall tax burden).
I also think you captured my concerns in your previous posts. There seems to be two issues here, 1) whether it is appropriate to be worshiping different interpretations of god in the seat of local government and 2) whether it is astute for an elected official to form a Church in the same place that he conducts his elected duties.
It feels to me almost like laying down the gauntlet to Brights/secular humanists/atheists etc. He's rubbing our noses in it. I would expect that from a fundamentalist who wanted to create a theocracy. However, I thought that Jordan was keen on no direct influence of particular denominations on government. I give him credit for critisising Yabadaba-Day. A truly unifying politician (as opposed to a divisive one) would recognise that the optics look bad and choose an alternative venue. Unless I've got Jordan wrong, I just think that due to the circles he has been brought up in and mixes with he just doesn't realise that worshiping his deity in a seat of government might be offensive, both to the non-religious and those of other religions. The easy thing is just to keep political buildings and places of worship seperate.
Quaker,
Development paying for itself means that development fees should address ALL the additional costs of the development infrastructure. If you want to change a property from a rural one-house property using a septic field on a one-acre lot to 10 houses with a link to the sanitary sewer, then you should pay for the full cost of the link, including any expansion of the pumping and treatment at the other end. Taxation revenue from new residents should be used to maintain services but should not be calculated into the installation and initial provision of services. Similarly, any substantial increase in population density should incorporate a charge to address provision of secondary services. If you build a development with 100 houses in an area under-serviced by schools (like Willowbrook) then the costs to provide schools in the area should be considered in the setting of the fees. It is my understanding that the fees cover a lot of these expenses, but I also understand that they don’t cover them all (anyone care to correct me?).
As for your second point, I agree in an ideal situation the Chambers should not be used for ecumenical purposes but as I described above, the situation is anything but ideal. Jordan and the other faith communities currently using the Township Hall have no ready alternative venues to work with. I’m sure each would love its own facilities be given the state of things in the Township, that is not going to happen soon. The Township, as is right in a civil society (in my opinion), is providing facilities as a stop-gap.
Our opinions differ on whether a Church service is appropriate for a council chamber, but I agree that in a civil society the rules should be governed by a principle of equality regardless of whether the group has religious motivations or not. However that still doesn't mean that it is astute or wise of a councellor to combine two aspects of his life quite so closely.
I wonder if there are any guidelines for hiring the facilities. What might be regarded as inappropriate in you opinion?
Thanks for th explanation on "development paying for itself". I guess there are practical issues determining the appropriate proportions for development fees. The principles you describe sound goodto me.
By my nature I am a libertarian, a pragmatist and not terribly sentimental (until you bring children into the picture then all bets are off). As a consequence, I don’t view the Chambers as having any special existential significance and would make it available to any non-profit group that treated the facilities with due respect (it is a beautiful, well-appointed room after all) as long as they agreed to not violate any laws or aspects of the human right’s code. To sum up, I’d be dead set against the Klan or NAMBLA renting the facilities, would have no problem with a church or registered political party renting the facilities and would need to address other groups on a case-by-case basis. My default position would be to rent the room to any non-profit group and only deny clear offenders...gotta be worried about them philatelists though
I suspect that there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to personal freedom versus communal responsibility. I tend to associate the term "libertarian" with those who want so much personal freedom that the law of the jungle takes over and the majority actually end up with less freedom.
Wow...I'd never heard of NAMBLA before! Yep, I think they'd be on my list of inappropriate organisations too.
Is this what you call niche marketing? Does demand indicate pricing issue?
LFP are you saying that if Jordan's church paid more you would let them use the facility?
I am sort of with Blair on this and with Quacker on his banning of NAMBLA.
As for the philatelists, they need to "stick" to the business at hand and "stamp" out those who would "cancel" their events. (puns intended)
I repeat I personally am not comfortable with mixing religeous ceremonies with government ceremonies in the same Council chambers at all. I certainly am not comfortable even more so with a sitting Councillor starting up a church and using the facility either.
Secondly if that is not done I believe that the pricing structure should in any event be reviewed to be at minumum recouping our costs and quite frankly trying to make a profit to help the township financially. Every little bit counts.
Yes it does seem ridiculously low. Not for profit organisations should have to pay not for profit prices, but that is not the same as subsidised prices.
I'm glad we agree about the dangers of physical child abuse fostered by NAMBA...now what about the psychological child abuse inherent in telling kids they are born sinful and are going to hell if they don't worship an intangible deity?
I'm quite serious. We can become anaesthetised to familiar doctrines, but if you try and take a step back for a moment, this doctrine really is ethically questionable. I feel uncomfortable with doctrines of this nature being preached in public buildings.
I don't think there should be a taboo on criticising something just because it calls itself religion. In some ways there is not that much difference between NAMBA and fundamentalist Mormons who turn a blind eye to older men having relationships with young girls.
Heck this whole NAMBLA thing is getting out of hand, I just picked the group because it is the familiar whipping boy used by Jon Stewart on the “The Daily Show”.
So LFP, while I understand Quaker’s reservations for using the hall, I’m not as confident I understand yours. You say you aren’t comfortable with mixing religious ceremonies with government ceremonies in the same Council chambers. Clearly the ceremonies don’t happen at the same time so I take it that you view the room as having some major significance?
To LFP
You said "I repeat I personally am not comfortable with mixing religeous ceremonies with government ceremonies"
I would like you to remember that statement the next time there is a ceremony in the township that involves the sacred smoke and feathers of our first nations citizens. Society bends over backwards not to make anyone but Christians feel uncomfortable. Why is that I wonder??
Don't think I will see Ms. Richter objecting too strenuously when the occaision happens that, God forbid, she may be called to be the municipal representative at a treaty signing ceremony.
Servant, I think that the Muslims would argue with you as to who feels more uncomfortable now-a-days!
Let's go a little further with your string though. Let's say a religious group(not neccessarily christian) books the room and preaches and promotes violent rebelion, etc. especially against governments while practising their religion for instance and it gets wide spread publicity. How do you justify not renting to them? Because you don't like the angle of their religion but you do prefer another's angle? Try getting away with that in the courts especially if you never had any legally permissable established criteria as to who you will rent to!
Imagine the irony and stupidity of having to book the Council Chambers to them for these purposes.
Or how about a rabid religious group who advocate and promote easier & free abortions or quite frankly the equally rabid reverse? For that matter what about a group that refuses to allow participants because of race, religion or sexual preference? How about a church that has a charter that absoutely refuses to marry a Township black man and a white wife in the Langley Council Chambers/Church such as a christian KKK church or a religous skinheads church. All these situations could easily explode in the public's eye and give Langley a well desrved black eye.
The embarrassment and irony and stupidity would be national and maybe internationally news worthy. Especially if held in a subsidized local govt council chamber. I don't think that London City Council chambers are being subsidized for the use of a radical religious Moulah in England who is well known to promote american and western hatred and violent retribution in his sermons and is even suspected of also helping recruit terrorists! Political heads would roll if they did!
If Councillor Jordan Bateman's church can use the Township Council Chambers, how could the Township administration legally or ethically deny any other accredited or similar church organization, start up or established?
I guess in essence I still feel way more comfortable in only letting non religious groups and users (regardless of faith) use the Township Council chambers especially on an on going basis and even more so if subsidized by the Township taxpayers. I really can't see a baseball or soccer assoc. meeting inciting violence ever especially since they don't have many group think philisophical and ecumenical zealots being nurtured at their meetings!
In fact most religious groups quite frankly seem to me to not be hurting that much financially either that they need subsidies. Even Cllr. Jordan Bateman's only months old church proudly announced that they are now able to order a house for a Ugandan family, a midwifery clinic, fund an Aldergrove firefighters charity, etc.
http://langleybc.blogspot.com/20...nth-
begins.html
Non denominational and non profit, Sports orgs, photograpy clubs, car clubs, community care & support groups, etc., should be very welcome and perhaps given a financial break. Any others should qualify to be able to book the facility and then pay fair market value or better!
In fact one could argue that perhaps a further clear definition of what kind of group can and cannot use the facility should be created especially for the Council Chambers and even more so if subsidized. Some obvious criteria that spring to my mind are that they should clearly be inclusive of any and all regardless of sex, age, religion ethnic, etc., etc..
Other reasonable and much better thought out organizational criteria and conditional booking rules could be added as well to avoid the above scenarios. In any case I still feel uncomfortable with a church, any church (including wicken, aboriginal, etc.) using the Township Council Chambers.
There needs to be a clearly and well defined seperation of church and state even in Langley Township Hall. In fact I am concerned that Councillor/Chaplain Jordon Bateman did not consider this in his choice of facility for his newly founded church. Keep in mind as it was said before herein that some of the worst historical tragedies have come from this line being crossed regardless of which religion crossed the line.
And yes Blair the Township Council Chambers should be considered a significant room, just as a court room, just as a church hall, just as a sikh temple hall, just as the Victoria legislature chambers and parliament hill house of commons. Tradition, respect, rules and sometimes even a special awe makes and keeps these places significant, very significant. Our communities most respected leaders try or should try to make a difference in these significant places. Let's make sure we don't jeopardize this significance.
LFP,
Do you actually re-read what you write before you hit “publish”?
I really wasn’t expecting even you to slam a church group because they give money to Firefighter’s charities or fund a Ugandan family and an overseas midwifery clinic? What’s next, a letter to the editor railing against people who stop at crosswalks? perhaps promoting a bylaw to fine boy scouts who help little old ladies cross the street?
The fact that the membership of a church does good works is not a reason to squeeze them for more cash, it is a reason to thank them for thinking of others before they think of themselves. Frankly, the financial situation in Langley Township is not so dire that we should be looking to shake down good people who are tithing for good deeds, which is what you seem intent on doing.
On a different tack is it just me or is your single-minded hate-on for Jordan Bateman getting a little out-of-hand? There are nine members on Council yet I would bet if you checked out your postings the name Bateman would appear more often than all the other council members combined (excluding Counc. Richter of course). It is odd, because of all the members on council, I’d guess that he has voted with Counc. Richter the most. The funny thing is I have never met or talked to Counc. Bateman, and given his seat (way off to the side) I seldom even see him on the televised council meetings, but following all your huffing and puffing I feel real sympathy for him having to put up with all these seemingly unfounded and decidedly personal attacks.
As for the earlier portion of your post, talk about taking a hypothetical to an extreme. Frankly, I’m not expecting many church groups to incite rebellion? Considering that virtually every community in BC rents public spaces to church groups, I’m surprised that we don’t read page after page of preachers being arrested for hate speech...because that is what would happen if your bizarre scenario came to pass. The Fraser River Theatre being a public place, the authorities would find out and, this being Canada, a complaint would be made and the offender would get charged with hate speech. Since I'm not reading about it, or hearing about it on the radio, maybe your fear of massive religious insurrection may be out to lunch.
As for renting the Council Chambers to church groups, here’s the problem. As I have noted on more than one occasion, it is the responsibility of Governments in a civil society to provide public venues where citizens can gather and become informed. Right now the Township is lacking in public rooms appropriate for use by larger groups. As a consequence they rent out one of their larger rooms (the Fraser River Theater which also doubles as the Council Chambers) to groups with larger numbers. If you want the Township to stop renting out the room then the only alternative, in a civil society, is to provide an alternative within the community. In most larger communities, this is done by building a free-standing library or recreation center with meeting rooms. The Township has not chosen that route choosing for cost sake to share facilities keeping the library, the recreation center and Township management all under the same roof and multi-tasking rooms. Thus we have the Fraser River Theatre which also serves a second role as Council Chambers. I will note the room is not named “Council Chambers” it is named a theatre, indicating that it’s primary use was not intended to be as a Chambers.
So now you have a simple choice, since it is the government’s responsibility to provide the space, you can either rent the space that you have built or if sentimentality prevents you from doing so you can build more space. Based on your previous writings I’m going to guess that you don’t want to build new space so please, enlighten us, tell us how you would deal with the problem? Personally I don’t see any alternatives right now...do you?
Servant...very good points. I agree with your sentiments. Religion is entirely culturally based and that is why, especially in a multicultural society, government should remain secular.
You know when it comes to world religions, we share our disbelief in almost all of them, I just take it one religion further. We actually have more in common than you might think
My heart is with LFP but my head is somewhere in between LFP and Blair. I don't think all religious organisations should be tarred with the same brush. Fundamentalists are a far greater threat to secular and scientific values than are moderate or esoteric religions. The problem is how to differentiate between them.
Part of me says that if they can't be seperated then they should all be banned from renting the council chamber. But if we are to allow them then maybe we should allow them only to conduct organisational and charity functions but not worship or proselytising. But if you ban organisations from organising proselytising from the council chamber, for the sake of equality you'd have to ban secular conservation groups like WWF.
If I thought there was strong support for banning religious groups entirely then I would support it, but for the sake of community harmony my compromise would simply be to ban the use of the council chamber as an actual Church for the purposes of worship. As I've said, this is beyond the pail, I find it deeply offensive and it should not be allowed.
I see The Tyee has a review of one of my favourite books of 2006
http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/12/.../12/14/Dawkins/
Commenting by HaloScan
