For information, this is the FRC's own site:
www.frc.org/religious-liberty
It thinks the USA is "persecuting" Christians too, but is the FRC quite credible? Or a bunch of religious hypocrites? This is from the FRC site, and it may make one recall many of the original colonists were religious bigots fleeing persecution by opposing bigots:
Religion is integral to the health and wellbeing of a civil society. As Founding Father and second President John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
I.e., Thou shalt be religious and the Constitution shall approve thy religion and style of life; so sayeth the FRC.
So although the FRC is right to expose genuine attacks on religion and religious choice, such as in North Korea and various theocracies, and wrongs like forced marriage, it does not seem itself quite as liberally-minded as it likes us to think!
FRC crusades too against what offends it in the USA. However, the web-site gives only links to what appear to be books, using summaries almost as uninformative as corporate "mission statements". So it does not say directly the USA has done wrong; though generally, darkly hints that the FRC is homophobic, anti-abortion and possibly anti any theological beliefs other than Judaeo-Christianity.
It does not mention Canada, so I cannot judge Del Turco's remarks; but I suspect from what I gleaned from its own web-site that the FRC is offended by legally allowing personal religious choice and freedom from persecution for sexual orientation, which is of course, no-one's "choice".
When I see an organisation use "Family" in its title, alarm-bells ring, rather as when I see a nation use "Democratic" in its official name. Or indeed some of the nastier threads on SW, exhorting "Traditional Christian Family Values" that usually mean bullying and cruelty.
Whatever it means by "Research", I would like to know what is the Family "Research" Council's ideal "family". Is it one based on love, mutual respect and individual choice? Or is it a miniature autocracy by fear of one spouse (usually the male) using religious bigotry to excuse what in UK law is the offence of "coercive and controlling behaviour"?
A law that would probably give groups like the FRC, kittens.
'
"LIberal" - I do
not mean that in the vague, warped way so common in shallow party-political arguments.
I define it as being free but responsible in thought, word and deed; with due mutual respect with other people and their thoughts, and the Law of the Land.
