Interesting stuff, Alex. Just what does the resolutio nsay. Can you quote it here, or is it available online? I'd like to read it.

It is available online - http://gc40.united-church.ca/files/wb2_8_arctic_commission.pdf

It's on page Arctic 5-7.

Alex - My partner is on Arctic Commission. I know that she's done alot of thinking about that Proposal, and what it might mean for people with disabilities.

We also talked about what it would mean for some congregations. Two of the churches that she served (in Southern Ontario) are impossible for people with mobility disabilities to enter... the entrances to the santuary are 15 or so feet above ground. The financial cost of retrofitting the building to support access is so high - for a small group of people - that it will take them years to accumulate the funds to be able to do it. (Please note, at least one of the congregations started building a fund to do it a while back... even then, it may take them a decade to get there.) I hope that, if some form of the Proposal is passed, it includes funding support - or there is going to have to be a frustratingly long period allowed for many churches to be able to live up to the decision.

Christ's peace - r

Another issue is the question of historic buildings. Making a building accessible that is designated under the Heritage Act in Ontario is a horrendously expensive question. And the United Church is the largest single owner of historic buildings in Ontario.

Might motivate us into shedding buildings. :)

Christ's peace - r

My main problem with the proposal (which I sense from some comments I have heard/read is aimed largely at the reality that pastoral charges have the right to refuse to allow same-gender marriages) is that it overrides the rights of the congregation.  THat may be fine to do at times but atleast the movers need to openly acknowledge that this is happening.  THis is not a minor change to our polity that is being requested -- it is a big one.

I would not have supported it without a great deal of convincing.  And if it went to a remit I would vote against.  What did the commission do with it?

Its still up in the air - they'll be talking about it, again, this afternoon.

Christ's peace - r

I know that a lot of people, including my late grandfather, worry about anything at the national level that steps into decisions that are supposed to be those of lower courts of the church or individual congregations. I would hope that the intent of this resolution (ensuring that the UCC does not discriminate against any identifiable group) could be accomplished at the local level without a blanket policy from the General Council, but I know from past experience (e.g. the ordination debate) that it won't be easy. I'll be interested to see what happens.

On the issue of accomodating disabilities, my UU church had a real eye-opener a couple years ago when our first interim minister arrived. She required a scooter to get around and we quickly realized that our baby steps towards accessibility were, perhaps, enough for the odd member or visitor with a disability but did not go far enough to accomodate a minister or other staffperson with one. So, we had to do some quick renovations and also revisit and rethink our approach to accessibility. It was, indeed, a positive experience in the end even if it cost some cash and sweat.

Not likely. Historic buildings have a higher priority and are much more difficult to dispose of.

*wry smile* DKS - when I first read your post, my thought was, "easier than disposing of... disabilities???" Then I realized that you meant "more difficult to dispose of than contemporary buildings".

My brain just wasn't working!

Christ's peace - r

Your late grandfather was a congregationalist.  In fact, the church buildings are owned by the United Church of Canada, so a policy statement like this is not inappropriate.

But, Mandella, you are right in how it relates to our worship life.

Currently, that is the sole responsibility of the Session (or its equivalent). It is why this Proposal, if passed, would need wording to go before the Presbyteries (and, probably, the congregations) to change the Basis of Union.

In effect, the changes the Proposal asks for, at least as it relates to worship, cannot be decided upon by the General Council. GC can only decide to ask the denomination if this is what needs to happen. (There are often a couple of remits that follow every General Council... though most of them are decided upon by the Presbyteries, rather than congregations.)

Christ's peace - r

Christ's peace - r

Funnily enough, he came from a Welsh Methodist background, but I think he was first and foremost United Church (he was ordained not long after Union as I recall) and if the governing principles came from the other churches, that didn't matter. After all, it was the United Church that he was ordained into.

FWIW (since I'm not UCC right now), I agree with you (and suspect he would, too, in the end). Non-discrimination should be a church-wide policy just as the Charter of Rights applies to all of Canada. I'm just pointing that there are others who may not want it brought in through a simple resolution at GC without some broader discussion. 

Mendalla

As I read the resolution it asked that we follow the same principles of non-discrimination as laid out by the laws of Canada.

Regarding disabilities the courts and related laws regarding disabilities, access, and discrimination are different for pratical reasons and take account of issues like historic buildings, and the financial implications it has on small business and small organisations. Likewise I believe the UCC resolution from Saskachwan on discrimination would treat disablity and access in the same manner.

One the laws and courts understand that requiring all business to be fully accessible is not feasable, or the businesses and organisations would have to shut down.

As well it understands that even for big organisations it takes time to change.

So the courts interperting the charter and laws like the AODA (Accessibilty for Ontarians with Disabilities) only demands that businesses and orgainsations setup a process to identify barriers and to find ways to overcome those barriers within a certain time period. The AODA set out a goal of making Ontario fully accessible only by 2025. This includes providing financing for not-for profits and those that own building that are designated historic. It also means examining all laws and creating building standard that creat barriers. Like abolishing the door knobs in building codes and replacing them with handles so that people with arthritis and others can open doors.  It also reconises that there are different ways for different organisations to remove barriers.

However the law and thus the resolution is clear one can no longer say we have no people in wheelchairs coming to us, or no people with developmental disabilities, so we do not have to do anything to accomadate them. (of course the only reason that is true is often because of barriers that already exists)

The law also does not demand equal or same type of service as it would for example regarding same-sex marriage. However it does reuire something that does provide something that is equilivant or close to it.

An example is a friend of mine who I know from church when I was a child. He has a developmental disability, the current UCC his family belongs to accomadates him by putting him in Sunday School with 10 year olds. However he is fifty and feels demeaned by this accomadation and so no longer goes to church. The resolution if it is in the same spirit as the law would require that first the church admit that there are barriers to him particpating in church. Then it asks the church to come up with a solution within a certain ammount of time. The solution does not have to be the "dumbing down of Sunday Service", it could mean the setting up of an alternative service. This could be done either by the church alone, or in association with other churches in Ottawa. Right now there are thousands of people with developmental disabilities in Ottawa, and even more people who have people with developmental disabilities in their families.  There is no reasons the UCC in Ottawa could not setup a variety of alternative services for these people. 

Whatever the solution, and I am not supporting any specific solution, the law and thus the resolution requires we admit that barriers exists, that we identify them, and that we find some sort of effective ways of overcoming them, within a reasonable length of time.

Just to add, I see alternative services as the least acceptable form of accomadation. I would much rather see churches include the developmentally disabled in the main service if possible. This can be done by keeping them interested and involved by including them. They might be able to do many things in church that keeps them interested, like reading scripture, passing the collection plate or other things.

The Elizabeth Boggs Centre has an interesting and informative booklet on Faith and Autism, and why faith is important to people with Autism and their families, as well as why it is important to faith communities to include them.

Here is the link, which is also on my web site www.accessiblechurch.ca.

It's the best and most complete resource I have been able to locate on the net. It is called Autism and Faith: A Journey into Community

http://rwjms.umdnj.edu/departments_institutes/boggscenter/products/documents/Autism_Faith.pdf

A congregation in my city made a person with developmental disabilities their presbytery rep. Sam sings in the choir, too. He makes a valuable contribution  to the court simply by his presence. He is in his 60's.

There are 2 separate but related issues here.  One is about accesibility for differently abled.  THat can be sold as a GC mandate.  NOt profitably perhaps but it can be sold.

THe other issue is the race/sexual-orientation/gender question.  THis is a direct response to the reality of congregations choosing a marriage policy that people find incompatible with their vision of the UCCan.  For the "higher" church to enforce this would be challenging to say the least.  Such an approach forgets how diverse a church we are.  And it is a violence and stripping of rights from members of the church.

I agree. And given that there has already been an Opinion frm the General Secretary, any such motion would be either challenged or ultra vires.

 So I see that the motion was defered.

Because of the wording of this motion does this mean that local congregation are not only free to discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender, and disabilty, but also race, occupation, political views, color, drug or alchool use, or if someone is not good looking? 

In other words are there any grounds on which a congregation is not allowed to discriminate against?

Also how does a simple member of a member congregation who has disabilities related to AIDS, High Functioning Autism (i.e. me) get in on the referal process when there are no mechanism to address the barriers I face in particpating in Presbertry and other UCC activities? (Not to mention people who are quadapalegics, living in institutions or with severe developemental disabilities)?

When I addressed the issue at the Presbertry visit to my church last November, I was told that including disabled people like me was like pie in the sky. Is that going to stay the same, or did the resolution that did pass make arrangements, budgetary or otherwise to be included in the referal process 

Alex - It means that the status quo in the congregation, whatever that may be, is maintained. Even if the Proposal had been passed by GC, it is doubtful the subsequent Remit would have been passed by a majority of Presbyteries... nor a majority of Congregations.

I think what it means is that we will continue to work for change through education, than through legislation. Places like your website will be helpful for that.

Christ's peace - r

Hi Alex

I was part of the Arctic commission, and I can tell you that I spoke specifically re access when I spoke to the commission. 

I was not the only one, including a woman that is a good friend of mine, who was in Arctic and requires motorized wheelchair & service dog.

Again, will give you some information later...but...our sense was that the proposal as passed (which by the way, wasn't what was read in the intro to the video  -- there was an amendment which included reporting of data, in that the report of the discriminatory practices would be reported back with metrics)

Metrics drive behaviour.....having data regarding who is discriminating, will result in amendments.

one of the key points was the conciliatory nature of the church, which is what allowed us to get to same-sex marriage before the masses would have allowed it.

You stop that ...you also stop forward thinking motions.

Another key point was that folks would rather work for something for three years, then argue with folks for three years over a remit...and the remit would likely have failed..and driven great division again.

 So how do disabled people get involved in the process. I want to help, not just by getting involved personally, but also by getting others who are disabled, different, or living with disease?  Including not just present members but people who are not members due to barriers. Our church has no members in wheelchairs for example because until our church moved they were unable to get inside.

As someone that has not particpated outside of my local congregation* how does one get involved if one is not a member of any higher courts or my church council?

Also as someone who needs accomadation like many disabled people,  have there been any provisions made for accomadation when consulting those with disabilities affected and their families? Will there be the funds to do so be availalble due to the churches money problems? Does the church have the ability (inside our funding structure) to raise funds specifically for a single issue?

(except when I manned a tabled and spoke as a Gay man at the Montreal- Ottawa Conference in 1988, and last year I went to conference where the auditorium acoutics actually drove me mad and I became highly agitated and unable to think clearly due to my brains limitations caused by a combination of suriviving HIV encephalitis and autism, and which made me unable to sleep or participate.

Thanks Pinga for speaking and to all the others involved. I understand the limitations of the process and know what was done was what was practical and doable and likely more helpful.

Howver that still leaves me angry. I am angery at a lot of things but I know everything that is possibly being done is being done. No one should need to resond to my angry, or be defensive. It's just the way I feel and it is my problem to deal with. I just feel that way, the same way I feel not enough is being done in the world about Africa, or many other things. My anger is with the world and is just is.

Many of us sitting in the room are angry...but....we also know that the rights of those who lead the edge...are essential.

I think Alex that there will be more to follow....I am sure your voice will be hurt.

I would suggest one of the things you do..is start talking up to your friends.  Suggest they go the United Churches in the area and see if they can get in, offer to help them do an audit of accessability in their worship space.  Be a friend to them, a resource.....suggest to them, that you will be pleased ot assist in their work to a just society...and be a friend.

l

Is this a fair headline to put on http://www.accessiblechurch.ca/ above the video with the interview, or is it false hope.

General Council 40 Passes a Resolution to Starting a Process to provide equal Access to all United Church Congregations.

Heres the direct link http://sites.google.com/site/accessiblechurch/united-church

I wonder Pinga, would the resolution have had an easier time if it was broken into two parts, one around physical buildings and one around theology/marriage issues?  What is your sense?

SOmetimes we lump things together hoping to make it more attractive or hoping there is a leader in there to draw along the more problematic only to discover that we shooot ourselves in the foot.

Of course, as was mentioned upstream, for many buildings this resolution was next to impossible to live out.  ANd unless GC was going to help pay (with money they don't have) congregations would have to ignore it.

BUt the journey of a 1000 miles begins with one step.  I suspect this was not the first step but was an important one.

The primary issue was the very nature of our ability as congregations to make our own decisions.

Individuals who were ministers, very in-tune, openly gay spoke about the issue, speaking against the issue..

The primary item, was not the same-sex , but the concilliatory(?) nature of our court/congregations, well, and the issue of tying us to Canadian law

Given that, I don't think splitting it into sections would have helped or shifted it.

I am hoping that ministers will see this as an opportunity to be leading the way, so that congregations do not get labelled as the church that discriminates..when the reports come out after the pastoral oversight visits are done.

Metrics can drive results.....if you want to be an outlayer, then you pay the price of being named as one.

ps.  gordw...we could do this in my home city, if 2 of three folded - in fact, we could probably have 2 ministers & have an elevator.-

Exactly. I can tell you, that as a minister whose congregation has requested that I not perform same-sex weddings, I would have fought this proposal on that basis. It is antithetical to who we are as a church. But I'm a genetic Congregationalist. It's in my DNA.

I would like to think that all ministers are "in tune".

I think you mean concilliar. That means that we are all related to each iother with specific roles and responsibilities. The church is also not bound by law. We follow the law, but we are indeed free to discriminate if our theology says we must. That's how the Roman Catholic Church can ordain only men, refuse to marry same-sex couples and divorced people without going through the annullment process. To suggest that the church must follow the law is to not understand the complex relationship between the church and the laws of the country.

Again, that does not reflect how we relate to each other as the church. I can say as a presbyter in a pastoral relations search process that you can't discriminate against a woman/gay/lesbian/purple/whatever candidate. But at the end of the day the choice is the congregaton's. I have only moral suasion to affect that decision of theirs.

As the late Howie Mills said at the height of the sexuality debates, "We do not do theology by popular vote." Metrics can tell us things but they should not drive our decisions. The Gospel should drive our faithful decisions.

United Churches can discriminate against you if you're not good looking? I knew there was a reason I'm a Baptist.

Arguably, that is exactly what we have done.  We have been faced with two incompatible theological principles - concilliar church (it IS theological, at least in part), and radical inclusiveness.  I understand that the Commission believes they have found a way to try and compromise between the two, and to allow us to move gently from one to another, and in a few months or a year or two, I may learn to trust that position :)

But there is no question that at the moment, we have opted for the more popular position.

I am committed to at least doing something in downtown Ottawa. Ihope that at least United Church people in the Ottawa area like yourself sees how this area of Canada (where Parliment is) is not being served by our present system. At the very least I would like to raise awareness about it in the area and see if there is something we in Ottawa can do. We have never really had a downtown type church that most cities and even town seem to have. That is one that provides a UCC ministry to the marginalised in the area.

A place where the poor, different disabled people (those who face the biggest barriers) the GLBT population, , or those living in the many half way houses(for convicts, those in recovery, or not from drugs and alchool, ), and shelters,  street involved people, first nations, and others. We need a spiritual home of some sort with a welcoming or liberal/liberation/progressive type in the Protestant traditions. Even if most of the ministers are of this type, the church congregations are not,  whether by active discrimination like equal access for GLBT, or passively like not including people who live in the area. on their boards, or through loud organs etc.

Even the Anglicans and other churches do not serve the area, as the one welcoming church is actually a regional church. As seem to be all of the others churches in all of the congregations.'(much as my church was before moving out of the area)

I would be intereted in hearing from what kind of churches serve other downtown populations in Canadian cities.

Also is there something I and other could do who are members in Ottawa (lay or ordained), can do to address this issue. Can we meet somehow to at least talk about it. Can it be raised in the church courts. (other then waiting, I mean I do not know if Ottawa has ever had a downtown church serving the downtown poplulation for 40 years at least)

Does the United Church even still start new churches. Or can we do something else?

Even the presbertries social service program is not inclusive.However I do not want to focus on that at the moment as there are other social serves, and althrough we need more and better ones, the most good could be done IMHO in providing a church people in downtown Ottawa can access.

Alex, you can choose to do what you please...you can approach your board and say, i would like to be part of a visioning team...though i would recommend you start with someone on the board.  you can also ask someone.

if you are looking to someone else to start the work...then you need to find someone else with passion and work with them...

Things will happen, based on the proposal, but it will take time, but there is lots of reasons to go forward...initiating dialogue now

or......we could look to our online community here, to help build some data, and test some processes, and stuff....basically doing some beta work.

For example, Alex you are doing research on accessability on multiple points.

It appears you are pulling together resources and information.

Maybe someone would be willing to work with Alex and put them into best practice posts on emerging spirit.

Maybe someone else would be willing to do the same re age discrimination

We can start to build resources and processes, and maybe even beta test them in our own congregations wherever they may be...

we are a community ...there are passionate folks..so...let's do it.

ps...on a side note...just curious what would happen if we appealed to be described as a pastoral charge....wonder what presbyetery we would be in - the one where the servers are?

RevMatt wrote: "We have been faced with two incompatible theological principles - concilliar church (it IS theological, at least in part), and radical inclusiveness. "

EZ Answer: Can you say more about how these are incompatible.  I don't see them that way.  One's a governance/decision-making model, and the other is an organizational model.  Is there a particular governance model that extends form radical inclusiveness?

RevMatt, you are excluding the other aspect...which is empire. 

I would ask that each person in their church, that have participated in this site, share that GC is just folks like you & me. people who have come from their churches to presbytery, and then nominated & then chosen by their conferences to go to GC.  It is our population which makes these decsions.  

An EZ answer from a Smart Alec: The Canadian system of governence, which is a federation of semi-autominous provinces, which is a ruled over by a central constitution which includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.

Which is what I thought the Saskatechewan resolution was about..

Am I wrong?

It is this system,  which gave Canadians equal marriage, and with which people are using the courcts to force equal access for the disabled, the different, and those living with illness.  It is because of court decisions made under the charter,  that governments have introduced laws like the AODA and others. It's for example becuase of the charter that city bus drivers are forced to announce each stop, because of a grievence filed with the courts.

In fact 2423 court decisions have referenced the charter of rights, and 13193 have reference the the Constitution Act of 1982, including the 2423 charter cases. Ther are too many to name but include, everything from Access and Inclusitity for First Nations in the court system  and Anglophones in Quebec and Francophones outside of Quebec are more included, or at least were protected from greater exclusion.

As well uncounted millions of decisions and  thousands of laws have been made to comply with the Charter since 1982 without being forced to by the courts.

Cheri DiNovia, a United Church minister who performed the first same-sex weddings in Canada, is now in the Ontario Legislature, and not in jail because of the charter. She had been threathened with a five year prison sentence (for performing illegal or fraudulant weddings) If she had continued, which was her intent, and  the courts had not ruled under the charter that the law was unconstitutional.

Not ony she would have been sent to jail but likely many other clergy would have as well. Maybe even people here on Wondercafe.

I do not understand this point. What has the Charter of Rights and Freedom done to extend empire?

I know some First Nations, Quebec, and Alberta among other have complaints. But public opion in all populations overwelming support the charter, and even the minority  in Quebec who are still opposed, overwelming support the principles behind the charter. As evident by an even stronger Quebec charter, even if it is different in a few ways. 

Do you have any examples where Canadians has suffered from Empire due to the 1982 Constitution, and if so does it outways empire has been reduce in the lives of others?

It also beegs the questions, why is it empire to adapt equal access? but it is not empire for rich and middle class people from other areas outside of the downtown to run and exclude people from the local area from  all of our Churches in the downtown Ottawa area?

Or for that matter why is it not empire ish to exclude UCC christians from equal access, by boards that are largely run by the middle class and the priveleged?

(Yes I know not all board members or church bodies are 100% middle class or priveldged, but they are overwelming so. Many theologians in the world have pointed out that our churches are run by the rich almost exclusively. As opposed to when the poor and oppressed ran the churches in the first few centuries at least, and that Jesus ministry included the pooor, oppressed and marginlised. I hate to tell pople but the middle class in Canada are priveledged and rich.) 

It still beggs the questions. How do you consult people who are excluded because of disability from form our church becuase of barriers to the church, and even barriers for those in the system of governence and even excluded from all consultation due to barriers facing not just the disabled and differnent, but the others as well, (like most of the different poplulation groups in downtown Ottawa.)

The Canadian system of goverence was not and is still not radically inclusive nor is Canada radically inclusive, but it is going in that direction only because of the 1982 Constitution. One of the things that first happen was that hundreds of thousand were given the right to a vote, (people in jail, convicted or not) and the right to a confidential ballot (many disabled people)

Next the government setup resources (which are still improving, even through Harper has eliminated some of them, like the courct challenges program) to further move Canada towards a radical inclusiveness.

But it had to start with a radical change of our system of governence, which was the 1982 Constitution and Charter.

Alex -- I am not the best at arguing empire..as I struggle with some definitions of it; however, to my knowledge, empire is when one group with power extends that power over another group that does not.

Consider a small rural ministry...maybe a church which has a DLM or a part-time minister serving them.  There is a basement and a few steps to go up to the sanctuary. They love kids but their theology is that children should not have communion. They welcome all those that come to them for ministry and will marry anyone. They haven't gone thruogh the affirming process, but don't participate in the Pride parade (then again, there isn't one in this small rural charge). they don't have a youth group, but do have a seniors brunch. They haven't had an immigrant move to their village for years; however, there is one family that came from Poland...but they think they are RC.  There are a couple of families who had kids in french immersion before they moved to the new subdivision...but they only show up at the candle light christmas service.

Should they retrofit that building to be accesable to all peoples  (hearing, viewing) liftinvest in $$ to have musc leadership that can approach all peoples,  should they welcome children to communion, employ a youth worker to see if they can drum up kids, buy rainbow stickers for their doors, invest in bilingual translatin in case the French family shows up

When we talk about empire, part of the reference is that we all come from different realities...and so to impose the reality of an urban centre onto the reality of a rural setting is not appropriate

Alex: as far as I know, we each have a responsibility to reach out and capture the information.  What other ideas might you have to access those without a voice.  For me that is the same in all examinations of market -- ie who aren't you serving, who might wish to be served.  I was going to ask the marketing folks around me, but am happy to hear your wisdom.

We can also continue down this path of discussing how it doesn't meet the needs of what you feel should have been done, and I can say..well, here is why it isn't...and I am quite willing to do that dialogue...or we can get on with some of the discussion of the process to change..and how what was passed gives us those starting points and some teeth

your choice....i'm going to be walking down the path of what next...but..am happy to walk with you as you also articulate why it was the wrong descision.

Well put.

What Cheri DiNovo did was indeed violate the law, intentionaly and willfully. She would have had to deal with the consequences. Not only that, she advocated all United Church clergy also intentionally commit similar fraud. I was present when she did so. It was, in my opinion, a silly, stupid idea at the time.

I agree with what you say about the problem. It's a good clarification of the problem. I am also not on expert on empire. So it's a helpful post for me. Let me at least clarify the situation here in Ottawa

The problem I have in Ottawa, is that the downtown has around 10 United Churches. They are all controlled and run by privelged middle class people from mostly the suburbs. They have a few members from the country and few from downtown, and as I see it they are imposing there middle class suburban realities and values on the people of the center of the city, by not only refusing them access, but by implication, and lack of welcome they are saying to them they do not belong in a church.  They are saying that they are not good enough for God or the church.

In particular the those who are marginlised, poor, minorities (GLBT , First Nations, and people with certain types of disabilites, and others)

Either by acts of ommissions or by an actual policy they do not give access to the community of people living downtown. I have not statistics but if you go into these churches (I have visited 6 in the last few years). The proof is in in the pudding as the Brits say.

I do not see those people in the churches. Also as an AIDS activist I know many people from these groups as AIDS seems to target those who are most marginlised and oppressed as well as Gay men. i.e 20% of people with HIV are First Nations people.

Most newly infect are young (late teens to twenties) and many come from the developing world.  I also know many addicts (some in recovery, most are not) and street invloved people.

As well I am active in elections and I am also a student, and know many middle class downtown people.

Many if not most of these people believe in God. But when they look at all of the churches downtown (with the possible exception of one regional Anglican Church, which has students and lefties)

and many students live downtown and a significant number have UCC backgrounds, or go to UCCs (the lefties) in the area of the city between Centretown and the suburbs.

Several UCC in the downtown closed last year, one even as part of the desernment decided to close rather then open up to the GLBT community.

What gets me angry is not the exclusion or inacessibility, but the fact the over all situation of having only regional middle class historical churches downtown is that it tells the people living there that God, or specifically the UCC does not believe they are good enough and or a just plain bad.

Now I come from a middle class background, when my partner was diagnosed with AIDS in 1986 most of the people Ottawa were middle class gaymen. As the epedemic grew, it become more and more a disease found amoung the poor and the disabled. I got to know many of them

One time before there were treatment for HIV I knew a young 24 (maybe younger I am not sure) year old women in recovery from addiction, who had AIDS. She had a mother of first nations origins and a white father. Her father was into crime and drugs, and took her from her mother when she was a teen. he had an incestous relationship with her and also introduced her to injection drug use at 13. She later ended up as a sex worker, and when I had meet her she was clean and in N.A. but HIV+. When she developed AIDS she was in the hospital when a priest was giving another person in her room communion. Her mother was RC and she had gone to RC schools, but had not recieved first communion.  She asked for communion from the priest, and he basically did not handle it well, and not knowing what he said, I just know she did not get communion.

She was terribly upset when I visited her the next day in the hospital. I called a UCC minister to visit her as I thought the message that she was loved by God was known to her through NA but that she needed an "authority" from a church to say so after dealing with the priest.

The minister was very good, but was unable to offer her a place to come and know the Jesus I knew growing up in the UCC. This was because their were steps at her church. Also the minister was afraid, and rightfully so  that she would feel too different at any other UCC church, due to her history, race and illness.

It rubbed salt into the wounds I had from 1988, not because she could not find a church for her, but because it was like saying the values and beliefs I had been taught in Sunday School were false. It was like those in the churches were saying Jesus was just for them, while I had been taught that Jesus loved those who are the least among us as well. It was also difficult for me to deal with because I knew UCC ministers and other clergy and they agree with me.

What right do these people have in blocking access to a church community to those amongst us who are sick, poor, injured, hurting and different, and survivirs of historical racism and colonialism, other then rights given to them by empire.

Can the people running the downtown churches comprimise and lets us use at least just one of their buildings for whorsip and community. I would be very, very happy to ihave just one UCC church in Ottawa,

I am willing to comprimise. Just one church out of ten for those among us in downtown Ottawa who are the most vunerable, disabled and hurt. But the downtown churches cling together to keep those who are the least among us out of the UCC and other churches.

I believe too that their are significant minorities of those in each downtown church who would agree, ( and likely 90% of the ministers)but they too are powerless as they are a minority in each church.

This is the one of those time when I can definately say that you are wrong. The police and the Attorney General among others were going after her, but because the law was illegal under the charter and immoral, it was struck down by every court that it was put to, including the Supreme Court of Canada.So there was in effect no law at all against same-sex marriage since the charter came into effect.

I supose you would have said the same thing when Jesus broke the law, and advocated that others should break it as well. Too bad The Roman Empire did not have the same charter as we do, or you would be among those calling for him to deal with the consequences and his cruixifiction

Alex, I don't know what to say at this time.  I'm wiped.  I get you are passionate. 

I guess....the easiest way to change something is by being the voice within saying it needs changing....I am unsure what EileenRL & others from Ottawa proper would say.

I know what I can say for my city.

There are three united churches in our part of the city...and each is unique.  Each has its own board / session/ concerns, needs and significant resource constraints.  We are trying, but can only do so much.  although it would be good to find ways to work together or be in community....well...there is a long way to go before we see that happening.

Again, like Affirm and other issues, I am going to say...I get you are ticked. I know you have been hurt and continue to be.  If you came to our church, I would say,I'm sorry...but you are welcome to be here.  Now  roll up your sleeve and help....I don't need any more critics... i just need people that want to work with us......if you want to stand and criticize..then join the ranks of those that are doing so...

If you picture a room with a door on the left, and a door on the right, and crowds lined up in front of the doors....criticizing....then that is how it feels some days...whichever door i choose there will be critics....and people blocking the way.  It isn't always easy to tell which door is right due to the amount of people blocking the view.

if they would roll up their flipping sleeves and start working the criticism would be less.

I hear people saying the church should do this, the church should do that....some people seem to think the church has nothing to do...and tons of people and tons of $$$$. 

Alex, the days of Christendom are long gone.  We still carry many of the bags from that time...  I have no way of knowing what is correct or not, or what history / stories you are missing re your analysis of the city.

i know if you were here, chatting with me...about my city, I could have a good sitdown..and tell you what we hve tried...what we are trying..and the progress we have made..

Alex, do you know the Marriage Act in Ontario and how it works?  Did you know what DiNovo was trying to do and how she was doing it? If you knew the answer to both of those questions you would not make the statements you have made. I was there, as I said, and I was very uneasy about her position.

I am not a lawyer and I do not know how how the marriage act works . I understand that DiNova was just puting the names of the people that she married on the marriage people without regard to sex. That when she married two men, she put the name of one of the men in the place where they asked for the name of the women.

What I do know is that the whenever a court was asked if that was illegal, they said it was not. They said that the Marriage Act itself was illegal based on the Canadian Constitution, which takes precedant over all the other people made laws in Canada.

I also know that the constitution is overwelmingly supported by the people of Canada.

Otherwise she would be jail now and not sitting in in the Ontario Legislature.

Ok, here's a question that I've been wondering about... and am extraordinarily nervous about asking: "Are there times when it is appropriate to discriminate?"

Let me give an example - I have people, regularly, coming to me to talk about getting married (both opposite-sex and same-sex couples). At times... ok, a number of times... the couples tell me that they "aren't religious, and would like the wedding to reflect that." My response tends to be something like, "Well, let's sit down and talk about what that might look like. You've come to ask a minister in a Christian church to officiate at your wedding. We ministers tend to have religion on the brain, so, if I'm the officiant, there'll be some God-stuff in there." Sometimes the conversation ends there, sometimes we chat and they're ok with it, sometimes we chat and they decide to ask someone else to officiate.

Heavens - We've had parents come to have their child baptized, when neither of them have been able to answer affirmatively about a belief in God - Creator, Christ, or Spirit. The baptism doesn't tend to happen.

Here's the thing - it could be argued that I have discriminated against them on the basis of differing religious beliefs. (I know that religion wasn't included in the Proposal that got past... but the phrase, "any other basis by which a person is devalued" was. I'm sure many in the WonderCafe - btw, I miss Atheisto! -  would be willing to point out how religion and religious identity can be used to devalue people.)

The Proposal that was passed wasn't talking only about actions - but about ideas, as well (the part about UCCan Doctrine comes to mind.)

Don't get me wrong - I'll happily work to build congregation that are open and welcoming for people, regardless of age, ancestry, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, marital status (ack! I can't remember the rest of the list in the Proposal) - I just am wondering where "religious identity" falls in this discussion.

Christ's peace - r

Richard,

Really, I believe that...

You should be marrying couples who you know well as Christians. However, marriage is a gift not just to followers of Jesus.

You should baptize only those who have professed their belief in having received salvation through Christ.

You can absolutely "discriminate" on the basis of faith. Indeed, you should.

At  the church, a committed  Christian couple brought their child to be baptized. There best friend was Jewish and had been asked to be one of the sponsers. What a hocus-pocus this became. The minister said that he could not answer the vows which referenced Jesus. He ended up being a sponser but a lot of heart ache all around.. What are your thoughts on this?