CBC.ca reported yesterday (Feb 2, 2009) that Halifax Metro Transit has refused to allow Humanist Canada to place ads on Halifax buses that said “You Can Be Good Without God”.

CBC reported that Halifax bus transit spokesperson, Lori Patterson, said “the transit authority would reconsider its position if Humanist Canada toned down its message.”

The story has garnered close to 300 comments in less than 24 hours. A similar campaign launched in England late last year sparked an important debate across the UK. The controversy led to 326 complaints from the public to the UK Advertising Standards Authority, which issued a precedent-setting decision in favor of the campaign and closed the case (see ruling here).

This story is obviously of major interest to the public. So why the silent treatment from Halifax newspapers?

If local residents relied on local newspapers, they would have no idea that this debate is taking place, and would have no opportunity to express their opinions about how the transit authority, a publicly funded body, should deal with issues of freedom of speech and religion that are a given right to all tax payers in Halifax who contribute to subsidize the transit authority.

The media needs to ask the tough questions. Would the transit authority allow an ad to be placed on Halifax buses that advertise a ‘Three Wisemen’ or ‘Baby Jesus’ Christmas play at the local church? What if the local Muslim association wanted to run an ad to announce the opening of their new mosque and library and inviting all interested people to join them for an opening ceremony? What about free speech?

Where do we draw the line as to what is appropriate to say, and who gets to decide what a ‘toned down’ religious statement is? Lori Patterson of Metro Transit?

The answer is that unless there are clear bylaws (that were voted on by representatives of the people in this city) against allowing religiously-affiliated advertising in publicly owned facilities and services, then separation of church and state remains the defacto rule.

If Metro Transit was a private company, then they can decide to run whatever ads they want on their buses and no one but their shareholders (and the advertising authorities) can say anything. But the transit authority is publicly funded, and therefore it must conduct itself in the best interest of the public, following the established bylaws, and removing personal opinions and religious affiliations/preferences when determining what is appropriate to be shown on the buses to the public.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms”:

• freedom of conscience and religion;

• freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

• freedom of peaceful assembly; and

• freedom of association.

Are we going to see the appropriate attention and debate take place regarding this issue? Will our understanding of applied freedoms be enhanced by this event? This is a call to the Chronicle Herald and other media outlets in Halifax. Please give this issue the attention it deserves. (Edit: The Chronicle Herald published the story a couple of hours after this blog was posted).

Summer is wedding season. In Canada’s ‘cultural mosaic’, people of different races, religions, and cultures are bound to fall in love with each other. For those of you who are considering matrimonial bonds with a person from a different religion, you probably (or hopefully) already had many talks with your partner regarding the logistics and dynamics of an interfaith marriage.

Religious or not, if you ever wondered what the three monolithic religions say about making babies with people from a different religion, below is an idea. In chronological order of ‘revelation’:

Judaism (Torah/Old Testament):

“You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For you will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods…” (Deuteronomy 7:1-3).

Christianity (Bible/New Testament):

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Islam (The Quran):

“This day are (all) good things made lawful for you. The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. And so are the virtuous women of the believers and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture before you (lawful for you) when ye give them their marriage portions and live with them in honor, not in fornication, nor taking them as secret concubines. Whoso denieth the faith, his work is vain and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.” (Al-Ma’dah 5: 5).

Make sure to look up the above verses for contextual accuracy. The topic can be vast.

Are you or someone you know having difficulties with an inter-faith marriage or relationship? Please share your thoughts.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with what the difference is between regular banking and Muslim banking, here is a brief explanation. (For the cross-referencing crowd, note that this is a very general explanation, I did not look up the exact official definition).

In Islamic law (much like fundamental Christianity), ‘usury’ is forbidden. Muslims are allowed to make money and profit from free trade of goods and services, but are prohibited from engaging in activities that ‘make money from money’. This means that dealing in interest-bearing financial instruments is a sin.

For example, a regular mortgage obtained to buy a house that has an interest component is forbidden. Business risk, in Islam, is to be shared by the lender and the borrower, and profits and losses must also be shared accordingly. In Western banking systems, risk is converted into a percentage, then charged to the borrower in the form of interest, and only if the borrower puts up collateral. This effectively transfers the risk completely onto the borrower, and is seen as an ‘unjust’ financial transaction, among other things.

Muslim-friendly banking modifies the contractual relationship between the lender (bank) and the borrower (perspective home owner) in such a way that the bank now will purchase the house, then ‘sell’ the house to the borrower for the purchase price plus some ‘profit’. The lender may elect to receive the money for the house in installments or on a rent-to-own basis. The title/deed of the house is transferred to the borrower when payment is completed to the lender. This will constitute a normal purchase of ‘goods’ in the eyes of Sharia, and is therefore allowed.

The difference is philosophical at best. In reality, Muslim banks simply calculate the amount of interest they would otherwise be collecting, and add it as a lump sum on top of the purchase price of the house then call it ‘profit’ (or some other formula that leaves the bank with an equivalent financial benefit to that of charging interest).

This notion spurred the usual controversy in the comment section of the article (which can no longer be viewed if you visit the article’s page). Two camps of thought were prevalent among the Globe’s readers. One camp (where I pitched my tent) argued that providing these banking solutions is a pure business decision that banks are entitled to as long as Canadian laws and charters are respected and adhered to. Offering sharia-compliant banking solutions in Canadian banks is no different than offering ‘kosher’ or ‘halal’ food in Canadian supermarkets.

The other camp argued that since Muslims are inherently a bunch of violent terrorists who will kill all non-Muslim Canadians if they had the chance, offering Muslim-friendly banking solutions will surely lead to the ultimate hijacking of Canadian rights and freedoms by fundamental Islam, which will shortly after lead into the apocalypse of secular society.

The apocalyptic crowd was very convincing, even sighting verses from the Quran and sayings from the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.

Positions on the matter stood on an almost even split.

Where do you stand?