Had a very interesting chat with my brother about the proposed bicyle helmet law in Ontario. My brother attends a Brethren Gospel Hall (the Brethren don’t like it to be referred to as Church). The Brethren believe in the absolute inerrancy of Scripture (The Holy Bible).
My brother mentioned that he would never ever wear a helmet while bicycling. I asked him why. He responded in an interesting manner. The new law apparently does give exemptions for religious beliefs. At the present time, the majority of people in Ontario would probably call themselves Christians, wouldn’t you agree?
So here is what my brother had to say:
If he was ever charged with disobeying the law, he would most certainly fight the charge. And he would be willing to go to court. When he arrives in court, he is going to be asked to swear on a Bible that he is going to swear to tell the truth.
Ah, but, The Holy Bible says, “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”
So instead of searing an oath, my brother would be willing to make a solemn declaration to tell the whole truth. This is recognized by Canadian Courts. The courts have allowed Christians who take James 5:12 literally, to refuse to swear an oath upon the Bible so that the Christian witness is in obedience.
In his defence against the helmet law, my brother would then ask for the Bible that he had just been requested to swear an oath upon, and hand it to the prosecutor.
Before he hands that Holy Bible to the prosecutor, he would tell the court that when he is out bicycling, he often finds himself communing with God. And he always prepared to pray to God for protection and mercy should he find himself in a dangerious situation. And wouldn’t a lot of us do the same thing? Cry out to God for mercy if we thought we were about to become involved in some injurious event?
My brother would then ask the prosecutor if the Bible he/she was holding was owned by the court he was being tried in. Naturally, the response would be in the affirmative.
The prosecutor would then be asked to turn to I Corinthians 11 verses 4-5. The prosecutor would then be asked to read those verses from the Bible that the Court owned. Here is what the prosecutor would read:
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
How could any judge convict a man who refuses to cover his head with a bicycle helmet, and wishes to pray while riding a bicycle, against the very word of Scripture that his court requires others to swear an oath upon?
Women on the other hand, are fair game for the cops who wish to enforce this law. So we can see that this certainly is a very discriminatory law. Every Christian man in this Province who either swears upon the Bible, or takes a solemn oath, has “religion” as well as the scripture available to him in the very court he will be tried in, to mount a vigorous defence against the charge layed against him.
Women on the other hand are not so fortunate.
Time to walk away from this proposed law, McGuinty. You just won’t win. My brother is willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court if one of your armed thugs try to take away his right to pray with his head uncovered so he has no shame.
And boy, will his wife ever make a fuss about discrimination!! An interesting can of worms, I’d say.