Scientology Coming to Guelph?

If certain sources are to be believed, the answer is yes. Edward Pickersgill, who runs a mobile version of the Out of Poverty Centre just outside its old headquarters at 40 Baker Street, says that the Church of Scientology has rented the entire building, and they're moving in.

Church at the Manor. Yes, You Read that Right

While killing time on the Guelph Reddit page this morning, I found a post too bizarre to be believed. A man named Jack Ninaber - a pastor by trade, a dreamer by reputation - has announced on his blog that this spring he will begin a missionary initiative called "Church at the Manor." That's right, the place in the city's west end where you go to see naked woman dance naked for the crowd (or for you personally for a few bucks more) will be transformed into a place to hear the word of God every Sunday morning. Believe it or not, it might not be as crazy as you think.

The Pope Resigns

598. That's how many years it's been since the last Pope left the throne via resignation as opposed to, you know, dying. But in these strange times, we once again sail into the unknown as this morning came the shocking news that Pope Benedict XVI would be calling it a papacy at the end of this month after a little less than eight years in the office.

Christian Conservative Speaks... Cryptically

Ever since the breaking of the robocall scandal back in March, the former members of the Marty Burke campaign, including Burke himself, have gone into silent running mode, including Burke's Deputy Campaign Manager Andrew Prescott.

If there's a reason that Prescott's silence stuck out a little more than Michael Sona's, Ken Morgan's or even Burke's himself it's because Prescott is (or was) a fairly active blogger under the handle Christian Conservative. The last post on that blog was dated February 5th, at least a month and a half before the robocall issue went full tilt national scandal, at which point Guelph specifically, and the Burke campaign team even more specifically, went under the microscope. On blogs and on social media, Guelph's Christian Conservative's been eerily silent.

Until now.

Sikh Temple: The Drama Continues

Who would have guessed that the construction of a Sikh temple would have been the biggest thing to hit the development wars in Guelph since Wal-Mart? That's almost what it looks like from this end of the looking glass, especially since thoughts and opinions on the issue keep piling on.

Last Monday, at a jam-packed, standing room only council meeting, supporters and opponents voiced either their endorsement or resistance to the proposition of the temple being built on a lot on Claire Rd near Victoria in the southend. I had wrote a post previous where I broke down the objections to the temple I had heard previous and tried to debunk them from my own point of view. I attended the first hour or so of the meeting, hoping to gleam some deeper understanding of the opposition to this development. What I heard gave me nothing new to change my previous point of view.

However, what was made very clear from the four delegates that spoke against the construction of the temple is that they don't appreciate being called racist or being told that they're hate mongers, and they especially didn't like being identified with the site Stop The Temple, which was become infamous for a couple of highly offensive posts. Fair enough, and while perhaps we in the media have given unfair weight to the site in question, I think people were questioning the notion that race was at play in all the opposition talk prior to the advent of Stop The Temple. (Incidentally, Stop The Temple has since been pulled from the internet. Type in the dominion into your web browser and you're dropped off at the page below.)

Anyway, the "growing racial undertones" have apparently made some residents feel as if their genuine critiques of the temple and its construction are merely excuses after the fact, a plausible cover-up to hide their racism. As I've said before, I have no reason to doubt these people their sincerity when they say they oppose the temple on the grounds that it can't be supported by local infrastructure, and similar reasons. But I do hold reservations.

First is the ongoing assertion that the estimated floor-space of the temple, some 18,000 square feet, does not include the basement, and as such, the floor plan for the temple should be doubled on the proposal. This despite the fact that basements are never counted in total floor space calculations be it residential, commercial, industrial or other. To say that the architect or anyone else is hiding the true size of the temple by not claiming the basement in total floor space is either ignorant or dishonest. Further I ask, is it at all likely that the Sikh community would hold services for the first 400 parishioners through the door and then pack the basement with a spill-over crowd? That's leaving aside for the moment that the Guelph Sikh community currently numbers around 200 and the maximum capacity for the proposed temple sits at 400.

Secondly, there was a remark from one speaker saying that the construction of the temple would "sacrifice the safety of the children" in the community. She was referring to the increased traffic in the area, a previously stated concern by many in the Westminster Woods area. However, I wonder exactly how many kids play ball hockey in the middle of Claire Rd? The answer is probably none, because Claire is a major artery in the southend. This same speaker also wondered about large trucks coming through the community all hours of the night since members of the Sikh community have previously stated that the temple will be open "24/7". Well I'm no expert, but I think that for any man or woman, no matter their religious affiliation, the last thing on their mind when they're driving a big rig at three in the morning is looking for somewhere to stop and pray.

Third, a comment was made saying something to the effect of why would the Sikhs insist on building a temple somewhere the area residents are opposed to having it constructed. To me, this was, perhaps, the most overtly racist thing I heard. At least it could be interpreted that way. It seemed a roundabout way of saying we don't want your kind here. Perhaps that's a misread on my part, however the question can be taken legitimately. As Joanne Shuttleworth pointed out in her editorial in today's Mercury, is it in the Sikh community's best interest to move into an area that fought tooth and nail to prevent them from doing so?

But it begs the question though: where is a good place to build a Sikh temple? A strip mall? The nearly vacant industrial area? Somewhere on the outskirts of town where public transit barely reaches? The Guelph Sikh Society said that they've looked at a lot of areas, and this was the best fit for their plans. Admittedly, I would be curious to hear their criteria, but at the same time I think it's silly to say that a temple fits better amongst stores or factories than within a residential neighbourhood.

Next, in looking for images to run with this story, I came across this:

It's a picture of the Sikh temple in Española, New Mexico, which serves 350 Sikhs in the northwestern part of the state. I post this to comment on the debate over aesthetics and ask: is something like this really so galling? Granted, I've never seen a picture of the proposed finished look of the Guelph temple, but I'm willing to bet that the Taj Mahal it is not.

Finally, there was an article in the Mercury last week following up on an ad placed in the Etcetera, also published by the Mercury, that was alerting temple opponents to a meeting taking place March 11th at the Puslinch Community Centre. It was made explicitly clear that this is for opponents only - no supporters and no media. The ad said that meeting was being sponsored by the Westminster Woods Residents Association, the WWRA's chair told the Merc that this was not the case. Temple opponent Glenn Carducci was the man that rented the hall, but he says he has nothing to do with the WWRA and added that he rented the hall on behalf of a friend. So who's hosting the meeting, and why did they apparently invoke WWRA's name when they have nothing to do with the group?

Then there's the text from the ad: "This meeting is not for those who want to support this application to build a Sikh place of worship. If that is your goal, you will be denied entry and the opportunity to speak. You are invited to host your own meeting, which we will graciously avoid." Why? Why are supporters and media not allowed? Could it be that organizers realize that the words and opinions that are going to be expressed may not be received well outside the context of this meeting? In the dark, people can't see you. In an unknowable situation, without new information to guide you, you have to go on precedent, and the precedent for secret meetings of people against a particular ethnic group is not good. If those against the temple don't want to be labelled racist, then full disclosure, as well as open and honest debate, is best.

Temple of Doom? Why is the Sikh Temple Causing so much Controversy?

Yeesh. What's the deal with all this controversy around the Sikh temple? The Guelph Mercury made it front cover and centre in the weekend edition, just in time for the matter to be discussed at a Council planning committee meeting tomorrow night.

The proposal is whether or not a four-acre piece of land in the southend of the city along Claire Rd between Victoria Rd and Tolton Dr will be re-zoned to allow the construction of a Sikh temple on the site. Currently, Guelph Sikhs meet weekly at an old beer store on Stevenson, so a 18,000 sq. foot temple for 400 worshippers would be, if you'll pardon the expression, a Godsend.

But then there's the other part of the story. A grassroots campaign made up of area residents has pushed back at the re-zoning proposal and list a myriad of reasons why that particular area is no good for a Sikh temple. Now that's perfectly fair and within their right at citizens, but a chilling prospect quickly arose in regards their desire to stop the construction of the temple: charges of racism.

A website called Stop the Temple went online earlier this month as a way for people to organize and stay informed. But a couple of weeks later, on the same day, two posts were put up on the site that changed the whole frame of the debate:

"First its a Sikh Temple. Next it will be a Mosque. Both are violent cults and next it will be a memorial to martyrs aka terrorists. We must stop this eastern influence."

"So any middle eastern minority wants something, They'd better get it! If we oppose..we are all racist, and discriminating! God forbid we offend these people. Last I checked, they are suicide bombers, child molesters, they kill their kids because they go out after dark, rapists, Con artists, Scammers. Sorry no offence I dont want to take the risk of hundreds more moving to this community, and opening hundreds of corner stores, pizza pizza's and subways. Enough is enough. You have Brampton. Move there, stay there, and leave our city alone."

A third post two days later spelled Sikh as "Sheik" but I'll chalk that one up to spelling difficulties, a malady that I can relate too. However, those first posts remain paradoxically disturbing. Who would say this? Where is this ignorance evident in what many of us consider as Guelph the tolerant, Guelph the open-minded?

The Mercury's Scott Tracy wrote an editorial which has received some pretty enthusiastic feedback, with people against the temple asserting they're not racist and everybody else asking what's the problem then. There's no reason to doubt the sincerity of the people against the temple when they say they are not racist, nor do I doubt that the two comments from above represent an extremist view only. Still, I'm forced to wonder: why so vehemently against the temple? Let's look at the arguments against:

1. Traffic: Yeah, I guess when you have 400 Sikhs coming in to worship every Sunday the road's going to get pretty busy. But I've seen churches in Guelph here on far tighter roads than Claire and they somehow manage with a minimum of nuisance. So why is this particular area so susceptible to cataclysmic traffic breakdown thanks to one temple? Aren't the banks and shopping centres a couple of blocks over going to do more to increase traffic?
2. Lighting: Along with the temple, there'll be a 169 space parking lot, and naturally, in today's world, you're not going to let you parishioners walk to their cars in the dark. But the way you hear opponents talk you'd think that developers were looking at giant plane spotters. Bottom line is, if done right, you'll never notice the difference. I literally live beside the Hanlon, where it's constantly lighted, and it doesn't bother me.
3. 24/7: Apparently, a comment was made that the temple would be open 24 hours a day/7 days a week. If you think this means that scores of Sikhs will be visiting their temple for services at 3 am on Tuesday, then nothing anybody says in defense of the temple will be able to persuade you.
4. Usage: Another argument I've heard is that placing a temple on the site does nothing for the larger community, ie: the ones who aren't members of the Sikh faith. Well, they'll probably get as much out of it as a Sikh would with his or her local Anglican church. Which is why temple reps have said that the temple will be available to be used as a community centre when religious services aren't in session. Just like your local church.
5. Aesthetic: Basically saying that the design of a Sikh temple wouldn't blend well in the cookie-cutter inspired developments that populate much of the south end. Heaven forefend we see something other than the same three houses and uninspired strip malls over and over again. I agree that next to all that, a Sikh temple is a little ostentatious, but next to those giant Loblawses, which are basically designed like big, empty concrete boxes, even U of G's south res looks like it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Those were more or less the main issues I've heard brought up, and when I look over that list the whole notion of racism (or at the very least discrimination) on the part of opponents seems even more stark. If this is the best of the dissenting arguments, then it's no wonder that people think that racism is the real underline cause.

But as I said, I do believe that people are sincere in saying that these are the problems they have with the development of the Sikh temple, I'm just having trouble believing it. I'm also not sure what's coming up at council tomorrow night, but I have a feeling that it's not going to stem the negativity, or appease those against the project. The tricky thing about racism is that people can be racist and not even know it, not even realize. But we have to ask, why is it that of all the construction projects in the south end, these 400 acres represent the biggest threat to neighbourhood stability?