C . A . G . E .
Citizens Against Government Encroachment -- Citoyens Anti Gouvernement Envahissant




State Religion

One of the things we all should appreciate about the separation of church and state is that we no longer have our own or somebody else’s religious beliefs forced upon us. And of course nobody will sully our name and our religious beliefs by imposing our own religion upon others. This is one of the great advantages of modern western democracies.

The only problem with this model, is that the state is slowly but surely assuming the former role of the church in dictating acceptable behaviour. More and more we see it: Politicians of today have replaced the priests of yesterday, with their dogma and fire and brimstone surmons. Scientists have replaced prophets, claiming to represent the unblemished truth by which all should guide their lives, and bureaucrats have replaced clerics, bogging down our lives with a religious attention to the smallest and most ridiculous details.

We do not need this new state religion. We do not want a society where politicians can legislate their own morality and force us to bend unwillingly, by the powers of police and punitive taxation, to their own particular ethical mores. CAGE congratulates the following journalists for having seen the danger:




Effective November 8, 2007 selected news articles and commentary will be posted on the C.A.G.E. bilingual blog at http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/  where you’re also welcome to post your own comments.   All past entries in this news section and all of ‘’news’’ sub-sections, will remain published here for future reference.





Thank Goodness our enlightened neigbours to the south have the government to protect them from dancing.  Do we really need this?  The problem is not the law itself.  The problem is the generally accepted notion that the government should be involved in coercive social engineering to begin with.



February 23, 2007 -- Where's Kevin Bacon when you need him?

A bid to overturn the city's cabaret law was tripped up yesterday when a state appeals court held that the statute, which bars dancing in most bars and taverns, is constitutional.

A group of social dancers had filed a lawsuit saying the law - which requires establishments to have difficult-to-get cabaret licenses if they allow three or more people to dance - violated their right of free expression.

"Recreational dancing is not a form of expression protected by the federal or state constitutions," the state Appellate Division ruled.

In a unanimous decision, the five-judge panel found the purposes of the 80-year-old law were "to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the public by limiting noise, congestion and various hazards in residential areas."

The dancers' lawyer, Norman Siegel, was out of the country and could not be reached.