Reasonable Accomadation, what does that mean?

[mikedavid00]

MD

Post a link, or be quiet.

I have challenged you in the past, only to receive no response at all.

Put up the link.

Table 22

Persistence of low income (LI) for working-age adults who were poor,* by immigrant status, between 2002-2004 Recent Immigrants (395,300) Other Canadians (2,817,500)

LI for 1-2 years 75.5% 69.8%

LI for 3 years 24.5% 30.2%

Av. no. years with LI 1.82 years 1.85 years

Persistent LI33 59.1% 50.6%

Those who experienced at least one year of low income between 2002 and 2004

That was a wast of 10 min because you didn't take my word for it.

[M.Dancer]

Persistence of low income (LI) for working-age adults who were poor,* by immigrant status, between 2002-2004 Recent Immigrants (395,300) Other Canadians (2,817,500)

LI for 1-2 years 75.5% 69.8%

LI for 3 years 24.5% 30.2%

Av. no. years with LI 1.82 years 1.85 years

Persistent LI33 59.1% 50.6%

Those who experienced at least one year of low income between 2002 and 2004

That was a wast of 10 min because you didn't take my word for it.

Do you by any chance understand what you are quoting?

That the number of immigrants quoted (395,300) is not the total number of immigrants or that the percentage 75.5% is only a few points higher than for Canadians? (69.8%)

The better indicator is for all immigrants

Low Income for 3 years

8.1% Immigrants

4.3% Canadians

[Higgly]

I keep hearing that the National Post is going broke and yet it gets quoted so often.

Edited October 10, 2007 by Higgly

[mikedavid00]

Do you by any chance understand what you are quoting?

That the number of immigrants quoted (395,300) is not the total number of immigrants or that the percentage 75.5% is only a few points higher than for Canadians? (69.8%)

The better indicator is for all immigrants

Low Income for 3 years

8.1% Immigrants

4.3% Canadians

That is just LI - Low income.

That is not poverty. Best indicator is surveys asking how many found work upon arrival.

[ScottSA]

I keep hearing that the National Post is going broke and yet it gets quoted so often.

Thanks for that relevant tidbit. I keep hearing that the moon is not made of green cheese, yet everyone wants to get there!

[Higgly]

Thanks for that relevant tidbit. I keep hearing that the moon is not made of green cheese, yet everyone wants to get there!

Not irrelevant at all. The paper is going broke because nobody reads it, or at least is willing to pay to read it. That's because it's slant on the world is so right-wing extermist that it is completely at odds with what the average literate newspaper reading Canadian believes. And yet it gets quoted so often here.

[JB Globe]

I have a problem with any community which is homogenous and where people don't interact and communicate with folks outside their community. I believe that the individuals in these communities are denied the opportunity to develop the necessary skills needed to be a fully-functioning and integrated member of a multicultural society.

Of course, the thing is, conservative and orthodox Muslims aren't the only ones who do this - conservative and orthodox Jews do as well. I used to live across the street from an ortho synagogue - all of the houses that were put up for sale in that neighbourhood withing walking distance of the temple were bought by ortho families - many times two or three brothers with families would buy the house, tear it down, throw up a monster home where they all lived with their elderly parents to take care of them - this is the case in many ortho Muslim and Hindu homes as well.

But let's not forget that white folks are just as guilty of this as well - they're just as likely, if not more so, to live in an ethnically homogenous community where they have little to no interaction with folks who are different from they are. But here's the hypocrisy coming out - for some reason when white folks self-segregate themselves in ethnic ghettoes called Rosedale or Forest Hill, that's not REALLY self-segregation.

There's economics and practical reasons at play for the Mosque subdivision (and lets be clear here - there's no indication that it's Muslim-only, according to the article) - one is most mosques in Toronto were built in formerly industrial areas in the inner suburbs of Etobicoke, Scarborough in either new buildings or renovated former warehouses. Others were converted one or two story office buildings. This was done because the land was cheap and in some cases they could convert the building. A small handful are converted churches, like the one near Roncesvalles

- in all cases there was not adequet housing close to the mosque. Either it was ridiculously expensive (Roncesvalles), or the housing was very far from the mosque with piss-poor public transit (Etobicoke, Scarborough), making this suburb development very attractive.

[JB Globe]

That is not poverty. Best indicator is surveys asking how many found work upon arrival.

Okay then, link away . . .

[buffycat]

I have a problem with any community which is homogenous and where people don't interact and communicate with folks outside their community. I believe that the individuals in these communities are denied the opportunity to develop the necessary skills needed to be a fully-functioning and integrated member of a multicultural society.

Of course, the thing is, conservative and orthodox Muslims aren't the only ones who do this - conservative and orthodox Jews do as well. I used to live across the street from an ortho synagogue - all of the houses that were put up for sale in that neighbourhood withing walking distance of the temple were bought by ortho families - many times two or three brothers with families would buy the house, tear it down, throw up a monster home where they all lived with their elderly parents to take care of them - this is the case in many ortho Muslim and Hindu homes as well.

But let's not forget that white folks are just as guilty of this as well - they're just as likely, if not more so, to live in an ethnically homogenous community where they have little to no interaction with folks who are different from they are. But here's the hypocrisy coming out - for some reason when white folks self-segregate themselves in ethnic ghettoes called Rosedale or Forest Hill, that's not REALLY self-segregation.

There's economics and practical reasons at play for the Mosque subdivision (and lets be clear here - there's no indication that it's Muslim-only, according to the article) - one is most mosques in Toronto were built in formerly industrial areas in the inner suburbs of Etobicoke, Scarborough in either new buildings or renovated former warehouses. Others were converted one or two story office buildings. This was done because the land was cheap and in some cases they could convert the building. A small handful are converted churches, like the one near Roncesvalles

- in all cases there was not adequet housing close to the mosque. Either it was ridiculously expensive (Roncesvalles), or the housing was very far from the mosque with piss-poor public transit (Etobicoke, Scarborough), making this suburb development very attractive.

That is one of the most thoughtful posts I've read on here.

Thank you.

[JB Globe]

Coot have you not heard of Sharia Banking? If they are this isolationist do you really think they head to the Bank of Nova Scotia or CIBC?

How do you know that all or most Muslims in Canada use Islamic Banking? Is this a fact or a personal hunch?

Remember this man is a realestate mogel, he most likely financed the residents.

Again, is this a personal hunch you have? Or are there facts to back this up? Because THE NP ARTICLE didn't say anything about this.

Can anyone prove without a shadow of doubt women and female children choose to live in a seven century community?

Stop being so dramatic. If you call a modern subdivision 7th-century you really don't know what you're talking about.

And fyi - YOU are making the arguement that these women AREN'T choosing to live there (and thereby being forced by their husbands) so the onus is on YOU to prove it. That's how you present a factually-based arguement - you make a claim then you back it up. You can't just toss around unfounded accusations.

And if you're going to make the arguement that male patriarchy in Islam forces some women to do certain things they wouldn't otherwise do - I would like to point out that this is the case in Canadian society as a whole. And that therefor you need to apply the same standard across all segments of the population - it's hypocritical to criticize it in the Muslim community if you don't do it in the broader society.

and now we have Islamist choosing not to live amongst us lest we offend.

And when white folks choose to live in all-white communities, like Rosedale or the Beaches in Toronto, what are they doing? Aren't they choosing to live among their own?

It sickens me to see what the liberal and the socialist in this country have done to equality of WOMEN in Canada.

Excuse me, but if it weren't for the various progressive activist and political groups in the US and Canada (ie - the feminist movement), the movement towards women's equality would be decades behind. Are you trying to say that the status of women today is not greatly related to the efforts of the feminist movement?

Stand up and take a bow, you are shoving us back into the kitchen to match the appliances.

Can you prove this with facts? Or is this another groundless accusation?

Because really, if the standard for you is that you can post opinions and not bother to back them up, and we're all supposed to accept your unsubstantiated opinions as absolute true-fact, than why can't I do the same?

ie - "all white Canadians are racist because I say so, and since I know everything I don't need to prove this"

(Note: because I know some partisan-hack will try and slander me - the previous sentence was complete BS, I don't believe it in the slightest, I was simply making a point, I just chose an example that Moxie could relate to, since she made gross negative generalizations about Muslims in her post)

[old_bold&cold]

This is getting way out of hand. Does anyone see where this breaks any laws that we have in Canada? If not, then that should be the end of it. But if they say force the young into female castration and other things that are against the law here, then we have an issue to go after them with. While I would like to think that refugees have come to our country because they see our ways and want to be part of them, there will always be those who come and want to setup their own communities. They can have their own community standards laws. Again these laws will have to be withing our laws of the land. If they want religious laws that would break our laws then no, they can not do this and should be charged for doing any of this.

I have seen people who get upset because these people speak a language that no one but they understands, and they do so very loudly at times. But that is not against any laws. What is wrong with some one designing a sub division that appeals to a small demographic. He seems sucessful and happy about what he is doing. I assume all these homes were bought and taxes paid. They will have property taxes and GST as well as income taxes. So yes they have to contribute to the system. Just why all the fuss?

[mikedavid00]

Not irrelevant at all. The paper is going broke because nobody reads it, or at least is willing to pay to read it. That's because it's slant on the world is so right-wing extermist that it is completely at odds with what the average literate newspaper reading Canadian believes. And yet it gets quoted so often here.

The Post is extremist?

please cite examples.

Then I will cite examples where the Toronto Star is promoting people to not drive cars and abolish all SUV's.

Please give cites.

[mikedavid00]

I have a problem with any community which is homogenous and where people don't interact and communicate with folks outside their community. I believe that the individuals in these communities are denied the opportunity to develop the necessary skills needed to be a fully-functioning and integrated member of a multicultural society.

Of course, the thing is, conservative and orthodox Muslims aren't the only ones who do this - conservative and orthodox Jews do as well. I used to live across the street from an ortho synagogue - all of the houses that were put up for sale in that neighbourhood withing walking distance of the temple were bought by ortho families - many times two or three brothers with families would buy the house, tear it down, throw up a monster home where they all lived with their elderly parents to take care of them - this is the case in many ortho Muslim and Hindu homes as well.

The majority of these communities are immigrants that you speak of. But the Jews are different.

Jews and Israelis especially are a tiny minority living in a part of the world where their neighbours want them killed due to Islamic teachings and mulah's which say they should harm Jews: cite

Most jews are secular. Watch a wedding show in the afternoon and you can see all the mixed marriages.

The orthodox jews are segregated yes. But I have MUCH personal experience with them that I don't want to get into. I also dated a secular Jewish girl too. She was vice president of the JSA at Ottawa U.

These Jews feel that they are fighting to keep their religions alive. They are hero's. they are being killed innocently and tortured in their own land.

I support Isreal.

I support the state of Isreal (seing as Jews have been living there for 1000's of years)

I support Judism.

I consider the Jews a brothers as I do a Christian and place no preference over one another.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew.

Allah akbar. Hazbolla.

ALLAH!

[mikedavid00]

Okay then, link away . . .

I've already did that last year.

[mikedavid00]

While I would like to think that refugees have come to our country because they see our ways and want to be part of them, there will always be those who come and want to setup their own communities.

But you know what though...

When do you feel that you are 'allowed' to make rules.

I think everyone here agree's that people who move here should want to adapt to our ways and fit in with us to a large extent.

But why is it that you feel that *YOU* do not have a right to decide how they will live. Keep in mind that many of these people are not Canadian citizens and surveys show that they do not identify themselves with being Canadian.

Why do you feel that you have no choice who comes to Canada?

I'm very troubled by this. Please explain. Remember old bold cold, you built this country, it's your country.

Why do you feel this is out of your hands?

[Michael Hardner]

Table 22

Persistence of low income (LI) for working-age adults who were poor,* by immigrant status, between 2002-2004 Recent Immigrants (395,300) Other Canadians (2,817,500)

LI for 1-2 years 75.5% 69.8%

LI for 3 years 24.5% 30.2%

Av. no. years with LI 1.82 years 1.85 years

Persistent LI33 59.1% 50.6%

Those who experienced at least one year of low income between 2002 and 2004

That was a wast of 10 min because you didn't take my word for it.

MikeD:

It wasn't a wast of time. [sic]

You quoted something credible, now you and I can continue this discussion in the real world rather than in the world of your word vs my word.

I can't say immigrants aren't poorer than Canadians, and you can't say that recent immigrants are useless and lazy, by your own statistics because we now have the facts in front of us.

[M.Dancer]

Not irrelevant at all. The paper is going broke because nobody reads it, or at least is willing to pay to read it. That's because it's slant on the world is so right-wing extermist that it is completely at odds with what the average literate newspaper reading Canadian believes. And yet it gets quoted so often here.

Well, that isn't quite the reason. The answer is that while it does have a goodly number of readers, it doesn't have near as many as the Globe. On top of that, in Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton, Calgary and Vancouver (actually, anywhere a Cancom city paper is puplished) most of the Post news is picked up in the City papers. On top of that, as a national advertiser, you can buy all the city papers with just one buy so you don't need the Post but yoiu still need the Globe for an effective reach.

And to add insult to injury, becasue they used the Southam chain to create circulation, they never made inroads in the richest market of all, Toronto.

Basically there are 3 types of people who read the post. Those who do so becasue they think the G&M is left, those who follow the Financial Post columnists and those whose careers depend on both the G&M and the Post.

Edited October 11, 2007 by M.Dancer

[ScottSA]

One side in this housing thing is doing the usual leftist tapdance, and the other is saying it's not right for an ethnic group to live together in an enclave. Of course it's ok. In fact it's natural. Why wouldn't they? The problem is not that people choose to live together, the problem is that they are here in the first place in numbers that support that ability.

[JB Globe]

"Okay then, link away . . ."

I've already did that last year.

"All white people are racist, including yourself. I have a post that proves it . . . I posted it a year ago . . ."

What I just wrote is just as valid as the claim you made earlier, right?

Or should we both hold ourselves to higher standards than that of a child who will do anything to twist things in their favour?

Do you really think no one can instantly see what you're doing here? You're just making excuses to avoid posting facts because there are none that prove your position.

No one knows if you posted something a year ago - because they either weren't on this board a year ago (like myself) or they don't have a photographic memory (like everyone else). You're exploiting this because you're lazy, or (more likely) you're lying, there never was any facts that backed up what you were saying - and you know that it's not our responsibility to file through dozens of posts to find it, so we won't do it, thus no one will prove that you're lying.

That's what children do. I mean really, grow up . . .

[JB Globe]

The majority of these communities are immigrants that you speak of. But the Jews are different.

There's nothing that makes Jews laugh more than a Goi who is completely ignorant of Judaism save what he reads from conservative newsources, trying to be our best friend.

Jews and Israelis especially are a tiny minority living in a part of the world where their neighbours want them killed due to Islamic teachings

Well, that pretty much illustrates your total ignorance about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would still seem ridiculous even if I WEREN'T reading Thomas Friedman's "From Beruit to Jerusalem" right now. I've said it before and I'll say it again - anyone, no matter who's "side" they're on - who believes this is a black and white conflict with clear good guys and clear bad guys, doesn't have a clue about the Mid-East. What's more, if they think the solution is to unilaterally back one side, they're not just naive, they're dangerously naive - because that strategy actually makes the situation worse.

Most jews are secular . . .

The orthodox jews are segregated yes.

Secular Jews include both Conservative and Reform Jews. One is more traditional in it's Torah interpretation than the other, but it is still secular. And of course, there are equivalent portions of Christianity and Islam as well, ie - both conservative and liberal Muslisms, who are secular as well.

But I have MUCH personal experience with them that I don't want to get into.

Why are you mentioning that? Than why did you mention it? It has nothing to do with your arguement. Are you trying to make it seem like you're down with Tha Chosen?

I also dated a secular Jewish girl too. She was vice president of the JSA at Ottawa U.

You ARE? You are trying to make it seem like you're down with Tha Chosen! Gross, that's almost as trying as the classic: "Some of my best friend's are black! So I can't be racist!" But hey, you'd never parade around acuantances to boost your image as a white guy who's incapable of racism, and only capable of the truth . . .

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9817

We had this dinner party yesterday and about a dozen people showed up. Here's the different races and religions that were there:

6 Christians - Canadian caucasians (1 guy from Calgary, 1 girl from Ottawa, 1 from Montreal)

2 Christians - Goan Indian (husban was indian born with accent)

1 Christian - PALISTINIAN (no seriosuly she's palistian christian).

2 Hindu (1 doesn't eat meat.. also from Ottawa, another from Montreal)

2 Mulsim girls (both drink)

So you see we had a wide seelction of poeple with different colours and different backgrounds.

Oh, wait . . .

These Jews feel that they are fighting to keep their religions alive.

Religions . . . Plural? You mean, all this time there's another one I'm not aware of?

And yes, in the past, we've fought to keep our religion alive, but that doesn't mean that everything Jewish folks ever do is motivated by this. Because, you know, we're human - meaning we can make mistakes . . .

Unless you don't think we're human . . .

They are hero's.

Oh here it is - you're suffering from the Angel/Devil dichotomy that many Gois suffer from. If they're anti-semites they believe that Jews are the source of all evil in the world through "their various conspiracies" and thus incapable of any good.

You however view us as Angels - people who, for whatever reason (cause we're Tha Chosen I suppose?) are incapable of any wrongdoing, which means that Israel can never REALLY commit a wrong action (except by not going far enough for your liking in "fighting the Muslims,"). Now it's unclear why you have this unhealty obsession with us - Is it the case of subconcious Goi-guilt for the Holocaust manifesting itself in paternalistic sympathy (see: white guilt for black folks in the US), the convenient use of Jews as the "Model Minority," or could it be you just enjoy the fact that the current situation involves some Jews killing folks who are Muslim? Which is awesome because they are the great evil - right?

In any case - the Angel/Devil dichotomy prevents Jews from being fully human - from being equally capable of right and wrong actions. Meaning those who are normally held accountable for wrong actions are given a free pass by the likes of yourself, and a great deal of certain (American) general publics. Which is part of the reason why Israel has gotten a relatively free pass when it comes to settlement-building in the West Bank.

they are being killed innocently and tortured in their own land.

True about innocents being killed, but false about being tortured. I don't really call life in Israel torture, if you call that torture, than most of the world's population lives under worse torture becuase they're not as good off as Israelis are.

But let's keep things in perspective - the amount of Israelis killed in violence involving Palestinians is minimal:

"http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=5"

About 230 since 2000, which of course means more people are murdered in Toronto on average every year than die in all of Israel from Palestinian violence in the same period.

This doesn't mean its acceptable, or that targeting civilians isn't wrong - but it's important to remember that Israelis do not suffer as much in this conflict as Palestinians do.

I support Isreal.

No, you support the policies that are so radically right wing and so unpopular in Israel you can only really say you support the National Union party.

Edited October 11, 2007 by JB Globe

[old_bold&cold]

But you know what though...

When do you feel that you are 'allowed' to make rules.

I think everyone here agree's that people who move here should want to adapt to our ways and fit in with us to a large extent.

But why is it that you feel that *YOU* do not have a right to decide how they will live. Keep in mind that many of these people are not Canadian citizens and surveys show that they do not identify themselves with being Canadian.

Why do you feel that you have no choice who comes to Canada?

I'm very troubled by this. Please explain. Remember old bold cold, you built this country, it's your country.

Why do you feel this is out of your hands?

I do not feel that immigration is something that is out of our hands. We do screen people who come here and yes I would say that many are turned down for many and varied reasons. I do believe we here in Canada missed a hue opportunity when Hong Kong was given back to China and many very rich and entrepeneurial refugees were turned away. These same people would have been a large source for jobs here in Canada, and yes they would have paid their own way. I also think that we have to have a certain empathy for some refugees and yes some of these will be a drain on our system for a few years, but most will find jobs. Not all of these refugees gather into seperate communities either. Yes when you are alone in a foreign land, you may seek others of your same language and plights, just to reenforce your safety. This may then even grow inot fond friendships and mean yes seeking housing that make be in communities of like mined citizens. It need not be nefarious.

As long as these people obey our laws and follow them just like any other person then they are free to live where and how they like, and to worship how they wish. The only thing that we need do is make sure that they all know and understand, is here in Canada our laws of the land superceed all religious laws, and there must be an understanding that this is not negoiable in any way. I would say that this one point is probably the biggest thing they have to agree to. Because in many of the land where these people come from religious land trumps all other laws. If we can be sure of that, then we should give them the freedom to live within those boundaries. Now how does that say that I feel we have no choice? I think it not only says that we have that choice but we will enforce it al the time.

[jennie]

I do not feel that immigration is something that is out of our hands. We do screen people who come here and yes I would say that many are turned down for many and varied reasons. I do believe we here in Canada missed a hue opportunity when Hong Kong was given back to China and many very rich and entrepeneurial refugees were turned away. These same people would have been a large source for jobs here in Canada, and yes they would have paid their own way. I also think that we have to have a certain empathy for some refugees and yes some of these will be a drain on our system for a few years, but most will find jobs. Not all of these refugees gather into seperate communities either. Yes when you are alone in a foreign land, you may seek others of your same language and plights, just to reenforce your safety. This may then even grow inot fond friendships and mean yes seeking housing that make be in communities of like mined citizens. It need not be nefarious.

As long as these people obey our laws and follow them just like any other person then they are free to live where and how they like, and to worship how they wish. The only thing that we need do is make sure that they all know and understand, is here in Canada our laws of the land superceed all religious laws, and there must be an understanding that this is not negoiable in any way. I would say that this one point is probably the biggest thing they have to agree to. Because in many of the land where these people come from religious land trumps all other laws. If we can be sure of that, then we should give them the freedom to live within those boundaries. Now how does that say that I feel we have no choice? I think it not only says that we have that choice but we will enforce it al the time.

I see no reason why we need to be rigid about this. We need to look at each situation on its merits, as has happened.

How can we say Canada is a country of 'freedom of religion' if we are not willing to accommodate 'certain' religious practices, when doing so is not really a hardship? I am not in favour of such a rigid approach, and I don't believe it is the tradition of Canada. We have accommodated Dukabors, Mennonites etc, and those Mennonite buggies are a hazard on the road! Can you imagine the uproar if it was Muslims driving those buggies?

Let's keep things in perspective. Canada is not made of glass and it is not going to crack open if someone wears a burka!

[old_bold&cold]

I see no reason why we need to be rigid about this. We need to look at each situation on its merits, as has happened.

How can we say Canada is a country of 'freedom of religion' if we are not willing to accommodate 'certain' religious practices, when doing so is not really a hardship? I am not in favour of such a rigid approach, and I don't believe it is the tradition of Canada. We have accommodated Dukabors, Mennonites etc, and those Mennonite buggies are a hazard on the road! Can you imagine the uproar if it was Muslims driving those buggies?

Let's keep things in perspective. Canada is not made of glass and it is not going to crack open if someone wears a burka!

No I have to disagree with you. Canada has laws of the land and they stand above all religious laws and should never be bent or broken. I do not care if a person is from lands where religous law is above all others. When they choose Canada as their place to be, they must agree to this or they should not come here. That to me is a main part of the reason I like Canada. I will not allow religious rules and laws to change our own laws. There can be no accommodation for this at all. For instance, female castrtion with out consent is against our laws, and no one should be accomodated to allow this to happen. plural marriages are against our laws and no we should not accomodate them. We do know that these do exists and when ever we find them, people get prosecuted. So anyone coming here that can not understand that, needs to go else where to live. It is against our laws to preach hate. So if an Iman preaches these extremist things in their mosques he should be arrested and charged and deported if need be. We have freedom to practice religion as long as those practices are within the laws of our land. Sorry no accomodation on that at all. That is a deal breaker right there.

Things like burqas ore other things which do not break our laws, I have no problems with.

Edited October 11, 2007 by old_bold&cold

[AngusThermopyle]

How can we say Canada is a country of 'freedom of religion' if we are not willing to accommodate 'certain' religious practices, when doing so is not really a hardship? I am not in favour of such a rigid approach, and I don't believe it is the tradition of Canada. We have accommodated Dukabors, Mennonites etc, and those Mennonite buggies are a hazard on the road! Can you imagine the uproar if it was Muslims driving those buggies?

Sorry Jennie but I have to agree with OBC on this one. I remember a case years ago where an immigrant father was found to have sodomized his young daughters. The judge in this case gave him a pass, as he stated it was acceptable in his culture to do so. The rational being that it did not "de-flower" them so they were still worthy of marriage.

Do you believe our flexibility should be such as to accommodate such practices? Freedom of religion is one thing. When such freedom impinges upon the laws of the land then it should not be tolerated. If they want these freedoms above the structures of our society then they should not be here at all.

[Drea]

Freedom of/from religion

*as long as it does not interfere with the rights of another person*

is the key.

If an "act" is a human rights violation without a religious context (ie, sodomizing a child) then it should remain so (a violation) under a religious context.