Giant Affront to Freedom of Religion in Canada

[Bonam]

Which perfectly highlights my point. Is it really a mockery that someone can wear a turban in their driver's license photo? Is that something really worth protesting about by wearing a colander? What Bobby Henderson did was monumentally important for everyone's education in Kansas. How is allowing people the freedom to wear their religious head coverings in a driver's license photo a mockery of anything? And do you really think Bobby Henderson actually wanted Pastafarianism taught alongside evolution? Do you really think he was fighting to water down the system more? Of course you don't because you're not an imbecile. So don't sit here and tell me the moron with the colander on his head is actually fighting to wear a ridiculous colander in his driver's license photo.

Yes, the fact that someone can wear a turban in their driver's license photo is a mockery of laws that state that you cannot wear a head covering in your driver's license photo. The fact that members of some religions are allowed to bring their ceremonial daggers into otherwise weapons-free schools is a mockery of the implied importance of safety in these institutions. The fact that unsubstantiated beliefs are protected from mockery and criticism and insult by the force of government through human rights commissions is a mockery of the ideals of freedom of expression, equality under the law, freedom of and from religion, and separation of church and state.

Religion is a scourge that has plagued mankind for millennia. People who point out the absurdities, large or small, important or trivial, in the way our society deals with religion are heroes not idiots. We must resist the idea of religious privilege in the schools, in the hospitals, in the halls of government, and yes, even in the drivers license offices.

Religious privilege of any kind, for any reason, is wrong and abhorrent, it establishes unequal treatment under the law and gives special rights and privileges to people that believe in certain varieties of fairy tale. It does not matter that you don't this particular imposition is trivial.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

By the system I meant the legal system as well as the influences from society as a whole. The law is hypocritical and inconsistent and so is a large segment of the population. You can't claim to support freedom of religion, and then deny freedom of religion to those religions that you don't think worthy enough, and remain consistent.

the legal system is pretty big. What about it? What influences from society? If you're going to say my reading comprehension is shit, you better start writing more clearly.

[cybercoma]

Yes, the fact that someone can wear a turban in their driver's license photo is a mockery of laws that state that you cannot wear a head covering in your driver's license photo. The fact that members of some religions are allowed to bring their ceremonial daggers into otherwise weapons-free schools is a mockery of the implied importance of safety in these institutions. The fact that unsubstantiated beliefs are protected from mockery and criticism and insult by the force of government through human rights commissions is a mockery of the ideals of freedom of expression, equality under the law, freedom of and from religion, and separation of church and state.

Religion is a scourge that has plagued mankind for millennia. People who point out the absurdities, large or small, important or trivial, in the way our society deals with religion are heroes not idiots. We must resist the idea of religious privilege in the schools, in the hospitals, in the halls of government, and yes, even in the drivers license offices.

Religious privilege of any kind, for any reason, is wrong and abhorrent, it establishes unequal treatment under the law and gives special rights and privileges to people that believe in certain varieties of fairy tale. It does not matter that you don't this particular imposition is trivial.

has there ever at any point in time anywhere in Canada been a Sikh in school who attacked someone with their ceremonial dagger? Have you ever seen a Sikh's dagger?

And again I ask, what exactly is the problem with accommodating something as innocuous as a turban or headscarf in a DL photo? I get disallowing burqas, but not the others. What exactly is the "good fight" here that makes it reasonable to violate someone's religious observance here?

It's stupid and petty nitpicking that makes certain atheists look like idiots. Fight against religious interference in people's lives, not individuals completely irrelevant and personal observances.

[Michael Hardner]

It's *always* easier to keep the status quo. That's not an argument for anything.

It's an argument for not changing if there are no clear advantages in doing so.

[-1=e^ipi]

has there ever at any point in time anywhere in Canada been a Sikh in school who attacked someone with their ceremonial dagger? Have you ever seen a Sikh's dagger?

I have never used an ak47 to kill people. So can I carry an ak47 everywhere?

1. There have been attacks by individuals using kirpans. Just use google.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=c6135308-4ace-4944-921c-652650424188

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/04/06/brampton_kirpan_attack_renews_debate_over_sikh_daggers.html

2. For many sikhs, wearing a purely ceremonial kirpan that is tiny, has been dulled, and is bolted into its sheath is fine.

While on the topic of Sikhism, how about discussing the fact that the entire religion is basically a giant FU to Islam.

- Sikhism was a response to nearly a millennia of offensive jihad in Pakistan and India.

- In Islam, one is suppose to perform acts of fitra and do things like shave body hair and perform genital modification.

- In Sikhism, body hair is sacred and trying to modify one's body by doing things such as circumcision is an insult to the creator's design.

- In Islam, one has to eat halal meat, where the animal has all its blood slowly drained out from it's neck.

- In Sikhism, halal meat is no good. Instead you should eat Jhatka meat where the neck has been quickly severed from the rest of the body. Jhatka meat is of course not allowed in Islam.

- In Islam, or at least the dominant forms that existed when Sikhism was forming, non-muslims should have less rights than muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims are exempt from Jizyah, Muslims can receive Zakat, Muslims can build their mosques higher than temples/churches of other religions, Muslims are allowed to convert others to their religion, Muslims can serve in high positions in the military, Muslim men are allowed to marry non-muslim women, etc.

- In Sikhism, everyone should have equal rights under the law (for the most part).

- In Islam, people that convert away from Islam should be killed under Sharia (not all forms of Islam agree with this but the dominant forms in the region did at the time when Sikhism was being formed).

- In Sikhism, people should have freedom of religion and freedom to choose their faith. In fact, historically kirpans were used not only as self defence but as self defence of others including religious minorities. "A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed."

- Islam embraces dogma.

- Sikhism claims to reject dogma (though the Sikh position on the existence of the creator puts this claim in doubt).

- Islam contains the belief in many miracles (like the moon being split in two) and supernatural beings (like the Jinn).

- Sikhism rejects miracles and supernatural beings.

- Islam claims that their is an afterlife where people will go to heaven or hell.

- Sikhism rejects the afterlife and believes in reincarnation instead.

I could go on.

And again I ask, what exactly is the problem with accommodating something as innocuous as a turban or headscarf in a DL photo?

The inconsistency of the law is the issue. The law should be consistent. And I'm not against people wearing turbans or hijabs.

I get disallowing burqas, but not the others.

Wait, so now you are okay with disallowing burqas? Why? I fail to see consistency with your position.

Fight against religious interference in people's lives, not individuals completely irrelevant and personal observances.

Dude, all they want to do is wear a colander. How is that petty nitpicking?

[guyser]

And again I ask, what exactly is the problem with accommodating something as innocuous as a turban or headscarf in a DL photo?

I ask, what exactly is the problem with accommodating something as innocuous as a colander in a DL photo?

[cybercoma]

I have never used an ak47 to kill people. So can I carry an ak47 everywhere?

1. There have been attacks by individuals using kirpans. Just use google.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=c6135308-4ace-4944-921c-652650424188

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2010/04/06/brampton_kirpan_attack_renews_debate_over_sikh_daggers.html

2. For many sikhs, wearing a purely ceremonial kirpan that is tiny, has been dulled, and is bolted into its sheath is fine.

While on the topic of Sikhism, how about discussing the fact that the entire religion is basically a giant FU to Islam.

- Sikhism was a response to nearly a millennia of offensive jihad in Pakistan and India.

- In Islam, one is suppose to perform acts of fitra and do things like shave body hair and perform genital modification.

- In Sikhism, body hair is sacred and trying to modify one's body by doing things such as circumcision is an insult to the creator's design.

- In Islam, one has to eat halal meat, where the animal has all its blood slowly drained out from it's neck.

- In Sikhism, halal meat is no good. Instead you should eat Jhatka meat where the neck has been quickly severed from the rest of the body. Jhatka meat is of course not allowed in Islam.

- In Islam, or at least the dominant forms that existed when Sikhism was forming, non-muslims should have less rights than muslims in an Islamic state: Muslims are exempt from Jizyah, Muslims can receive Zakat, Muslims can build their mosques higher than temples/churches of other religions, Muslims are allowed to convert others to their religion, Muslims can serve in high positions in the military, Muslim men are allowed to marry non-muslim women, etc.

- In Sikhism, everyone should have equal rights under the law (for the most part).

- In Islam, people that convert away from Islam should be killed under Sharia (not all forms of Islam agree with this but the dominant forms in the region did at the time when Sikhism was being formed).

- In Sikhism, people should have freedom of religion and freedom to choose their faith. In fact, historically kirpans were used not only as self defence but as self defence of others including religious minorities. "A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed."

- Islam embraces dogma.

- Sikhism claims to reject dogma (though the Sikh position on the existence of the creator puts this claim in doubt).

- Islam contains the belief in many miracles (like the moon being split in two) and supernatural beings (like the Jinn).

- Sikhism rejects miracles and supernatural beings.

- Islam claims that their is an afterlife where people will go to heaven or hell.

- Sikhism rejects the afterlife and believes in reincarnation instead.

I could go on.

The inconsistency of the law is the issue. The law should be consistent. And I'm not against people wearing turbans or hijabs.

Wait, so now you are okay with disallowing burqas? Why? I fail to see consistency with your position.

Dude, all they want to do is wear a colander. How is that petty nitpicking?

I'm done responding to you because you obviously don't read my arguments or if you do, you don't understand them. I'm not sure which. You consistently throw out strawmen arguments or you miss entirely what I say. You write, "so now you'er ok with disallowing burqas?" when I said that in my very first post in this thread. You make ridiculous points like carrying an AK47 to school is the same thing as a Sikh with a kirpan stitched into his shirt, which in many cases is smaller than a person's hand and completely dull. Look, I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you. If you don't understand the difference between wearing a colander to the MOT and a turban or carrying a loaded AK47 and a kirpan or wearing a burqa in ID or a hijab, then I can't understand those things for you.

Edited October 9, 2014 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

I ask, what exactly is the problem with accommodating something as innocuous as a colander in a DL photo?

Because religious accommodation doesn't extend to ludicrous stunts designed to ridicule religious minorities who already face discrimination pretty much everywhere they go.

[guyser]

Because religious accommodation doesn't extend to ludicrous stunts designed to ridicule religious minorities who already face discrimination pretty much everywhere they go.

The man has a certificate that says he is ordained, and that means he follows their rules vis a vis the colander.

There are tenents of religions that are ludicrous, whats wrong w one more?

[overthere]

Because religious accommodation doesn't extend to ludicrous stunts designed to ridicule religious minorities who already face discrimination pretty much everywhere they go.

Does that accomodation extend to ordained Baptist Ministers like Fred Phelps? http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps

He was a renowned hater of Gay people, Jews, Muslims and pretty much anybody else.

His stunts weren't ludicrous, they were horrific.

But since he is from a mainstream religion , I guess you'd take him over the guy wearing a colander.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm done responding to you because you obviously don't read my arguments or if you do, you don't understand them. I'm not sure which.

Lol, you have no idea how similar this response to some other responses I got in other forums discussing other topics.

The reason I don't agree with you is because your arguments are invalid and your position is both wrong and immoral. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that the only reason someone can disagree with you is because they can't understand your position then it is your choice to go hide in a corner and run away from logic and reason. If you are so confident in the soundness of your position then why not demonstrate that by refuting my counter arguments?

You consistently throw out strawmen arguments or you miss entirely what I say

Nope. You are misusing the term strawman argument.

You write, "so now you'er ok with disallowing burqas?" when I said that in my very first post in this thread.

It is called pointing out the inconsistency in one's position.

You make ridiculous points like carrying an AK47 to school is the same thing as a Sikh with a kirpan stitched into his shirt, which in many cases is smaller than a person's hand and completely dull.

It's called refutation by counter example. Your position is inconsistent.

[-1=e^ipi]

Because religious accommodation doesn't extend to ludicrous stunts designed to ridicule religious minorities who already face discrimination pretty much everywhere they go.

1. All religions are ridiculous and therefore deserve ridicule.

2. These "religious minorities" can wear religious headgear when getting their driver's license taken. Pastafarians cannot. Looks to me like it is the Pastafarians that are being discriminated against. Furthermore, if an atheist is not allowed to wear religious headgear then the atheist is being discriminated against.

3. Who are you to determine what is and what isn't a ludicrous stunt? You don't see the danger in having the government arbitrarily decide what is and what isn't a religion?

[cybercoma]

Lol, you have no idea how similar this response to some other responses I got in other forums discussing other topics

Maybe it's time for you to demonstrate some reflexivity then if this is a recurring pattern. Frankly, your intellectual dishonesty bores me and makes it impossible to,discuss things with you. So that's why I'm done dignifying your nonsense with a response. Edited October 10, 2014 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Maybe it's time for you to demonstrate some reflexivity then if this is a recurring pattern. Frankly, your intellectual dishonesty bores me and makes it impossible to,discuss things with you. So that's why I'm done dignifying your nonsense with a response.

On the contrary, -1=e^ipi is one of the few posters on these forums who makes interesting, reasoned arguments, and engages in meaningful discussion. People disagreeing with you is not a sign of "intellectual dishonesty".

[-1=e^ipi]

Maybe it's time for you to demonstrate some reflexivity then if this is a recurring pattern

Stupid people is indeed a recurring problem. Unfortunately, I cannot control stupid people. The best I can do is try to reason with them.

Frankly, your intellectual dishonesty bores me and makes it impossible to,discuss things with you. So that's why I'm done dignifying your nonsense with a response.

Maybe you can try praying to your deity and ask it to bless me with the intelligence to be enlighted by your positions. I'll try to eat a plate of pasta in hopes that the flying spaghetti monster will bless you with his noodleyness.

Edited October 10, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

On the contrary, -1=e^ipi is one of the few posters on these forums who makes interesting, reasoned arguments, and engages in meaningful discussion. People disagreeing with you is not a sign of "intellectual dishonesty".

Thank you. You also provide very good insight and discussion.

Though recently, I've become a bit more short-tempered in some of my responses. I've may have started to gain a bit of dyslexia the past month, which may have led me to misread people a few times.

[waldo]

On the contrary, -1=e^ipi is one of the few posters on these forums who makes interesting, reasoned arguments, and engages in meaningful discussion. People disagreeing with you is not a sign of "intellectual dishonesty".

.

[waldo]

1. All religions are ridiculous and therefore deserve ridicule.

why should the goverment sanction wearing a collander when getting a driver's license... you've just stated the intent is ridicule.

.

2. These "religious minorities" can wear religious headgear when getting their driver's license taken. Pastafarians cannot. Looks to me like it is the Pastafarians that are being discriminated against. Furthermore, if an atheist is not allowed to wear religious headgear then the atheist is being discriminated against.

your argument jumps from the ridiculous to the absurd when you reach for the discrimination card.

.

3. Who are you to determine what is and what isn't a ludicrous stunt? You don't see the danger in having the government arbitrarily decide what is and what isn't a religion?

how is "the government" arbitrarily deciding? Are you stating governments have no guidelines/regulations in place in this regard?

.

[Big Guy]

why should the goverment sanction wearing a collander when getting a driver's license...

.

I would assume that your picture on your drivers licence is supposed to represent you at times when you are driving a car and/or stopped by the police. Hence the acceptance of turbans et al. Using that logic, those photographed with a colander on their heads should be ticketed if they are stopped and are not wearing a colander while driving.

[cybercoma]

Stupid people is indeed a recurring problem. Unfortunately, I cannot control stupid people. The best I can do is try to reason with them.

Maybe you can try praying to your deity and ask it to bless me with the intelligence to be enlighted by your positions. I'll try to eat a plate of pasta in hopes that the flying spaghetti monster will bless you with his noodleyness.

Maybe I can, but then I'm an atheist and I still think you lack reflexivity.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe I can, but then I'm an atheist and I still think you lack reflexivity.

<sarcasm>

Wait - if you're an atheist how could you be arguing against an idea that came from atheists ? That would imply that you are trying to be objective and principled. And everybody knows that such a thing is impossible.

</sarcasm>

[-1=e^ipi]

why should the goverment sanction wearing a collander when getting a driver's license... you've just stated the intent is ridicule.

No, I never stated the intent is to ridicule. Religions may deserve ridicule, but that doesn't mean the intent of wearing a colander is to ridicule other religions.

your argument jumps from the ridiculous to the absurd when you reach for the discrimination card.

It is discrimination for religious people to have more rights than nonreligious people, or for the government to arbitrarily decide what is and what isn't a religion and discriminate against less popular religions.

how is "the government" arbitrarily deciding? Are you stating governments have no guidelines/regulations in place in this regard?

The Indonesian government doesn't recognize Judaism or Sikhism. The German government doesn't recognize Scientology. Many western countries still do not fully recognize pagan religions.

The only 'guideline' that seems to be used is if a religion is popular enough or not.

The government shouldn't define what is and what isn't a religion, because doing so usually leads to discrimination.

[On Guard for Thee]

All I can say is don't try that if you need a passport. You know, that thing that is your priveledge to obtain. (oops wrong thread). Anyway the last time I got mine renewed I sort of smiled on the first 2 pics, just reflex I guess, but tHat is not acceptable these days. I finally bucked up and got the 3rd one done properly. I never thought to ask about the rules regarding putting a colandar on my head.

[overthere]

All I can say is don't try that if you need a passport. You know, that thing that is your priveledge to obtain. (oops wrong thread). Anyway the last time I got mine renewed I sort of smiled on the first 2 pics, just reflex I guess, but tHat is not acceptable these days. I finally bucked up and got the 3rd one done properly. I never thought to ask about the rules regarding putting a colandar on my head.

from the Passport office site

• Hats and head coverings must not be worn, unless it is worn daily for religious beliefs or medical reasons. However, your full face must be clearly visible and the head covering must not cast any shadows on your face.

So clearly if you are a Pastafarian you have the right to wear a colander on your bean, but it has to fit so as not to cast a shadow.

Sorted.

[On Guard for Thee]

from the Passport office site

So clearly if you are a Pastafarian you have the right to wear a colander on your bean, but it has to fit so as not to cast a shadow.

Sorted.

OK then. Next time I need a renewal I'm grabbing the biggest, non shadow casting colandar I can find and heading for the passport office. If they give me any hassle they're getting a sermon on Pastafarianism.