Giant Affront to Freedom of Religion in Canada

[guyser]

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.

And if they deny you, we both know someone who you could take to argue its a right and they cannot deny once he gets done pleading your case .

[cybercoma]

<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>

Hah. The poster with that deeply held belief is not in this thread, as far as I can remember without going back and checking.

[carepov]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-pastafarian-loses-driver-s-licence-over-holy-colander-hat-1.2041844

A man in surrey has had his driver's license stripped from him because he is required by his faith to wear religious head gear when taking a driver's license photo. This is complete discrimination. Apparently it is okay to wear a turban, hijab or yamaka, but a pastafarian can't wear religious headgear as well? Are only 'mainstream' religious entitled to freedom of religion.

This is a huge outrage!

I wish this pastafarian the best of luck and greatest noodley blessings in his endevours to increase religious freedom in this country.

It is interesting to notice that Texas and Oklahoma have more religious freedom than BC.

Do other posters agree with me, or do you agree with the ICBC?

I disagree with you. The state should be making reasonable accomodations for religious and cultural practices. Don`t ask me to draw the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable but the colander hat is certainly not reasonable.

[Wilber]

You can't even wear glasses in a passport photo, even if you are blind as a bat without them.

I keep having visions of Mr Bean with the turkey on his head.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Wilber

[-1=e^ipi]

I disagree with you. The state should be making reasonable accomodations for religious and cultural practices. Don`t ask me to draw the exact line between reasonable and unreasonable but the colander hat is certainly not reasonable.

I don't disagree with only making reasonable accommodations, but I don't understand how you can define wearing a colander 'unreasonable' but wearing a turban 'reasonable'. They are both worn on the head, the obstruct the same amount of face, etc.

I suspect that the reason for this disagreement is that you think that pastafarianism is an 'unreasonable' religion to have were as sikhism is a 'reasonable' religion to have. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So basically you are not objecting to the action as 'unreasonable' but rather the belief system used to justify that action.

See here is the difference between how you might determine what is 'reasonable' and how I might determine what is 'reasonable'. For me the law should apply equally to everyone and not make special exceptions based on what the state arbitrarily thinks are someone's religious beliefs. The law can be made with people's religious beliefs in mind, but the law itself should be completely secular and not depend on what someone's religion is (only exception would be people hiring imams, priests or other people where religious belief is a sensible job requirement).

The state should not try to define what is or what isn't a religion because doing this is impossible, has very inconsistent results (such as scientology being a religion in the USA but not Germany, Indonesia not recognizing Sikhism) and violates the concept of freedom of religion because it will inevitably lead to new or small religions having less rights than old established religions. Furthermore, the state should not try to read someone's mind to determine a person's level of 'devotion' (such as this pastafarian who claims to be a devoted follower of the flying spaghetti monster), because doing so would violate freedom of thought, which is far more fundamental than freedom to believe in any religion, as law enforcement will be able to arbitrarily give different rights based on what the law enforcement officer thinks another individual thinks at any given time.

But in your cause, you want the state to define what is and isn't a religion, and for the state to determine the 'devoutness' of a pastafarian in order to determine if they can or cannot wear a colander, even though you would not hold a Sikh to the same standard. That is violation of freedom of religion, violation of freedom of thought and just plain discrimination.

[On Guard for Thee]

I bet you boys gaze into your navels on a regular basis as well huh?

[cybercoma]

I don't understand how you can define wearing a colander 'unreasonable' but wearing a turban 'reasonable'.

This is signature material right here.

[cybercoma]

I think you worded that wrong. Let me correct that for you.

I don't want to understand how you can define wearing a colander 'unreasonable' but wearing a turban 'reasonable'.

[Big Guy]

I don't disagree with only making reasonable accommodations, but I don't understand how you can define wearing a colander 'unreasonable' but wearing a turban 'reasonable'. They are both worn on the head, the obstruct the same amount of face, etc.

...

I disagree. I can usually find a hat that fits my head and a turban is wound tightly around the head. I went to our local kitchen appliances outlet and could not find a colander that fit. They don't even come in standard head sizes. I do not believe that to be reasonable.

[Guest]

You have to get those pads that they put inside bicycle helmets.

[cybercoma]

You have to get those pads that they put inside bicycle helmets.

Chin strap. You use a chin strap.

[carepov]

I don't disagree with only making reasonable accommodations, but I don't understand how you can define wearing a colander 'unreasonable' but wearing a turban 'reasonable'. They are both worn on the head, the obstruct the same amount of face, etc.

I suspect that the reason for this disagreement is that you think that pastafarianism is an 'unreasonable' religion to have were as sikhism is a 'reasonable' religion to have. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So basically you are not objecting to the action as 'unreasonable' but rather the belief system used to justify that action.

You are wrong. I object to the action that is unreasonable.