Michael Hardner Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 So you can criticize religious 'ideas' but not the religion? Do you realize how absurd that is? The point of criticizing a "religion" is Chauvinism, at least it is every time I've read it on here. The phony "criticisms" of Islam, they are just about picking out ideas that are common to all religions and pinning them to people that you don't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 People NEVER believed in freedom of religion in all cases. Ok, so you've gone over to Bob M's side I guess.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 The point of criticizing a "religion" is Chauvinism, at least it is every time I've read it on here. The phony "criticisms" of Islam, they are just about picking out ideas that are common to all religions and pinning them to people that you don't like. You are once against conflating criticism of behaviour and beliefs with criticism of people who exhibit that behaviour and hold those beliefs. If I 'don't like them' it's because I disapprove of their behaviour and beliefs. How is it wrong to disapprove of behavior and beliefs which are inimical to any civilized society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Ok, so you've gone over to Bob M's side I guess.... We have never held an absolute acceptance of other religious beliefs and practices. If we did we'd have allowed every weird religious group to practice its religious beliefs, be it polygamy, child marriage, marihuana smoking or ritual sacrifice, as they wished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 You are once against conflating criticism of behaviour and beliefs ... We're adding words to the pile here... it's the tower of babel problem again... Criticism of "religion" vs "ideas" was what we were discussing. Now it's "behavior" and "beliefs". I'm not sure how you can criticize a belief, which to me means an unprovable opinion or value, except to reject the morality of it. And, again, with religions they have similar values so criticizing one would probably mean you're criticizing others as well. with criticism of people who exhibit that behaviour and hold those beliefs. Criticism of "people", ie. individuals, now being added to the discussion. If I 'don't like them' it's because I disapprove of their behaviour and beliefs. Now you're talking about tying people together because of their religion, which is your mental model of what they have in common... How is it wrong to disapprove of behavior and beliefs which are inimical to any civilized society? That sounds fine to me. The problem is that you tie people together because of their religion, even if they have nothing else in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Criticism of "religion" vs "ideas" was what we were discussing. Now it's "behavior" and "beliefs". That behaviour is inspired by those beliefs. I'm not sure how you can criticize a belief, which to me means an unprovable opinion or value, except to reject the morality of it. How about the belief that White people are superior to Black people. Would you criticize such a belief on grounds which included but were not limited to the morality of the believer? Or how about a belief that the world trade center was blown up by martians working for George Bush and an international Jewish cabal? Would you deal with such a belief in a respectful manner? And, again, with religions they have similar values so criticizing one would probably mean you're criticizing others as well. Do they have similar values? As Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes "In no other modern religion is dissent still a crime punishable by death." Now you're talking about tying people together because of their religion, which is your mental model of what they have in common... Do they have something else in common? Why should the members of a particular religion who act and believe in a way dictated by that religion not be grouped together in the sense you are criticizing those beliefs and those who hold and exercise them? Edited March 22, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) Actually, not quite. As I posted before - the rights in the Charter are not "absolute". With Freedom of Religion, the Charter shows its wisdom by including "reasonable accommodation" which protects Canadians from "the tyranny of the minority". Although Quebec has gone some way in its public discourse of Reasonable Accommodation, we have not yet had that discussion at the Federal level. It appears that this niqab "issue" may well be the start of that discussion - because "it's in the Charter".The conversation is over. The court ruled.I was responding to poochy: poochy, on 21 Mar 2015 - 9:59 PM, said: Yea, and if their religion demanded they perform acts that are against the values of the vast majority of us we wouldn't allow it, regardless of their supposed rights, so it's neither here nor there. The 'values' of the majority are irrelevant to the right of individuals to practice their religion, within the law. A tiny minority of women wearing a face covering does not 'tyrannize' the majority. If it makes you uncomfortable, don't look ... just like the women who shouldn't wear sweatpants they've grown out of. . Edited March 22, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 How about the belief that White people are superior to Black people. Would you criticize such a belief on grounds which included but were not limited to the morality of the believer? "superior" ? You're asking me to weigh in on an imaginary argument here. The argument could be based on values and beliefs ("I just think that white people are superior") or on "facts" the contents of which I won't try to postulate. I could refute the logic but not the values. Would you deal with such a belief in a respectful manner? It depends on how they were presented. Do they have similar values? As Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes "In no other modern region is dissent still a crime punishable by death." When you try to chase down what these arguments are really saying, it's like trying to grab air. Inevitably, all you end up with is that "many" members of some group "believe" something.... really all we're saying is what your post says: the ideas are bad. Is it linked to a set of ideologies and beliefs ? Of course. To deny it would be to deny reality. Do they have something else in common? Why should the members of a particular religion who act and believe in a way dictated by that religion not be grouped together in the sense you are criticizing those beliefs and those who hold and exercise them? Sure, but you end up with something like: "radical Islamists who commit violence based on their beliefs should be criticized". I don't see anything there that a reasonable person would disagree with us, but I also don't see how this helps us other than to make us feel good about ourselves. I personally don't need that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Well it's nice of the charter to protect actions that the vast majority of us don't agree with, so I suppose we really do exist to serve the charter, thank goodness for those of you who defend the charters right to put the rest of us in our place. The Charter also protects minority rights from the whims of the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Of course we have a right to our beliefs. I haven't said otherwise. I have in fact said that the head covering shouldn't be banned because of it. I still have a right to ridicule and make fun of all of it. Well, as long as you find a way to feel superior to others, I guess everything's great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 No. I think most people, except for Argus, understand the difference between the hijab, niqab, and burqa. Those differences have been described a number of times, despite the aforementioned poster calling the hijab a "bag over their heads." The issue isn't the fine distinctions among garb that people where to set themselves apart from society. The issue is, if they wanted not to be part of society why they came here or why they're staying. We do not have to conform to what immigrants want. They're the arrivers, not us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 The conversation is over. The court ruled. When someone says "the conversation is over" it usually isn't. The court did not use the Charter to make the ruling because of the sloppiness of the government's attempt to introduce the requirement. There are plenty of grounds for appeal up to and including the Reasonable Accommodation clause. Remember - Quebec already bans the niqab in any government office. Stay tuned. On Friday, a Federal Court judge ruled the law is inconsistent with the duty given to citizenship judges. All that's needed, the judge ruled, is for citizenship applicants to sign a form saying they've taken the oath. The judge declined to comment on the charter aspects of the case because the decision could be made on a non-charter basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 The issue isn't the fine distinctions among garb that people where to set themselves apart from society. The issue is, if they wanted not to be part of society why they came here or why they're staying. We do not have to conform to what immigrants want. They're the arrivers, not us. Jbg it just isn't appropriate for you to comment on this Canadian issue, tell us how we 'should' treat new immigrants to Canada. Your perspective as a USian is different from ours. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 When someone says "the conversation is over" it usually isn't. The court did not use the Charter to make the ruling because of the sloppiness of the government's attempt to introduce the requirement. There are plenty of grounds for appeal up to and including the Reasonable Accommodation clause. Remember - Quebec already bans the niqab in any government office. Stay tuned. Sloppiness is right. Actually to the point of drafting a policy manual policy which contravened its own law. I suspect when it hits the SC, reasonable accommodation will sustain what the federal court has already done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Jbg it just isn't appropriate for you to comment on this Canadian issue, tell us how we 'should' treat new immigrants to Canada. Your perspective as a USian is different from ours. . That's an absurd statement. How is it "inappropriate" to comment on anything someone wants to comment on? Is it inappropriate for easterners to comment on what's going on in BC or Alberta? How about people who don't live in Toronto commenting on Mayor Ford? Do people in Ontario not get to comment on what's going on in the Atlantic provinces? Do people outside Quebec not get to comment on what's taking place inside? The idea is nonsensical. And the only people who use it are you and BC, who seems to feel Canadians shouldn't be commenting on American political and social issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 (edited) "superior" ? You're asking me to weigh in on an imaginary argument here. The argument could be based on values and beliefs ("I just think that white people are superior") or on "facts" the contents of which I won't try to postulate. I could refute the logic but not the values. You can't refute the values? That's nonsense. You can certainly attack and tear about such values. Could you not castigate and attack the values of someone who believed Jews should be killed? When you try to chase down what these arguments are really saying, it's like trying to grab air. Inevitably, all you end up with is that "many" members of some group "believe" something.... really all we're saying is what your post says: the ideas are bad. Is it linked to a set of ideologies and beliefs ? Of course. To deny it would be to deny reality. That depends on what you're critiquing. If you're critiquing a belief only held by 'some' or 'many' you can perhaps add that limiter on your statement, but if your critique is on the religion as a whole than it applies to all the believers in that religion. For example, to use Ali again “The assumption is that, in Islam, there are a few rotten apples, not the entire basket,” Ali tells The Post. “I’m saying it’s the entire basket.” So what she is saying is that Islam is itself a religion which, when practiced by the great mass of its believers, inevitably leads to a bad end. In “Heretic,” Ali says there are three kinds of Muslims. There are the violent, the reformers, and what she believes is the largest group — those who want to practice as they see fit and live peaceably but do not challenge the Koran, the Muslim world’s treatment of women and the LGBT community, or terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam. Yet she refuses to label this group as moderate. She believes they have done nothing to deserve it. “I’ve never believed in the word,” Ali says. “It’s totally useless. I think we’re in a time now where we demand answers from Muslims and say, ‘ Whose side are you on?’ ” Sure, but you end up with something like: "radical Islamists who commit violence based on their beliefs should be criticized". I don't see anything there that a reasonable person would disagree with us, but I also don't see how this helps us other than to make us feel good about ourselves. I personally don't need that. I think few of us make arguments or take positions here 'to feel good about ourselves' but rather in advocacy of our political, ideological or social beliefs. We argue in favour of what we believe would be a good/ necessary position and against that which we believe is harmful. This is one of the reasons I argue against the current immigration of Muslims. http://nypost.com/2015/03/22/activist-argues-for-a-complete-reformation-of-islam/ Edited March 22, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Nothing we can do? Hello! It's our country- and in any other environment, a team, corporate, you have to earn your way into the mix.What did you do to 'earn' your way in? Lemme guess....you just popped out and was given it? Well earned you would say huh? But no, anyone else has only to do nothing but apply and meet the rquirements as set out by immigration Canada. We seem to have lost track of that. Supposedly - that's why we have steps to go through before you get your citizenship. Our Constitution and Charter and the rights therein never foresaw some of the situations that we are faced with today - terrorism, Niqabs, Burkhas...Oh we have had terrorism before , we have had many issues before and we did quite well. To think that the sky is falling now is folly. The Const and Charter stand tall and hold the principles we as a nation want . ..that's why it's important that our Supreme Court be given guidance by Parliament on some of these issues.No, you have that backwards ...completely I might add. The Parl of Canada proposes law and the SCC will decide if it does or does not work under our charter. You may have missed the two most recent smackdowns the sitting govt has had n the past coule of years. Good to know the SCC has your back. Mine too ! Intuitively, Canadians know that something is amiss when people like yourself throw up your hands and say there is nothing that we can do. Sure there is.......and the Niqab/Oath is but one small step towards righting things.Well, it certainly is a step in the direction of our Govt telling people what they can wear or not, which of course isnt valid under our Charter, and makes it a bad step. IF they can do so, hopefully they forbid our leaders from looky dorky in a cowboy hat and an ill fitting vest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Is it just me (probably), or does anyone else see the irony that the Canadian Government is trying to force women to not wear the Niqab while the Iranian Government is forcing women to wear the hijab.It seems more natural than ironic...conservative men forcing women to get with the program.Conservatism is getting to be like religion - they're both making everything worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 What did you do to 'earn' your way in? Lemme guess....you just popped out and was given it? Well earned you would say huh? Never thought this was more than a specious argument. What did you do to earn the right to be in your family? Just popped out and were given a place? Does that mean anyone can join your family? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Never thought this was more than a specious argument.Nonethless quite true. What did you do to earn the right to be in your family? Just popped out and were given a place? Does that mean anyone can join your family?Yes...well anyone can apply to join my family. It amounts passing the standards that have been set up. We do place a limit on the number who can join. Should they pass, then they get a family passport , we call them adoption papers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 Nonethless quite true. Yes...well anyone can apply to join my family. It amounts passing the standards that have been set up. We do place a limit on the number who can join. Should they pass, then they get a family passport , we call them adoption papers. And how would you feel if you didn't get to decide who got to join your family? Maybe you'd complain a little? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 And how would you feel if you didn't get to decide who got to join your family? Maybe you'd complain a little?How would I feel? Um....its a family decision, which means the family (which I am partof) made the decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 We do not have to conform to what immigrants want. They're the arrivers, not us. How are you conforming to anything? You're the one demanding people abandon their faith and traditions at the door. It would have been a shame if that was demanded of the Jews that make up a large proportion of New York, wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Macadoo Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 How are you conforming to anything? You're the one demanding people abandon their faith and traditions at the door. It would have been a shame if that was demanded of the Jews that make up a large proportion of New York, wouldn't it? That's different.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 How would I feel? Um....its a family decision, which means the family (which I am partof) made the decision I doubt that would make you any happier if you found a pedophile living in the room next to you, and a religious fanatic on the other side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.