.

[guyser]

I think poochy you nailed big guy and his anti-sematic attitude.

LOL!

Another who didnt understand the post. You I can understand missing the point......

[On Guard for Thee]

I think poochy you nailed big guy and his anti-sematic attitude.

And you totally missed the point of his post.

[On Guard for Thee]

LOL!

Another who didnt understand the post. You I can understand missing the point......

Oops, you had already beat me to it.

[Argus]

Oh so now we poick and choose which religions are good and bad?\

You don't? Do you have the same respect for Scientology adherents as you do to Methodists? Do you think the Moonies and the United Church are on equal footings, as far as respect goes?

[guyser]

You don't? Do you have the same respect for Scientology adherents as you do to Methodists? Do you think the Moonies and the United Church are on equal footings, as far as respect goes?

Most religions have some intolerance built into them.

Various orthodox religious types send there kids to 'their' schools and only 'their' schools.

For the most part this is not a concern for anyone, but it appears for a few that it does.

[Argus]

Most religions have some intolerance built into them.

True enough. But there is drastically greater intolerance in the current fundamentalist version of Islam than in any mainstream religion in Canada.

Why does the growth of intolerance of that scale not bother you?

Edited April 16, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

If muslims want to live under a different set of codes, the don't even try coming here and I would be all for curbing immigration from their countries. Or should we just open it up and rename the country the immigrant Inn.

Agreed - there should be one set of laws for all Canadians, meaning that the courts ruling on religious garb stands. Thanks.

If you don't like freedom of religion why don't you move to 1988, and move to Russia after that.

[TimG]

Agreed - there should be one set of laws for all Canadians, meaning that the courts ruling on religious garb stands. Thanks.

Which means you must be fine with people wearing KKK hoods and swastikas as "religious garb".

[guyser]

Which means you must be fine with people wearing KKK hoods and swastikas as "religious garb".

What religion is that/those?

[TimG]

What religion is that/those?

So now you are arguing that only religious garb from "approved" religions are allowed?

So much for accepting people as they are.

If you want to argue that religious freedom is absolute you have no right to question anyone's claim. If they say it is a requirement of their religion you must accept it. No questions allowed.

If you want to pick and choose which religions are acceptable then you cannot argue that is it inherently wrong for people to put niqabs on not to be approved list. You can argue that you don't agree but now you are just quibbling over details as opposed to standing up for a principle.

Edited April 16, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

True enough. But there is drastically greater intolerance in the current fundamentalist version of Islam than in any mainstream religion in Canada.

I am not so sure.

In some instances there is hyperbole among the newspaper writers as to the extent of the problem.

For instance. if the papers reported every day about a welfare cheat, it wpouldnt be long before people thought we had a welfare cheating problem. We dont.

The papers report so much about Muslims and bombings and muslim bombings that the same scenario presents itself. Most of the reports are for outside of canada which tends to skew the concerns for those inside Canada.

Now it exists that some orthodox folks are intolerant to those around them, and some are much quieter about it than others are.

So no, I am not ready to concede that there is anything drastically greater in one than any of the others.

Why does the growth of intolerance of that scale not bother you?

I firmly believe that any intolerance is countered by acceptance from others of the new life they have . In this case I mean the kids and grandkids.

[guyser]

So now you are arguing that only religious garb from "approved" religions are allowed?

So much for accepting people as they are.

Good gawd man you keep on these tangents that are worthless. I have already said I could not care any less what someone shows up in garb wise for the ceremony.

You're the one who made the connection, wrongly of course, that a KKK and Swastika are religious garb.

And make no mistake, if someone claimed that nudity was part of thier religion (as has been done) the courts didnt agree since he could not prove it was any relative or basic tenet of any religion nor found to be even remotely connected to the religion.

If you want to argue that religious freedom is absolute you have no right to question anyone's claim. If they say it is a requirement of their religion you must accept it. No questions allowed.

NOt at all.

The Courts decide that, and they have parameters that must be met. Meet those and all is fine.

[TimG]

The Courts decide that, and they have parameters that must be met. Meet those and all is fine.

IOW - you agree that society gets to pick and choose which religions are acceptable. So you are not arguing for any principle. You are just arguing that the 'court' gets to impose its prejudices on the nation. Edited April 16, 2015 by TimG

[guyser]

IOW - you agree that society gets to pick and choose which religions are acceptable. So you are not arguing for any principle. You are just arguing that the 'court' gets to impose its prejudices on the nation.

How you get that from "Courts decide that, and they have parameters that must be met" is beyond me.Society doesnt decide.

Do you wilfully ignore the fact that Courts have a system to follow as respects religious garb/holidays and so on that must be met?

Nice combover on the Swastika and KKK hoods being religious. I didnt miss that GIANT ommission in your post.

Edited April 16, 2015 by Guyser2

[TimG]

How you get that from "Courts decide that, and they have parameters that must be met" is beyond me.Society doesnt decide.

The courts can only follow the rules provided by the the government. Some of these rules are in the constitution, however, these rules are interpreted based on the prejudices of the judges looking at each case. No matter how you want to spin it there is no absolute principle you are defending. You are saying that society gets to pick and choose which religions are acceptable.

[Guest]

I am not so sure.

In some instances there is hyperbole among the newspaper writers as to the extent of the problem.

For instance. if the papers reported every day about a welfare cheat, it wpouldnt be long before people thought we had a welfare cheating problem. We dont.

The papers report so much about Muslims and bombings and muslim bombings that the same scenario presents itself. Most of the reports are for outside of canada which tends to skew the concerns for those inside Canada.

Now it exists that some orthodox folks are intolerant to those around them, and some are much quieter about it than others are.

So no, I am not ready to concede that there is anything drastically greater in one than any of the others.

I firmly believe that any intolerance is countered by acceptance from others of the new life they have . In this case I mean the kids and grandkids.

Really? You honestly believe that, on Earth as whole, intolerance for non believers and transgressors is currently roughly the same for all religions?

[guyser]

The courts can only follow the rules provided by the the government.

Ya think so huh?

You are saying that society gets to pick and choose which religions are acceptable.

Nope, never said that.

Thanks for trying though

[guyser]

Really? You honestly believe that, on Earth as whole, intolerance for non believers and transgressors is currently roughly the same for all religions?

In Canada? Yes,

Canada was my frame of reference.

[TimG]

Nope, never said that.

So you are now arguing that the laws and the constitution are not written and agreed upon by society. If not society who? The flying spaghetti monster? Aliens?

[guyser]

So you are now arguing that the laws and the constitution are not written and agreed upon by society. If not society who? The flying spaghetti monster? Aliens?

Didnt argue that either.

[Guest]

In Canada? Yes,

Canada was my frame of reference.

Fair enough. I was referring, though, to your response to Argus, in which he was referring to Islamic extremism as a whole, comparing it to Canada.

[guyser]

It wasnt truly clear, but ya, i was only referencing Canada.

[Bob Macadoo]

So you are now arguing that the laws and the constitution are not written and agreed upon by society. If not society who? The flying spaghetti monster? Aliens?

Society doesn't decide which are valid religions....and really neither do the courts......the believer does.......the courts test the validity of that belief through evidence showing said belief. If a numbnuts could show, with evidence (ie. doctrine texts, places of worship, ceremony, etc.), that swastikas and brownshirts were religious garb, the court would rule the same. If he showed up with his say so only that the flying spaghetti monster told him so.....the court would tell him to go fly a kite.

[cybercoma]

If muslims want to live under a different set of codes, the don't even try coming here and I would be all for curbing immigration from their countries. Or should we just open it up and rename the country the immigrant Inn.

Actually, the OP is about a Muslim wanting to live under the same set of codes for everyone else. You know, like all of those Sikhs, who get to wear their turbans at their swearing in, the Jews who get to wear their yamulkas, and the Orthodox Christians, who get to wear their headscarfs and ankle-length skirts. The idiots who decided that Muslim women can't wear their own religio-cultural apparel are the ones making a different set of rules for them.

[TimG]

If a numbnuts could show, with evidence (ie. doctrine texts, places of worship, ceremony, etc.), that swastikas and brownshirts were religious garb, the court would rule the same.

All you are doing are listing the arbitrary criteria that are used by some people to judge a belief worthy of being called a religion. It does not make it less arbitrary or subjective. It simply re-enforces my point that social consensus is the basis for determining what dress is acceptable and what is not. There is no absolute principle being defended here - it is just a debate over where the social consensus should be at this point in time.