Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Then it's bad law. If you say so. Western Democracy was based on separation of church and state, but if you think otherwise I'm sure there are many who agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 If you say so. Western Democracy was based on separation of church and state, but if you think otherwise I'm sure there are many who agree. I am arguing for the separation of church and state. Those who think religion deserves special protections are the ones arguing against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) If you say so. Western Democracy was based on separation of church and state, but if you think otherwise I'm sure there are many who agree. How would thinking that a law that accomodates religious views to ridiculous extremes is a bad law in any way conflict with the view that the church and the state should be separate? Edited May 19, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I say to hell with the Orthodox religious nut jobs.... women before wacko ideas about sitting next to women. This. Fundamentalist wackjobs need to take their inferior ideas and sit the eff down or walk. Their choice. I'm tired of accommodating nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Don't get me wrong, that's what I'd like to do, but I'm anti-confrontational in nature when dealing with other people in person. Furthermore, that might be downright dangerous. If someone is so brainwashed with religious mumbo jumbo that they can't bear to sit next to me, hearing my voice in reply might just set them off in a murderous rage. People who seriously hold such ideas have such a twisted version of morality and such an alien pattern of thinking that predicting what will set them off is impossible. They are dangerous creatures to be avoided. I'd rather not take the risk.It's simple, You, & I have similarities in ideology but one major difference that changes the way we behave. I no longer fear death, as you obviously still do. I embrace and welcome the day it will arrive, and if I can take a few religious nut jobs while I'm at it at the same time. Even better. Edited May 19, 2015 by Freddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 It's simple, You, & I have similarities in ideology but one major difference that changes the way we behave. I no longer fear death, as you obviously still do. I embrace and welcome the day it will arrive Yes, of course I fear death, and proud of it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I fear death on odd days of the week, and welcome it on even days. I'm kind of wishy washy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I've worked myself to the bones supporting my family. Death is welcome, finally my pains will go away . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 How would thinking that a law that accomodates religious views to ridiculous extremes is a bad law in any way conflict with the view that the church and the state should be separate? We're not talking about a law - it's about a private business choosing to accommodate someone. Accommodating religion also means exempting them from some Canadian laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 How would thinking that a law that accomodates religious views to ridiculous extremes is a bad law in any way conflict with the view that the church and the state should be separate? The law allows for sexism as part of religious expression. That way, the law is kept away from matters of religion. If you require, for example, the Catholic church to hire women priests, then you're bringing the state in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) We're not talking about a law - it's about a private business choosing to accommodate someone. Accommodating religion also means exempting them from some Canadian laws. If you go back a bit, you'll see we were talking about a law. You started it, in fact. You may think that way but the law disagrees with you. Edited May 19, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 The law allows for sexism as part of religious expression. That way, the law is kept away from matters of religion. If you require, for example, the Catholic church to hire women priests, then you're bringing the state in. I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 If you go back a bit, you'll see we were talking about a law. You started it, in fact. Yes, we did slip into talking about the law, generally. You're right. But there's no law forcing the airline to accommodate, nor do I feel there should be. However, if the airline wants to do it - why not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I've worked myself to the bones supporting my family. Death is welcome, finally my pains will go away . So ... are you going to take a whole plane load of people down with you? Or just the wackos? How will you manage that? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 The law allows for sexism as part of religious expression. That way, the law is kept away from matters of religion. If you require, for example, the Catholic church to hire women priests, then you're bringing the state in. Ya well my anti-religion doesn't allow a priest to sit next to me. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ya well my anti-religion doesn't allow a priest to sit next to me. . Give it a try ! As I said, though, it's dumb to get to the gate and ask to NOT sit beside a priest, on the red-eye to Vatican City. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Yes, we did slip into talking about the law, generally. You're right. But there's no law forcing the airline to accommodate, nor do I feel there should be. However, if the airline wants to do it - why not ? Yes, I'm sure they can. The OP and my (and other) agreement was more that they shouldn't, and they should probably take great delight in not doing so as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Why not ? I'm sure they could work it out so nobody's the wiser - the OJ gets his flight, the airline gets the money. Everybody happy ! Do we really feel good about punishing people for being religious ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Only when they make someone move. And sometimes other reasons too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I don't think it's reasonable to 'make' somebody move. No way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 We've got one thread where the guys acting obnoxious are being sexist and now one thread where the men don't want to inadvertently touch a woman and they're sexist too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) I suppose the two are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing wrong with not touching something your religion says you are not to touch. Could help prevent blindness. Just don't make someone move to avoid it. Take responsibility. Catch another flight. Convert to Buddhism. There are options. Edited May 19, 2015 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I wouldn't allow my wife or daughter to be moved over this issue. If the Jews want to sit with men, then that should be arranged before people are already seated. My only objection, is people misrepresenting the reasons why they do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 You may think that way but the law disagrees with you. Equality rights generally trump religious ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 We're not talking about a law - it's about a private business choosing to accommodate someone. Accommodating religion also means exempting them from some Canadian laws. It doesn't give them the right to be a bigot. Religious freedom ends as soon as it impacts someone else's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.