Because it's 2016

[Smallc]

Does Freedom of Religion trump gender equality? If Trudeau believes it does then he needs to dispense with the"because it's 2015" crap.

That would be a question for the Supreme Court.

[Benz]

It isn't. It really isn't. Some freedom is. The phrase "Freedom of Religion" implies that one has the freedom to do whatever one's religion dictates. That's not the case, nor should it be.

It seems to be the understanding in english Canada. We have a different point of view in Québec. Here we respect people's freedom to choose whatever religion you want. However we do not agree with the freedom of a person to practice its religion wherever they want. Such as workplace or schools or political institutions. Religion practices belong to the private life context and cult locations only.

If that is what you mean, I agree with you.

[Spiderfish]

That would be a question for the Supreme Court.

No, it would be a question for Trudeau since he's seen as supporting both misogyny and gender equality...it's one or the other. Supporting Freedom of Religion does not obligate him to lend support to misogynistic religious practices, they are not mutually exclusive. This is not a Supreme Court issue.

[Smallc]

No, it would be a question for Trudeau since he's seen as supporting both misogyny and gender equality...

No, religious freedom, gender equality, and diversity. That can be spun a different way, apparently.

[Boges]

I can't believe this thread is 23 pages. New ideas stopped being presented at like Page 10.

[Spiderfish]

No, religious freedom, gender equality, and diversity. That can be spun a different way, apparently.

One can support religious freedom without supporting segregation and repression of "the sisters upstairs". Trudeau appears to support the latter, that's his choice, he can try and spin it any way he wants. People will make up their own minds how they feel about his actions.

[Guest]

I can't believe this thread is 23 pages. New ideas stopped being presented at like Page 10.

Apparently there's a pill that can cure alcoholism...

[Guest]

It seems to be the understanding in english Canada. We have a different point of view in Québec. Here we respect people's freedom to choose whatever religion you want. However we do not agree with the freedom of a person to practice its religion wherever they want. Such as workplace or schools or political institutions. Religion practices belong to the private life context and cult locations only.

If that is what you mean, I agree with you.

That's basically it. I believe a person ought to be able to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as it doesn't adversely affect anyone else. That applies to religious and non religious instances.

[Argus]

That pretty much describes how I feel about people such as yourself, DoP, Taxme, Poochy, and a couple of others.

But I don't feel that way about all conservatives.

Perhaps some conservatives show more patience for your poorly conceived views, rather than trashing them as I do. But that is the nature of web sites devoted to political discussion.

My sister is Muslim and I know neither her nor her family are barbaric or backward,

That must mean none are then.

[Smallc]

One can support religious freedom without supporting segregation and repression of "the sisters upstairs".

Other religious organizations have the same protection. It has always been thus.

[kimmy]

Other religious organizations have the same protection. It has always been thus.

Nobody is questioning that the mosque has the right to worship as they wish. Of course they do.

The question is why Trudeau decided to grace a segregated mosque with his presence. Why not go to a more progressive mosque instead?

BCSapper earlier suggested that Trudeau could further show his support for religious freedom by visiting the community of Bountiful, BC. It was a clever barb but apparently it went over your head. The point was, they may have the freedom to live their faith as they wish but that doesn't mean we're obliged to approve. If Trudeau went to Bountiful and spoke approvingly of the strength their diversity brings to our country, do you think he'd be criticized for doing so? I certainly think he would. Likewise if he went to celebrate with some gonzo snake-handler fringe denomination, or anti-medicine faith-healers, or a doomsday cult. Those people also have the right to their beliefs, but you won't find the Prime Minister visiting them to praise the diversity they bring to our country.

Before you object to the comparison, I agree: a mainstream mosque is not the same thing as deranged snake-handlers or doomsday cultists. But the argument is the same, and the point here is to illustrate why your point that the mosque has the right to worship as they wish is irrelevant to the issue of whether Trudeau should have gone there to praise them.

Surely there must be a more modern mosque he could have attended instead.

-k

[Smallc]

BCSapper earlier suggested that Trudeau could further show his support for religious freedom by visiting the community of Bountiful, BC. It was a clever barb but apparently it went over your head.

Nice facilitating.

I've already explained this. Religions are protected provided that their practices don't break any laws. That's not the case in bountiful.

Trudeau went to to the mosque to highlight diversity. He made mention of the the men and women, both present and not, to make clear that diversity includes people of both sexes.

He went to a mosque that many other Liberal politicians have gone to and spoken at - including women.

This is a manufactured controversy.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Trudeau went to to the mosque to highlight diversity. He made mention of the the men and women, both present and not, to make clear that diversity includes people of both sexes.

What about the Muslim LGBT community ? Did he make mention of the gay men and women enjoying their diversity in the mosque ?

[dialamah]

BCSapper earlier suggested that Trudeau could further show his support for religious freedom by visiting the community of Bountiful, BC. It was a clever barb but apparently it went over your head. The point was, they may have the freedom to live their faith as they wish but that doesn't mean we're obliged to approve. If Trudeau went to Bountiful and spoke approvingly of the strength their diversity brings to our country, do you think he'd be criticized for doing so? I certainly think he would. Likewise if he went to celebrate with some gonzo snake-handler fringe denomination, or anti-medicine faith-healers, or a doomsday cult. Those people also have the right to their beliefs, but you won't find the Prime Minister visiting them to praise the diversity they bring to our country.

-k

Polygamy and pedophilia are illegal; the mosque is not engaging in illegal activity.

What if JT visited a horse-and-buggy Mennonite community? Would you find that as distasteful?

[poochy]

Nice facilitating.

I've already explained this. Religions are protected provided that their practices don't break any laws. That's not the case in bountiful.

Trudeau went to to the mosque to highlight diversity. He made mention of the the men and women, both present and not, to make clear that diversity includes people of both sexes.

He went to a mosque that many other Liberal politicians have gone to and spoken at - including women.

This is a manufactured controversy.

Full Pretzel.

[cybercoma]

It isn't. It really isn't. Some freedom is. The phrase "Freedom of Religion" implies that one has the freedom to do whatever one's religion dictates. That's not the case, nor should it be.

That's not the legal definition and you know it. The law prescribes "reasonable limits" on freedoms. So, no, you're not allowed to murder your kid for leaving your religion, as DOP likes to constantly point out.

[cybercoma]

He went to a mosque that many other Liberal politicians have gone to and spoken at - including women.

Including a homosexual woman at that.

[dialamah]

Alot of youth are going to fight for Isis and most of the time, they are just being brainswashed. But the most weird part of it, they are easy targets because of our own western capitalist mentality. Those young men are poor, low level of education, or if they are educated, they feel that there are victims of discrimination (and sometimes it's really true), they feel that they will never access to the dream life we are so encourage to target. Isis offers them a car, a wife, a house and all they have to do in return, is fight for a cause.

If we know in advance how the propagandists are going to influence them, we can give them what they need to have a critical opinion about it and make the right choice. I am giving you an extreme example but, the principle goes for anyone. The knowledge has always been a factor that decrease the belief in a religion, any of them. But once someone has drop into a mindset, it is more difficult to get that person out of it. Without a good basis of objectivity, one will just see anything in contradiction of its standing point as a challenge of its own integrity. They belong to a family and what they experience is more important than any other consequences of their actions.

I agree that preventing youth (or anyone) from converting to extremist Islamic views would be ideal. But I thought we were discussing how to change the mind of someone who already believes.

[Guest]

That's not the legal definition and you know it. The law prescribes "reasonable limits" on freedoms. So, no, you're not allowed to murder your kid for leaving your religion, as DOP likes to constantly point out.

No, not being religious I'm unfamiliar with the law. That said, it was referred to as a value in the post I quoted. (I had that argument with Big Guy a few days ago)

It's not a value of mine.

[DogOnPorch]

No, not being religious I'm unfamiliar with the law. That said, it was referred to as a value in the post I quoted. (I had that argument with Big Guy a few days ago)

It's not a value of mine.

No Muslim has ever murdered his kids in Canada due to his/her twisted religion? Well....not true. Muslim kids turn-up at the bottoms of canals for not being Scotsman enough.

[DogOnPorch]

I agree that preventing youth (or anyone) from converting to extremist Islamic views would be ideal. But I thought we were discussing how to change the mind of someone who already believes.

How are you going to stop betsy from being a believer? A test case...

Can you turn her away from The Lord?

[Guest]

Sic some nuns on her. That'll do it.

[msj]

No, not being religious I'm unfamiliar with the law. That said, it was referred to as a value in the post I quoted.

It's not a value of mine.

Fine.

I too do not value religious freedom although that is in the privileged context of having the freedom to not believe in religion (which is to say I take for granted the freedom from religion).

However, I do have some understanding of how it works at the constitutional level and how sometimes rights for this (religious freedom) clash with rights for that (women becoming priests, women not praying with men at the same time, gays not being married by certain priests/pastors within most religious temples etc etc ).

One can usually also understand why our constitution references "reasonable accommodation" as a means to seek some kind of compromise between conflicting values.

And one can hope that people can look at something like this and say: hey, I don't like segregation of genders in that mosque so I do not want the PM to speak there because his presence condones the practice etc etc OR I don't like segregation of genders but I'm ok with the PM speaking there because his presence does not condone anything etc etc.

Which is why, for me, I come back to my original feeling on this: meh.

Meh because it is nothing more than a political messy way to poorly frame the clash between the principle of equality and the principle of religious freedom.

It is not merely simplistic but taints any reasonable discussion about the issue largely thanks to the amount of hyperbole and utter BS spread about it (if it wasn't for myself coming up with a decently long video and smallc with a decent picture and other well founded facts this thread would be even worse than what it has become, imo - for example, we could still be arguing that Trudeau is a rabid antisemite because the Imam is one and Trudeau shared the same breathing space as his herd).

Meh because it will be forgotten by all but the most rabid of Trudeau haters who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

[Guest]

Fine.

I too do not value religious freedom although that is in the privileged context of having the freedom to not believe in religion (which is to say I take for granted the freedom from religion).

However, I do have some understanding of how it works at the constitutional level and how sometimes rights for this (religious freedom) clash with rights for that (women becoming priests, women not praying with men at the same time, gays not being married by certain priests/pastors within most religious temples etc etc ).

One can usually also understand why our constitution references "reasonable accommodation" as a means to seek some kind of compromise between conflicting values.

And one can hope that people can look at something like this and say: hey, I don't like segregation of genders in that mosque so I do not want the PM to speak there because his presence condones the practice etc etc OR I don't like segregation of genders but I'm ok with the PM speaking there because his presence does not condone anything etc etc.

Which is why, for me, I come back to my original feeling on this: meh.

Meh because it is nothing more than a political messy way to poorly frame the clash between the principle of equality and the principle of religious freedom.

It is not merely simplistic but taints any reasonable discussion about the issue largely thanks to the amount of hyperbole and utter BS spread about it (if it wasn't for myself coming up with a decently long video and smallc with a decent picture and other well founded facts this thread would be even worse than what it has become, imo - for example, we could still be arguing that Trudeau is a rabid antisemite because the Imam is one and Trudeau shared the same breathing space as his herd).

Meh because it will be forgotten by all but the most rabid of Trudeau haters who wouldn't vote for him anyways.

I agree with those that think it's a tad hypocritical of someone who espouses equality between the sexes as much as JT does, to visit the house of a religion that does the opposite.

That said, sleep lost = zero, so I'm with you on the meh.

[Army Guy]

You are right I should not respond at all and I only rarely respond to some of them.

My sister is Muslim and I know neither her nor her family are barbaric or backward, nor do they belive non-Muslims and apostates should be executed. To some extent I feel I am defending them as individual people instead of some mindless monolith called "Islam" bent on destruction. That is why I have a tendency to post in these topics. But I agree it is pointless and I shouldn't bother.

I have learned aome interesting hostorical stuff, but I haven't had my basic belief challenged that all humans have the capability of barbarism, that religion brings out the worst in us, as well as the best, that we in the West have no moral high ground over anyone else, we are merely currently more progressed than other regions. They may or may not catch up; we may or may not regress.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you who,can post to or not, Just wondering if these people are giving you so much grieve that you have a hard opinion against why bother....Unless what they are posting directly goes against your values and morals....

Defending family is honorable, especially sisters....But we can hardly judge an entire religion on your sisters acts can we....Not sure where your sister lives, but do you think that if she lived in say Iraq, or Syria , or some other hard core Muslim state, they would have the same convictions and believes...

Where do you think people get a capability of barbarism, is it a learned thing, is it one that is embedded and rears it's ugly head only when needed, like a life and death struggle, or survival....I've seen a lot of shitty things over my service career of just how barbaric humans can be, to everything around them....if pressed into things I think everyone is capable of anything, including killing....

I mean all one has to do is read up on some history, it's all there black and white, how could the Nazi's wipe out millions, same for the Russians, same for the romans, etc etc it is though out our history of man....how could that be if we were not capable of barbarism.....