Asylum System "not sustainable" - Immigration Minister

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I can only assume this is autocorrect acting up.

Never met any bad ones, eh?

Edit> My mistake.  I just realised it was incomplete.

Edited September 23, 2018 by bcsapper

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is an opinion only.  The question also begs as to why such garments are only being banned now that Muslims are visible in Canada.  Nuns had habits that hid their faces I remember.

The operative word in your comment is "had" as nuns realized it was counterproductive to separate themselves from the broader society - which should serve as a lesson to those who seek to promote self-othering habits like wearing the niqab and burqa. But where did you grow up? Presumably, you never lived near a Catholic school or convent in this country. I attended separate Catholic schools until the 9th grade (after which they weren't publicly funded in Ontario at the time) and never saw a nun cover her face. They used to cover everything but their faces, presumably so their students could understand every facial twitch and scowl that intended to convey displeasure and/or admonition.  They sometimes frowned and smiled as well. They never covered their mouths or noses nor did they refrain from expressing their opinions or interacting with the wider world. By the time I moved out of the separate school system the nuns were starting to experiment with modified habits, where some wore plain knee-length skirts and exposed their ears and hair. They joined the modern world. There were several nuns living In an apartment  building in which I lived a few years ago and for a fairly lengthy period of time I had no idea for they were nuns, until another resident told me they were.

[DogOnPorch]

Nuns are generally employees of the RC Church.

The Nun's habit does NOT cover the face.

The requirement to cover-up given by the Quran is that so Muslim women will be known and not abused (by Muslim men). It is for ALL Muslim women...not just those associated with a mosque.

Quran 33 59: O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves [part] of their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.

https://quran.com/33/59

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1. The operative word in your comment is "had" as nuns realized it was counterproductive to separate themselves from the broader society - which should serve as a lesson to those who seek to promote self-othering habits like wearing the niqab and burqa.

2. But where did you grow up? Presumably, you never lived near a Catholic school or convent in this country. I attended separate Catholic schools until the 9th grade (after which they weren't publicly funded in Ontario at the time) and never saw a nun cover her face.

1. This is a trend I have noticed: we take recent social trends and mark ourselves as effectively better than other groups.  Second Vatican council was only in the 1960s.  Same Sex marriage in the early 2000s.  Are we making great discoveries about our enlightenment, or really just finding ways to think we're better than others.  We still have freedom of religion, and liberalism allows for women to choose.  

2.  Canada. 

 

[turningrite]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is a trend I have noticed: we take recent social trends and mark ourselves as effectively better than other groups.  Second Vatican council was only in the 1960s.  Same Sex marriage in the early 2000s.  Are we making great discoveries about our enlightenment, or really just finding ways to think we're better than others.  We still have freedom of religion, and liberalism allows for women to choose.  

2.  Canada. 

 

1.) The point is that most Canadians, including nuns, have realized that it's counter-productive to deliberately, even on religious grounds, separate themselves from society. Immigrants and minorities, would be best advised to heed this lesson.

2.) No, I'm wondering if you grew up in some kind of privileged Protestant enclave? Otherwise, you'd surely be aware that nuns never covered their faces in the days when they wore full habits. But I suspect you were simply misconstruing the situation to suit your argument.

Edited September 23, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

28 minutes ago, turningrite said:

Otherwise, you'd surely be aware that nuns never covered their faces in the days when they wore full habits.

It was common for Nuns to cover their face in public throughout history and some Orders still do.  

In 2011, such a Nun was removed from a plane for looking too Muslim.

29 minutes ago, turningrite said:

But I suspect you were simply misconstruing the situation to suit your argument.

How will you ever learn anything new if you assume people are "misconstruing" things you simply don't know about?

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

It was common for Nuns to cover their face in public throughout history and some Orders still do.  

In 2011, such a Nun was removed from a plane for looking too Muslim.

How will you ever learn anything new if you assume people are "misconstruing" things you simply don't know about?

 

Nuns work for the church.

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, turningrite said:

1.) The point is that most Canadians, including nuns, have realized that it's counter-productive to deliberately, even on religious grounds, separate themselves from society. Immigrants and minorities, would be best advised to heed this lesson.

2.) No, I'm wondering if you grew up in some kind of privileged Protestant enclave? Otherwise, you'd surely be aware that nuns never covered their faces in the days when they wore full habits. But I suspect you were simply misconstruing the situation to suit your argument.

1) Best advised, or in other words forced by law.

2) No.  I believe I saw nuns who wore full veil as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_habit

[DogOnPorch]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

2) No.  I believe I saw nuns who wore full veil as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_habit

 

Where? Medieval Times?

https://www.medievaltimes.com/

[DogOnPorch]

As for the folks putting lipstick on this pig...the Quran applies to ALL Muslim women. Not just the wives of the Imam.

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Best advised, or in other words forced by law.

2) No.  I believe I saw nuns who wore full veil as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_habit

1.) Well, for the sake of social cohesion, a secularist requirement applicable to federally and provincially operated or regulated services, businesses and workplaces, is an eminently sensible idea. 

2.) You're relying on a Wikipedia entry covering religious clothing extending back to the Middle Ages? Wow! That's stretching things. The only pictures that show nuns in any apparently modern context suggest that in the modern age (i.e. the past couple centuries) facial covering hasn't been a characteristic of the religious habits worn by nuns, at least in the West.

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

It was common for Nuns to cover their face in public throughout history and some Orders still do.  

In 2011, such a Nun was removed from a plane for looking too Muslim.

How will you ever learn anything new if you assume people are "misconstruing" things you simply don't know about?

The situation you point to is so exceptional as to render your argument ridiculous. The nun in the story apparently belonged to a Monastic and/or cloistered order, a circumstance that's become exceedingly rare in the West. Were one to take your analogy further, you'd apparently approve of the notion that Muslim women who dress in fundamentalist  garb be cloistered and hidden from public. As far as reality is concerned, when I attended Catholic schools in the late 50 and throughout much of the 60s I never encountered a nun who covered her face. Have you ever personally, encountered one? (I bet not.)

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1.) Well, for the sake of social cohesion, a secularist requirement applicable to federally and provincially operated or regulated services, businesses and workplaces, is an eminently sensible idea. 

2.) You're relying on a Wikipedia entry covering religious clothing extending back to the Middle Ages? Wow!  

1) Yes.  Because Muslims, now.

2) No.  Wikipedia proves it's real, which you doubted.  I feel like I saw this myself, but I have to check with a family member who was with me.

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The situation you point to is so exceptional as to render your argument ridiculous. 

Ok, but it's ok that they did it because they are Catholic.

Muslims need special attention and legislation because we can't handle religious freedom, or....

[dialamah]

10 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The situation you point to is so exceptional as to render your argument ridiculous. The nun in the story apparently belonged to a Monastic and/or cloistered order, a circumstance that's become exceedingly rare in the West. Were one to take your analogy further, you'd apparently approve of the notion that Muslim women who dress in fundamentalist  garb be cloistered and hidden from public. As far as reality is concerned, when I attended Catholic schools in the late 50 and throughout much of the 60s I never encountered a nun who covered her face. Have you ever personally, encountered one? (I bet not.)

Its only "ridiculous" because it proves you wrong when you  that Michael could not have seen Nuns in face coverings because they never had face coverings.

The rest of your comments are merely blah blah blah to hide how wrong you were, since I made no analogy whatsoever, merely pointed out that Nuns did and some still do wear face coverings.

[turningrite]

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Its only "ridiculous" because it proves you wrong when you  that Michael could not have seen Nuns in face coverings because they never had face coverings.

The rest of your comments are merely blah blah blah to hide how wrong you were, since I made no analogy whatsoever, merely pointed out that Nuns did and some still do wear face coverings.

So, apparently you've never actually seen a nun wearing facial covering. Well, methinks I've won this argument.

[turningrite]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Muslims need special attention and legislation because we can't handle religious freedom, or....

Or, you might look at the issue from a broader angle. A Muslim writer who penned an article published in the NY Times last year pondered whether the problem of integration emerges from the fact that many Muslims neither understand nor accept the Western ideals of liberalism and freedom "...liberalism also brings them realities that most of them find un-Islamic — irreverence toward religion, tolerance of L.G.B.T. people, permissive attitudes on sex. They can’t easily decide, therefore, whether liberalism is good or bad for Muslims." If this is the case, why is the onus on the West to resolve the conundrum posed by liberalism for Muslims when they're moving into our societies? My view of religious freedom also entails freedom from religion. I don't want to promote religious fundamentalism of any sort nor be told that I should be polite and accommodating and just ignore it. If there is no middle ground where the other side has to concede on some things (i.e. irreverence, gender equality, LGBTQ rights) as well in the process of adaptation, I will stand on principles that have emerged in the West as a legacy of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Anything less would amount to appeasement and for us to do so on a broad scale would effectively amount to the death of the Western project, which has so enormously enhanced human existence.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/opinion/is-free-speech-good-for-muslims.html

Edited September 23, 2018 by turningrite

[dialamah]

24 minutes ago, turningrite said:

So, apparently you've never actually seen a nun wearing facial covering. Well, methinks I've won this argument.

You are the one who said "they don't exist". 

I provided proof they exist. 

I'm not the the one who lost. 

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. This is a trend I have noticed: we take recent social trends and mark ourselves as effectively better than other groups.

So no group is better than any other group?

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

You are the one who said "they don't exist". 

I provided proof they exist. 

I'm not the the one who lost. 

Yes - you indeed won....

Link: https://www.flickr.com/photos/23168191@N00/sets/72157601647382234/

 

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, but it's ok that they did it because they are Catholic.

The veil and habit were designed to mark the separation of the nun from society, to identify her with her religion and place her outside of the common social order. It marked her not only as a cleric but one self-isolated within a nunnery. Non-cloistered nuns did not wear veils. And ordinary Catholics most certainly did not and do not.

What you are equating this with is a rule which mandates an entire people, not just clerics, separate themselves from society and mark themselves as different and outside the boundaries of the community. And that is the danger - that an entire community which is already very large and rapidly growing larger, self-isolates with its own values and morals which are in many respects violently opposed to that of the broader society. And whose religion speaks very, very approvingly of spreading their religion by force.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

So no group is better than any other group?

Do you think we are 'better' than the states if we had same-sex marriage ten years earlier than them ?  How much better ?  People who have no interest in progressing social causes will now cite them as reasons to regulate religions ?  Seems like the morality of convenience to me.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

 What you are equating this with is a rule which mandates an entire people, not just clerics, separate themselves from society and mark themselves as different and outside the boundaries of the community. And that is the danger - that an entire community which is already very large and rapidly growing larger, self-isolates with its own values and morals which are in many respects violently opposed to that of the broader society. And whose religion speaks very, very approvingly of spreading their religion by force.

Yes, but this 'otherness' argument has in fact been used against Catholics, and Jews in the past.  2018 is not the beginning of using this tactic to justify truly isolating people - saying they won't be accommodated and won't be accepted.  

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Do you think we are 'better' than the states if we had same-sex marriage ten years earlier than them ?  How much better ?  People who have no interest in progressing social causes will now cite them as reasons to regulate religions ?  Seems like the morality of convenience to me.

Why compare us to the US? The gap between us and third world nations which supply asylum seekers is FAR higher.
Maybe people have little interest in gay rights, but they still don't want to import people who want to kill gays. Maybe people aren't feminists, in particular, but everyone has a mother and most of us have sisters and daughters. So maybe we don't want to import people who think it's okay to beat women, and that women shouldn't be allowed out of the house without permission. Maybe people aren't even very religious but find the importation of vast numbers of those who think atheists should be killed to be problematic. Perhaps what you call convenience I simply call common sense.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but this 'otherness' argument has in fact been used against Catholics, and Jews in the past.  2018 is not the beginning of using this tactic to justify truly isolating people - saying they won't be accommodated and won't be accepted.  

Because an argument was used without justification in the past does not imply that it can't be used correctly EVER. The difference between Catholics and Protestants was never all that big, culturally. And I say that as a product of a Catholic mother and Protestant father. The difference between a Muslim from the third world and a modern, secular western Christian or Jew, on the other hand, is vast.

Further, the Catholics didn't have a doctrine which called for death to those who insult the pope or saints or who leave the Catholic faith or for a whole host of other things. And by some reports anywhere from half to two thirds of the Koran is all about how to deal with various 'unbelievers' and rarely is that dealing meant to be kind or tolerant.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Argus