Stewardess banned from carrying bible

[Leafless]

If anything it is not Christianity that is screwing up Canadian society, but is actually the government itself.

You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"?

Exactly.

How can government possibly dictate something that overrides the 'Declaration of Human Rights' in a unilateral way involving only the forces of government and law.

This method of government unilaterally dictating human or legal rights (based on the premise of equality) could represent government imposing internal political motivations rather than dictating rights solely for the country of Canada as a WHOLE.

This is VERY DANGEROUS.

[Renegade]

Don't you see how the country is morally falling apart?

No, I actually don't. Falling apart morally by who's standards of morality? Yours?

Tolerance has no limits if one is to dumb to recognize what those limits should be.

Of course tolerance has limits, but the limits of tolerance aren't governed by morality. They are governed by the extent to which they contrevene someone else's rights.

The emphasis to-day appears to revolve around personal gain at any expense, ignoring the principles of morals.

I disagree that morals should even play any part in rules dictating our actions. Morality is a personal standard, not a state standard. Given it is our personal standard, it is up to each's own conscience to enforce that standard.

Religions can only be abusive and dangerous if they combine their own political teachings that override the laws of the land and do not adhere to the principles set out in the 'Declaration of Human Rights'.

What if religion is the law of the land as it is in Saudia Arabia? The majority there supports that their law is governed by religion.

Frankly, I'm surprised by your position here, in other threads you have advocated there cannot be a separation of church and state.

IMV, hetrogenous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state.

[Renegade]

If anything it is not Christianity that is screwing up Canadian society, but is actually the government itself.

You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"?

Exactly.

How can government possibly dictate something that overrides the 'Declaration of Human Rights' in a unilateral way involving only the forces of government and law.

This method of government unilaterally dictating human or legal rights (based on the premise of equality) could represent government imposing internal political motivations rather than dictating rights solely for the country of Canada as a WHOLE.

This is VERY DANGEROUS.

I really don't understand what you are saying. It makes zero sense to me.

In a democracy a government doesn't act unilaterally. It is empowered to act by the people through an event called an election. If sufficient people disagree with the actions of a government, the empowerment can be recinded within a set period of time through a second election.

If you feel your government has taken actions which overrides the "Declaration of Human Rights", you DO have recourse. Either recind the empowerment you gave them, or file a grievance with an International Human Rights body.

[Leafless]

What if religion is the law of the land as it is in Saudia Arabia? The majority there supports that their law is governed by religion.

Frankly, I'm surprised by your position here, in other threads you have advocated there cannot be a separation of church and state.

IMV, hetrogenous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state.

I have no idea what your talking about, as Canada is not like Saudi Arabia and no one forces anyone in Canada to become a member of any religion.

You say I advocated, " there cannot be a separation of church and state". Please show me where I said that?

In reference to what you say regarding that heterogeneous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state is what we already have in Canada. But you are conveiniently omitting the fact that the majority of Canadians voluntarily subscribe to a religion, thereby leaving your wishes of a dictated secular society a fantasy.

[Leafless]

If anything it is not Christianity that is screwing up Canadian society, but is actually the government itself.

You mean that the government is "screwing up Canadian society" by unilaterally creating "laws it feels is justified as a human or legal right"?

Exactly.

How can government possibly dictate something that overrides the 'Declaration of Human Rights' in a unilateral way involving only the forces of government and law.

This method of government unilaterally dictating human or legal rights (based on the premise of equality) could represent government imposing internal political motivations rather than dictating rights solely for the country of Canada as a WHOLE.

This is VERY DANGEROUS.

I really don't understand what you are saying. It makes zero sense to me.

In a democracy a government doesn't act unilaterally. It is empowered to act by the people through an event called an election. If sufficient people disagree with the actions of a government, the empowerment can be recinded within a set period of time through a second election.

If you feel your government has taken actions which overrides the "Declaration of Human Rights", you DO have recourse. Either recind the empowerment you gave them, or file a grievance with an International Human Rights body.

Well if I recall I don't think Canadian society has ever demanded that Canada develop a charter of of elevated rights that apply to minorities or demand multicultural society or demand official bilingualism or marriage being applicable to homosexuals or what exactly Aboriginals are entitled to.

The only problem is we are not living in a democracy, as are wishes are NOT being politically conveyed by our elected representatives in the manner that defines a country as a democracy.

Therefore if all national political parties agree to abide by 'party policy' rather than abide by the wishes of Canadians then we have a DICTATORSHIP which we currently have.

Canadians have NO CHOICE outside of a REVOLUTION to have these unwanted policies attended to by existing national parties. We need a party that will STAND UP and deal with the wishes of Canadians rather then cater to unwanted political ideologies of national federal parties of Canada.

[Renegade]

You say I advocated, " there cannot be a separation of church and state". Please show me where I said that?

Sure, no problem:

This is why IMO you cannot separate church and state ...

link

In reference to what you say regarding that heterogeneous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state is what we already have in Canada. But you are conveiniently omitting the fact that the majority of Canadians voluntarily subscribe to a religion, thereby leaving your wishes of a dictated secular society a fantasy.

Have you somehow drawn the conclusion that because the majority of Canadians would affiliate themselves to a religion that somehow makes our society non-secular?

That is completely false! I have no doubt that Canadians, even religious ones, want a separation of Church and state.

[Renegade]

Well if I recall I don't think Canadian society has ever demanded that Canada develop a charter of of elevated rights that apply to minorities or demand multicultural society or demand official bilingualism or marriage being applicable to homosexuals or what exactly Aboriginals are entitled to.

The only problem is we are not living in a democracy, as are wishes are NOT being politically conveyed by our elected representatives in the manner that defines a country as a democracy.

Therefore if all national political parties agree to abide by 'party policy' rather than abide by the wishes of Canadians then we have a DICTATORSHIP which we currently have.

Canadians have NO CHOICE outside of a REVOLUTION to have these unwanted policies attended to by existing national parties. We need a party that will STAND UP and deal with the wishes of Canadians rather then cater to unwanted political ideologies of national federal parties of Canada.

LOL!! I guess you are SOL then, short of starting a revolution or moving away to your own private island. Good luck with that.

[boomstick]

What's this talk of "international standards concerning religious freedom"? This sounds like an American concept to me. Let the Saudis fight for their own freedom of religion if they desire such. It's none or your damn business for one, and we have no right to impose our ideals or laws on a SOVEREIGN nation.

[Leafless]

In reference to what you say regarding that heterogeneous societies are best governed by maintaining a secular nature and imposing a strong separation between religion and state is what we already have in Canada. But you are conveiniently omitting the fact that the majority of Canadians voluntarily subscribe to a religion, thereby leaving your wishes of a dictated secular society a fantasy.

Have you somehow drawn the conclusion that because the majority of Canadians would affiliate themselves to a religion that somehow makes our society non-secular?

That is completely false! I have no doubt that Canadians, even religious ones, want a separation of Church and state.

We do have separation of church and state albeit not fully, outside of tax exemption for churches and the charter 'recognizes the supremacy of God and the rule of law' and freedom of religion.

But the workings of government is not influenced by religion and Canada does NOT have an established church.

Pertaining to followers of religion in Canada, the majority of Canadians are religious and therefore Canada is not a secular state.

[Leafless]

Well if I recall I don't think Canadian society has ever demanded that Canada develop a charter of of elevated rights that apply to minorities or demand multicultural society or demand official bilingualism or marriage being applicable to homosexuals or what exactly Aboriginals are entitled to.

The only problem is we are not living in a democracy, as are wishes are NOT being politically conveyed by our elected representatives in the manner that defines a country as a democracy.

Therefore if all national political parties agree to abide by 'party policy' rather than abide by the wishes of Canadians then we have a DICTATORSHIP which we currently have.

Canadians have NO CHOICE outside of a REVOLUTION to have these unwanted policies attended to by existing national parties. We need a party that will STAND UP and deal with the wishes of Canadians rather then cater to unwanted political ideologies of national federal parties of Canada.

LOL!! I guess you are SOL then, short of starting a revolution or moving away to your own private island. Good luck with that.

LOL !! In the end, its quite possible, you and your twisted buddies will be the one's moving away and perhaps even forced to.

[jbg]

Leafless, who exactly are you faulting here?

1. Saudia Arabia for having a policy of religious intolerance?

2. The airline for following the law in Saudia Arabia?

3. The stewardess for being unaware of the laws of the country she was flying to?

If we cannot practice Judaism or Christianity in a Muslim country, why should we extend (non-reciprocal) courtesies? I'm not saying we shouldn't allow practice of Islam, just asking the question.

[Renegade]

If we cannot practice Judaism or Christianity in a Muslim country, why should we extend (non-reciprocal) courtesies? I'm not saying we shouldn't allow practice of Islam, just asking the question.

For at least a couple of reasons:

1. One of our fundamental beliefs is freedom. We do not violate that belief simply because someone else does too.

2.Because you are not "punishing" the right people. They people who would suffer are the non-majority religions of our country. These people have had nothing to do with practices adopted in Saudia Arabia. You would simply be punishing them for the crime of having the "wrong" religion.

[jbg]

2.Because you are not "punishing" the right people. They people who would suffer are the non-majority religions of our country. These people have had nothing to do with practices adopted in Saudia Arabia. You would simply be punishing them for the crime of having the "wrong" religion.

Except when they demand application of Sharia law, object to being profiled on airplanes, etc.

[Renegade]

Except when they demand application of Sharia law, object to being profiled on airplanes, etc.

Sorry, no, it is still not the right people. Your original comment was in reference to retribution for policies adopted by Saudia Arabia. Show where there is a connection between those who enact laws in Saudia Arabia and those who advocate for Sharia law or object to being profiled?

The only thing they have in common is being Muslim.

I can certainly debate with you whether it is reasonable to apply Sharia law or religious profiling is acceptable, but that that is not the point of this thread.

[jbg]

The only thing they have in common is being Muslim.

I can certainly debate with you whether it is reasonable to apply Sharia law or religious profiling is acceptable, but that that is not the point of this thread.

The point I'm making is that Muslims want tolerance only for them; no one else.

[Renegade]

The point I'm making is that Muslims want tolerance only for them; no one else.

That is quite a generalization. While there are no doubt radical Muslims, there are also radicals in virtually every religion.

I'm not sure how you can make a generalization on behalf of ALL Muslims.

[jdobbin]

The point I'm making is that Muslims want tolerance only for them; no one else.

What Muslims are you speaking about? I know quite a few. We had a celebratory dinner together on Tuesday. I think we were all pretty tolerant of each other.

Do you know any Muslims? Are they intolerant?

[Leafless]

The point I'm making is that Muslims want tolerance only for them; no one else.

That is also proven outside of their religion by their inability to integrate.

Generally speaking, Muslims live among their own kind in a general neighbourhood. This is what I have observed in the city I live in.

[jbg]

The point I'm making is that Muslims want tolerance only for them; no one else.

That is also proven outside of their religion by their inability to integrate.

Generally speaking, Muslims live among their own kind in a general neighbourhood. This is what I have observed in the city I live in.

An added point is that the practice of non-Islamic religions is either banned entirely in some Muslim lands (Saudi Arabia, for example) or is highly dangerous (Turkey, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya, Sudan, et. al.).