"Shut up and fit in"

[Borg]

And it continues to grow.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...12-439381cdd8c7

Snip ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Women's group targets hijab, yarmulke

Religious symbols in civil service. To urge ban at accommodation hearings

JASON MAGDER and KATHERINE WILTON, The Gazette

Published: 5 hours ago

If the Quebec Council on the Status of Women has its way, teachers, doctors and anyone working in a public institution in this province would not be permitted to wear hijabs or yarmulkes.

The council is calling on the Quebec government to ban what it calls visible religious symbols.

While a crucifix or a Star of David on a necklace would be acceptable, council president Christiane Pelchat said, public employees should not be permitted to wear such overt symbols as the hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women, or the yarmulke, a skullcap worn by Jewish men.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

end snip ....

And so it grows - and it will continue as Canadian general public tires of real and perceievd issues with the changing of this country.

We are not as left leaning as some might like to think.

Borg

Edited September 28, 2007 by Borg

[betsy]

I don't know why some can't see the obvious...that it's only just a matter of simple common sense.

If you accomodate one foreign culture, you have to give the same consideration to others.

How can we possibly accomodate each and everyone?

See, what Borg had just added is one example. There's bound to be clashes!

What rights supercede or trumps another's rights?

There is only one solution: adapt to your host country. You chose to come here. No one forced you. If you feel that strongly about your own culture then you should re-think the option of coming here. Reconsider, that although the other side's grass looks greener, your happiness is where your heart is.

[Shakeyhands]

Why would anyone of you care what religious symbols a person chose to wear or for that matter what religious practices they choose to participate in? What does it matter to you personally? Perhaps thats the right question.

[JB Globe]

There is only one solution: adapt to your host country. You chose to come here. No one forced you. If you feel that strongly about your own culture then you should re-think the option of coming here. Reconsider, that although the other side's grass looks greener, your happiness is where your heart is.

How does it harm your rights and freedoms when I wear a yamulke? Be specific please.

Because I believe the only legal way someone's religious freedoms which are outlined in the Charter should be infringed upon by a law or policy is if it infringes on someone else's Charter rights and Freedoms.

And frankly, I see absolutely no way that someone wearing a Yamulke in a professional setting infringes on anyone's rights and freedoms. Perhaps you could enlighten me if you believe it does.

But frankly - I think this is more a case of certain people simply not liking people who aren't outwardly secular, or in some cases - just straight up not liking people who are of a different religion than they are.

But again - someone please inform me how a yamulke hurts you, because right now this seems like folks are making mountains out of molehills.

And for the record - Canada is just as much our home as it is yours. The Jewish community in Canada is centuries-old, after all.

[betsy]

How does it harm your rights and freedoms when I wear a yamulke? Be specific please.

Because I believe the only legal way someone's religious freedoms which are outlined in the Charter should be infringed upon by a law or policy is if it infringes on someone else's Charter rights and Freedoms.

Do you think we should allow the stoning of women if they commit adultery?

I am also talking about foreign cultural beliefs. Do you think we should allow women to be burned for whatever cultural reasons some group has for burning wives?

Ahhh....and the latest controversy that might have been the last straw, do you think the taliban-related burquas and face coverings be allowed for women voters....considering the irony that we are at war with the taliban for the oppression of women?

[betsy]

And for the record - Canada is just as much our home as it is yours. The Jewish community in Canada is centuries-old, after all.

But you're not the only one. How many ethnic groups are there? It doesn't matter whether your Jewish population is high or low.....but it's plain sensible to conclude that if you extend a privilege for one group, you have to extend it to others.

We cannot have each and every group imposing their culture or religious practices to society. We cannot sustain that!

So the solution is simple: we adapt!

We all have to respect the rule or the laws of the land.

[jefferiah]

How does it harm your rights and freedoms when I wear a yamulke? Be specific please.

Because I believe the only legal way someone's religious freedoms which are outlined in the Charter should be infringed upon by a law or policy is if it infringes on someone else's Charter rights and Freedoms.

And frankly, I see absolutely no way that someone wearing a Yamulke in a professional setting infringes on anyone's rights and freedoms. Perhaps you could enlighten me if you believe it does.

But frankly - I think this is more a case of certain people simply not liking people who aren't outwardly secular, or in some cases - just straight up not liking people who are of a different religion than they are.

But again - someone please inform me how a yamulke hurts you, because right now this seems like folks are making mountains out of molehills.

And for the record - Canada is just as much our home as it is yours. The Jewish community in Canada is centuries-old, after all.

You seem to have trouble understanding what we are saying. No one is saying that you cannot wear a yarmulke or a turban. There is no law against wearing either, JB Globe. Do you understand? There is no law against me wearing a Montreal Canadiens t shirt either, but when I am employed at Mc Donald's I must wear their uniform and for a hat I wear the visor (not a blue jays cap, not a yarmulke, not a turban). If I do not like what McDonalds demands of me, then I do not have to accept employment from them. As simple as that. I do not own the company, so I do not get to make the rules for them. Do you understand, JB Globe. Is this really all that hard to comprehend? Is your skull that thick?

No is talking about arresting people who wear yarmulkes or people who don't watch hockey night in Canada. Can't you make a simple distinction, between denying people the right to have their culture and expecting them to wear the uniform everyone else must wear for a certain position. When you get home from work at Mc Donalds you can take off your McDonalds visor, and "Poof!" on comes your turban, your yarmulke, your blue jays cap, etc. It is not overly demanding that people who come here from minority cultures respect our rules. The rules do not forbid people to wear turbans or yarmulkes. But certain jobs do have uniforms. I dont get to pick and choose the uniforms.

A few years back JB I went to a synagogue to see what it was like. I really enjoyed the experience and I found the people were really friendly to me. When I arrived there for the service, no one else had shown up yet. It was me and the Rabbi. He asked me a few questions and he udnderstood that I had never been there before. Then he brought me a yarmulke to wear and told me I must wear this. So I put it on and wore it, and I enjoyed the service. Simple as that. Do you understand? A blue jays cap would have been inappropriate in this situation right? But because I had to wear a yarmulke and not a blue jays cap, it does not mean the Rabbi was taking away my right to express my love of baseball. It is just that here you wear the yarmulke. And when you leave Temple, well then you can wear whatever you please. And if I have a problem with wearing yarmulkes I dont have to make a stink to the rabbi about my rights and how he is a big inconsiderate jerk, etc etc, I can simply choose not to go to the synagogue, right.

Do you see how simple that is, JB? Are you getting it yet?

Is it necessary to keep repeating this over and over and over JB Globe, before it sinks in that there is quite a difference between what you are suggesting we are saying and what we are saying?

[jennie]

You seem to have trouble understanding what we are saying. No one is saying that you cannot wear a yarmulke or a turban. There is no law against wearing either, JB Globe. Do you understand? There is no law against me wearing a Montreal Canadiens t shirt either, but when I am employed at Mc Donald's I must wear their uniform and for a hat I wear the visor (not a blue jays cap, not a yarmulke, not a turban). If I do not like what McDonalds demands of me, then I do not have to accept employment from them. As simple as that. I do not own the company, so I do not get to make the rules for them. Do you understand, JB Globe. Is this really all that hard to comprehend? Is your skull that thick?

No is talking about arresting people who wear yarmulkes or people who don't watch hockey night in Canada. Can't you make a simple distinction, between denying people the right to have their culture and expecting them to wear the uniform everyone else must wear for a certain position. When you get home from work at Mc Donalds you can take off your McDonalds visor, and "Poof!" on comes your turban, your yarmulke, your blue jays cap, etc. It is not overly demanding that people who come here from minority cultures respect our rules. The rules do not forbid people to wear turbans or yarmulkes. But certain jobs do have uniforms. I dont get to pick and choose the uniforms.

A few years back JB I went to a synagogue to see what it was like. I really enjoyed the experience and I found the people were really friendly to me. When I arrived there for the service, no one else had shown up yet. It was me and the Rabbi. He asked me a few questions and he udnderstood that I had never been there before. Then he brought me a yarmulke to wear and told me I must wear this. So I put it on and wore it, and I enjoyed the service. Simple as that. Do you understand? A blue jays cap would have been inappropriate in this situation right? But because I had to wear a yarmulke and not a blue jays cap, it does not mean the Rabbi was taking away my right to express my love of baseball. It is just that here you wear the yarmulke. And when you leave Temple, well then you can wear whatever you please. And if I have a problem with wearing yarmulkes I dont have to make a stink to the rabbi about my rights and how he is a big inconsiderate jerk, etc etc, I can simply choose not to go to the synagogue, right.

Do you see how simple that is, JB? Are you getting it yet?

Is it necessary to keep repeating this over and over and over JB Globe, before it sinks in that there is quite a difference between what you are suggesting we are saying and what we are saying?

Betsy if you are still on about the turban wearing mounties ... get a life! It's over!

"You can't be RCMP because you are Sikh" would be discrimination in employment.

[jennie]

Betsy if you are still on about the turban wearing mounties ... get a life! It's over!

"You can't be RCMP because you are Sikh" would be discrimination in employment.

Nobody complained about the Sikh's wearing turbans instead of helmets during the second world war. Sheesh!

But then the legion here thought they should 'take their hats off' and made a big stink about that too.

I believe they finally capitulated when other members said "They were good enough to fight with us, the can come to our legion."

[Renegade]

What rights supercede or trumps another's rights?

When there is a clash of rights it is generally up to the courts to decide which rights prevail.

There is only one solution: adapt to your host country. You chose to come here. No one forced you. If you feel that strongly about your own culture then you should re-think the option of coming here. Reconsider, that although the other side's grass looks greener, your happiness is where your heart is.

Perhaps the reason they come to the host country, Canada, is because the culture of Canada is to be open and tolerant and not one which imposes a set of cultural practices.

[jefferiah]

!

"You can't be RCMP because you are Sikh" would be discrimination in employment.

You are twisting logic there Jennie. She is not saying a Sikh can't be RCMP and you know it. And people are smart enough to see through this crap you are spouting. What she is saying is that a Sikh can wear the required uniform of an RCMP, or else not be one. Simple as that. It is not an unreasonable demand, Jennie. And when work is done, Pooof! on comes the turban again. Simple as that!

You are going to have to find a new line besides screaching racism, because people are too smart to buy into that now. It's over. People are smart enough to make the distinction.

The uniform of the RCMP is not a Christian uniform or a Muslim uniform or a Scientologist uniform. It is a Canadian uniform. There is no favoritism there. Everyone is expected to wear it if they want to be an RCMP. It's not discrimination. It applies to everyone. Simple as that. And when everyone goes home they get to wear what they like to.

Edited September 28, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

When there is a clash of rights it is generally up to the courts to decide which rights prevail.

Perhaps the reason they come to the host country, Canada, is because the culture of Canada is to be open and tolerant and not one which imposes a set of cultural practices.

No is saying that we should impose a set of cultural practices. We are saying that when people come here they should not start demanding we accomodate all of theirs in every facet of life. There are no laws against being Hindu, or Sikh, etc. There is no law against placing a mat on the floor and doing Shikan Taza or Koan Zazen. Everything is allowed here. Probably moreso than where most people came from. But why should we be expected to remove the Crosses from a Rememberance day display because a few people demand it. That is ridiculous and frivolous. And the RCMP uniform is not enforcing a cultural practice upon people. It is a uniform you have to wear when on duty, and then it is over. If you wanted to join the Australian navy I am sure you would wear their uniform. It would be brass bold and disrespectful to demand they change their uniform for you. I know you would never do that Renegade. Then why do you feel it is necessary to cave in to others. My bet is that you are afraid of being called a bigot, whether that assessment is truth or not. But I could care less what people think. I know that there is nothing racist about expecting a person who wants to join the RCMP to wear a uniform that "everyone else" is required to wear.

[JB Globe]

Do you think we should allow the stoning of women if they commit adultery?

I am also talking about foreign cultural beliefs. Do you think we should allow women to be burned for whatever cultural reasons some group has for burning wives?

Did you read the quote you just pulled from my post or not? Let me to repost it:

"How does it harm your rights and freedoms when I wear a yamulke? Be specific please.

Because I believe the only legal way someone's religious freedoms which are outlined in the Charter should be infringed upon by a law or policy is if it infringes on someone else's Charter rights and Freedoms."

Hmmmm . . . Does stoning a woman to death violate a person's Charter Rights and Freedoms? Does it?

Well then, I guess it wouldn't be allowed here in Canada, now would it?

Ahhh....and the latest controversy that might have been the last straw, do you think the taliban-related burquas and face coverings be allowed for women voters....considering the irony that we are at war with the taliban for the oppression of women?

Well they already are allowed - women who wear those things go behind a curtain and reveal their face to a female Elections Canada employee to verify their identity. I don't agree with Burqaas obviously, but I don't want the government to be getting into the business of policing what people can and can't wear based on the likes or dislikes of a certain segment of the population.

Now, back to my question which you conveniently dodged . . .

HOW DOES IT HARM YOUR RIGHTS AND/OR FREEDOMS IF I WEAR A YAMULKE?

[JB Globe]

But you're not the only one. How many ethnic groups are there? It doesn't matter whether your Jewish population is high or low.....but it's plain sensible to conclude that if you extend a privilege for one group, you have to extend it to others.

We cannot have each and every group imposing their culture or religious practices to society. We cannot sustain that!

So the solution is simple: we adapt!

We all have to respect the rule or the laws of the land.

Excuse me Betsy, but we already have adapted, and guess what - mainstream society has for the most part adapted as well - we met each other half way . . .

Jews in Canada found a way to adapt to Canadian life while keeping their core values in tact - in return Canadians did away with the "Gentiles Only" parks and beaches, stopped being rampantly anti-semetic (following WWII).

As for "special priviledges" being extended to Jews - that's a load of BS. What special privilidges do we have? None - if Christians had a religious hat, you could wear it too, the thing is, you don't.

Maybe that's what this is all about - some Christians are just upset they don't have a special hat to wear.

Now, back to my main point which you dodged:

HOW DOES MY WEARING A YAMULKE INFRINGE ON YOUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS?

[Fortunata]

The whole argument for bigotry and racism cannot be defended by rationality and questions like "HOW DOES IT HARM YOUR RIGHTS AND/OR FREEDOMS IF I WEAR A YAMULKE?" cannot be honestly answered to justify a bigoted position. The feelings against other cultures impinging upon our own is just that - feelings, emotional reaction instead of reality. As long as we insist upon equality for all (which would rule out Sharia law) we maintain a humane just society.

[JB Globe]

You seem to have trouble understanding what we are saying. No one is saying that you cannot wear a yarmulke or a turban. There is no law against wearing either, JB Globe. Do you understand? There is no law against me wearing a Montreal Canadiens t shirt either, but when I am employed at Mc Donald's I must wear their uniform and for a hat I wear the visor (not a blue jays cap, not a yarmulke, not a turban). If I do not like what McDonalds demands of me, then I do not have to accept employment from them. As simple as that. I do not own the company, so I do not get to make the rules for them. Do you understand, JB Globe. Is this really all that hard to comprehend? Is your skull that thick?

And my point is, that unless it's a safety issue, the "that's the uniform" excuse is bunk in today's world. There's no sense in shutting out whole segments of the population, which are only going to get bigger and bigger, because of a uniform policy. Especially when, as with the case of Turbans and the RCMP and Toronto Police - those turbans can be incorporated INTO the uniform policy.

What you're essentially saying is the reason we can't change the rules is because the rules are the rules and that's the way they've always been and that's the way they'll always be. My question is - why? What exactly is the damage if someone wears a turban that matches a uniform? What great calamity will happen? The obvious answer is nothing will happen, the fabric of Canadian society will stay the same, except some police officers will wear different hats. Oh! The humanity!

The thing is, it's not a choice for many Jews and Sikhs and others to wear their headgear - therefor by banning such things from the uniforms of organizations you're essentially taking the choice out of their hands.

It is not overly demanding that people who come here from minority cultures respect our rules.

If those rules discriminate them, OF COURSE they should make an issue of it. When Jews first started coming to Canada we weren't allowed on Toronto Beaches or in parks because there were signs that said "Gentiles Only" - should we have shut up and "played by the rules?" - According to your philosophy, yes, we should have. But we didn't, and that's one of the reasons I think Canada is the great country it is today, because Jews and like-minded non-Jews fought to remove barriers and ignorance in society.

Then he brought me a yarmulke to wear and told me I must wear this. So I put it on and wore it, and I enjoyed the service. Simple as that. Do you understand?

Do you understand the difference between a private place of worship and a public employer?

The difference means that the government can't force the Catholic church to enforce the Charter and marry a gay couple, but on the other hand the government has to ensure its workforce doesn't experience discrimination for being gay.

[Renegade]

No is saying that we should impose a set of cultural practices. We are saying that when people come here they should not start demanding we accomodate all of theirs in every facet of life. There are no laws against being Hindu, or Sikh, etc. There is no law against placing a mat on the floor and doing Shikan Taza or Koan Zazen. Everything is allowed here. Probably moreso than where most people came from. But why should we be expected to remove the Crosses from a Rememberance day display because a few people demand it. That is ridiculous and frivolous. And the RCMP uniform is not enforcing a cultural practice upon people. It is a uniform you have to wear when on duty, and then it is over. If you wanted to join the Australian navy I am sure you would wear their uniform. It would be brass bold and disrespectful to demand they change their uniform for you. I know you would never do that Renegade. Then why do you feel it is necessary to cave in to others. My bet is that you are afraid of being called a bigot, whether that assessment is truth or not. But I could care less what people think. I know that there is nothing racist about expecting a person who wants to join the RCMP to wear a uniform that "everyone else" is required to wear.

There are many circumstances where I can see a legitimate requirement in which it would mean that a request for a cultural deviation cannot be accomodated. For example, a construction job may require one to wear a hard hat, and if a turban or there was some other cultural reason why a hard-hat could no be worn, I was agree that it is too bad and that person just has to suck it up.

However, where there are rules which cannot be justified and would discrimminate, I think those rules should be challenged. Let me give you an example. Let's say I didn't particularly like orthodox Jews, and so I created a workplace rule that everyone had to work late on Friday nights, despite the fact that there may be no strong business purpose. Would that be a discrimmatory rule which should be challenged?

No is saying that we should impose a set of cultural practices. But why should we be expected to remove the Crosses from a Rememberance day display because a few people demand it.

It is "us" who demand separation of church and state. If you as a private citizen want to display crosses on Rememberance day, more power to you. If you are asking that the non-secular government should be party to a display of religious symbolism, then you are asking to violate the separation of church and state.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Renegade

[betsy]

Betsy if you are still on about the turban wearing mounties ... get a life! It's over!

"You can't be RCMP because you are Sikh" would be discrimination in employment.

I don't know what you're on about, Jennie. I think it is you who's still stuck with that turban thing.

I'm waaaaayyy past that turban incident. I'm now on about the reasonS - see the plural form - why some people are starting to shout "SHUT UP AND FIT IN!" That's the new climate....and whether you want it or not....it's happening. And to borrow your phrase, thank goodness the people are finally waking up from the nightmare.

Get?

Edited September 28, 2007 by betsy

[betsy]

When there is a clash of rights it is generally up to the courts to decide which rights prevail.

Perhaps the reason they come to the host country, Canada, is because the culture of Canada is to be open and tolerant and not one which imposes a set of cultural practices.

Why do we need to clog up our already clogged-up courts to settle rights disputes....when the simplest solution is to get everyone be treated equally? One set of laws for all.

I bet that is one of the major reasons a lot of people are now viewing this reasonable accomodation seriously. All the possible implications down the road. Especially the legal ones. Oh boy.

And according to MDuffy, Quebec had to establish a special Commission or Committee just to oversee these disputes about reasonable accomodations (apparently they've got quite a few issues there aside from the veil wearing women during elction. They mentioned girl hockey team and restaurant menus)

So, that's probably why the poll shows 77% Quebecers are now wanting the immigrants to adapt. Only 5.4% agree with reasonable accomodation.

Canada should be open. In the sense that future would-be immigrants (applicants) are not given any false expectations.

Should Canada change its immigration policies...requirements and expections from future immigrants should be spelt out.

Btw, I don't think anyone is saying that immigrants cannot practice their culture. They can. But just not at the expense of society....nor at the expense of curtailing the customs/cultures that's already established in this society.

Edited September 28, 2007 by betsy

[ScottSA]

Betsy if you are still on about the turban wearing mounties ... get a life! It's over!

"You can't be RCMP because you are Sikh" would be discrimination in employment.

No Jennie, what you're missing is that it's not over. In fact it's coming back. It's called backlash, and it happens when people have had enough. You can only succeed for so long in telling people that they have to celebrate, in the name of "tolerance" and in order to be "progressive" and "enlightened", the fact that their heritage and their homeland are drifting out the window. Sooner or later people start fighting back. Oh, and you can only pull the wool over Whitey's eyes as regards endless re-interpretation of "treaties" too. That free ride is going to end, probably rather more abruptly than you suspect.

[ScottSA]

It is "us" who demand separation of church and state. If you as a private citizen want to display crosses on Rememberance day, more power to you. If you are asking that the non-secular government should be party to a display of religious symbolism, then you are asking to violate the separation of church and state.

Canadian soldiers who died in WW I and II died for God and country, and their understanding of God was a Judeo-Christian God. The didn't die for Allah or Krishna or Buddha. The cross belongs in remembrance celebrations. It needs no defence.

[Renegade]

Why do we need to clog up our already clogged-up courts to settle rights disputes....when the simplest solution is to get everyone be treated equally? One set of laws for all.

Then who exactly do you suggest mediate rights disputes if not the courts? It IS one set of laws and one definition of rights. It is called the Charter and it applies to All. It is the courts who determine disputes within that framework.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Renegade

[Renegade]

Canadian soldiers who died in WW I and II died for God and country, and their understanding of God was a Judeo-Christian God. The didn't die for Allah or Krishna or Buddha. The cross belongs in remembrance celebrations. It needs no defence.

How exactly do you know the intent of every single soldier who died in those wars? Perhaps they died so that we preserve the freedoms we have. Freedoms include the freedom of religion or freedom to act according as you see fit, within the bounds of the law.

BTW, I would bet you 99% of Canadians, if asked, would associate a poppy as a symbol of Remberence Day and not a Cross. Until this thread I the thought would never even have occured to me.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Renegade

[jefferiah]

And my point is, that unless it's a safety issue, the "that's the uniform" excuse is bunk in today's world. There's no sense in shutting out whole segments of the population, which are only going to get bigger and bigger, because of a uniform policy. Especially when, as with the case of Turbans and the RCMP and Toronto Police - those turbans can be incorporated INTO the uniform policy.

What you're essentially saying is the reason we can't change the rules is because the rules are the rules and that's the way they've always been and that's the way they'll always be. My question is - why? What exactly is the damage if someone wears a turban that matches a uniform? What great calamity will happen? The obvious answer is nothing will happen, the fabric of Canadian society will stay the same, except some police officers will wear different hats. Oh! The humanity!

The thing is, it's not a choice for many Jews and Sikhs and others to wear their headgear - therefor by banning such things from the uniforms of organizations you're essentially taking the choice out of their hands.

If those rules discriminate them, OF COURSE they should make an issue of it. When Jews first started coming to Canada we weren't allowed on Toronto Beaches or in parks because there were signs that said "Gentiles Only" - should we have shut up and "played by the rules?" - According to your philosophy, yes, we should have. But we didn't, and that's one of the reasons I think Canada is the great country it is today, because Jews and like-minded non-Jews fought to remove barriers and ignorance in society.

Do you understand the difference between a private place of worship and a public employer?

The difference means that the government can't force the Catholic church to enforce the Charter and marry a gay couple, but on the other hand the government has to ensure its workforce doesn't experience discrimination for being gay.

Bullshit. You say its an easy change for either side. But it is the Sikhs who should make the change, not majority society for their benefit. That is brass, bold and disrespectful. When I went to the synagogue I was required to wear the yarmulke. Had I been Sikh it would have been the same. When a Sikh visits a Synagogue should he say well my rule says I must wear ithe turban and have that over-rule the synagogues rule. Of course not. That is completely ridiculous JB Globe. No one is banning yarmulkes or turbans at all either. So stop spouting off this nonsense about freedom of culture. The Sikhs had a rule about turbans and the RCMP had a rule about uniform. When an RCMP wants to become a Sikh and go to a Sikh wedding, he can wear the turban required. When a Sikh wants to become an RCMP he can don the uniform. When work is done he can put his turban back on. Simple as that. We do not have to meet them halfway. It is a nice thing to do, but the onus is on them to do the meeting. The fact that we allow religious freedoms some countries don't is already meeting them halfway. There is no reason for anyone to complain. No one is saying you can't wear a yarmulke. But when you get a job at McDonald's would you refuse to wear the visor and demand you get to wear your yarmulke? You wouldnt at all. Cmon JB Globe you know that is complete BS. You have a brain in there somewhere. I am sure of it.

As for crosses on Rememberance Day, like it or not it is a symbol of Rememberance Day, because the poppies blow beneath crosses row on row. It has always been a symbol of Rememberance Day. How about you go complain to Saudi Arabia about having a Koranic verse on their flag. Move to Arabia and make a stink about that?

Edited September 28, 2007 by jefferiah

[ScottSA]

Move to Arabia and make a stink about that?

It would be a short lived stink. On several levels of meaning.