"Shut up and fit in"

[jefferiah]

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.

When I was a kid and we had to draw pictures for Rememberance Day, nearly everyone drew a cross on a mound with a poppy sort of thing. And the words lest we forget. If some kid draws a picture of Mohammed over in Arabian school do you get your panties in a knot?

[Renegade]

When I was a kid and we had to draw pictures for Rememberance Day, nearly everyone drew a cross on a mound with a poppy sort of thing. And the words lest we forget.

Excellent. You have the freedom to interpret Remberence Day in a way you see fit. Allow everyone that same choice.

If some kid draws a picture of Mohammed over in Arabian school do you get your panties in a knot?

Nope. And and it wouldn't bother me if he did it a Canadian school either. Would it bother you?

[jefferiah]

Excellent. You have the freedom to interpret Remberence Day in a way you see fit. Allow everyone that same choice.

Nope. And and it wouldn't bother me if he did it a Canadian school either. Would it bother you?

Did I say it would?

But nonetheless the crosses were yanked from the display. Must we now also change the line "beneath the crosses row on row".

Edited September 28, 2007 by jefferiah

[Renegade]

Did I say it would?

No, that's why I asked. So, would it?

But nonetheless the crosses were yanked from the display.

Religious displays do not belong in public institutions.

Must we now also change the line "beneath the crosses row on row".

Personally I don't see the phrase "beneath the crosses row on row" as being religiously signficant. It is simply a description of Flanders field, so I have no objection to the phrase.

However I do think that state mottos, anthems and documents should steer clear of religious symbolism, justification, or references.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Renegade

[jefferiah]

No, that's why I asked. So, would it?

Religious displays do not belong in public institutions.

Personally I don't see the phrase "beneath the crosses row on row" as being religiously signficant. It is simply a description of Flanders field, so I have no objection to the phrase.

However I do think that state mottos, anthems and documents should steer clear of religious symbolism, justification, or references.

No it wouldn't. I would not be offended over it. Why should I? A kid drawing a picture of Mohammed or Jesus is not forcing religion upon anyone. He is just expressing himself. A few years ago I was reading this story about a 1st Grade classroom where the kids were asked to draw a picture of things they were grateful for. One kid drew a picture of Jesus and above it wrote something like "I am thankful for Jesus". All the pictures were hung but his was removed. Why? So what? That's a far cry from instituting a state religion. And it would be the same with a Muslim kid as well.

A few years ago I was reading about the case of a young person who brought his Bible to school to read during recess in his own time. Well the fact that other students could see him reading the Bible in school was apparently too influential on other students I guess, or so another child's parents complained. And the school demanded the boy keep his Bible at home. Why?

I would not be offended if someone brought the Koran. When I was in high school I used to read the Gita in my spare time. I am glad no one saw fit to complain about that either.

In some places, I have read (this may be in the US) a teacher cannot be seen carrying a Bible. Apparently this is too influential. And in some places they have banned moments of silence, believe it or not, because even though silence itself is secular, it could be an invitation for someone to engage in prayer.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the cross displays since I think it is a more prominent symbol of Rememberance Day than you do. Every year at Rememberance Day services since I was young I say people go up and lay crosses with poppies stuck in them for their families. It is a symbol of the grave markers. And if you look at half the pictures drawn by kids every year on Rememberance Day they are in them.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jefferiah

[jennie]

And in some places they have banned moments of silence, believe it or not, because even though silence itself is secular, it could be an invitation for someone to engage in prayer.

Now I do think that is ridiculous, if indeed it has happened. It is an invitation to meditation and silent prayer or whatever one chooses to call it.

[jefferiah]

Now I do think that is ridiculous, if indeed it has happened. It is an invitation to meditation and silent prayer or whatever one chooses to call it.

Agreed Jennie.

[Visionseeker]

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.

No, it is moronic and asinine.

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.

Your comparison is entirely wanting. How one behaves, dresses or otherwise comports themselves in a house of worship is necessarily predicated by the mores of the congregation. If you don't like the rules, you simply don't go. But in our secular society, those mores are a lot more lax, but allow for the nominal expression of religious custom. Would you like it if an atheist managed to forbid you’re wearing a crucifix? That's where Quebec's debate on accommodation has brought them.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...796&k=12856

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.

Right and I should meet you half-way on any issue why? It's a fuck!ng hat! Now if someone said their religion requires they be nude 24/7, I'd have a problem with their demand to have a uniform compliant with their beliefs, but headgear? You and I should have more important things to worry about.

It is a nice thing to do, but the onus is on them to do the meeting.

No, the onus is on us not to be pig-headed.

The fact that we allow religious freedoms some countries don't is already meeting them halfway.

As a Catholic, you need to recognize that your religion was enshrined in this country in spite of the wishes of protestant overseers.

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.

I'm as sure JB Globe has a brain as I am sure that you selectively use your own.

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?

This is not Saudi Arabia, and to draw parallels to the perceived weaknesses of that country to support arguments within your own reveals an appalling level of intellectual dishonesty. You cannot on the one hand argue moral superiority over a society and then suggest that yours can be equally vacuous.

[jefferiah]

Your crucifix point is still off base. I can still wear the entire Uniform of the RCMP which includes a hat and wear a crucifix. Righto?

There is nothing pig-headed about expecting that anyone who wants to join the RCMP should have to wear the same uniform as anyone else. Sorry, but that is the truth, Visionseeker.

I understand full well that when one does not like wearing a yarmulke at synagogue you dont go. If you don't like swimming you don't become a lifeguard. If you don;t like the McDonalds uniform no one is forcing you to work there. And if you don't like the RCMPs uniform you dont have to join. And if you do, you only have to wear it while you are on duty. For the rest of the day, you can wear fishnet stockings and rubber boots if you like.

If I want to join the US navy I do not get to decide upon what aspects of the uniform I like and which I don't like.

[jennie]

Your crucifix point is still off base. I can still wear the entire Uniform of the RCMP which includes a hat and wear a crucifix. Righto?

There is nothing pig-headed about expecting that anyone who wants to join the RCMP should have to wear the same uniform as anyone else. Sorry, but that is the truth, Visionseeker.

I understand full well that when one does not like wearing a yarmulke at synagogue you dont go. If you don't like swimming you don't become a lifeguard. If you don;t like the McDonalds uniform no one is forcing you to work there. And if you don't like the RCMPs uniform you dont have to join. And if you do, you only have to wear it while you are on duty. For the rest of the day, you can wear fishnet stockings and rubber boots if you like.

If I want to join the US navy I do not get to decide upon what aspects of the uniform I like and which I don't like.

Well, hey ... it could be worse ... couldn't it?

Is this really up there with life's top 10 concerns when the RCMP and Legion have already settled it?

I think not.

[jefferiah]

Well, hey ... it could be worse ... couldn't it?

Is this really up there with life's top 10 concerns when the RCMP and Legion have already settled it?

I think not.

Once again Jennie I must point out that you introduced this topic because in your original post you quoted the person who used this very example as an illustration on the radio. You then said that because he thought that such people who make these complaints should complain less and shut up and be grateful to be here, that he was a bad role model. And I proceeded to explain that people who disagreed with this decision have a perfectly good reason for doing so, that it is not racist to expect people to wear the RCMP uniform when everyone else must, and that therefore this man was not necessarily off base or a bad role model for having this opinion. I do not know him personally, so perhaps he is for other reasons. But based on the fact that he believes this (and believe you me a good percentage of the people in Canada agree) I would not say he was a bad role model. It seems perfectly reasonable.

[Visionseeker]

Your crucifix point is still off base. I can still wear the entire Uniform of the RCMP which includes a hat and wear a crucifix. Righto?

Well, the reasonable accommodation debate in Quebec is leaning otherwise (i.e. no religious symbols for public employees). And this is fitting as it represents the logical extension of the assimilations argument.

There is nothing pig-headed about expecting that anyone who wants to join the RCMP should have to wear the same uniform as anyone else. Sorry, but that is the truth, Visionseeker.

Headgear jefferiah, headgear. Every military or para-military outfit plays reasonable on the score: the navy generally wears no helmets, nor does the air force. If the argument was that the hats worn by the RCMP were contributive to their personnel’s security we'd have a different argument; as we are talking about a decorative adornment, well, you might as well complain about drapes.

I understand full well that when one does not like wearing a yarmulke at synagogue you dont go.

No, you understand it as an unlikely accident that is unlikely to occur frequently and therefore easy to "accept" and thus convenient to your argument. It would be quite different if the synagogue was to become society at large I suspect (i.e. toss the RCMP headgear everyone, you must now wear the yarmulke).

And if you don't like the RCMPs uniform you dont have to join. And if you do, you only have to wear it while you are on duty. For the rest of the day, you can wear fishnet stockings and rubber boots if you like.

I don't think the group needs insight into your hobbies.

If I want to join the US navy I do not get to decide upon what aspects of the uniform I like and which I don't like.

And yet we allow some of our troops to wear skirts, or rather kilts, why is that?

Edited September 29, 2007 by Visionseeker

[jefferiah]

No, you understand it as an unlikely accident that is unlikely to occur frequently and therefore easy to "accept" and thus convenient to your argument.

What? It was a good example. The RCMP is not society at large either. What do you think Sikh RCMPs did before the ruling?

[Visionseeker]

What do you think Sikh RCMPs did before the ruling?

They mostly didn't apply.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Visionseeker

[ScottSA]

They mostly didn't apply.

Nonsense.

[Visionseeker]

Nonsense.

Don't hurt yourself. You might become insightful.

[ScottSA]

Don't hurt yourself. You might become insightful.

Here's something you might want to read, microdot.

The holiday traditions are facing elimination in some Oak Lawn schools this year after complaints that the activities are offensive, particularly to Muslim students.

Final decisions on which of the festivities will be axed will fall to the principals at each of Ridgeland School District 122's five schools, Supt. Tom Smyth said.

Parents expect that the announcement is going to add to the tension that has been building since officials agreed earlier this month to change the lunch menu to exclude items containing pork to accommodate Muslim students.

[snip]

That controversy now appears to have been been dwarfed by the holiday debate, which became so acrimonious Wednesday that police were called to Columbus Manor School to intervene in a shouting match among parents.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/578734,...klawn28.article

I'm sure you'll trot out the "reasonable accomodation" meme, and celebrate the diversity of watching your culture go down the drain in a spasm of "tolerance", or you might even have a moment of sanity and say that you don't agree with it, before you go back to letting one more incremental piece of western civilization slide by...

Edited September 29, 2007 by ScottSA

[betsy]

The holiday traditions are facing elimination in some Oak Lawn schools this year after complaints that the activities are offensive, particularly to Muslim students.

Final decisions on which of the festivities will be axed will fall to the principals at each of Ridgeland School District 122's five schools, Supt. Tom Smyth said.

Parents expect that the announcement is going to add to the tension that has been building since officials agreed earlier this month to change the lunch menu to exclude items containing pork to accommodate Muslim students.

[snip]

That controversy now appears to have been been dwarfed by the holiday debate, which became so acrimonious Wednesday that police were called to Columbus Manor School to intervene in a shouting match among parents.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/578734,...klawn28.article

Good that this announcer had spoken out the way he did! I hope more people start having the balls to do it....loud and clear....and publicly!

Before you know it, all of Canada will be like Quebec. Landslide majority clamoring for the return of practical common sense!

Edited September 29, 2007 by betsy

[rogue state]

the Filipinos are dishonest people, and their country Philipine is a real craphole, I mean, no wonder, isn't it ?

[betsy]

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.

I think you know what I mean.

Just imagine the tons of complaints from clashing cultures...and that doesn't necessarily mean clashing with only Canadian cultures.

Why should we further tie up our courts when we can easily avoid having to deal with this nightmare? Why do we need to spend more money on that? What is wrong with having one set of laws for everyone?

[jennie]

the Filipinos are dishonest people, and their country Philipine is a real craphole, I mean, no wonder, isn't it ?

So this is a place people come to to disrespect the group of their choice??

[Renegade]

No it wouldn't. I would not be offended over it. Why should I? A kid drawing a picture of Mohammed or Jesus is not forcing religion upon anyone. He is just expressing himself. A few years ago I was reading this story about a 1st Grade classroom where the kids were asked to draw a picture of things they were grateful for. One kid drew a picture of Jesus and above it wrote something like "I am thankful for Jesus". All the pictures were hung but his was removed. Why? So what? That's a far cry from instituting a state religion. And it would be the same with a Muslim kid as well.

A few years ago I was reading about the case of a young person who brought his Bible to school to read during recess in his own time. Well the fact that other students could see him reading the Bible in school was apparently too influential on other students I guess, or so another child's parents complained. And the school demanded the boy keep his Bible at home. Why?

I would not be offended if someone brought the Koran. When I was in high school I used to read the Gita in my spare time. I am glad no one saw fit to complain about that either.

In some places, I have read (this may be in the US) a teacher cannot be seen carrying a Bible. Apparently this is too influential. And in some places they have banned moments of silence, believe it or not, because even though silence itself is secular, it could be an invitation for someone to engage in prayer.

You are describing anectodes in which some people are intolerant of Christianity. I agree that intolerance is not restricted to any one segment of the population. I do not support intolerance for Christianity any more than I support intolerance for any other religion.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion of the cross displays since I think it is a more prominent symbol of Rememberance Day than you do. Every year at Rememberance Day services since I was young I say people go up and lay crosses with poppies stuck in them for their families. It is a symbol of the grave markers. And if you look at half the pictures drawn by kids every year on Rememberance Day they are in them.

I suppose that the question becomes muddled when the same symbol is representitive of both a secular event and has religious significance. IMO, the cross ties to Remeberance Day are purely incidental and the symbol is much more tied to religion than to Rememberance Day. I think if you asked a reasonable person what is the symbolic significance of the cross, many many more would tie it to Christianity than to Rememberance Day. Thus I maintain my opposition to the display of religious symbols by public institutions.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Renegade

[GostHacked]

Visionseeker

Headgear jefferiah, headgear. Every military or para-military outfit plays reasonable on the score: the navy generally wears no helmets, nor does the air force. If the argument was that the hats worn by the RCMP were contributive to their personnel’s security we'd have a different argument; as we are talking about a decorative adornment, well, you might as well complain about drapes.

Are you daft? Navy wears helmets quite often. I dare you to walk the deck of a carrier without one. Try fitting one of the helmets a pilot of CF-18 over a turban. Not happening. The helmet is essential when being an air force pilot or a navy pilot/personelle. The helmet is linked in with the plane to give you other information. Try outfitting a visor or something to a Turban. Helmets are fitted pretty tight on a pilots head. When they are not wearing a helmet, they are either on downtime, or they are not on the deck. It is not about decorative adornment in this case. It simply shows that a turban or any other headdress cannot fit under a military helmet.

Want to be an RCMP? Wear the damn f***ing hat. Part of the long standing initial tradition in the RCMP. And why did you bring up kilts? Kilts are part of the Military culture as well, has been for decades, perhaps centuries. Many Scotts, Irish and English settled in Canada and help form those long standing traditions.

[trex]

I think if you asked a reasonable person what is the symbolic significance of the cross, many many more would tie it to Christianity than to Rememberance Day. Thus I maintain my opposition to the display of religious symbols by public institutions.

maybe not so much a removal of all religious symbols, which is kind of like state sanctioned atheism... maybe another way is to give equality in representation to all religious symbolism, same as we attempt to do with other things in so-called political correctness. maybe it would even help to promote greater understanding and tolerance amongst different peoples, through learning about diverse cultures.

in other words, celebration of the differences, not repression. not mono-culture. away with the melting pot! those are the old ideas of empire, and canada was created as an experiment, a new idea. a mosaic of culture. canada can show the world that it is possible for people to live in peace but it can only work if we defend the idea and make it work, so that it wont erode back to monoculture.

[Argus]

Religious displays do not belong in public institutions.

This is very simple to say. But it ignores the fact that our history intertwined religion, culture and government for centuries. By now trying to cast out references to and symbols of religion what the Left are doing is cutting away many cultural and historical icons which help to maintain our ties with our ancestors, and which tie us together as a people. In response to such things, of course, the Left simply sneers at the idea that there is anything called a Canadian. To the Left, Canadians are nothing other than a legal construct, and anyone who has the proper legal papers is a Canadian. They rejoice and celebrate the rich history of other peoples but sneer and pour contempt on ours, wanting us to desist in any such celebrations lest it offend immigrants.