Protection of religious views and behaviours

[crazy canuck]

Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.

And hey sbr, how is it going?

My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. 

The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.

A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.

I applaud you from backing away from that statement.   But don't pretend you didn't make it.

[Valmy]

My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. 

The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.

Next time explain what "interest" means.  Because it kind of sounded like it was Pastafarianism that carried no weight compared to Sikhism.  And I was not the only one who made that mistake so I do not get the Supreme Court smack.  Neither Marty nor CC are Americans. 

[Malthus]

Gah. The "interests" I was talking about where the interests in wearing a particular hat. Yes, conceded, the case breaks the analysis down differently, into stages. But ultimately it is an "interest balancing" test! 

Double Gah

It isn't ultimately a question of balancing.  The pastafarian never gets to the question of whether the infringement is justifiable because there is no sincere belief and therefore there is no need to then inquire whether the restriction put on him is justified. 

And you certainly did suggest that there is a judgment about whether some religious beliefs are more defensible than others.

A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.

You quoted what I said all right, but it does not in any way support your point. 

What you quoted was that a Pastafarian's interest in wearing a particular hat doesn't have the same weight and value as a Sikhs. This happens to be true.

The part I did not explain - because I was wrting a post and not a factum - was that the mechanism by which the courts in Canada determine this is to establish the reality of the belief and the impairment.

For some odd reason you have yet to explain, you filled that gap with the (incorrect) notion that the courts weigh the respective value of the religions - something I did not say. Yet you refuse to concede the point, even though it is there in black and white.

[Siege]

Nice speech, eh?

[Razgovory]

You know, there are certain cultural mores that simply assumed here, Marty.  For instance, the veil thing is often trotted out as both a security concern and a way to "liberate" these women from the oppressive culture.  However, in our culture we expect women to wear some sort of clothing.  We don't require women to be photographed nude for the driver license, nor do we ban all clothing.  That would certainly make it easier to identify people and it's harder to hide something when you are naked.  Some folks have noted that things like dresses and bras are forms of cultural oppression, perhaps everyone should be required to walk around nude all the time.  That would certainly be more "equal", less likely to be oppressive culturally and safer (from a terrorism standpoint).

You are once again building a strawman rather than arguing against the point I made (or you do not understand the point I made, which would be singular, given that I explained it extensively).

I have not directly argued against what you said until this point, so you must be thinking of something else.  Also, since you demonstrated you don't know the difference between cultural and moral relativism there is a decent chance you don't understand my point.  What I am suggesting is that you are not promoting actual equality but rather enforcing a preferred version of culture over other cultures you don't like.

[Malthus]

Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.

And hey sbr, how is it going?

My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. 

The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.

A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.

I applaud you from backing away from that statement.   But don't pretend you didn't make it.

I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.

[Siege]

Not you, Malthus.
You suck.

I was talking about Bibi at Congress.

[Valmy]

I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.

It was a misunderstanding.  Chill.

[Valmy]

Not you, Malthus.
You suck.

I was talking about Bibi at Congress.

Did he talk about the singularity?

[crazy canuck]

Yes but he did not make that clear why that would be.

And hey sbr, how is it going?

My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. 

The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.

A Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a colleander is, to most reasonable people, not the same weight and value as a Sikh's "interest" in wearing a turban. Therefore, in the interest-balancing exercise, it is more easily overbalanced by the goverment's interest in maintaining the integrity of the rule than the Sikh's.

I applaud you from backing away from that statement.   But don't pretend you didn't make it.

I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.

This is nonsense.

you also said.

How is this determined? By the "reasonable person" test, which is often used in Canadian law to determine things that cannot easily be measured by scientific evidence.

You might have found a way to backtrack on what you meant by "interest" but I am not buying because you then said the interest is determined by the reasonable person test.

This is a bit dry for others but you must know you are completely wrong about that.  As I have stated numerous times now the issue is not whether the religious belief is reasonable.  The only question is if it is sincerely held. 

You were wrong about what is considered.  It led the thread astray.  It was nonsense.  If you didn't mean to suggest this then at least have the grace to admit you misspoke.

[Malthus]

My mistake. Next time, I will quote Supreme Court cases. 

The point is that, ultimately, the Pastafarian's "interest" in wearing a coleander carries no weight. CC claims I said this was because Pastafarianism is inferior to Sikhism or some such invention. I did not say that, and that isn't the test.

Next time explain what "interest" means.  Because it kind of sounded like it was Pastafarianism that carried no weight compared to Sikhism.  And I was not the only one who made that mistake so I do not get the Supreme Court smack.  Neither Marty nor CC are Americans.

I was referring to our, Canadian, Supreme Court - the case which CC brought up.

Basically, I summarized the law in a sentence. CC then interjected, saying 'you got it wrong - here's the correct three-part constitutional test'. I said 'yes, I know that test, I did not want to quote it, I was summarizing'. Then CC went off on a tangent about what he claims I said.

My point was that, next time, I'll short-circut this process and write a damn factum, rather than simply having a discussion.

[Valmy]

My point was that, next time, I'll short-circut this process and write a damn factum, rather than simply having a discussion.

Maybe you should just stop sucking at explaining things?

Just kidding.

[Malthus]

I am not "backing away" from it. It simply does not say what you seem to think it does. It just doesn't.

It was a misunderstanding.  Chill.

Fine then, this hijack is at an end as far as I'm concerned.

[Berkut]

I think I understand what both Malthus and CC are saying and have said. CC made a very cogent, organized and point by point post that laid out the specifics of what Malthus said in general. Both points were useful, and I didn't see anything that Malthus said that was significantly "wrong" at all, just a 10,000ft view instead of CCs 1000ft. explanation.

[crazy canuck]

Basically, I summarized the law in a sentence.

And mangled it badly.

No court applies a reasonable person standard in any freedom of religion case.  That is the main point you got badly wrong.

If it was the case that a reasonable person standard applied then every point Marti made would be valid.