[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

What those of jewish faith use?

The bible? You know, the book they wrote?

JUst the first part, though, not the sequel.

Even if it's a protestant edition?

nah, they have the original before the proddies messed around with it.

[Grey Fox]

Good people.

[Barrister]

So to the matter in question - if a witness showed up in court demanding to swear on a jar of spaghetti sauce, they'd probably be told about the option of a non-religious affirmation.  If they insisted, they might be asked a couple questions about the nature of their belief.  If they don't admit it to be a complete gag they would probably be allowed to swear an oath to the FSM.  The judge may or may not take that into account in considering their credibility.

FSM is one thing, what about wiccans?

So at the outset I've never had any of these issues come up.  I've never even had someone use the Koran (one case where I knew my witnesses had come from Libya so I made sure a Koran was available - they affirmed instead).  People are generally just happy to affirm.

Just googling (answer from Quora for what its worth) says the UK suggests the following as a Pagan oath:

"I swear, by all that I hold sacred, that the evidence I give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"

[crazy canuck]

@Zoupa, In my experience from other more progressive parts of the internet that RoC anglos cannot, or refuse to do so, differentiate between ethnicity & religious identity.

A Sikh man wears a turban.  In your view is that ethnicity, religious identity or religious belief?  How could you make that judgment without knowing more about him?

[Grey Fox]

Religious belief.

[crazy canuck]

Religious belief.

Probably, but could also be cultural.

But let's assume he is wearing a turban because he has a sincere religious belief. Why should the law require him not to work in the public sector if he wishes to follow that religious belief.  And why should the law prefer those who can wear their religious symbols out of sight?

[Malthus]

A sincerely held belief is probably a good starting point, something that the spanghatti monster gag always failed at addressing when trying to ridicule.

Yup.

I was not aware human beings could detect sincerity in other human beings.

Really? You literally can't tell the difference between someone being sarcastic and someone being sincere? Reading the Onion must be an odd experience for you.

Obviously there are going to be borderline cases, but the extremes are pretty obvious. I don't believe in the literal existence of any gods, but there are some people I respect greatly who do - I'm fully capable of disagreeing with someone like my old Rabbi growing up, Gunther Plaut, without claiming there's literally no difference between himself and a dude wearing a pasta strainer.

I remember one particular statement he made in a sermon given when I was a kid: "a religious person isn't in my view someone who had absurd beliefs that run counter to reality. A religious person is someone who insists on doing what is right, even though they may not succeed". The reality of course is that there are religious people of both types, some simultaneously - I have no problem with refuting "absurd beliefs that run counter to reality", nor have I a problem with disagreeing with people whose ideas of "what is right" are based on such absurdities and run counter to my own beliefs; I have an extreme problem with the arrogance of those who proclaim all religious people are simply wrong in believing "what is right", without any further examination.

[Malthus]

Religious belief.

I dunno much about Sikhs, but among Jews there are plenty who consider themselves Jews do not believe in any god (myself included, and pretty well everyone in my extended family). Mind you, they are less likely to be wearing Jewish symbols, but they might. We certainly attend various rituals, despite a complete lack of belief in any god ... because of their cultural importance.

I doubt the lines between culture, ethnicity and religion are really all that clear-cut.

[Barrister]

@Zoupa, In my experience from other more progressive parts of the internet that RoC anglos cannot, or refuse to do so, differentiate between ethnicity & religious identity.

A Sikh man wears a turban.  In your view is that ethnicity, religious identity or religious belief?  How could you make that judgment without knowing more about him?

It's a mix.

For starters, I certainly have known and met lots of secular sikhs who do not wear a turban, do not carry a kirpan, so there is definitely a strong religious element to wearing a turban.

But still... sikhism is not an evangelical religion.  All sikhs originate from the Punjab region of India, and originally speak punjabi (obviously there now exists a diaspora).  There is a strong cultural element to wearing a turban as well - you wear it not only to honour God, but to honour your parents and your family.

[Grey Fox]

Religious belief.

Probably, but could also be cultural.

But let's assume he is wearing a turban because he has a sincere religious belief. Why should the law require him not to work in the public sector if he wishes to follow that religious belief.  And why should the law prefer those who can wear their religious symbols out of sight?

Because it is a sign of religious indoctrination & oppression. And, it shouldn't.

I didn't want to defend a law that is hypocritical since it can't actually spellout the only part that it really wants to outlaw (the hijab). I was just pointing out that when the Anglo RoC attacks the law on racist ground it can't work. It is not a racist law. Religion is not ethnicity.

[crazy canuck]

Religious belief.

Probably, but could also be cultural.

But let's assume he is wearing a turban because he has a sincere religious belief. Why should the law require him not to work in the public sector if he wishes to follow that religious belief.  And why should the law prefer those who can wear their religious symbols out of sight?

Because it is a sign of religious indoctrination & oppression. And, it shouldn't.

I didn't want to defend a law that is hypocritical since it can't actually spellout the only part that it really wants to outlaw (the hijab). I was just pointing out that when the Anglo RoC attacks the law on racist ground it can't work. It is not a racist law. Religion is not ethnicity.

A law can be discriminatory without being racist.  In this case it discriminates on the basis of religious belief.

Regarding oppression, think about what you are asserting - a law passed by a majority which oppresses the religious expression of a minority is justified because you are saving the minority from oppression?  Think about that for a second.  Orwell could not have done better.

[crazy canuck]

@Zoupa, In my experience from other more progressive parts of the internet that RoC anglos cannot, or refuse to do so, differentiate between ethnicity & religious identity.

A Sikh man wears a turban.  In your view is that ethnicity, religious identity or religious belief?  How could you make that judgment without knowing more about him?

It's a mix.

For starters, I certainly have known and met lots of secular sikhs who do not wear a turban, do not carry a kirpan, so there is definitely a strong religious element to wearing a turban.

But still... sikhism is not an evangelical religion.  All sikhs originate from the Punjab region of India, and originally speak punjabi (obviously there now exists a diaspora).  There is a strong cultural element to wearing a turban as well - you wear it not only to honour God, but to honour your parents and your family.

Could be a mix.  Could be cultural because it is just the done thing.  Could also be a person of deeply religious beliefs.  The point I was trying to make to GF is he is making a lot of assumptions simply on the basis of what a person is wearing, in response to his throw away comment that we Anglos don't seem to understand the differences - yet another unfounded stereotype.

[HVC]

Religious belief.

Probably, but could also be cultural.

But let's assume he is wearing a turban because he has a sincere religious belief. Why should the law require him not to work in the public sector if he wishes to follow that religious belief.  And why should the law prefer those who can wear their religious symbols out of sight?

Because it is a sign of religious indoctrination & oppression. And, it shouldn't.

I didn't want to defend a law that is hypocritical since it can't actually spellout the only part that it really wants to outlaw (the hijab). I was just pointing out that when the Anglo RoC attacks the law on racist ground it can't work. It is not a racist law. Religion is not ethnicity.

You're focusing too much on what type of discrimination it is and ignoring the fact that it is still discrimination. And while it might, in your case, be well meaning, it still has other undesirable consequences. In my opinion the cons outweigh the pros.

[Barrister]

So today is Speech from the Throne day, plus Trudeau will address the nation on tv tonight.

What does everyone expect?  Probably not an election, since NDP has signaled they are likely to support government's throne speech.  Conservatives have said they'll support it if it shows fiscal restraint, which seems highly improbably.

[Malthus]

So today is Speech from the Throne day, plus Trudeau will address the nation on tv tonight.

What does everyone expect?  Probably not an election, since NDP has signaled they are likely to support government's throne speech.  Conservatives have said they'll support it if it shows fiscal restraint, which seems highly improbably.

I agree, not likely to be an election - the NDP likely won't bring down the government for spending too much.