[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Zoupa]

I think it's the first with the unstated goal of the latter.

I think that's accurate.

[Valmy]

I am all for "laïcité" as far as it means seperation of church and state. But that doesn't appear to be where it ends, as far as some are concerned.

Yep.  It goes farther than the separation of church and state.  It is hostile to religion in the public sphere.

[viper37]

This is verging on totalitarian.  You can't teach your kids certain things?  Can't display religious objects in public? Can't make religious statements in public? Religious belief can't motivate actions?

I never figured you for a Tea Partyer.
So, you think it's ok to teach creationism in biology classes?
I don't, ergo, I'm a nazi.

Never saw things that way, but thank you very much for enlighting me

[viper37]

By the same token, laws should not dictate what language someone writes on their billboard - that, too, is a personal matter, even if the majority of people do not understand it.

Do you think it's a good idea to advertize a stripper's club next to an elementary school?
Or have billboards for Hustler on highways?

That's why I approve of having Chinese people being able to put up Chinese billboards, even though I do not read Chinese.

Because they are a minority.  There is no danger of laws being written in Chinese only, or you being unable to get a simple job because you don't master Chinese.

If a Sikh wants to wear a turban playing soccer, let them.

soccer does not require helmet.  Hockey does, though.  Do you think it wise to allow Sikh to play hockey without a protective helmet?

[Malthus]

By the same token, laws should not dictate what language someone writes on their billboard - that, too, is a personal matter, even if the majority of people do not understand it.

Do you think it's a good idea to advertize a stripper's club next to an elementary school?
Or have billboards for Hustler on highways?

That's why I approve of having Chinese people being able to put up Chinese billboards, even though I do not read Chinese.

Because they are a minority.  There is no danger of laws being written in Chinese only, or you being unable to get a simple job because you don't master Chinese.

If a Sikh wants to wear a turban playing soccer, let them.

soccer does not require helmet.  Hockey does, though.  Do you think it wise to allow Sikh to play hockey without a protective helmet?

The answer to much of this is the same: if there are sound reasons to limit personal freedoms, then they should be so limited. But the onus is always on those proposing the limitations to prove that their reasons are, in fact, reasons, and not just convenient excuses to denigrate someone else, or enforce your preferred dress code on them.

Sikh kids want to play soccer wearing a funny-looking turban? Let them.

Apparently, there is a version of the Sikh turban that fits inside a hockey helmet, so Sikhs playing hockey - no problem.

Insist on wearing the (full) turban rather than wear a motorcycle helmet? Too bad - there are sound reasons for making you wear a helmet, so you are shit outta luck.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/03/07/safety_trumps_religious_freedom_in_sikhs_case.html

Same with putting up a billboard on your property or whatever. There may well be good reasons to limit your freedom of speech - want to post hardcore porn next to a school, well, you may be shit outta luck.

[Razgovory]

This is verging on totalitarian.  You can't teach your kids certain things?  Can't display religious objects in public? Can't make religious statements in public? Religious belief can't motivate actions?

I never figured you for a Tea Partyer.
So, you think it's ok to teach creationism in biology classes?
I don't, ergo, I'm a nazi.

Never saw things that way, but thank you very much for enlighting me

I figured teaching things in school falls under the separation of church and state.  This goes a bit further, essentially saying you can't teach it to any children.  You can't display religion in public etc.  It's similar to the Soviet view of Religion.  If a laicite is in fact the stated goal of  separating church and state and the unstated goal of depriving someone of their civil rights, why should those people go along with it at all, if it's a form of stealth oppression?  Any other rights you wish to quash as well?  Sorry that was a stupid question, you wish to quash freedom of speech as well.  You made that clear.

[Razgovory]

These days I struggle to be proud of anything related to France.

Laicité though. Laicité will be the one thing every frog can be proud of, a humanist legacy to the world once the country has fallen apart

The entrails of priests and the throat of kings.

It's possible that that one has led to the other.

[viper37]

The answer to much of this is the same: if there are sound reasons to limit personal freedoms, then they should be so limited. But the onus is always on those proposing the limitations to prove that their reasons are, in fact, reasons, and not just convenient excuses to denigrate someone else, or enforce your preferred dress code on them.

Sikh kids want to play soccer wearing a funny-looking turban? Let them.

Apparently, there is a version of the Sikh turban that fits inside a hockey helmet, so Sikhs playing hockey - no problem.

Insist on wearing the (full) turban rather than wear a motorcycle helmet? Too bad - there are sound reasons for making you wear a helmet, so you are shit outta luck.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/03/07/safety_trumps_religious_freedom_in_sikhs_case.html

And we need to go to courts, and pay expensive fees everytime, for every silly case like that.  Much more expeditive to solve the problem in one strike: no religious accomodation when interacting with the government.

Same with putting up a billboard on your property or whatever. There may well be good reasons to limit your freedom of speech - want to post hardcore porn next to a school, well, you may be shit outta luck.

Since there are no damages being done, it is only a matter taste, like religion.  Like, say, asking a gym to cover its windows because it is against your religion to see women not fully dressed and covered in black.  And the gym will promptly abide by this for fear of being exposed as racist, and the uncertainty of a court case.

Simple solution: no religious accomodation.  Societies evolve naturally, we shouldn't be drawn back to the past by people who refuse modernity.  We already have the leftist tree huggers to contend with, no need to add religious zealots.

[Malthus]

The answer to much of this is the same: if there are sound reasons to limit personal freedoms, then they should be so limited. But the onus is always on those proposing the limitations to prove that their reasons are, in fact, reasons, and not just convenient excuses to denigrate someone else, or enforce your preferred dress code on them.

Sikh kids want to play soccer wearing a funny-looking turban? Let them.

Apparently, there is a version of the Sikh turban that fits inside a hockey helmet, so Sikhs playing hockey - no problem.

Insist on wearing the (full) turban rather than wear a motorcycle helmet? Too bad - there are sound reasons for making you wear a helmet, so you are shit outta luck.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2008/03/07/safety_trumps_religious_freedom_in_sikhs_case.html

And we need to go to courts, and pay expensive fees everytime, for every silly case like that.  Much more expeditive to solve the problem in one strike: no religious accomodation when interacting with the government.

Same with putting up a billboard on your property or whatever. There may well be good reasons to limit your freedom of speech - want to post hardcore porn next to a school, well, you may be shit outta luck.

Since there are no damages being done, it is only a matter taste, like religion.  Like, say, asking a gym to cover its windows because it is against your religion to see women not fully dressed and covered in black.  And the gym will promptly abide by this for fear of being exposed as racist, and the uncertainty of a court case.

Simple solution: no religious accomodation.  Societies evolve naturally, we shouldn't be drawn back to the past by people who refuse modernity.  We already have the leftist tree huggers to contend with, no need to add religious zealots.

The "problem" here is people doing what they want.

I prefer there to be no "simple" solution to that "problem", particularly one mandated by the government. 

[Razgovory]

I guess viper is one of those people that believe that society naturally evolves to be something that he agrees with.

[viper37]

I figured teaching things in school falls under the separation of church and state.

Officially, it does not exist in Canada.

This goes a bit further, essentially saying you can't teach it to any children.

No.

You can't display religion in public etc.

Yes.  Religion is private, not public.  It governs your personal interaction with the world, not how the world interacts with you.

It's similar to the Soviet view of Religion.

No.  I do not wish to mock religion, I do not wish to seize religious assets either.  I wouldn't mind an end to tax exemption, though.  You're free to worship all-powerful aliens if you want to, but your community should pay income taxes like any other corporation.

If a laicite is in fact the stated goal of  separating church and state and the unstated goal of depriving someone of their civil rights, why should those people go along with it at all, if it's a form of stealth oppression?  Any other rights you wish to quash as well?  Sorry that was a stupid question, you wish to quash freedom of speech as well.  You made that clear.

Really?  Wow.  I never realized I was so intolerant by prefering science to be taught in science classes and religion in religious classes.  Thank you again for making me realize how a terrible person I was.  I promise to change, just as soon as Rael invites me on his next dinner we Jesus & Muhammad

People are free to have the religious belief they want.  I am free to hold none.  People are free to eat fish on fridays and refuse the consumption of pork.  I should not be held to such standards.  Simple as that.

But I know I'm worst than a nazi, I can't help it.

[viper37]

I guess viper is one of those people that believe that society naturally evolves to be something that he agrees with.

I believe in individual freedom, something that is stranger to any religion.  See, there's a lot of things I don't like, but I don't think it wise to forbid them.

To preserve my freedom, it is essential that religion be removed from the public (governmental) sphere.

If Jehovah's witnesses wants to rent a stadium to hold a week-end prayer, I don't care, so long as they pay the fair price.  But I disagree that they should beat their kids because their religion compels them to teach discipline and they should get away with it just because it's their religion.  Same as I disagree with a ruling that a rapist can get away with it because it's part of his culture.  Every citizen should be equal in front of the law.

[viper37]

I prefer there to be no "simple" solution to that "problem", particularly one mandated by the government. 

then there is no use to having a government, we should just govern ourselves freely, as in a communist/libertarian paradise.

Really, if government can't enact laws that govern our behavior in society, and then apply them to every citizen, we should kinda repeal all our laws.  I realize you are a lawyer and thrive on this, but really, I'm not found of having laws with 30 000 000 exemptions.

[Valmy]

These days I struggle to be proud of anything related to France.

Laicité though. Laicité will be the one thing every frog can be proud of, a humanist legacy to the world once the country has fallen apart

The entrails of priests and the throat of kings.

It's possible that that one has led to the other.

It is a complicated chain.  The corruption and worldly power of the Catholic Church in France, along with its reactionary politics, are what spawned it.  But unless you are implying the misfortunes of France are the judgment of a vengeful God I think there are a few other factors also in play.

[Razgovory]

I figured teaching things in school falls under the separation of church and state.

Officially, it does not exist in Canada.

This goes a bit further, essentially saying you can't teach it to any children.

No.

You can't display religion in public etc.

Yes.  Religion is private, not public.  It governs your personal interaction with the world, not how the world interacts with you.

It's similar to the Soviet view of Religion.

No.  I do not wish to mock religion, I do not wish to seize religious assets either.  I wouldn't mind an end to tax exemption, though.  You're free to worship all-powerful aliens if you want to, but your community should pay income taxes like any other corporation.

If a laicite is in fact the stated goal of  separating church and state and the unstated goal of depriving someone of their civil rights, why should those people go along with it at all, if it's a form of stealth oppression?  Any other rights you wish to quash as well?  Sorry that was a stupid question, you wish to quash freedom of speech as well.  You made that clear.

Really?  Wow.  I never realized I was so intolerant by prefering science to be taught in science classes and religion in religious classes.  Thank you again for making me realize how a terrible person I was.  I promise to change, just as soon as Rael invites me on his next dinner we Jesus & Muhammad

People are free to have the religious belief they want.  I am free to hold none.  People are free to eat fish on fridays and refuse the consumption of pork.  I should not be held to such standards.  Simple as that.

But I know I'm worst than a nazi, I can't help it.

You should actually read what the Soviets said about religion and their policy.  What you have posted is contradictory.  "I do not wish to mock religion" and "You're free to worship all-powerful aliens" and the idea that you don't want to tear down churches but don't want religious displays in public which would logically include buildings.  You are also under the mistaken belief that religion and science are opposites, which they are not.  Then there are the straw man arguments.  You are being intolerant by not letting someone practice their religion.  I never called you a Nazi, though you might make a nice commissar.

I really hate this aggressive secularism.  Secularism should be neutral ground where there are no judgements on religion.  Instead you (and many like you), have taken secularism as cudgel to make other people believe as you do, force conformity and persecute those you don't like.