[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Grey Fox]

What those of jewish faith use?

[Zoupa]

And bring back that swearing on the Bible.

It never went away.

You can also swear on a Koran or a sacred eagle feather.

What about a pasta strainer?

[Zoupa]

The State and it's representatives should not be displaying religious signs, kind of a basic tenet of the separation of religion and state in my book.

Why?

A colleague of mine (actually he's a manager now) is a very capable and effective Crown Prosecutor.  The fact he wears a sikh turban does nothing to take away from his capabilities.  And certainly no one is going to be confused living in Alberta thinking we live in some kind of sikh theocracy!

What if he wore a pasta strainer?

[Barrister]

pasta strainer?

Outside of the internet I really don't think that's as good of a retort as you think it is Zoupa.

[Zoupa]

The whole point of the Spaghetti Monster is to demonstrate how arbitrary and fundamentally illogical religion in the public sphere is.

I see you've avoided the question. What makes a religion valid? Is there a list somewhere?

[HVC]

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

[Malthus]

@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.

Being an atheist Jew, I suggest that the difference between a religious and an ethnic identity isn't always as easy to define as you appear to think it is ... 😄

[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.

[Malthus]

And bring back that swearing on the Bible.

It never went away.

You can also swear on a Koran or a sacred eagle feather.

Or "solemnly affirm" if none of that appeals to you. Section 14 of the Canada Evidence Act, I think.

[Barrister]

And bring back that swearing on the Bible.

It never went away.

You can also swear on a Koran or a sacred eagle feather.

Or "solemnly affirm" if none of that appeals to you. Section 14 of the Canada Evidence Act, I think.

Oh yes.  An affirmation without reference to God is always an option.  And some very religious people will insist on an affirmation (Mennonites come to mind) - they think swearing to God about a purely secular matter is disrespectful to the Lord.

And Bible / Koran / eagle feather are just what we have easily available in the Edmonton courthouse.  I'm sure if someone wanted to use a Torah, the Hindu Vedas. or whatever other sacred text, would be perfectly allowed.

[Barrister]

I see you've avoided the question. What makes a religion valid? Is there a list somewhere?

There's no definitive list in law, however that doesn't mean anyone can declare whatever they want to be a religion and have it automatically accepted.

There's usually an analysis that looks at the following factors:

-the sincerity of belief (often hard to go behind, but if someone openly says their religion is a joke...)
-the age of the religion
-the number of adherents
-what kind of accommodation is being sought (I think a few "pastafarians" have been allowed to take ID photos with a colander on their head, because although FSM fails all the other tests, it's a pretty easy accommodation to give)

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.

[Zoupa]

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.

[Syt]

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?

[Josephus]

What those of jewish faith use?

The bible? You know, the book they wrote?

JUst the first part, though, not the sequel.

[Grey Fox]

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?