Canada fines woman for illegal worship

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't agree with that either. Seems Canada is not so free....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="TH1Sx1SxSPARTA"]thats complete BS, people should have the right to follow any religion they wishfoxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="TH1Sx1SxSPARTA"]thats complete BS, people should have the right to follow any religion they wishBranKetra

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Freer than the US... where being anything other than Christian would be suicide for a political career.Ace6301

Wow that is separation of church and state going WAY too far, in the most idiotic way.

Honestly, this seems like a step back in freedom of beliefs in Canada. Yeesh.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I believe we've already had presidents that weren't Christian.....so that would not be correct. As for lesser elections I'd imagine some non Christians have won....religion of local politicians isn't exactly a priority. In fact....I couldn't tell you the religion of those I've voted for as it hasn't been an issue. So unless you can show me 100% that no non Christian has been elected ever in the US for any seat....I'm not buying that claim.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] They do have the right. Just not the right to promote it on public property. It is a stupid by-law... and the city was stupid to enforce it. She was still in the wrong.Ace6301

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/flamingchickens/pointlesslaws.html

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In Quebec the opposition Parti Quebecois has even gone so far as to propose a law banning members of the civil-service from wearing "ostentatious" religious symbols.

LJS9502_basic

All that other stuff aside, this is actually a good law.

That's as dumb as saying people can't ever be naked in their own homes because being naked is indecency and illegal.

Gah, bureaucratic stupidity at its finest.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I believe we've already had presidents that weren't Christian.....so that would not be correct. As for lesser elections I'd imagine some non Christians have won....religion of local politicians isn't exactly a priority. In fact....I couldn't tell you the religion of those I've voted for as it hasn't been an issue. So unless you can show me 100% that no non Christian has been elected ever in the US for any seat....I'm not buying that claim.LJS9502_basic

That he was elected doesn't mean that they didn't find the athiest Muslim thing important. It means that enough people didn't believe the rumors to elect him.

Considering the studies that show a relatively large amount of distrust for athiests and the tension pertaining to Muslims in this country, it's pretty difficult to imagine either a Muslim or athiest becoming President.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Nah he's right. There's rumours that are clearly false that Obama is an Atheist or a Muslim and look how much damage that's done to him. Look at how Romney being a Mormon has some people questioning if he's Christian enough to run the US. The list of Presidents who weren't overtly religious is incredibly small and no one in the last 100 years is on it. These days you certainly do have to be a Christian to stand a chance for President and even in Congress there's very few who aren't Christians. Hell JFK had a hard time because he was Catholic and the country has become MORE conservative religiously since then.GreySeal9

That he was elected doesn't mean that they didn't find the athiest Muslim thing important. It means that enough people didn't believe the rumors to elect him.

Considering the studies that show a relatively large amount of distrust for athiests and the tension pertaining to Muslims in this country, it's pretty difficult to imagine either a Muslim or athiest becoming President.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yeah those comments about Obama started before he was elected.....so his election puts the lie to that. Obviously it wasn't important.

LJS9502_basic

That he was elected doesn't mean that they didn't find the athiest Muslim thing important. It means that enough people didn't believe the rumors to elect him.

Considering the studies that show a relatively large amount of distrust for athiests and the tension pertaining to Muslims in this country, it's pretty difficult to imagine either a Muslim or athiest becoming President.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That he was elected doesn't mean that they didn't find the athiest Muslim thing important. It means that enough people didn't believe the rumors to elect him.

Considering the studies that show a relatively large amount of distrust for athiests and the tension pertaining to Muslims in this country, it's pretty difficult to imagine either a Muslim or athiest becoming President.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yeah those comments about Obama started before he was elected.....so his election puts the lie to that. Obviously it wasn't important.

LJS9502_basic

That he was elected doesn't mean that they didn't find the athiest Muslim thing important. It means that enough people didn't believe the rumors to elect him.

Considering the studies that show a relatively large amount of distrust for athiests and the tension pertaining to Muslims in this country, it's pretty difficult to imagine either a Muslim or athiest becoming President.

And that is because athiests and Muslims with potential Presidential aspirations probably think they have no chance. If the factors that make it difficult to imagine an athiest or Muslim President didn't exist, you would probably see athiests and Muslims running.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

That he was elected doesn't mean that they didn't find the athiest Muslim thing important. It means that enough people didn't believe the rumors to elect him.

Considering the studies that show a relatively large amount of distrust for athiests and the tension pertaining to Muslims in this country, it's pretty difficult to imagine either a Muslim or athiest becoming President.

GreySeal9

And that is because athiests and Muslims with potential Presidential aspirations probably think they have no chance. If the factors that make it difficult to imagine an athiest or Muslim President didn't exist, you would probably see athiests and Muslims running.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Haven't seen one run either have we? LJS9502_basic

In general people should be able to do what they want on public property provided it isn't disruptive or obscene, i.e. no blocking traffick or walking around nude, flipping people off etc.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Crazy thing, maybe they haven't run because they can't get the backing to run or they couldn't get far enough in politics because they were those to run. Hey maybe that political suicide comment was true after all. Ace6301

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In general people should be able to do what they want on public property provided it isn't disruptive or obscene, i.e. no blocking traffick or walking around nude, flipping people off etc.

BuryMe

Four years ago they nabbed about 26 (wild estimate) of the political seats with only 12% of the vote. In comparison, the Green party had 0 seats with 10% of the vote, and the NDP had about 18 seats with over 20% of the vote. The political treatment of Quebec is a travesty.Tylendal

The number of seats a province has is not related to voter turnout. It's related to the population in that province.

If you're talkking about over representation of the Bloc Quebecois, don't blame Quebec. That's just the way the electoral system works in Canada. If Ontarians wanted to set up an Ontario-only party, they could do exactly the same thing.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In general people should be able to do what they want on public property provided it isn't disruptive or obscene, i.e. no blocking traffick or walking around nude, flipping people off etc.

BuryMe

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Maybe doesn't mean fact though. So it's not exactly accurate to say they won't get elected if they haven't run. It's a big ?....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No it's not. If you rent the space you should be allowed to do what you wish on it as long as you don't trash it or commit illegal acts.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

In general people should be able to do what they want on public property provided it isn't disruptive or obscene, i.e. no blocking traffick or walking around nude, flipping people off etc.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Haven't seen one run either have we? LJS9502_basic

And that is because athiests and Muslims with potential Presidential aspirations probably think they have no chance. If the factors that make it difficult to imagine an athiest or Muslim President didn't exist, you would probably see athiests and Muslims running.

I'm not really trying to defend fox's point. I was making my own argument.

I guess you could say it's an assumption, but it's an assumption that is backed with powerful evidence.

I'm not saying that a Muslim or athiest couldn't become President at some point, but it's pretty unlikely right now.

As far as the Muslim elected, I'd need to see a link.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Now read the quote.BuryMe

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't agree with that either. Seems Canada is not so free....

LJS9502_basic

And why can privae companies apply a dress code but not the government?

I'm not really trying to defend fox's point. I was making my own argument.

I guess you could say it's an assumption, but it's an assumption that is backed with powerful evidence.

I'm not saying that a Muslim or athiest couldn't become President at some point, but it's pretty unlikely right now.

As far as the Muslim elected, I'd need to see a link.

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]And yet I've seen you stand by a company who fired a woman for wearing a Hijab to work... Same principal.

BuryMe

And why can privae companies apply a dress code but not the government?

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not even close. Private and government are not the same. As for covering one's face....some jurisdictions do not allow that of citizens. Exceptions should not be made. As well as businesses have a right to a dress code. If one is unable or unwilling to follow the dress code then they need seek employment elsewhere. Nonetheless...the analogy was faulty.LJS9502_basic

And why can privae companies apply a dress code but not the government?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]A hijab doesn't cover the face.

And why can privae companies apply a dress code but not the government?

BuryMe

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm not really trying to defend fox's point. I was making my own argument.

I guess you could say it's an assumption, but it's an assumption that is backed with powerful evidence.

I'm not saying that a Muslim or athiest couldn't become President at some point, but it's pretty unlikely right now.

As far as the Muslim elected, I'd need to see a link.

LJS9502_basic

That's encouraging.

We still have a long way to go before a Muslim could be elected President tho.

Getting elected locally is far easier.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I'm not really trying to defend fox's point. I was making my own argument.

I guess you could say it's an assumption, but it's an assumption that is backed with powerful evidence.

I'm not saying that a Muslim or athiest couldn't become President at some point, but it's pretty unlikely right now.

As far as the Muslim elected, I'd need to see a link.

GreySeal9

That's encouraging.

We still have a long way to go before a Muslim could be elected President tho.

Getting elected locally is far easier.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Government is traditionally the one who citizens have rights with....no private enterprises. And the burqa covers the face....I know I've said they shouldn't be worn in public...don't remember the hijab discussion...but if I did agree with it on private dress code than that would be the reason. They don't bother me to see them worn out and about...but dress code is dress code.LJS9502_basic

Though as far as I know, the law never passed.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Okay then.... found this...

LJS9502_basic

That's encouraging.

We still have a long way to go before a Muslim could be elected President tho.

Getting elected locally is far easier.

Yeah. I imagine a Muslim/athiests will be able to be elected President in the future.

So let me get this strait? They broke the law and now their whining about it? Nothing to see here people, move along.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] Indirectly suppressing religions. Private roads and walkways would cost a fortune. I don't think most churches have that much money.BranKetra

It's not supressing them. It's just ensuring that we honor the First Amendment and don't support religion. If religious centers don't have the money to operate, then they'll just have to shut down.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]But the military has dress codes, and it is part of the government. Judges also have to wear a uniform when presiding over a case...

BuryMe

Though as far as I know, the law never passed.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes but the military is not the same as being a private citizen. You aren't forced to join the military. Nor forced to be a judge. Rights are something everyone has......choice in employment means one abides by the rules. Not the same thing at all dude.LJS9502_basic

Though as far as I know, the law never passed.

You criticised a law that the Parti Quebecois introduced that would have prevented civil servants in quebec from wearing religious symbols to work. I pointed out that there are other jobs that have dress codes that you have defended in the past, so why should this be any different?

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="StRaItJaCkEt36"]

If the United States is smart they will boycott all exports and refuse to import to Canada until they repent for their atheism.

Tylendal

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]Yes... So if you choose to work as a civil servant in quebec, you cannot wear religious symbols to work. Exactly the same as working in a private company, being a judge, or being in the military.

Though as far as I know, the law never passed.

BuryMe

You criticised a law that the Parti Quebecois introduced that would have prevented civil servants in quebec from wearing religious symbols to work. I pointed out that there are other jobs that have dress codes that you have defended in the past, so why should this be any different?

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]At this point I have no idea what you are talking about....sorry.LJS9502_basic

You criticised a law that the Parti Quebecois introduced that would have prevented civil servants in quebec from wearing religious symbols to work. I pointed out that there are other jobs that have dress codes that you have defended in the past, so why should this be any different?

You criticised the proposed Parti Quebec law, too.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't agree with that either. Seems Canada is not so free....foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]Do you not remember how this conversation started?

You criticised a law that the Parti Quebecois introduced that would have prevented civil servants in quebec from wearing religious symbols to work. I pointed out that there are other jobs that have dress codes that you have defended in the past, so why should this be any different?

BuryMe

You criticised the proposed Parti Quebec law, too.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

It's not supressing them. It's just ensuring that we honor the First Amendment and don't support religion. If religious centers don't have the money to operate, then they'll just have to shut down.

whipassmt