Hijab dispute a flashpoint

[steven lloyd]

I never mentioned the freedom to "not be religious". I said "freedom FROM religion", as in a society free of religion, as in no religion at all.

Okay, let’s make it even clearer then. You already have freedom FROM religion. Just as you already have freedom FROM watching TV or FROM going to movies (if you so choose), freedom FROM participating in sports (if you so choose), freedom FROM getting an education (if you so choose), freedom FROM many things others choose – having the freedom to do so.

As long as what you decide to do remains within the confines of our laws, and doesn’t hurt you, me or anyone else, then I am happy to allow and encourage you to engage in whatever activity you find enjoyment, reward or comfort in.

…, as in a society free of religion, as in no religion at all. Can you "Imagine"?

Oh, like a society free from tolerance for diversity, different ideas or opposing thought? Yes, I can imagine :o(

[logicalview]

Well then, I suppose that on the strength of the prime minister's declaration, we should now refuse to allow Indo-Canadians to take the oath for citizenship unless they take their turbans off.

Where the devil does this stop!

Trust the Tyee to twist something completely unrelated into the discussion (turbans vs facial coverings), to try and push their usual anti-Harper political agenda. Yawn.

It's too bad the usual suspects here are so eager to jump in and turn this into a political discussion and to muddle the issue to once again show that "Harper must be a racist!!!" and push their usual drivel. This is a discussion about religious freedom, and a serious one at that. Indeed, where the devil does this stop? I personally don't really care about the hijab being worn in public, or even in court. But you have to wonder where the line is drawn? Can the hijab be worn in a passport photo? If so, what is the point of a passport photo? Can anyone just wrap a hijab around their face and walk into the country, without doing any facial recognition whatsoever? Would the rabid Tyee and those others here so desperate to show how progressive they are on this issue be ok if terrorists just waltzed across our borders because Canadian officials were so scared of political correctness that they just sat and did nothing?

These are the kinds of questions I would like to debate. There are already fifteen thousand "HARPER IS EVILL!!!!" threads. Let's focus on the real issues here, and leave the politics out of it, if such a thing is even possible.

[maryjane48]

if terrorists just waltzed across our borders because Canadian officials were so scared of political correctness that they just sat and did nothing?

if the person was not on any watch list then yes because that is how a free and open country works , once we start profiling , we have become less than what we were , and no better than anyone else

[Jx3]

I never mentioned the freedom to "not be religious". I said "freedom FROM religion", as in a society free of religion, as in no religion at all.

Okay, let’s make it even clearer then. You already have freedom FROM religion. Just as you already have freedom FROM watching TV or FROM going to movies (if you so choose), freedom FROM participating in sports (if you so choose), freedom FROM getting an education (if you so choose), freedom FROM many things others choose – having the freedom to do so.

As long as what you decide to do remains within the confines of our laws, and doesn’t hurt you, me or anyone else, then I am happy to allow and encourage you to engage in whatever activity you find enjoyment, reward or comfort in.

…, as in a society free of religion, as in no religion at all. Can you "Imagine"?

Oh, like a society free from tolerance for diversity, different ideas or opposing thought? Yes, I can imagine :o(

I've read many of your other posts on here (most of which on certain threads I am in complete agreement with you on) so I know you are not unintelligent by any means so I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse here or just plain argumentative.

I believe you know full well what I meant but since you insist on playing semantics allow me to be perfectly crystal clear; I would prefer a world free of religion. No religion. Period. End of story.

No need to argue about it, that is just my opinion. Is it realistic or ever likely to happen? Of course not but it would be nice to not have people fighting and killing each other over who's imaginary deity is better than someone else's.

Your comments about diversity, different ideas and opposing thoughts are nothing more than pure sensationalism, unless of course you are stating that all of those notions are purely dependant upon the existence of organized religion. That would be very sad indeed if true.

[steven lloyd]

I've read many of your other posts on here (most of which on certain threads I am in complete agreement with you on) so I know you are not unintelligent by any means … .

Okay, so it’s clear you’re very intelligent as well ;o)

… so I can only assume you are being deliberately obtuse here or just plain argumentative.

Nope, I’m not being deliberately obtuse here or playing semantics, but with all due respect I am going to continue to challenge your statement (hmmm, perhaps somewhat argumentative – but how boring would these forums be if intelligent people didn’t disagree on something? You know what we’d be left with, right?) First, let’s be clear that I am not religious. I have spiritual beliefs around existence but they are personal and I keep them to myself. From your efforts to clarify your point I understand that you mean a world free from religion. I can appreciate that. Certainly, religion has created a great deal of misery and conflict across the world and across history. However, so has politics. So has political and even economic ideology including both capitalism and socialism. Hey, I’d prefer a world free from conservatism, but we’re going to have to wait for that.

My comments about diversity, different ideas and opposing thoughts are far from sensationalism. Am I stating all of these notions are purely dependent upon the existence of organized religion? No, and that would be very sad indeed if true. However, many different ideas do come out of different ideologies, different paradigms, different cultures and different histories. Like marriage and government, religion is a social construct or institution. In itself, not only can religion be quite harmless to society as a whole, it has been demonstrated that it can also be of significant individual and collective benefit. It is the politicization of religion that has created the carnage and grief it has been blamed for.

I deliberately guard from embracing any one ideology as a foundation for my thinking or opinion. For example, while I find some of the notions underlying the ideas of libertarianism (like left alone individuals will work for the collective best interest) quite unrealistic and naive, I also strongly agree that if what you do does not hurt me, you or anyone else then it should not be in the business of government. I also strongly value diversity – not just for the lessons that can be learned from those who think differently, come from different backgrounds, have different traditions and cultural norms, etc. but also for the enrichment diversity adds to our lives – when we allow it to.

I suspect the vast majority of religious people on this planet are not interested in fighting anyone, and in fact would be appalled at the idea of hurting or killing anyone. And while religion has been blamed for many wars a closer study would reveal (and has revealed) it has been used to incite and inflame by people who have had far more nefarious motive than giving any *bleep* about any deity (eg. capitalist expansionism).

Religion by itself does not threaten nor offend me. I am personally not threatened nor offended by Sikhs wearing turbans or Muslim women wearing Hijabs. We certainly wouldn’t force a Sikh to remove his turban in Court, and while wearing a Hijab might not be directly a requirement of the Muslim religion it seems it is a cultural norm reflecting modesty and is worn all the time. As such I suspect it would seem disrespectful for most Muslim women not to wear it in Court. This is not the same thing as disguising a face by wearing a Niqab, or a sign of disrespect like some punk-ass kid wearing a baseball cap. But hey, like you say it is just opinion – and this one is mine. Buenos dias mi amigo.

[logicalview]

if the person was not on any watch list then yes because that is how a free and open country works , once we start profiling , we have become less than what we were , and no better than anyone else

and how do you know if that person is on a "watch list" if their entire face is covered and there is no legal requirement to remove it at immigration? Facepalm....