Religious tolerance: a less inflamatory thread

Politics International Politics
21

LOL.
:rainbow:

Why no point at all, until the first Sikh draws out that dagger to defend himself against those Muslim bullies who want to stomp on his face. Or until all of his friends who just have to see it finally convince him to take it out, then somebody gets pissed and wants to know why he think he’s so damn tough with that knife, and what the fuck are you gonna do about it you stupid Sikh with a stupid turban. Yeah right I bet you won’t use it…hey get away from me with that thing…hey what the fuck…argh!

You’ve got to be kidding me. I can’t believe Canada’s high court actually allowed it. By the way, this little tyke here would like to bring his ceremonial weapon to school as well. Think Canada would OK it?

22

Frankly I’d be interested to know if anyone has lived in or knows anyone about the school crime/violence situation in schools in this part of Canada. In this case I think the regional situation makes a big difference. For example, in South Central L.A. or Chicago, or Southeast DC a blanket ban on knives is without a doubt a good policy. In rural Western towns however, I can see where legit reasons to carry knives might outweigh security concerns.

23

[quote=“Jaboney”]Actually, I think that the court got it right in that a blanket ban would have been foolish and disrespectful. That said, parliament should be able to bring in some regulations after consultations: strike a balance between freedom of religion and safety concerns. Some Sikhs do wear a very small, strickly symbolic dagger.

And when it comes to safety, there’s also a worry that these knives could be turned against their owners. It’s less likely to be a problem, but this kid was only 12 years old at the time. How difficult would it be for a 15 or 16 year old to take it away from him?[/quote]
I have to say this is the first time I’ve actually felt embarrassed to be Canadian. That this ruling actually passed by 8-0 beggars belief. Were the judges caught in the clutch of some kind of insanity?

[quote]The Supreme Court didn’t directly address that issue Thursday. But the judges made it clear that schools must produce hard evidence to justify any curb on a sincerely held religious belief.
Top court quashes school ban on Sikh daggers, citing religious freedom[/quote]
For Christ’s sake, it’s a f’ucking weapon, end of story. You can call it the scimitar of Zarcon, or a totem of your commitment to meet some dude during a holy rapture, or whatever the heck you want, because that doesn’t enter into it.

It’s a f’ucking weapon. This ruling is a disgrace. If I were a smartass kid I’d be in school tomorrow sporting a knife at my side just like the ones the Sikhs have. If the teacher or principle confiscated it from me I’d sue the school board for infringing upon my religious rights, because I worship the goddess Nefertiti, or whatever. If they said I was nutty I’d simply retort that any religion is bonkers (resurrected lamb of god, anyone?). If they said my religion was not established I’d say it was established yesterday, and here’s my charter. Etcetera ad infinitum. I would have a case.

Nutbars! JDSmith, you officially get one free pass for Canuck-bashing on this one. You’ve earned it.

Or, rather, we’ve earned it.

24

Couple quick comments:

b redandy: [/b] I am a big believer in notion that laws made at the local level, and tailored to local conditions are generally preferable to those which are not (which is one of the reasons I think more decisions should be made at the state level, and fewer at the federal level in the US). So I admire your question as a good one to ask.

That said, however, I find it very hard to believe that anyone here can give me a “legit” reason for carrying a knife to school in rural western towns that would not apply elsewhere as well.

I grew up in a rural western town (about as rural as it gets, actually), and I can assure you that we were not allowed to carry knives to school. Nor were we ever called upon to skin a deer or fight off an angry bear on our way to or from school.

So I would certainly join you in welcoming any input that goes the other way on this – but I’m not holding my breath. :slight_smile:

b porcelainprincess:[/b] I generally agree with your point of view on this. However, personally, it matters less to me that “this is a weapon” than that, simply, “this is against the rules”.

If we are dealing with a rule that is obviously intended to target a specific religious group (i.e. Jews may not wear kippahs, but any other religious head covering is allowed), then there is a legitimate concern about freedom of religion. But common sense rules about what to wear, or what to carry, or how to behave in school … well I just find it hard to understand why any of these rules should be lifted just for me because “I really really strongly believe that this rule shouldn’t apply to me”.

Imagine that it were a rule against going to school topless, or even wearing shorts or mini-skirts. No weapon involved. No serious threat of physical harm to the students (insert your own joke here if you like). You could even argue that it was a not a good rule. But so long as it is applied to everyone, and is not targeted at a particular religion/religions… I just don’t even think that you need to get into the fact that it’s a weapon.

The fact that someone may have a religion that mandates a certain manner of school-inappropriate dress, or carrying certain potential dangerous items, or saying certain prayers at certain times, or sitting on the floor rather than at a desk, or not attending class on Wednesdays, or burning incense at lunchtime, or whatever else it is… shouldn’t give you a pass from the rules. Nobody else can do those things, and neither can you. :idunno:

What a misguided and unfortunate ruling. :frowning:

25

Hobbes, I take it from your response–the rules are the rules–that you assume the state (or school board) is an objective arbiter? I don’t believe that to be the case.

You suggest that we imagine a rule against going to school topless, or wearing mini-skirts. Ok. But if we imagine a rule against wearing anything on your head? So long as it is applied equally, is there no reasonable argument to be made against compliance? For most of the population in North America, that means leaving the baseball cap at home. No big deal. But for Sikhs, or Jews, that’s a significant problem. The French state argued that just such a law wasn’t specifically targeting a particular religious group, but young Muslim women certainly felt otherwise. (Comparative degrees of recent success integrating minority groups recommends the Canadian approach.)

That’s not to say I don’t see a reason to just say no when necessary. Back home, some public swimming pools have instituted dress codes mandidating proper swim wear to protect lifeguards and other swimmers from the dangers posed by excessively modest bathers. That’s right. Seems that some recent immigrants were going swimming modestly clad in flowing robes, which get tangled in their arms, grow heavy, and pose a significant and unavoidable hazard to the person wearing them and anyone who happens to be near by or attempting to rescue the modest bather.

I agree with the ban on excessive modesty and disagree with the ban on the kirpan for two simple reasons. Modesty of dress may be a religious tennet, but tends to be cultural, and cultural considerations deserve fewer accomodations. More importantly, there’s the probability of harm consideration. Wearing too much in the pool can’t be anything but dangerous. Wearing a small dagger, wrapped in heavy cloth, placed inside a wooden box next to the skin, under one’s clothes isn’t necessarily a threat. (Still, kids + knives = :doh:). Not ideal, but not necessarily a threat. I think that’s what the lower court recognized. The appeal court took what seems to be everyone else’s opinion here:

[quote] In 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down the decision, [color=blue]ruling the kirpan had the makings of a weapon and was dangerous.

Although banning the weapon was a hindrance to freedom of religion, the court ruled that community safety comes first[/color].[/quote]

I disagree because a more nuanced ruling is possible and needful. I think that’s what the Supreme Court is getting at:

[quote]In its 8-0 judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Thursday that [color=blue]a total ban infringed on Gurbaj Singh’s guarantees of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights.[/color]

The court threw out arguments from lawyers for the Quebec school board that originally implemented the ban, saying there is no suggestion the kirpan is a weapon of violence or that Gurbaj intended to use it as one.
[/quote]

I think that the court also recognized that the school board, or state, isn’t automatically an objective arbiter:

If safety is a concern, that can be addressed through legislating a maximal blade length, or through the use of a sheath from which the blade cannot be withdrawn. What’s the point of implementing a total ban? Religious tennets should, if possible, be respected. In this case, it seems far from difficult to accomodate both religion and community safety.

26

[quote=“Jaboney”]

Wearing a small dagger, wrapped in heavy cloth, placed inside a wooden box next to the skin, under one’s clothes isn’t necessarily a threat. (Still, kids + knives = :doh:). Not ideal, but not necessarily a threat. [/quote]

I disagree. A quick trip to the bathroom and the knife could easily be removed. In being carried it is necessarily a threat, by definition.

A knife is always a safety concern, again by definition. I don’t see a problem with legislating that dangerous articles cannot be brought into a school, period. From the point of view of the physical AND psychological health of all the students in the school that is an imperative. Let the object be modified so it no longer fits the definition of knife and is no longer a threat to safety. I could agree with you that “a sheath from which the knife CANNOT be withdrawn” (as in welded in or something) could meet this standard.

27

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]From the point of view of the physical AND psychological health of all the students in the school that is an imperative. Let the object be modified so it no longer fits the definition of knife and is no longer a threat to safety. I could agree with you that “a sheath from which the knife CANNOT be withdrawn” (as in welded in or something) could meet this standard.[/quote] Fair enough. I believe that there should be some regulations in place; I disagree with a total ban.

So far as the physical and psychological health of the students, I’ve gone to school with Sikhs and never had a worry. But more than once I’ve wondered about what some yahoo was going to do with his bare hands or objects at hand. Schoolyard goons and bullies are a greater threat than these daggers, and abuse of the ‘protection to bear arms’ has resulted in more schoolyard death and injury than ceremonial daggers. This looks and sounds bad, but is it really?

28

No. Sir again you are mistaken. Hinduism, the least likely religion to cross your path does not do so beacuse of its flacidity; no, Hinduism is in fact an all encompassing “religion” and I use paranthases on purpose to let youknow that Hinduism IS a religion, yet they are so bloody smart, that they have incorporated ALL modern religions into itself. They seek nothing but to conquer the world and instill convenience stores upon all infidels.
[/quote]

I am not mistaken. Hinduism is about as non-dogmatic as you can get, among the world’s major religions. [quote]A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.[/quote] (Amer. Her. Dict.)

Dogma stems from the codification of revealed religion or religious practices by an authoritarian organization. To paraphrase from hinduismtoday.com/archives/1 … 1-08.shtml, Veda is not a revealed religion (revealed, such as by the prophet Mohammed) nor is it codified in a single authority or book. It is not a theology or a belief system that everyone is required to acknowledge.

Thus it is not the kind of dogmatic religion which tends to lead to religious strife in the same manner as the dogmatic, monotheistic religions to which I referred. Bring on the convenience stores, I say! :wink:

29

[quote=“Jaboney”]

So far as the physical and psychological health of the students, I’ve gone to school with Sikhs and never had a worry. But more than once I’ve wondered about what some yahoo was going to do with his bare hands or objects at hand. Schoolyard goons and bullies are a greater threat than these daggers, and abuse of the ‘protection to bear arms’ has resulted in more schoolyard death and injury than ceremonial daggers. This looks and sounds bad, but is it really?[/quote]

i’m quite sure that in the vast majority of cases it would not be a problem and that you would have a far greater risk to your health from non-Sikh bullies, even on a proportional basis. But the potential for it to be a danger is there. School authorities and government have the responsibility to maintain a safe environment in the school.

30

[quote=“Tempo Gain”]A quick trip to the bathroom and the knife could easily be removed. In being carried it is necessarily a threat, by definition.

A knife is always a safety concern, again by definition.[/quote]

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

One would think this would be obvious, but thanks for saying it anyways. This whole thing really cracks me up. Canada is taking multi-culturalism to a new extreme.

31

Hobbes: Fair enough, I wasn’t meaning to make an empirical claim that there is a place where a rule allowing people to carry knives to school is a good rule – just that such a scenario is possible. For example I used a pocket knife frequently in my after school job, and it less likely to walk off if I just keep one on me, so I broke the rule and carried it in school. You could have a place where lots of kids did that, and I’d contend they probably shouldn’t be punished as severly as the inner city kids who don’t have anything like a legit reason to carry a knife (other than self defense of course). Hence I think this is really a local policy issue. As a Constitutional matter, I think the state can prevent religious articles in certain places without infringing on the free practice of the religion (I don’t know the wording of Canada’s constitution, but I imagine its something along those lines).

32

That is not a religious item in any religion. It’s not about fairness on a materialistic level. It’s about respecting peoples’ religious practices and beliefs - a different sort of fairness. Not all Sikhs carry the Kirpan at all times (One can be a “Sahajdhari,” or slow adopter) ) but those who want to demonstrate their faith fully will have a deep urge to carry one continually. They very seldom get used as a weapon, although it is permitted in self-defense. I’ll bet it will be many years before a Kirpan is used as a weapon in a Canadian school. I’m sure Dad will tell his son, whatever you do, don’t use your Kirpan and ruin it for everyone.

When I taught in Korea, I noticed that nearly all kids from grade 1 on up carried box cutters in their pencil cases. At first I thought it was really dangerous, but I got used to it and eventually found it to be very convenient since I seldom carry box cutters myself. (edit) I still think it is dangerous and wouldn’t allow it in any school I managed, but I’m just trying to put things into a less hysterical perspective.

I did carry a jackknife to school quite often as a kid. Lots of kids did. I guess people didn’t consider kids to be ticking time bombs back then.

Personally, it doesn’t bother me a bit if some Sikh kids are permitted to carry Kirpans. Why should I care? Sikh kids are the last group I would worry about picking on my little junior. If they’re devout enough to carry the Kirpan, they would also never maliciously attack anyone, as any kind of anti-social behavior is forbidden in this religion. It would be more likely a Sikh kid with a Kirpan saves my kid’s butt. Wiki link.

Furthermore, since no other religions have concealed (symbolic) weapons as part of their observance, we don’t need to worry about setting a precedent that will be exploited by other groups. Religions don’t appear overnight.

I don’t see what everyone is so worried about, not to mention angry. It seems more and more people are getting steamed up about other peoples’ religions these days.

By the way, Hindus in India engage in some pretty nasty violence in the name of religion. I don’t think they are any less prone to this than any other religion. I’d say Buddhism has the best record, but there are certainly exceptions there as well. Mormonism maybe?

33

First, I would like to thank Hobbes for posting pictures like this to support his argument. It’s a good start, and one hopes he will make progress. :wink:

Second, I don’t believe in rules for rules’ sake. You may have a rule for a reason, but if the rule infringes on the rights of a religious group, you should re-evaluate the rule to see whether it is feasible to take their interests into account. The headdress rule is relevant here. It’s a cultural standard to remove one’s hat in a host’s home, a church, courthouse or a school in the west, although this is perhaps a bit dated except with regard to church. However, if a different culture (or religion) has a conflicting standard, why not make an attempt to accomodate their position? I don’t see any harm in allowing Muslim girls to wear headdresses if they believe they need to, from a cultural or religious perspective.

As for knives, I particularly like the suggestion of the use of a sheath from which the blade cannot be withdrawn, e.g., one welded on. But apparently, some people don’t give a shit about making attempts to accomodate other cultures and religions.

34

Turn this around and see how it looks: how about Sikhs who come to my country accommodating my culture. Eh? In my culture we don’t have weapons at school. Period.

We are bending over too far backward. I really believe that. I like multiculturalism as a vague idea translating into lots of cool restaurants, but when Sikhs start wearing weapons to school it’s gone too far. It’s not a good thing.

How long do you think it will be before, say, a critical mass of backward Muslims in Toronto have enough pull that they start demanding the right to mutilate the clitorises of their daughters? This is not completely beyond the realm of possibility. After all, ask any 70 year-old if, thirty years ago, they would have believed you if you’d told them that in the year 2006 the Supreme Court would make it okay for only certain people to bring weapons to school. They would have laughed in your face. Impossible!

Did you catch that “only certain people” that I italicized? Yep. Think about that one, Jaboney. In all your rhapsodizing over the veritably catholic and non-discriminatory nature of this ruling, you’ve overlooked the, erm, supreme irony at work here: Not everyone gets to take weapons to school.

And lets drop the semantics, shall we? It’s a weapon. If it were an oblong mass of gelatin we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Multicultural tolerance means smiling at the new Sikh Temple down the road and smiling at the group of 1,000 Sikhs having a picnic down by the river and smiling at the curry restaurants and Indian jewellers and unbearably gaudy clothes hanging in the stores in the original (and still best) Little India in Toronto. To suggest that refusing to allow Sikhs to carry weapons into school is a betrayal of Canadian multicultural values makes me want to rethink those values if they fly in the face of the common sense of safeguarding the safety of our schools.

To quote Homer Simpson: Safen up! Be safe!

35

Those are good points Princess. I’ll bet the 8 justices that unanimously agreed did take those thoughts into account. Has anyone read their decision? I haven’t, but I bet it’s well-reasoned. I think Jabloney was right in saying they were against a blanket ban when ‘subtler’ methods would suffice. Or maybe they’re like me and just think it would be okay in this case. It does seem surprising that it would be a unanimous decision. But Canada is way PC in many regards.

36

[quote=“dearpeter”][ Sikh kids are the last group I would worry about picking on my little junior. If they’re devout enough to carry the Kirpan, they would also never maliciously attack anyone, as any kind of anti-social behavior is forbidden in this religion. It would be more likely a Sikh kid with a Kirpan saves my kid’s butt. Wiki link.

[/quote]

Tell that to Indira Gandhi

Look, if it’s a religious symbol, then carry a symbolic knife- real knives are dangerous.

Though when I was in High School we usually carried folding, locking Buck knives- always a useful tool, even if looking back the only thing I recall actually using them for was making emergency hash pipes.

37

Well said :sunglasses:

38

Who gives a shit?

My respect for religion ends immediately where that religion becomes a negative influence. Whether it’s the the burning of ghost money stinking up the air, or somebody claiming a “right” to bring a knife to school or pro-life activists interfering in other people’s lives, it’s all nonsense as far as I’m concerned and will say so whenever given the opportunity.

39

I give a shit. World news is interesting. I believe there is quite a push by Muslims in several European countries to have Sharia law legally recognized there, so it’s interesting to see what is happening in Canada, since they’ve been allowing it for a while.

Here’s an article. Maybe someone who’s been following this could care to explain to me what has been going on.

canadafreepress.com/2006/los … 021406.htm

Ontario Set To Pass Anti-Sharia Law To Protect Muslim Women
By Lost Budgie lostbudgie.blogspot.com
Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The Ontario Legislature returned to work today - and one of the pieces of law set to pass within the next three weeks is Bill 27, the “Family Statute Law Amendment Act.”

What is unique about this law is that it is being introduced for one purpose only: to prevent Muslims from participating in a successful arbitration process that sanctions arbitration of custodial and marital disputes by religious tribunals. Toronto Star Article here.

Although Christians and Jews have quietly and successfully run religion-based arbitration tribuals for a decade, they will now lose this legal right in the name of “fairness” as Ontario cannot legally exclude one religious group and allow others to continue.

Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty had previously been prepared to recognize “parts” of Muslim Sharia law, but did a 180 degree turn in the face of massive public opposition: much of which came from Muslim women.

Alia Hogben, executive director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women summed it up by saying, “We don’t want to be ghettoized. We’re Canadian women.”

The problem, of course, is the brutal and barbaric nature of Muslim Sharia law as widely practiced - which includes such provisions as…
*

Wife Hitting as Religiously Sanctioned Family Discipline

  • Wife as Husband’s Property
  • Children as Husband’s Property
  • Sanctioned Polygamy
  • Child brides for older men.
  • Stonings for Adultery CAUTION - VIDEO NOT PRETTY
  • Amputations as Punishment.
  • Eye Gouging as Punishment.

The Muslim view of “Human Rights” as illustrated by the actual decisions of Sharia Law Tribunals throughout the Muslim world is hardly a model that should be incorporated into Canadian jurisprudence in any form.

For supporters of Sharia in Western societies, the devil IS in the details of how Sharia is really practiced when implemented. It must be a tough sell when the system you want to implement here includes rape of daughters and wives as punishment for a man’s lawbreaking.

Yes, you read that correctly - Muslim Sharia Tribunals still call for rape of women family members as punishment many times a year. Sure, many Muslim scholars will argue that this is not “correct” Sharia - but the truth of any value system is not illustrated in what people say, but in the actions of the people who profess to share that value system.

Apparently, they put a stop to this in Ontario, thank goodness. Is there still Sharia law in the rest of Canada? And I DO care how the Muslims are handling it. At least, I care that they take it sitting down. Canada has some very beautiful historic cathedrals - I’d hate to see some looney take out his agression on one of them because he doesn’t like his “right” to beat his wife being taken away. :fume:

40

Nicely put. Thank you. My thoughts exactly. My sentiments on the isssue however, run more toward the “I don’t give a shit” end of the spectrum and I wonder how I managed to miss out on the vote in which it was decided that Cananda should be officially “multi-cultural”. It is a dangerous, empty concept if you ask me.