[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

I doubt banning the burka outright will do much to create peace with Muslims.

I doubt that it is intended to create peace with Muslims. I imagine it is intended, among other things, to reduce the subjugation of women, to prevent segregation of Muslims in French society.

$1:

Freedom of religion is a good idea, we should have it in our charter. But with a clause that says freedom of religion doesn't extend to compromising safety or other legitimate restrictions.

Well, what would you say that freedom of religion offers that is not already covered by freedom of speech, conscience, thought, belief, expression and opinion? And freedom of religion does indeed compromise safety--for example, Sikhs don't have to wear hardhats and and their kids can bring their knives to school, regardless of school policy.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, what would you say that freedom of religion offers that is not already covered by freedom of speech, conscience, thought, belief, expression and opinion? And freedom of religion does indeed compromise safety--for example, Sikhs don't have to wear hardhats and and their kids can bring their knives to school, regardless of school policy.

If all those things are covered in the charter, then we don't need freedom of religion. But the burka would be allowed under freedom of expression, belief, thought, conscience and opinion. Better covered since it's not a strictly religious symbol.

I don't agree with the exemptions for turbans either, nor kirpans. I wonder what they do in the army - can Sikhs go without helmets there too?

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Then I'd take that "freedom of religion" line in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cross it out

While you're at it, adopt a new flag, too.

[andyt]

Nah, us Canadian workers like our chains too much.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, what would you say that freedom of religion offers that is not already covered by freedom of speech, conscience, thought, belief, expression and opinion?

Because there is no offical formal policy separating church from state in Canada. Freedom of religion within the Charter actually prevents a gov't from creating a "state" religion.

And considering the number of people across the country that have commented on Harper's right wing religious leanings, maybe that's a good thing to have.

Do we really want a gov't with the ability to create laws based on religious doctrine?

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Do we really want a gov't with the ability to create laws based on religious doctrine?

We already do. Give Harper a majority and see what happens to abortion laws.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Do we really want a gov't with the ability to create laws based on religious doctrine?

Several of the posters on this site have long agitated for a government that totally outlaws religious belief. Ending freedom of religion in the Charter would open the door to outlawing religion, seizing church properties, and eventually 're-educating' people of faith...except for Muslims, of course.

[andyt]

I just want to tax church properties and seize them if they don't pay up. Including Muslims, of course.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Do we really want a gov't with the ability to create laws based on religious doctrine?

We already do. Give Harper a majority and see what happens to abortion laws.

He can try, but I have a feeling that if Constitutionally challanged within the courts, the laws won't hold up.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I just want to tax church properties and seize them if they don't pay up. Including Muslims, of course.

So that notion of separation of church and state would cease once you did that. Once you involve the state in the church then you can absolutely count on the church being involved in the state whether you or yours like it or not.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

I just want to tax church properties and seize them if they don't pay up. Including Muslims, of course.

So that notion of separation of church and state would cease once you did that. Once you involve the state in the church then you can absolutely count on the church being involved in the state whether you or yours like it or not.

I don't see how. Do non-profits not pay property taxes?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

I just want to tax church properties and seize them if they don't pay up. Including Muslims, of course.

You need to be very careful about taxing church properties. Yes, there are churches out there with quite a bit of cash, but I can honestly say that most of the churches I went to would have ceased to exist if they had to pay property taxes.
This would ensure that only the richest churches would be around to exert their influence. And one thing I discovered in my church hopping, the more money a church has, the less they teach about love and respect.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I don't see how. Do non-profits not pay property taxes?

Some don't.

In any case, seizing churches or mosques would be, in the least, bad press.

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

I just want to tax church properties and seize them if they don't pay up. Including Muslims, of course.

You need to be very careful about taxing church properties. Yes, there are churches out there with quite a bit of cash, but I can honestly say that most of the churches I went to would have ceased to exist if they had to pay property taxes.
This would ensure that only the richest churches would be around to exert their influence. And one thing I discovered in my church hopping, the more money a church has, the less they teach about love and respect.

Yeah, you probably have a point. I just think of some of those televangelists and all the cash they have rolling in - seems a bit unseemly to me.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

I just want to tax church properties and seize them if they don't pay up. Including Muslims, of course.

You need to be very careful about taxing church properties. Yes, there are churches out there with quite a bit of cash, but I can honestly say that most of the churches I went to would have ceased to exist if they had to pay property taxes.
This would ensure that only the richest churches would be around to exert their influence. And one thing I discovered in my church hopping, the more money a church has, the less they teach about love and respect.

Yeah, you probably have a point. I just think of some of those televangelists and all the cash they have rolling in - seems a bit unseemly to me.

Oh hey, I won't argue with you on that point. I think it could work by taxing the assets over and above the church and property. They could also have minimums so that churches and properties of a certain size and smaller wouldn't be subject to property taxes.

Heck, one "church" I went to was held in a small part of the auditorium the local school donated for its use on Sundays Best church I ever attended.