[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

Well that, and if they didn't teach that you have to be Christian to go to heaven and they might be OK. The Catholics, I understand, have actually evolved to this pov.

They have, but you still have to be Catholic to get there though

[andyt]

Nope. That's the point - they're not saying you have to be Catholic or even Christians, that there are many paths to heaven. It's a view I respect because it avoids conflict with other religions. The Dalai Lama said there are many paths up the mountain. Of course he he said Buddhism is the best path, otherwise why bother being a Buddhist. But if you want to walk a different road, go for it. That's the only view of God that makes sense to me.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

Nope. That's the point - they're not saying you have to be Catholic or even Christians, that there are many paths to heaven. It's a view I respect because it avoids conflict with other religions. The Dalai Lama said there are many paths up the mountain. Of course he he said Buddhism is the best path, otherwise why bother being a Buddhist. But if you want to walk a different road, go for it. That's the only view of God that makes sense to me.

To be honest, there is a part of me that believes that as well. I think it comes down to spirituality more than which brand of dogma you prefer.
But I still think that a belief in or at least acknowledgment of something "greater" than what we can physically see is kind of a general requirement.

Edit* My previous post was more tongue in cheek than anything. I just like ripping on the RCC from time to time

[andyt]

I think you can be an atheist and go to heaven. I follow more the Buddhist idea of reincarnation anyway, but what do I know. Either way, I think there is a moral order to the universe, and if we align ourselves with it we do better than oppose it. Nobody goes to hell for eternity, but I'm sure some people experience hell on earth, and some afterwards. I'm pretty sure we don't just expire when our body does, but again, what do I know. All we can really do is follow our heart.

Robert Persig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintencance) in Lila said "good is a noun." I think that's pretty good, and as far as we can know it.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

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?

We do have a s state religion. God is in our national anthem and his supremacy is affirmed in the preamble to our Constitution--i.e. the very first line. It is explicitly stated in the Charter, that those rights are "based on relgious doctrine."

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I follow more the Buddhist idea of reincarnation

In that case, you're screwed.

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

I follow more the Buddhist idea of reincarnation

In that case, you're screwed.

Yep, I figure. I'm not a very good Buddhist. Probably get reborn in the hungry ghost realm.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

Yep, I figure. I'm not a very good Buddhist. Probably get reborn in the hungry ghost realm.

I'm not sure why, but I somehow picture you coming back as a pug.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

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?

We do have a s state religion. God is in our national anthem and his supremacy is affirmed in the preamble to our Constitution--i.e. the very first line. It is explicitly stated in the Charter, that those rights are "based on relgious doctrine."

Although the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does refer to God (“Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”), legal experts and the Supreme Court of Canada have agreed that this reference is merely symbolic.

Source. Library of Parliament.

From the same source: The approach to freedom of religion in Canada is informed, to a certain extent, by the fact that no policy exists in this country to officially separate church and state.

[Bodah]

I know as western societies we pride ourselves when it comes to acceptance of other cultures practices. But we do have limits, most people in this country don't like them and what they represent; a big FU to the rest of us. What's so wrong with stating we're not fond of that ? We've pretty much accepted everything else without any problems. It's ok to say once and awhile ahhmmm you know what ? This isn't going to work here and make it a law.

This is hardly a backwards attitude as there are a handfull of muslim countries who have banned them in certain situations as well. What are we trying to prove that we're so tolerant to the point of stupidity to not even realize that even some countries where the full veil originates from that even they think they're not acceptable either ?

If people want to take the freedom of expression route on this then I'd reserve the right to not serve someone wearing one. Some burka clad person buzzing at my store at three in the morning to come in and buy something, sorry you ain't getting in until you take the tarp off.

Even if it was a relgious practice which it isn't, I'd still say ban them.

Bravo to France. Hope you can make it through the shit-storm for the next few weeks.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Although the Preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does refer to God (“Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”), legal experts and the Supreme Court of Canada have agreed that this reference is merely symbolic.

Well I would argue that the people who stuck their god in the preamble believe in an actual, real Judeo-Christian god. Same with the folks that put it in the anthem.

I'm not surprised that it would be defended as "merely symbolic" but I fail to see how that detracts from the argument. By saying something is "merely symbolic" seem to be trying to downplay its importance. But symbols--especially the symbols of religion--are incredibly potent. So while the refernece may be "symbolic" it is not "merely symbolic." And, symbolic or not, the statement explicitly legitimizes the capital-"G" God above all others.

To my mind, it is irrational to say that humans are endowed with rights and freedoms by a supernatural being, but in the eyes of the law, I'd be wrong. (But then, I'm a scientist and lay claim to rationality; the law makes no such claim.) There is a practical reason for this, I suppose: since the Charter is meant primmarily to protect people from the state, it can't use the state itself as the source of rights and freedoms.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

Understandably, you guys dont get the reasons behind this law, and that's fine.

The French people support this, and it's a good idea.

Ah contraire, I do get it. I, however, disagree with it.

[Gunnair]

BionicBunny BionicBunny:

How do we know it is their right when in some cases these women have been given no rights at all?

Think that applies to any Christian groups?

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

I'm not use to saying good thigs about the French, but this is a good move. The women there can join the 21st century.

Not a fan of freedom of expression or religion, eh?

The French also have laws against wearing swastikas in public. Oppressive lot, the French.

Wow, an American all of a sudden offering the French praise.

That was a pig I saw flying...

[Gunnair]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Gunnair Gunnair:

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

I'm not use to saying good thigs about the French, but this is a good move. The women there can join the 21st century.

Not a fan of freedom of expression or religion, eh?

Proculation Proculation:

The full-face veil is NOT freedom of religion. It's written nowhere in Islam that women should wear that. France' motto is Freedom, Equality, Fraternity. Wearing the full-face is NOT freedom, it's oppression. It's not equality, it's disparity of genre. It's not fraternity, it's isolation.

Exactly, Proc. Scarves and Burkas etc. are tribal customs, not religious ones.

But then again, I'm not in France and I don't wear them, so I don't care.

Missed the freedom of expression part.

I would wonder how many coveted Christian practises that are not in the Bible that if banned, would result in hissy fits.

Nativity scenes come to mind.