Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's not a free-for-all either. What a religious person decides is okay within their conscience is basically what decides in your example of Jews and Muslims. On the other hand, a Muslim should not work in a bar and then say the bar cannot serve alcohol.
I will give examples from my own culture and my own family. Sometimes people DO decide that their job is more important than their religion, at least 'more important' in terms of how other, more strictly by-the-book religious people would determine it.
First, in terms of serving the state - Russian Mennonites moved to Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great, who needed farmers in the steppes, and also, coincidentally, needed to displace the nomadic tribes. Mennonites moved there under the exact same "privilegium" or privileges, that they later made the move to Canada. One was that Mennonites would not serve in military positions and have their own schools in their own language. They formed, essentially, a state within a state.
Move on a Tsar or two further, and the rules changed and there was a 'Russification' programme implemented, and children had to be taught Russian. Exemption from military service was also out, although it was modified that Mennonites could serve in 'alternative' services, such the medical corps.
Some Mennonites at that point, 1874 looked to Canada and the US and that was when there was an exodus from Russia. Mennonites accounted for approx. 6% of Russian production and that was when the Russian government, afraid of losing their best farmers, offered the 'alternative' service. But for those Mennonites for whom that was too much, they moved to Canada. Others who didn't find alternative service that bad, stayed, only to move later, when war and everything else gave them no choice.
Some of the interpretations of law, as I'm sure you know, are based on common sense, not on 'what if I want to run around naked in a convent' scenarios.
The strict Catholic doctor who prescribes contraception may be acting within his own conscience in accordance with his beliefs - that HE does not use contraception within his own life, but it is not for him to force his conscience on anyone else.
If he does feel that he is impelled by his own conscience not to allow anyone to use contraception, then he needs to choose a different form of medicine to practise.
And some people, as has been noted when Christians are taken to task for being hypocrites, will always choose their jobs over their faith. That's not new, anymore than it is news that some people who hold socialist beliefs, as an example, live in a manner in their every day lives that to outsiders, appears to be at odds with their beliefs.
Very interesting stories.
I am not sure what messaging or even commitments Canada is making to contemporary immigrants but in some spheres at least the situation here seems to have been interpreted as the freedom to live exactly as you did in the old country, but with the material benefits of an advanced western society. The best of both worlds I guess.
I am not sure what messaging or even commitments Canada is making to contemporary immigrants but in some spheres at least the situation here seems to have been interpreted as the freedom to live exactly as you did in the old country, but with the material benefits of an advanced western society. The best of both worlds I guess.
That's not only what the Mennonites were promised but the Doukhobors as well.
And honestly, that argument about "what is nudism is a religion, should we allow everyone to run around naked in the 7-11" is so poor, I'm always surprised when its brought up. You can apply that same argument to the whole notion of a democracy, to everything from speed limits to gun rights, as though there is nothing at all that most reasonable people can't discern as reasonable under different circumstances.
Sounds a lot to me like people who don't want to be served in the public sector by people of a skin colour other than white.
No, it is not able skin colour trust me. I am not even white.
When I was in the US, when you go to public services such as the DMV in LA, 90% employees are black and I had zero problem with that. What I don't like is the explicit display of one's religion, let it be a cross or nijab. I don't want public servants to use any God-related language as well. Government should be neutral. You religion is your personal business, don't bring it to the work place.
No, it is not able skin colour trust me. I am not even white.
When I was in the US, when you go to public services such as the DMV in LA, 90% employees are black and I had zero problem with that. What I don't like is the explicit display of one's religion, let it be a cross or nijab. I don't want public servants to use any God-related language as well. Government should be neutral. You religion is your personal business, don't bring it to the work place.
I have never been talked to about God or by anyone using religious language in any business, public or private. Have you? Why would you assume that someone wearing a religious symbol would talk to you about their faith?
But some jobs requre a uniform. And some religions also require a "uniform". Which of the two wins out?
Depends on the job and the uniform. If your are talking safety gear as part of your kit there are already laws that force you to wear that. Concessions have been made in the case of the RCMP and headgear. It was a reasonable change, and other organizations and business can do the same.
The story is journalism for the sake of journalism to some degree. Canada has no structural corruption issues, and will have a competitive economy for years to come ( several other developed economies have leveraged their "natural" wealth; I'm pretty sure France, Spain, and Italy would love to have Canada's natural wealth). However, the housing market in some parts of Canada does seem out of whack.
That's easier said than done. A poster here wrote that religion is not like a piece of garment that you can just take off. That's mostly true.
If your religion tells you that abortion is wrong and against the will of god - how would you separate this religious belief from your profession if you were a doctor or nurse performing a difficult pregnancy? And even when you tell me that you don't let your religion affect your work ... should I easily believe you?
True professionals do it all the time. Take religious scientists. You would have to be an idiot to become an abortion doctor if you are against abortion. Even those who are adamantly against abortion, are not against it when the mother's life is in danger.
There is also a huge assumption being made here. Just because someone is wearing a religious symbol in no way indicates how deep their faith is. Is that Jesus tattoo an indication? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Even muslims in headscarves has a huge curve on what they practice.
Should I assume that a man with shellacked hair, a cheesy grin and bad suit, is an evangelical hardcore right wing fire and brimstone kind of guy or beer guzzling used car salesman.
Appearance can be deceptive and I know myself, the topic of a person religion does't come up when I'm receiving services.
Nudism need not be a religion, but nudism could be part of a religion. I could create one in a few minutes and make it sound less crazy than most religions. There are religions that ask women to cover-up from head to toe. It would only be logical to create one that promotes nudism.
Yes…but I believe, someone correct me if I"m wrong, there are parameters as to what the state will recognize as a religion…and your newly founded one probably is too new to count.
True professionals do it all the time. Take religious scientists. You would have to be an idiot to become an abortion doctor if you are against abortion. Even those who are adamantly against abortion, are not against it when the mother's life is in danger.
There is also a huge assumption being made here. Just because someone is wearing a religious symbol in no way indicates how deep their faith is. Is that Jesus tattoo an indication? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Even muslims in headscarves has a huge curve on what they practice.
Should I assume that a man with shellacked hair, a cheesy grin and bad suit, is an evangelical hardcore right wing fire and brimstone kind of guy or beer guzzling used car salesman.
Appearance can be deceptive and I know myself, the topic of a person religion does't come up when I'm receiving services.
Exactly. I am a bikini-wearing (in the appropriate setting of course), and in the privacy of my home which is far away from neighbours, skinny-dipping lady with hair that has changed colour from red to blonde, and everything in between. How are you going to tell from my outward appearance what my religious beliefs are when I am dressed in the norms of western society?
I don't wear a cross either or any other religious symbol. Cher does, as does Madonna at times. Who is more religious - them or me? I don't want to assume they are not religious due to the way they dress and of course, my way of dressing isn't as far-out as the way they dress.
But somehow I'm acceptable to work in a public sector but a someone with a religious symbol and different dress is not?
There is no fish on my car or crosses in my house.
I also consider my faith private and I really don't care what anyone thinks of it. It's not something that normally comes up. I don't consider it my mission in life to convince others what they should or should not believe.
There are religious people of course, who do feel that and who may do that, but I have never, ever come across that in a professional setting.
I have never heard of a woman in a burqa who wanted to be a police officer. I don't think most people are such idiots. There are idiots in every level of society, religious or not, who will look for a cause but until someone actually invents a religion in which they claim they are required to work nude at the 7-11, I don't see any reason to worry about it.
There are a lot of issues that the laws have not foreseen, such as the internet, where laws are still evolving along with society. What future bridges might have to be crossed can only be crossed at that time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
