Log in

View Full Version : Veils and Other Religious Symbols


Tsar Phalanxia
November 27th, 2008, 11:03 AM
In Western Europe there has been much controversy over whether the Hijab/Burqa should be allowed, especially in schools. The most commoen arguments are "You don't know what they're thinking" and "They might have a bomb" which is clearly ridiculous, and driven mainly be fear and racism. Persoannly, I believe thaty in public, you should wear what you like, but in public institutions, e.g. schools, hospitals, all religious symbols should be banned.

Perna de Pau
November 27th, 2008, 11:13 AM
The most commoen arguments are "You don't know what they're thinking" and "They might have a bomb"

I live in Western Europe and never heard such arguments.

Among those which I heard the most:

- it is a symbol of women's submission to men and therefore incompatible with non-discrimination;

- religion should stay in the private sphere;

Tsar Phalanxia
November 27th, 2008, 11:20 AM
We had a debate about it in General mStudies yesterday and about 3/4 s of people said that.
There's a difference in the argument between should it be worn in schools/hospitals and whether it should be worn at all. Which one are you arguing?

Perna de Pau
November 27th, 2008, 12:16 PM
There's a difference in the argument between should it be worn in schools/hospitals and whether it should be worn at all. Which one are you arguing?

The first argument applies to wearing it at all, the second only to wearing it in public places

Tsar Phalanxia
November 27th, 2008, 01:19 PM
Well what about Crosses on necklaces, or Kippahs, should they be treated the same as Hijabs?

bouchie
November 27th, 2008, 03:16 PM
Well what about Crosses on necklaces, or Kippahs, should they be treated the same as Hijabs? That's actually a tough question, because some people wear crosses and kippahs out of tradition. Yes, it's a symbol of religion, but even if you don't practice the religion, if that's what you grew up with, you may end up wearing it. I've worn crosses every once in a while, because, hey, they actually look nice and it's a great accessory. But I don't pray (anymore) and I don't look to Jesus for answers.

For some reason, the best way I can express my view on this is to look to black rappers. They wear 'chains' and call each the n word. That's all a symbol of their unfortunate past. And yet they wear their chains and yell out the n word whenever they can. And we (for the most part) accept it, despite the symbolism.

Does that make sense?

Basically, let them wear the hijabs - it's traditional, but doesn't have to be religious.

Unless you're taking a photo id - then lose it.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 27th, 2008, 03:20 PM
I'd agree with that. But I'd also say that Hijabs, Crosses, Kippahs shouldn't be allowed in a school/hospital, as that conflicts with the idea of the secular state. Said teacher/doctor is doing the work of the state and therefore should be a representative of it.

Fallen Hero
November 28th, 2008, 06:58 AM
That's actually a tough question, because some people wear crosses and kippahs out of tradition. Yes, it's a symbol of religion, but even if you don't practice the religion, if that's what you grew up with, you may end up wearing it. I've worn crosses every once in a while, because, hey, they actually look nice and it's a great accessory. But I don't pray (anymore) and I don't look to Jesus for answers.

For some reason, the best way I can express my view on this is to look to black rappers. They wear 'chains' and call each the n word. That's all a symbol of their unfortunate past. And yet they wear their chains and yell out the n word whenever they can. And we (for the most part) accept it, despite the symbolism.

Does that make sense?

Basically, let them wear the hijabs - it's traditional, but doesn't have to be religious.

Unless you're taking a photo id - then lose it.
Umm only to some extent, because it defeats the purpose of the id if the picture is too distinct from the person, so visible face but hair can remain covered IMO. Also it's shameful to some to have their hair seen in public (this is also with turbans).

Perna de Pau
November 28th, 2008, 09:02 AM
Hijabs, Crosses, Kippahs shouldn't be allowed in a school/hospital, as that conflicts with the idea of the secular state.

But what about private schools and hospitals? Some are religious and it does not make much sense not to allow staff to show their religious allegiance.

On the other hand, if religious symbols are allowed in a hospital, it should not be acceptable that a patient refuses a doctor/nurse on the basis of his/her religion as that amounts to discrimination.

In general states should not interfere, for ideological reasons, with what their citizens wear.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 28th, 2008, 09:07 AM
In Private Schools, I don't care. I'd prefer for all schools to be secular, but if they're private there's nothing I can do. In state schools though, the teacher is the representative of the state and should thus act in the manner the state deems acceptable (Even though the UK'S de jure religion is CoE, but we just ignore that)
In general states should not interfere, for ideological reasons, with what their citizens wear.
Exactly. How can we tell Iran/Saudi Arabia that forcing women to wear certain clothes is wrong, when we do exactly the same?

sam the moderately wize
November 28th, 2008, 09:31 AM
I'm in a religious state school.

I would say that most of the time religious wear is OK. After all, it lets us see exactly who they are and who their alligiance is to. There are a few examples of religious wear getting out of hand (ie burkhas in primary schools), but these have genarally been dealt with already.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 28th, 2008, 09:36 AM
Islamic law states that you only wear them after puberty. There's no reason why they should be in primary schools.

sam the moderately wize
November 28th, 2008, 09:39 AM
I meant on teachers...

tagnostic
November 28th, 2008, 03:51 PM
i don't care
what you wear
presuming
you don't kill
for the right
to wear it

rmw
November 29th, 2008, 12:44 AM
I'd agree with that. But I'd also say that Hijabs, Crosses, Kippahs shouldn't be allowed in a school/hospital, as that conflicts with the idea of the secular state. Said teacher/doctor is doing the work of the state and therefore should be a representative of it.

Okay, I understand your reasoning, but I'm curious what your thoughts are for students attending state-run schools. I believe in France, they tried to ban the hijabs in schools and were met with a backlash.

For my part, I believe hijabs, crosses, yamulkes, etc. are an example of expression (in this case, religious), and generally speaking, western societies believe in the freedom of expression in some way, shape, or form. Personally, I would rather see the crosses than have a law stating I could not express myself. Besides, if I wanted to, I could express my own beliefs and wear something with the FSM on it.

Sister Faith
November 29th, 2008, 08:37 AM
Personally, I would rather see the crosses than have a law stating I could not express myself.

I am in total agreement with you here, but where do we draw the line?

We had this debate in Canada over the wearing of kirpans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan) to school by Sikh students. The Supreme Court ruled (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060302.wkirpan0302/BNStory/National/) that they could for religious reasons. At the time I thought that was a rather tolerant & reasonable ruling but now I'm not so sure (http://www.cjad.com/news/565/789243) it was a good idea.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080116/KIRPAN_calgary_080116/20080116?hub=Canada

I believe they should be banned. And if we are going to ban one religious symbol from public places and institutions, then to be fair we have to ban them all. If that means women can't veil themselves while out in public in our country, then so be it.

rmw
November 29th, 2008, 04:16 PM
I am in total agreement with you here, but where do we draw the line?

We had this debate in Canada over the wearing of kirpans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan) to school by Sikh students. The Supreme Court ruled (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060302.wkirpan0302/BNStory/National/) that they could for religious reasons. At the time I thought that was a rather tolerant & reasonable ruling but now I'm not so sure (http://www.cjad.com/news/565/789243) it was a good idea.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080116/KIRPAN_calgary_080116/20080116?hub=Canada

I believe they should be banned. And if we are going to ban one religious symbol from public places and institutions, then to be fair we have to ban them all. If that means women can't veil themselves while out in public in our country, then so be it.


I see your point, Sis. I had no idea such a thing existed. And, a dagger is a dagger, whether worn for religious purposes or otherwise. I guess my question would be, if you ban the kirpan, crosses, yamulkes, hijabs, etc., does the "slippery slope" arguement come into play? For example, if Janey can't wear her cross to school, then Johnny can't wear his gay-pride t-shirt. I don't know if that would actually happen, and I'm not a fan of the "slippery slope" arguement. One ruling does not necessarily lead to the end of civilization. But, you can bet a good lawyer would use it.

tagnostic
November 29th, 2008, 04:22 PM
school is school
it's for education
if you want one
play by their rules
or, stay home and
play at religion it's
your call, not my
problem
(as a taxpayer i'm
paying so there my
rules to, if ya don't
like em, don't make
me pay for your childs
education)

Sister Faith
November 29th, 2008, 06:56 PM
I see your point, Sis. I had no idea such a thing existed. And, a dagger is a dagger, whether worn for religious purposes or otherwise. I guess my question would be, if you ban the kirpan, crosses, yamulkes, hijabs, etc., does the "slippery slope" arguement come into play?

The slippery slope can go either way. I say that if it's a screwed-if-you-do, screwed-if-you-don't situation, then better to err on the side of caution and the greater public good.

For example, if Janey can't wear her cross to school, then Johnny can't wear his gay-pride t-shirt. I don't know if that would actually happen, and I'm not a fan of the "slippery slope" arguement. One ruling does not necessarily lead to the end of civilization. But, you can bet a good lawyer would use it.I think that would be a safe bet too. :icon_lol: But it could also be argued that gay pride is not a religion.

school is school
it's for education (as a taxpayer i'm paying so there my
rules to, if ya don't like em, don't make
me pay for your childs education)

Right on Bro! Unfortunately that has not been the reality in my country.
And now our conservative gov't wants to take it further (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/09/30/ont-candidates.html). :icon_evil:

Argument for,

Faith based groups defend religious school funding
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_14169.aspx

"We want to build a system similar to the one that the Catholic schools have and enjoy the privileges, because there we have seen an institution that has proven time and time again our values. We want to teach our children our values, our principles and we believe we can do this through the religious schools."

And against,
http://www.ccla.org/schoolfunding/brief-religious-schools.pdf

- In the event of such public funding, there may well be no legitimate or effective way to control any hateful or discriminatory messages espoused by particular religious schools. Although our democracy may defend the right of any group to hold and attempt to spread such views, it is repugnant for the public purse to subsidize the exercise.

Tsar Phalanxia
November 29th, 2008, 07:03 PM
I like this thread. We haven't had a discussion like this for ages.

tagnostic
November 29th, 2008, 08:47 PM
faith based education
is a contradiction,

i don't have a problem
with religous schools
as long as the religous
pay for them

Tsar Phalanxia
November 29th, 2008, 09:12 PM
Problem is, if they're private, then the government loses authority over them, and any bullshit can be taught, like homeschooling, except institutionilised. It's the lesser of two evils for the government to pay for them. :\

tagnostic
November 29th, 2008, 09:15 PM
if you make a child
the education is your
responsibility
not the gov'ts
not god's
not your neighbors.

jmho

Sister Faith
November 29th, 2008, 11:52 PM
Problem is, if they're private, then the government loses authority over them, and any bullshit can be taught, like homeschooling, except institutionilised. It's the lesser of two evils for the government to pay for them. :\

I might not have a problem with that if education standards set by the government were met. What's going to happen, for instance, if intelligent design is not in the curriculum? Would the religious schools cry foul if funding were pulled because they refused to teach evolution? You bet they would! And what would our gov't do in response to that? Back down in the interest of 'religious tolerance' of course! :icon_evil:

Sister Faith
November 30th, 2008, 12:04 AM
faith based education
is a contradiction,

:icon_lol::icon_lol::icon_lol:



Faith based groups defend religious school funding
http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_14169.aspx
"We want to build a system similar to the one that the Catholic schools have and enjoy the privileges, because there we have seen an institution that has proven time and time again our values. We want to teach our children our values, our principles and we believe we can do this through the religious schools."

if you make a child
the education is your
responsibility

Too F N right! :icon_cool:

not the gov'ts
not god's
not your neighbors.
jmhoNor the school's. :icon_evil:

rmw
November 30th, 2008, 12:20 AM
Nor the school's. :icon_evil:

Sorry, you lost me. What kind of "education" do you mean should not be the schools' responsibility?

Sister Faith
November 30th, 2008, 12:32 AM
Sorry, you lost me. What kind of "education" do you mean should not be the schools' responsibility?

"We want to teach our children our values, our principles and we believe we can do this through the religious schools"

Family values, personal principles, religion, all are the parents responsibility and should be taught at home (or the church of your choice) not the schools.

rmw
November 30th, 2008, 12:49 AM
"We want to teach our children our values, our principles and we believe we can do this through the religious schools"

Family values, personal principles, religion, all are the parents responsibility and should be taught at home (or the church of your choice) not the schools.

Ah, gotcha. I was just confused there for a moment.

bouchie
December 1st, 2008, 07:46 PM
I think that would be a safe bet too. :icon_lol: But it could also be argued that gay pride is not a religion. True, but a good lawyer would use the slippery-slope argument, as mentioned before.

Basically, the lawyer would say: if the government is willing to restrict freedom of religious expression, what's to stop the government from restricting freedom of sexual expression?

Religious expression is still expression and putting any restriction on that would scare some people. Especially if put in such a way to directly that makes it appear that it would directly affect them.

As for the kirpan thing - it indicates that the person is a saint first and soldier second. It's meant to indicate active defense - basically, sikhs are meant to be a type of vigilante. I wonder if that argument would work: a kirpan is a symbol of vigilantism, not religion.


On religion in school - out on the street.

And while we're at it, can we get rid of charity groups that teach kids dying of starvation, dehydration, malaria and AIDS the gospel? Let's set up an Atheist Charity instead.

PS: I just checked - Christian Children's Fund is somewhat okay - it's Christian in name and principle, but supposedly doesn't teach the Gospel to the kids, something the other christian charities are not happy about.

Sister Faith
December 4th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Religious expression is still expression and putting any restriction on that would scare some people.

It would scare me too as it would mean the loss of my rights to free expression. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. How long would it be before religiots started sporting ak-47's as religious symbols because Moses (C. Heston) claimed it was their "God given right" to own one?

As for the kirpan thing - it indicates that the person is a saint first and soldier second. It's meant to indicate active defense - basically, sikhs are meant to be a type of vigilante. I wonder if that argument would work: a kirpan is a symbol of vigilantism, not religion.I'm wondering if the Supreme Court knew all this before they made their decision. :icon_confused:
If the Kirpan is only supposed to be a religious symbol, then why can't a cardboard cut-out of one be an acceptable stand-in for the real thing?

Let's set up an Atheist Charity instead.What a great idea. I'm sure there are alot of charities that have no religious ties but none that I can think of that openly states it's atheist stance. Maybe one could be started by the CoG :icon_question::icon_question:

tagnostic
December 4th, 2008, 10:22 AM
an athiest charity
repairing
acts of god?

bouchie
December 4th, 2008, 03:15 PM
It would scare me too as it would mean the loss of my rights to free expression. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. How long would it be before religiots started sporting ak-47's as religious symbols because Moses (C. Heston) claimed it was their "God given right" to own one? It certainly is religulous. An argument that I'm surprised hasn't been used is, "If your religion is meant to be peaceful, why do you carry an item that is meant to inflict harm upon another person, potentially someone from your own religion?" The contradictory nature of a violent weapon being displayed on a man of peace confuses me. This concept of aggressive peace boggles my mind.

Oh wait - if I'm not mistaken the American military has used that term as well. It's a euphemism for war people!

I'm wondering if the Supreme Court knew all this before they made their decision. :icon_confused: Probably not - I wasn't there to inform them. ;)
If the Kirpan is only supposed to be a religious symbol, then why can't a cardboard cut-out of one be an acceptable stand-in for the real thing? Let's make this explicit - religion is a tool used by people in power to control the world by making them think all the same thing. The kirpan (and I'm not sorry if this offends anyone) is a symbol of that willingness to dominate others. Plain and simple.

What a great idea. I'm sure there are alot of charities that have no religious ties but none that I can think of that openly states it's atheist stance. Maybe one could be started by the CoG :icon_question::icon_question: There are several atheist 'foundations' out there, many of which can be found through Richard Dawkins site. However, from what I saw, most of them are promotional tools for atheism and science. Now, don't get me wrong, that's a wonderful idea in itself. But I think it's time that atheists start stepping out of their comfort zone. Atheists have been, I find, very reactive. That's helped, but I think we should start being more proactive. Bring science to the masses, without any reservations (unlike a good catholic teacher instructing students on evolution).

an athiest charity
repairing
acts of god? So - essentially rebuild the world. To Congress - we need a bail-in!

Tsar Phalanxia
December 4th, 2008, 04:49 PM
I think that the Kirpan should be allowed to be worn in public, as long as it is sheathed. As soon as it's out of the scabbath though, bam, you've commited a crime. As Sikh terroism is now for all intents and purposes dead, I think that nearly all Sikhs can now be trusted with the kirpan (Except those with mental health problems obviously). The Sikh community is smart enough to know that if it abuses it's privilige of being able to carry the kirpan, it will get it taken away from them.

tagnostic
December 4th, 2008, 05:23 PM
Oh wait - if I'm not mistaken the American military has used that term as well. It's a euphemism for war people!

you left out the
u.n. peacekeepers



The kirpan (and I'm not sorry if this offends anyone) is a symbol of that willingness to dominate others. Plain and simple.

dominatrix religon?
cool,
Wendy O. Williams does jesus.



So - essentially rebuild the world. To Congress - we need a bail-in!

do we have to drive eco vehicles there?

rzm61
December 4th, 2008, 05:33 PM
if you make a child
the education is your
responsibility
not the gov'ts
not god's
not your neighbors.

jmho

Well what's that one quote.

It take a man and a woman to make a child, but a whole village to raise it? Or something along those lines.

I agree with you, but I also agree with that quote too.

tagnostic
December 4th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Well what's that one quote.

It take a man and a woman to make a child, but a whole village to raise it? Or something along those lines.

I agree with you, but I also agree with that quote too.

it takes parents
to raise
&
educate
the 'village' is for
a safe environment
(subject to the parents approval)

again imho

rzm61
December 4th, 2008, 06:47 PM
it takes parents
to raise
&
educate
the 'village' is for
a safe environment
(subject to the parents approval)

again imho

Well it would be more like learning social norms an all.

At least that's how I take it. Parents to raise and educate the kid. But the community helps mold the child into...hopefully a decent person.

Most kids I've seen these days are rubbish. Absolutely no respect and just sad to know that they are our future. :icon_rolleyes:

tagnostic
December 4th, 2008, 06:51 PM
would agree with
'most of'
however there are a few stars out there
that i'm counting on for the future
several of whom are regulars
on this site.
;)

rzm61
December 4th, 2008, 06:56 PM
would agree with
'most of'
however there are a few stars out there
that i'm counting on for the future
several of whom are regulars
on this site.
;)

Oh, well yeah. I was mainly talking about the kids from my neighborhood. It's depressing really.

But yeah, we have a few stars here at the CoG. Thank Google for them. Seriously, they help give hope.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 4th, 2008, 10:42 PM
would agree with
'most of'
however there are a few stars out there
that i'm counting on for the future
several of whom are regulars
on this site.
;)


But yeah, we have a few stars here at the CoG. Thank Google for them. Seriously, they help give hope.

Aww, shucks. :icon_redface:

Oh, well yeah. I was mainly talking about the kids from my neighborhood. It's depressing really.


I know what you mean. I know kids who run into walls for entertainment.

sam the moderately wize
December 5th, 2008, 01:48 PM
Let's make this explicit - religion is a tool used by people in power to control the world by making them think all the same thing. The kirpan (and I'm not sorry if this offends anyone) is a symbol of that willingness to dominate others. Plain and simple.

Actually, it's a symbol of their readiness to fight against domination and protect the rights of the weak and innocent.

Can you cite an incident where a kirpan was used in anger?

I wouldn't want to risk losing freedom of expression by banning one dangerous-looking item, especially when so many young people carry normal knives.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 5th, 2008, 02:12 PM
Au Wikipedia:
"The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind."

To me it seems that only special knives are considered kirpans, and that were it to be used in anger, it would cease to be a kirpan.

bouchie
December 5th, 2008, 04:18 PM
Actually, it's a symbol of their readiness to fight against domination and protect the rights of the weak and innocent.

Can you cite an incident where a kirpan was used in anger?

I wouldn't want to risk losing freedom of expression by banning one dangerous-looking item, especially when so many young people carry normal knives.

Supposedly there was an incident where some kids harassing a sikh at a school in Quebec. However, the lawyer says the kirpan wasn't pulled out of its sheath at all.

Can I cite an incident? No.

However, can we all say a kirpan is a knife? Yes. Are knives considered a weapon? Yes. Do we allow weapons in a school? No. Why the fuck is kirpan allowed in a school? Because it's a religious symbol? Please - there's freedom of expression and then there's common sense. You're giving a teenager in high school, who will, potentially, be bullied or bully, a knife. Is that a really a good idea.

I don't see this as trading freedom for security. In banning kirpans, you set everyone on an equal playing field; you are not giving an unjustified privilege to a minority religious group.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 5th, 2008, 04:56 PM
Supposedly there was an incident where some kids harassing a sikh at a school in Quebec. However, the lawyer says the kirpan wasn't pulled out of its sheath at all.

Are the bullies Sikhs, are is it the other way round?

If the bullies are Sikhs, then they shouldn't be allowed a Kirpan, as the duty of a Sikh is to protect the weak and defenceless not prey on them

If the bullied was a Sikh, and the bullies attacked him, with intent to do him serious damage, then according to Sikh law, he was justified. According to English law, self defence is permitted up to a certain amount, so if this guy goes on a rampage, he should be locked up. Ofc, I'm not sure about Quebecois law (Why Quebec anyway?)


You're giving a teenager in high school, who will, potentially, be bullied or bully, a knife. Is that a really a good idea.
If he's a responsible teenager, then sure. If he's a dumbfuck, then no. I don't know if Sikhs have to be assessed before being allowed to carry them, but they probably should.


I don't see this as trading freedom for security. In banning kirpans, you set everyone on an equal playing field; you are not giving an unjustified privilege to a minority religious group.

It seems like that to us, but it's important to Sikhs.

Btw, interesting Canadian viewpoint on the subject:

http://www.sikhnet.com/daily-news/kirpan-incident-raises-questions-about-court-ruling

bouchie
December 5th, 2008, 07:02 PM
Are the bullies Sikhs, are is it the other way round? In this, the Sikh was being harassed. Btw, your link is referring to the same incident I was.

If the bullies are Sikhs, then they shouldn't be allowed a Kirpan, as the duty of a Sikh is to protect the weak and defenceless not prey on them

If the bullied was a Sikh, and the bullies attacked him, with intent to do him serious damage, then according to Sikh law, he was justified. According to English law, self defence is permitted up to a certain amount, so if this guy goes on a rampage, he should be locked up. Ofc, I'm not sure about Quebecois law (Why Quebec anyway?) I know self-defense. I don't need a weapon to fend off a bully. A potential murderer, yes, a weapon would be handy. But a high-school bully? C'mon. Pulling a knife on a bully is a little extreme and says something about your mental psyche. And it doesn't say anything good.

As for Quebec law, it would be essentially the same as English law. The reason for Quebec is explained in your link: the Supreme Court of Canada overturned a ban that was imposed by the Quebec court of Appeals. The kirpan debate takes an interesting turn in Quebec.


If he's a responsible teenager, then sure. If he's a dumbfuck, then no. I don't know if Sikhs have to be assessed before being allowed to carry them, but they probably should. I think they are - isn't it giving during a baptism ceremony? Regardless, like the article says:
If the kirpan is merely a symbol, a miniature version or a plastic version ought to do.

I'd be okay with that. I know I've said, basically, that I don't like religion and I don't agree with it. Some people don't share the same views as me. And those people like to wear something that expresses their faith. Freedom of expression - wonderful. I have no problem with that and I not only have to respect their right to express themselves, but want to. I think we should all want to respect their right to express themselves.

But a real dagger? I see that as imposing your (not you Phal) ideals on others.

tagnostic
December 5th, 2008, 07:11 PM
i think that as an expression of belief its fine,
but not in "Public" schools, if they are that
devout then they should open a private/charter
school where they are free to do that.
its the slippery slope argument, once you
allow one religion to carry a weapon, then
all the others have that right too.
of course down here there are so many armed
students you could make a case for self defense.

it's a tough call.

bouchie
December 5th, 2008, 07:16 PM
it's a tough call. It certainly is. But like the article says, if it's plastic and not sharp in anyway, then I don't see a difference between a kirpan and a cross. At which point, you can hurt someone more with a sharpened pencil.

Which would then turn into a debate of whether symbols of enlightenment should be allowed in schools :icon_eek:

Sister Faith
December 6th, 2008, 04:59 AM
Actually, it's a symbol of their readiness to fight against domination

Au Wikipedia:
"The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function.

Those two bolded words say it all for me. :icon_evil:

As for Quebec law, it would be essentially the same as English law.

I'd have to look into it, but I seem to recall that carrying a knife with a blade longer than 3" (?) was prohibited back in the 70's in Quebec (Canada?). We are also prohibited from owning tazers, pepper spray or guns, of course.

From Wikipedia:
Kirpans range in blade size from 3 inches (7.6 cm) to over 3 feet (90 cm), though Sikhs in the west wear kirpans of about 3.5 inch (9 cm) blade size. Originally Said by bouchie http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/forum/showthread.php?p=105102#post105102)
But a real dagger? I see that as imposing your (not you Phal) ideals on others.Exactly! Especially when a common sense compromise can be reached.

From Wiki again :D
Rules in some California schools require that the kirpan be blunted and riveted into a sheath. This prevents any possible use of the kirpan as a weapon, but still allows it as a physical symbol of faith.

Tsar Phalanxia
December 6th, 2008, 11:14 AM
I suppose it depends on the responsibility of the person in question. If they're unstable or in school, they should get a plastic/blunt/riveted version. It's a question of deciding when the kirpan should/could be worn.

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 05:18 PM
I think we should decide if we think that Freedom of Religion is important or not, and then the answer will be clear. If Freedom of Religion is important, then we have no right to tell people how to practise their religion. As soon as we say "you can do your religion however you want, but not this way" we are restricting Freedom of Religion and essentially dictating what and how people can practise. For many religions, if you do not uphold certain maxims, you are simply straight up not practising that religion, so if we say "you can't do that one thing anymore" or "you can do that but only at certain times" then we are really saying "Sorry, that religion won't work for us. Please practise this variation that we like better"

If we don't care about Freedom of Religion then it doesn't matter at all.

PS: if that wasn't clear, consider protestantism in christianity. Telling people that they should practise most of a religion but change some key parts is tantamount to saying "Sorry, you can't be catholic anymore. Please be Lutheran instead because we value your right to practise Christianity.

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 06:46 PM
fine, but you have to apply that to all religions,
oooh, and non-religous beliefs also
if it's going to be all inclusive
i'm an agnostic who
carries a knife
i believe
its
needed
for my own
security, why is
it illegal when its my
belief system? where do
you draw the line? the slippery slope
become's who/when are you going to draw
the inevitable line between 'right's' and the public
welfare? when does 'belief' become 'religous' and right?

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 07:01 PM
There are legal systems in place which appraise and recognize religions. I think that if a religion has been recognized, we can't then take it back and say "oh yes, we accept your religion just like before, we just want to change part.

Also:

People who really want to carry a knife will do it whether we say they can or not. Saying that getting caught with a ceremonial knife will get you arrested would just lead to more people with concealed weapons. I mean if the choices are give up your religion, give up your public existance, or hide your knife in a thigh holster when you go out, which do you think most people will choose? And in that case, the rare person who would use their ceremonial weapon to attack someone can do it without the offending person ever knowing they were armed.

The law should reflect human nature if it is going to work toward public safety.

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 07:22 PM
There are legal systems in place which appraise and recognize religions. I think that if a religion has been recognized, we can't then take it back and say "oh yes, we accept your religion just like before, we just want to change part.

so it's up to the 'government'/legal system to recognize a religon?
i find that disturbing.


Also:

People who really want to carry a knife will do it whether we say they can or not. Saying that getting caught with a ceremonial knife will get you arrested would just lead to more people with concealed weapons.

if you can justify it in schools/public places for religous purposes why can't you justify it for secular/personal safety?


I mean if the choices are give up your religion, give up your public existance, or hide your knife in a thigh holster when you go out, which do you think most people will choose? And in that case, the rare person who would use their ceremonial weapon to attack someone can do it without the offending person ever knowing they were armed.

The law should reflect human nature if it is going to work toward public safety.

why do you have to give up your public existence? you either choose to abide by the rules of the society your living in, violate those societal taboo's or change societies.

kirpans are usually hidden, and should be worn over the heart(chest) and not in a thigh holster
it doesn't matter where you have it, it's that you have it.

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 07:41 PM
so it's up to the 'government'/legal system to recognize a religon?
i find that disturbing.

I don't think that the only religions that exist are the ones recognized by the government, I think that if we choose to recognize them officially, we are endorsing their rites, rituals, and sacrements, and we should not go back on that decision. It's essentially about legal honesty above all else. The government should not go back on their word. They essentially told these people, when they officially recognized the religion in full, that they could practise their religion to its full extent. It is wrong, I think, to go back on this.

if you can justify it in schools/public places for religous purposes why can't you justify it for secular/personal safety?

I don't speak to moral justification, only legal. If the government has already recognized certain groups as exceptions to weapon laws, then they should stick by it, or officially cease recognition of the offending religion.

Fairness of the law and not having exceptions is an altogether seperate issue.

why do you have to give up your public existence? you either choose to abide by the rules of the society your living in, violate those societal taboo's or change societies.

What I meant was you have the option of following the law or not. If you follow the law, you have two options in the case of kirpans being outlawed:
not go to public places (because you can't be without your kirpan and you can't bring it out into public)
or hide it and lie(because you can't be known to have it)

the latter is what leads to my conclusion about the increased concealment of the weapon.

kirpans are usually hidden, and should be worn over the heart(chest) and not in a thigh holster
it doesn't matter where you have it, it's that you have it.

Interesting! Not that relevant though.

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 08:00 PM
I don't think that the only religions that exist are the ones recognized by the government, I think that if we choose to recognize them officially, we are endorsing their rites, rituals, and sacrements, and we should not go back on that decision. It's essentially about legal honesty above all else. The government should not go back on their word. They essentially told these people, when they officially recognized the religion in full, that they could practise their religion to its full extent. It is wrong, I think, to go back on this.

why/who gave authority to governments to recognize 'religons', what difference does it make? laws are laws, you can abide by them, change them, move or break them, whatever the reason: religion, money or 'just because' the end result is the same


I don't speak to moral justification, only legal. If the government has already recognized certain groups as exceptions to weapon laws, then they should stick by it, or officially cease recognition of the offending religion.


it is possible to 'recognize' something without condoning all of it's practices, there are many things i can allude too, but don't want to be redundant


Fairness of the law and not having exceptions is an altogether seperate issue.

total agreement, just meant to broaden the scope, my bad


What I meant was you have the option of following the law or not. If you follow the law, you have two options in the case of kirpans being outlawed:
not go to public places (because you can't be without your kirpan and you can't bring it out into public)
or hide it and lie(because you can't be known to have it)

the latter is what leads to my conclusion about the increased concealment of the weapon.

which is a personal decision, not religious or legal, just yours



Interesting! Not that relevant though.

relevancy is in the usage thereof,
you can't 'fastdraw' a knife from a cord around your neck in a sheath, you must take it from under an article of clothing, this shows intent and malice aforethought, whereas a quickdraw sheath, switchblade or any other means of immediate access can be construed as a "moment of passion" a legal construct in many (not all) states(U.S.) countries.

Al Farabi
December 7th, 2008, 08:38 PM
why/who gave authority to governments to recognize 'religons', what difference does it make? laws are laws, you can abide by them, change them, move or break them, whatever the reason: religion, money or 'just because' the end result is the same

Well if you wanna get right into it, the body politic gave the government that right. All I was saying was that the government should have to be honest, which I think most people can agree with. It is not okay for the government to impose on a religion when they had previously said their rites and rituals were legal. If anything, they should then outlaw the religion. Forcing people of a certain religion to stop practsing the way their religion dictates while still claiming to support the religion is decietful and should be discouraged. Oppose or accept the whole religion. Accepting means everything.

If law must be above all, without exception, then the sikh religion has to be rejected by the government as conspiring to break laws.

I don't personally think that's right.

it is possible to 'recognize' something without condoning all of it's practices, there are many things i can allude too, but don't want to be redundant

I meant recognize in the legal, governmental sense which is actually closer to endorse.


total agreement, just meant to broaden the scope, my bad

no worries, I just didn't wanna get lost in a digression. That is actually a good issue to discuss, though. Hmmmm maybe Justice needs a thread :D


which is a personal decision, not religious or legal, just yours

What I was trying to say is that a law which forces people to choose between being a lier and a hermit is not a good one.


relevancy is in the usage thereof,
you can't 'fastdraw' a knife from a cord around your neck in a sheath, you must take it from under an article of clothing, this shows intent and malice aforethought, whereas a quickdraw sheath, switchblade or any other means of immediate access can be construed as a "moment of passion" a legal construct in many (not all) states(U.S.) countries.

Oh wow that is very very true! I didn't think of that. But I think that that is actually in support of allowing their continued legality. If it's not going to be a moment of passion thing (or is unlikely to be), then they are reasonably safe, right?

tagnostic
December 7th, 2008, 09:39 PM
can't wait to respond
but need a nap, brb!

:D

bouchie
December 8th, 2008, 09:42 PM
Al Farabi: Do you think carrying a plastic version of the kirpan would be a logical compromise between expressing religious beliefs and society's laws? Or do you still see that as an oppression of belief?

The way I see it, if the kirpan is meant to be merely a symbol of the beliefs held by the Sikh faith, then does it matter whether the blade is made out metal or plastic? If it doesn't, then why not go with plastic?

Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 11:32 PM
That seems logical to me.
I am not Sikh, so I might be missing something, but that does seem like it would be okay.

HOWEVER!

I would not be prepared to decide that that was the best possible solution without full consultation with experts in the Sikh religion. A compromise is only a compromise if they agree.

tagnostic
December 8th, 2008, 11:36 PM
A compromise is only a compromise if they agree.

random thought
com-promise
communicate a promise?
or
compel a promise??

Al Farabi
December 8th, 2008, 11:43 PM
random thought
com-promise
communicate a promise?
or
compel a promise??

common promise?
It's basically a mututal agreement, so I think common promise is not unlikely

tagnostic
December 9th, 2008, 12:05 AM
thanks,
just wondering,
the general usage
can get a bit confusing

bouchie
December 9th, 2008, 03:23 PM
HOWEVER!

I would not be prepared to decide that that was the best possible solution without full consultation with experts in the Sikh religion. A compromise is only a compromise if they agree. Fair enough - otherwise it wouldn't be a democracy.