I would actually like to read more "analysis" from BCG as to why the government should support religion by building a "small wing" (to use Catchfire's term) to a dorm to house Muslim women who want to live separately from the infidels.

And, then, I'd like to read what BCG would do when Hindus (of numerous and various sects), Xians (of numerous and various sects), Jews (of numerous and various sects), of other Muslims of numerous and various sects, of pagans (of numerous and various sects), etc., etc., etc. each want a "small wing" for their own little group.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Do you think you have phrased this question in a respectful, constructive way?

---

Probably not. But, it is so frustrating to hear: “Muslim women can (and will) fucking well speak for themselves about what they need.” In other words, “Shut the fuck up because you don't get it!!”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, I get the feeling she'd rather wipe her arse with the "separation of church and state" doctrine than to admit that "Muslim women" are not entitled to whatever they ask for...including demanding dead silence from those who are being asked to provide it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
If you want a serious discussion, drop the persecution complex, Sven.

---

"Diversity/multi-culti is fine but THIS is going too far!"

"I'm not racist, but THIS is TOO MUCH!"

etc...

Yawn.

You don't have to answer those questions, your posts speak for themselves. You and I very often end up on opposite sides cyberly "yelling" at each other to no effect.

It's actually tiring, which is why I refrained from posting earlier to that hugely problematic thread from which this one sprung. Then I couldn't help myself and now it's all gone to hell. My work here is done.

But seriously. The state doesn't have to be concerned about accomodating religion, it already does. Secular Christianity. I went to high school 20 years ago in Ontario, and I can still recite the Lord's Prayer to this day. I'll do it right now, don't make me do it! I was a Girl Guide, and a Brownie before that (hard to believe, eh? BCG the righteous AR babe being a colonist like the other suburban girls. It's a long story ) and we sang songs and poems about the "Lord" and "God, the Queen and my country" and all sorts of not-so-pseudo-Christian crap. Maybe they don't do that anymore, maybe they do. The point is, I'm as brainwashed as the next person.

Yeah, Sundays, no beer and wine in corner stores (except Quebec. I love you, Montreal!) and every statutory holiday reiterates the Christian-ness and Anglo-ness of the norm of Canada. You don't have to like it (I sure as hell don't) but it's still true.

As for the uppity Muslim women. Religion plays a strong role in how culture is lived, by some. I can't say I understand that, or even if I agree with it most of the time, but there it is. Particularly for groups that are "new Canadians" (but not all) or for groups that are "non-Christian" (but not all). I know many Christian Chinese, Korean, Philipino communities in which church is one place for both spiritual connection as well as community, social contact and support, etc.

Like I said, religion playing that role in life is not for me, but I will not say that those who come to Canada must throw out their culture, including their religion, nor will I say that if they want to go to religious schools they must pay for private institutions and if not, just suck it up in the public system.

Why are immigrants good enough to drive taxis, to be minimum wage security guards, to be dishwashers? They pay taxes, sing Oh Canada, regurgitate the "grateful immigrant" narrative to any white Canadian who asks them what life is like here. Yet they can't expect accomodation from a country that specifically says that we "tolerate diversity"?!? (BTW that's a whole other problematic phrase. I'm trying to stay focussed here.)

So they're good enough to work at crap jobs, but not to have educational institutions and workplaces make minor or even major changes? Jebus, you sound like the men who were against white women being allowed to go to university.

quote:

---

Sven: But, I get the feeling she'd rather wipe her arse with the "separation of church and state" doctrine than to admit that "Muslim women" are not entitled to whatever they ask for...including demanding dead silence from those who are being asked to provide it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Do you think you have phrased this question in a respectful, constructive way? Do you think this baiting attempt will yield any intelligent debate at all? You've used up any credibility you had when you and your cheerleading squad (I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the leader, though) spammed the last twenty posts of the last thread with insulting, sarcastic reductions devoid of anything but tired mantras and rehashed truisms. Get bent, Sven.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

---

I find the stereotyping of "the last twenty posts of the last thread" as insulting spam is not conducive to tolerance or inclusivity. It is beneath you to shrug off the thoughts of a number of posters merely because they wish to debate an issue that you consider not debatable.

It is not easy for many posters to reconcile the new multicultural realities that are necessary to progress with historical cultural traditions ingrained through generations.

ETA: Oh, and jester, I thought it was obvious I wasn't including your posts in my spam assessment. You posted in earnest, but it was unfortunately drowned out by the gleeful, self-congratulatory back-patting Sven, pookie, et al. were festooning everywhere.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Here's the thing. Why, Sven, on every argument of this sort, do you end up on the side of reiterating the status quo, hm? Why do you end up parroting the talking points from any mainstream (ie white and, yeah, secular Christian) viewpoint such as the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, etc?

---

If I am parroting the MSM on the concept of “separation of church and state”, then I’m happy to be a parrot.

As an agnostic—regarding the existence of a god—and as an atheist—regarding the existing of a Xian god, I embrace the concept that religion should be for your private life and the state should neither promote nor hinder it.

I view the building of campus prayer rooms, “small wings” for Muslim women, and the like as promoting Islam. I do not view the failure to take those actions as hindering Islam. Perhaps that’s our point of difference. But, I think if Xians wanted to have the government build them campus prayer rooms, “small wings” for Xians, and the like, we’d both disagree with that on the grounds that such action would be promoting Christianity. I simply want to apply that principle consistently to all religions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
But seriously. The state doesn't have to be concerned about accomodating religion, it already does. Secular Christianity.

[snip]

Yeah, Sundays, no beer and wine in corner stores (except Quebec. I love you, Montreal!) and every statutory holiday reiterates the Christian-ness and Anglo-ness of the norm of Canada. You don't have to like it (I sure as hell don't) but it's still true.

---

I concede that point, BCG. But, unless Canada is going to be run by a benevolent dictator who changes the “weekend” to be Tuesday/Wednesday, having Sunday off is not going to change.

I think it was “remind” who said in the other thread that we should have the government agencies open 24/7, 365, as a way to eliminate the Xian bias of having Sunday off and the Xian holiday of Xmas off. Conceptually, that sounds swell. But, because the vast majority of Canadians (and USians) celebrate Xmas (either religiously or culturally), it’s impractical as hell. Can you imagine an MP proposing that everyone work on Xmas in order to keep the day “just like any other day of the year”? It’s about as likely to happen as a Muslim-dominated culture/country similarly eliminating the Muslim holy days from their calendars to accommodate other cultures. It’s just practical reality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Like I said, religion playing that role in life is not for me, but I will not say that those who come to Canada must throw out their culture, including their religion, nor will I say that if they want to go to religious schools they must pay for private institutions and if not, just suck it up in the public system.”

---

But, that’s exactly what we expect of Xians—and of adherents of any religion—if they want to opt out of public schools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Why are immigrants good enough to drive taxis, to be minimum wage security guards, to be dishwashers? They pay taxes, sing Oh Canada, regurgitate the "grateful immigrant" narrative to any white Canadian who asks them what life is like here. Yet they can't expect accomodation from a country that specifically says that we "tolerate diversity"?!? (BTW that's a whole other problematic phrase. I'm trying to stay focussed here.)

So they're good enough to work at crap jobs, but not to have educational institutions and workplaces make minor or even major changes? Jebus, you sound like the men who were against white women being allowed to go to university.

---

I don’t think anyone is arguing that we want to have immigrants stuck in low-wage jobs. Nor do I think that by not building prayer rooms on campus or Muslim-women-only “small wings” on dormitories are we causing that. I work for a multi-national company where the non-USians outnumber the USians by at least 2:1. And, in our HQ, we have people working in professional positions from every culture and most countries (and, yes, including Muslims). Many of our foreign expats were successfully educated here...in our secular universities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
P.S. How's about you don't cry "I'm being called Islamophobic" until I actually accuse you, Sven?

---

You did not use that term. Someone else did when criticizing the position I and others were taking.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Catchfire:
I called Jerry West Islamophobic because he saw fit to equate the requests of Muslim women with allowing KKK members to burn crosses and lynch black folk.

---

Which shows your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word Islamophobia, of my position, and of the topic of this thread which is how far should the state go in accommodating religion.

I would have just as readily used that comparison had the example being provided was Baptists or Lutherans or toast worshipers or any other religion instead of Muslims.

To repeat a previous comment which cuts to the core of this issue, if the state should accommodate religion then:

1. Must all religions be treated equally, and

2. Who gets to determine what constitutes a religion

If one believes in religious freedom does one really want the state deciding what is a religion and what is not and which religion deserves which kind of treatment?

The question of what Muslims or any other religion wants is incidental and beside the main point. We could just as easily debate this issue using Catholics as the example. The fact that Catholics currently in this country are better accommodated then Muslims is also beside the point.

Perhaps it might be fitting to levy the charge of Islamomania in response to some of the responses that have been posted here.

quote:

---

BCG:
The state doesn't have to be concerned about accomodating religion, it already does.

---

But the issue is how far should it go in doing so. I would argue that it already has gone too far. Why should it accommodate Christians?

Does asking that make me Christophobic?

quote:

---

Like I said, religion playing that role in life is not for me, but I will not say that those who come to Canada must throw out their culture, including their religion,....

---

I would agree to a point. The question arises, however, about what we do when a religious or cultural practice conflicts with the law and with human rights as we have accepted them?

Every element of a culture, any culture, is not necessarily a good thing from a progressive standpoint if progressive means, among other things, believing in equality and freedom both of religion and from religion (which in essence is the same freedom).

quote:

---

Why are immigrants good enough to drive taxis,....

---

These are very good questions and illuminate a real problem that we have, but they are far afield from the original issue raised in this thread.

quote:

---

Jester:
It is not easy for many posters to reconcile the new multicultural realities that are necessary to progress with historical cultural traditions ingrained through generations.

---

I think in the case of advocating less or no state accommodation of religion, it would be a position that challenges historical cultural traditions. The more traditionally hide bound ones are those that want to challenge the existing cultural tradition by embedding their own special traditions into it by seeking also to have special accommodation.

Which brings us back to the point, how much should the state accommodate anybody on religious grounds?

quote:

---

I'm aware that the original thread was begun based on a story in the US context. I will continue to speak from the Canadian context....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
we should have the government agencies open 24/7, 365, as a way to eliminate the Xian bias of having Sunday off and the Xian holiday of Xmas off. Conceptually, that sounds swell. But, because the vast majority of Canadians (and USians) celebrate Xmas (either religiously or culturally), it’s impractical as hell.

---

IMV, it in fact is NOT impractical quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Can you imagine an MP proposing that everyone work on Xmas in order to keep the day “just like any other day of the year”?

---

Our society does not need this Xian holdover, it is not equal, nor correct. People who want to celebrate it can.

quote:

---

It’s about as likely to happen as a Muslim-dominated culture/country similarly eliminating the Muslim holy days from their calendars to accommodate other cultures. It’s just practical reality.

---

When you say "equality" you just mean that everyone has to adhere to a secular Christian conception of justice and polity. I know you think you don't mean that, but you do. Even if you wish that the government was less Christian (and we all do) you cannot escape that our education system, our social relations, our parliament, are all structured by a thousand years of Christian traditions and doctrine, whether or not "God" has any input in the system at all. Because of generations of Christian inculcations at all levels of society, we can't just turn around and say "Okay! No more God! We don't mention his name, and that'll mean that everything we do is secular!" It just doesn't, and in fact can't, work like that.

And as for the "separation of church and state" mantra that is getting repeated like it cannot be questioned, it's rather naive to think that this can be accomplished. The government is already involved in religion when it says that no one can discriminate based on faith. That makes the state an authority on what constitutes religious faith and what does not. Moreover, when Canada adopts an official multicultural policy, it must take into account the implications of that policy. If we are to accept immigrants who come from increasingly faith-based societies, in order to recognize them as individuals, we must also recognize the religious group from which they issue. It is impossible to recognize a devout Muslim woman without simultaneously recognizing and respecting her faith. This is exactly why being "colour-blind" is an ineffective way of dealing with racism. Difference must be recognized before it can be accepted and integrated.

So if the Muslim women can make a good case for why it is necessary for their personal fulfillment as human beings to set aside a wing of a residence for them (not, as Sven continues to pretend I am saying, building a whole new residence--unless a Muslim group wishes to donate money expressly for that purpose), it should be considered, rather than rejected out of hand by those that make the facile logical move of "well, Xians and Jews don't need that, why should Muslims?" I gather that Sven and Jerry West also disagree that Christian residences and school boards (like the Xian Separate School Board of Ontario) should be dismantled? While I certainly agree about the latter, I might consider flagging a similar wing for hardcore Xians if they could demonstrate why they needed such an accommodation. I don't think their case is quite as strong based on widespread acceptance of Christianity, but I'm undecided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
we should have the government agencies open 24/7, 365, as a way to eliminate the Xian bias of having Sunday off and the Xian holiday of Xmas off. Conceptually, that sounds swell. But, because the vast majority of Canadians (and USians) celebrate Xmas (either religiously or culturally), it’s impractical as hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Please explain why you think it is impractical, just because you deem so, does not mean it is so. IMV, it in fact is NOT impractical quite the opposite.

---

Just because I say so doesn’t mean it is so? Why not?!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Can you imagine an MP proposing that everyone work on Xmas in order to keep the day “just like any other day of the year”?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Hate to tell you this, but a huge portion of people already work Xmas, they have to. If hiring was done equally there would be people from all spectrums of the cultural/religious world working and for them it would be any other day, while "Christians" take the day off.

---

A “huge portion” may already be working on Xmas (maybe five percent). But, I would venture to guess that the “vast majority” do not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Our society does not need this Xian holdover, it is not equal, nor correct. People who want to celebrate it can.

---

And, that is precisely why I think it is impractical. If those people “who want to celebrate [Xmas] can”, then, because the vast majority of Canadians (and USians) celebrate Xmas, either religiously or culturally, very few people will be working on Xmas. So, it’s not practical to mandate that all government agencies (and private companies?) maintain full operations during Xmas in an effort to make Xmas just like any other day of the year.

But, even before we get to that point, legislation would have to be passed in order to mandate it. The likelihood of such legislation passing is approximately nil. Again, I think Canada (and the US) is about as likely to eliminate Xmas from the official calendar as it is for a Muslim-dominated culture/country to eliminate Ramadan from its calendar.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Do you think you have phrased this question in a respectful, constructive way? Do you think this baiting attempt will yield any intelligent debate at all? You've used up any credibility you had when you and your cheerleading squad(I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the leader, though) spammed the last twenty posts of the last thread with insulting, sarcastic reductions devoid of anything but tired mantras and rehashed truisms. Get bent, Sven.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

---

You know what, Catchfire, I find that pretty fucking sexist. I guess only some people can support other people's posts (like BCG did with you), right? Everyone else is in Sven's "cheerleading squad".

And can I just say, it kills me that you can't see the raging formal equality that has characterized many of your own posts on this topic.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Catchfire:
Religions cannot be treated all equally, because they are not all equal.

---

They are certainly not all equal. However, should the state give special rights to one group and not another, if so on what basis should this be decided? And on what basis should it be decided that a group or person claiming religious status actually has that status?

Which brings up the question and my point, why should the state involve itself with religion at all except to guarantee freedom of religion within bounds of the law?

quote:

---

If we want real equality as a society, we need to accept difference,....

---

Differences are fine, love them in fact, but we should only be bound to accept differences that stay within the bounds of our laws.

quote:

---

When you say "equality" you just mean that everyone has to adhere to a secular Christian conception of justice and polity.

---

Another assumption on your part, you really haven't proven that and I would dispute it which would probably leaving us disputing exactly what constitutes the Christian conception....

quote:

---

....you cannot escape that our education system, our social relations, our parliament, are all structured by a thousand years of Christian traditions and doctrine,....

---

I have never stated otherwise, this is another "night follows day" kind of statement. Though a good argument in another context, it is beside the point in this one.

As an aside one might also point out that a thousand years of Christian and etc. are shaped in part by thousands of year of pre-Christian thought, some of which is shared with Islam and other religions.

quote:

---

And as for the "separation of church and state" mantra that is getting repeated like it cannot be questioned, it's rather naive to think that this can be accomplished.

---

It is a principle and an ideal state to strive for, like racial equality and gender equality. Once it was considered rather naive to think that the earth was not the center of the universe. Today's naive thought can become tomorrow's reality.

quote:

---

The government is already involved in religion when it says that no one can discriminate based on faith.

---

And a fine thing that is, yet by its very actions it discriminates still as you and others have pointed out.

quote:

---

That makes the state an authority on what constitutes religious faith and what does not.

---

Which in the interest of religious freedom the state should remove it self from other than to accept anyone's claim of religious faith as sincere and valid.

quote:

---

If we are to accept immigrants who come from increasingly faith-based societies, in order to recognize them as individuals, we must also recognize the religious group from which they issue.

---

It is one thing to recognize a group, quite another to accommodate it. We should only accommodate those parts of any culture that do not contravene our laws, including the Charter of Rights and I would add the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

quote:

---

Difference must be recognized before it can be accepted and integrated.

---

Recognizing a difference is not the same as accepting it, and should all differences be integrated. This takes us back to the comparisons that you find odious, but make the point that all differences are not acceptable.

In some cases accepting differences means stepping backward in the struggle for equality. Should we be doing that, or is argument that accepting those regressive parts of a culture (not necessarily any particular culture) that discriminate against a class of persons really the progressive thing to do?

quote:

---

So if the Muslim women can make a good case for why it is necessary for their personal fulfillment as human beings to set aside a wing of a residence for them it should be considered, rather than rejected out of hand....

---

The issue should not be whether they should have a separate residence, but whose responsibility it is to accommodate that desire.

quote:

---

I gather that Sven and Jerry West also disagree that Christian residences and school boards (like the Xian Separate School Board of Ontario) should be dismantled?

---

Either you picked the wrong verb by accident or you really don't know what I have been saying. I would favour removing all state support from them.

quote:

---

So who decides? Well, the Charter is a good place to start,....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
But, I think if Xians wanted to have the government build them campus prayer rooms, “small wings” for Xians, and the like, we’d both disagree with that on the grounds that such action would be promoting Christianity. I simply want to apply that principle consistently to all religions.

---

They certainly can be treated equally, in terms of adopting a consistent approach to the acommodation of religious beliefs. That may lead to different results in particular cases, but it would still qualify as "equal treatment".

When you say "equality" you just mean that everyone has to adhere to a secular Christian conception of justice and polity. I know you think you don't mean that, but you do. Even if you wish that the government was less Christian (and we all do) you cannot escape that our education system, our social relations, our parliament, are all structured by a thousand years of Christian traditions and doctrine, whether or not "God" has any input in the system at all. Because of generations of Christian inculcations at all levels of society, we can't just turn around and say "Okay! No more God! We don't mention his name, and that'll mean that everything we do is secular!" It just doesn't, and in fact can't, work like that.

I think people are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. In the two main early Supreme Court of Canada cases (to respond to a request for a Cdn-baed discussion) the Court accepted that something like a common pause day, which is originally traceable to a religious-based command, could in fact shift to a non-religious endorsement of the importance of having a day on which everyone is relieved from having to work. Either we accept that these kinds of changes can occur, or we resign ourselves to a society in which we are forever under the yoke of religious obligation. I know which society I prefer.

And as for the "separation of church and state" mantra that is getting repeated like it cannot be questioned, it's rather naive to think that this can be accomplished.

I would actually agree that Canada presents a difficult context in which to argue that there is true separation of church and state, given the explicit constitutional protection for denominational schools. That said, we do have a Charter (which is equal in stature to the oher provisions of the constitution) which specifies religious freedom as a fundamental principle and it is firmly established as a matter of charter law that religious freedom is not respected if the state takes an active role in promoting religion.

The government is already involved in religion when it says that no one can discriminate based on faith.

I simply don't understand this statement. How is the government "involved" in religion (in a substantive sense) by enforcing guarantees of religious freedom? That is like saying that the government is "involved" in poronography by guaranteeing the freedom to make adult movies.

That makes the state an authority on what constitutes religious faith and what does not.

I would have disagreed in any event, but this is especially inaccurate in light of the kirpan case in the Supreme Court of Canada last year. Religious faith is to be determined on the basis of an individual, sincere belief. Government has no role at all. ETA: In the event of a dispute, yes there is some "state apparatus" which must be satisfied that there is, in fact, a sincere religious belief (namely, a judge or jury) - but that is far removed from the idea that government currently sits in judgment of what constitutes "religious faith".

Moreover, when Canada adopts an official multicultural policy, it must take into account the implications of that policy.

Our multiculturalism policy, important as it is, cannot supercede the state's obligations under the Charter or any other part of the Constitution.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Hm. Perhaps you have never been to the University of Toronto which has many large and beautiful chapels, both Anglican and Catholic, at Trinity College, St. Mike's College, etc. I wouldn't be surprized if other universities had similar.

---

Except that the sequence of events was quite different there. The chapels/churches/whatever were built by the religious orders that founded those colleges. Presumably it was the case that when the govt took them over, it was under the understanding that the chapels/churches/whatever would continue to be run as before. And I doubt very much if their upkeep is paid for out of public funds.

I could be wrong, about that, of course: I went to University College (UC '84).

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

And to defend by assumption on Jerry's use of "equality," I don't see how you can understand that Western society is structured around Christian values (which is why I keep repeating it, even though you claim it's "obvious") and yet don't see why it is ill-equipped to deal with incongruous feelings of faith. If we have been programmed to believe things in a certain way, say, in the Protestant individualistic work ethic, we consider that the "normal" way, and when we try to integrate conflicting views, say, ones that value community faith identity over individual desire, we have to modify our world view. Yet refusing to make a "special" case would foreclose any possibility of that modification. The state makes "special" accommodations all the time: for pregnant mothers, for First Nations, for low-income workers; it's the state's job to make "special accommodations" for those who require them.

And to clarify above, I did use the "wrong verb." I assumed that Sven and Jerry would be against the Separate School Board of Ontario (as am I).

quote:

---

It is one thing to recognize a group, quite another to accommodate it. We should only accommodate those parts of any culture that do not contravene our laws, including the Charter of Rights and I would add the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

---

So when you say "our laws" who are you referring to?
And who is the "we", whoever the "we" is seems to not have a culture, or "we" has a culture that seems to fit perfectly with these laws.

quote:

---

Hm. Perhaps you have never been to the University of Toronto which has many large and beautiful chapels, both Anglican and Catholic, at Trinity College, St. Mike's College, etc. I wouldn't be surprized if other universities had similar.

---

I pointed that out a while ago and I also included all the seminary colleges and the Divinity programs that Canadian universities offer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
So when you say "our laws" who are you referring to?
And who is the "we", whoever the "we" is seems to not have a culture, or "we" has a culture that seems to fit perfectly with these laws.

---

quote:

---

Catchfire:
And to defend by assumption on Jerry's use of "equality," I don't see how you can understand that Western society is structured around Christian values (which is why I keep repeating it, even though you claim it's "obvious") and yet don't see why it is ill-equipped to deal with incongruous feelings of faith.

---

But I do see that, that I don't is simply your assumption, again, however the issue isn't about how well Western society is equipped with these feelings, it is about whether the state should accommodate them or not and if so, to what extent.

Debating the nature of Western society, its failures and successes and what influences it good and bad is a separate debate. We would probably agree a lot more in that debate than in this one.

quote:

---

Just so I'm clear, are people here arguing that the example under discussion contravenes the charter?

---

Not me. Whether it does or not is irrelevant to the argument.

quote:

---

If we have been programmed to believe things in a certain way, say, in the Protestant individualistic work ethic, we consider that the "normal" way, and when we try to integrate conflicting views, say, ones that value community faith identity over individual desire, we have to modify our world view.

---

Certainly, but the question is should we modify our view in all cases, and how much? To paraphrase what I have said before, all views are not progressive and we must ask ourselves if we want to integrate those views that reverse progressive accomplishments, say racial equality for instance, or freedom of speech? Not that either of those two should be taken to mean Muslim values.

quote:

---

The state makes "special" accommodations all the time: for pregnant mothers, for First Nations, for low-income workers; it's the state's job to make "special accommodations" for those who require them.

---

Not all who require them. It is the state's responsibility to uphold its laws and to treat all citizens fairly. And, there is a huge difference in issues relating to gender, race and income and those of religion.

quote:

---

Le T:
So when you say "our laws" who are you referring to?

---

The established laws of whatever state you want to apply the argument to. In this case by default, Canada. The principle in a democracy that the people make the law, in most cases indirectly. If you want to argue that some of the laws are influenced by religion I would agree. I would also argue that they shouldn't be, particularly not specifically.

If you want to argue that Canadian law is heavily influence by white Anglo males, no disagreement here. It is also irrelevant to this argument, but a good topic for another one.

The argument here is not about what is but about what should be. I would argue that achieving what should be requires changing what is.

quote:

---

Catchfire:
Isn't it funny how white Anglo-Canadians never have any trouble according with the laws they wrote.

---

quote:

---

The state makes "special" accommodations all the time: for pregnant mothers, for First Nations, for low-income workers; it's the state's job to make "special accommodations" for those who require them.

---

quote:

---

Le T:
Actually First Nations, Inuit and Métis have made huge accommodations for the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
A “huge portion” may already be working on Xmas (maybe five percent). But, I would venture to guess that the “vast majority” do not.

---

Moreover, if I include the non-employed female as working all of Christmas Day to make it happen, there would be 2/3rds of Canadians working Christmas Day.

Perhaps you put no real effort into deriving your "maybe 5%"? As your guess would be wrong.

So, we have 2/3rds of Canadians not working Christmas, are they not because it is a Stat and their places of employment are not open, or because they are "Christians"?

Nevertheless, governments, schools and financial institutions should be open.

quote:

---

And, that is precisely why I think it is impractical.

---

quote:

---

If those people “who want to celebrate [Xmas] can”, then, because the vast majority of Canadians...either religiously or culturally, very few people will be working on Xmas.

---

Because there is non-equality occuring based upon: gender, Christian religion, eduational acheivement, and socio economical, bias, Canada must change, and it will.

quote:

---

So, it’s not practical to mandate that all government agencies (and private companies?) maintain full operations during Xmas in an effort to make Xmas just like any other day of the year.

---

quote:

---

But, even before we get to that point, legislation would have to be passed in order to mandate it.

---

quote:

---

The likelihood of such legislation passing is approximately nil...to eliminate Xmas from the official calendar

---

quote:

---

as it is for a Muslim-dominated culture/country to eliminate Ramadan from its calendar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Whom:
it does rather piss me off that of the 3 weeks paid vacation I get a year, I use almost all of them to take the day off to go to synogogue whereas for Christians, the days they spend in church don't count as 'vacation days' and they can use their vacation days to go sit on a beach or go to the cottage or whatever.

---

And remind, you fucking rock!! Marry me!

When I worked in a group home, a workplace that was always staffed 24/7/365, I volunteered to work Xmas eve and/or day because there were people on staff who really wanted/needed/had to have Xmas with their families, children, etc. I never gave a crap about having that day off specifically. We were unionized, so I could take off another day in place of Xmas (usually January 2 ).

quote:

---

BCG:
secular Christians

---

That is an interesting term, not quite an oxymoron. Perhaps you mean people (of any faith or lack thereof) who, while not concerned with religious matters, do not realize the degree of influence that the Christian religion has on the apparatus of western states?

Of course in the case of Christmas one would have to be either a moron or a total recluse to miss the connections.

quote:

---

Ramadan isn't comparable on any level, given that it doesn't involve taking days off work as part of being observant. I'm not sure about Eid though.

---

Eid and Ramadan are pretty much tied together, with Eid celebrating the end of Ramadan. (there's more than one Eid, but that one is the biggy)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Whom:
Actually, as a Jew, I'd be more than happy to work on Christmas Day or Easter or a lot of other Christian holidays in order to get my own religious holidays off.

---

At a former workplace, that's exactly the system we had in place - Christmas Day and Boxing Day and Easter Friday and Monday were all stat holidays, but people could "swing" the days and use them for other holidays, and our Jewish colleagues generally did. An extremely enlightened place all around when it came to vacation, though - three weeks to start, four weeks after two years, and five weeks after five years!

Of course, we could have just threw up our hands and said, "Oh, it's just so impractical to make religious accommodations, especially since we close over the Christmas/New Year holiday week! It's so much better to force our Jewish colleagues to use their vacation time for religious holidays and force them to stay home on OUR holidays! Gosh, it's just such an imposition!"

But I think we found that really, it's no imposition at all to just allow people to work the stat and take another day off in lieu if they have religious reasons for doing so. It's only an imposition if you're one of the white, Christian majority looking for something to whine about.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Michelle:
It's only an imposition if you're one of the white, Christian majority looking for something to whine about.

---

What about latino, black and Asian Christians, do they count? I don't think that the whining is limited to whites, eh?

quote:

---

Michelle:
It's been my experience that it's generally white people who whine about accommodating minority groups in society.

---

I have been in societies where it was other than whites complaining about minority groups. Whining about immigrants really isn't a white thing, it is more of a majority thing, but not in all cases as established minorities have been known to whine about immigrants too.

The irony is that the poor oppressed minority here, transported to another part of the world would become oppressors without a second thought.

quote:

---

Sometimes the cries of oppression that we hear from people in new environments is really a complaint that they have lost their power to oppress.

---

Like when moderators point out the un-welcomed racism, sexism, homophobia, colonialism, classism etc. of people on Babble and those people turn around and cry censorship.

ETA: Just to be clear Jerry, I wasn't directing that specifically at you. I was just saying it in general.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: Le Téléspectateur ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Actually, it is 25%+, and perhaps even close to 1/3 of employed Canadians, based on those in the 17.5 million labour force that work all, or part, of Christmas Day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Already 1/3rd work, it seems people like you, do not know, or care that they do.

---

I think you pulled the one-third figure out of the thin air (just like I did with my 5%!!). Of course, that won’t do, will it?!

So, I did a little research. The Trades Union Congress in the UK conducted a study of the number of people who did not work on Christmas. The study showed that 771,000 people worked on Christmas day and 24.79 million did not work on Christmas day. So, of the total, only about 3% of the work force worked on Christmas Day.

My guess is that the percentage is roughly going to be the same in the USA and Canada.

Also, StanCan reports that 77% of Canadians (or about 22.85 million) self-identify as Christians (of one sect or another), 6% of Canadians (or about 1.9 million) self-identify as Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or other religions), and the remaining 17% of Canadians (or about 4.9 million) have no religious affiliation.

Given the very small percentage of workers actually working on Christmas and given that nearly eight of ten Canadians self-identify as Christian, I continue to think that a government mandate that Christmas Day be treated as any other day of the week is impractical because the vast majority of the workers will elect to take that day off.

ETA: Of that 17%, I would guess that not an insignificant portion of those individuals do Xmas stuff with families. I would fall in that category. I have no religious affiliation but do the gift giving and dinner thingy with my sig other's brother's family every Xmas.

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Of course, we could have just threw up our hands and said, "Oh, it's just so impractical to make religious accommodations, especially since we close over the Christmas/New Year holiday week! It's so much better to force our Jewish colleagues to use their vacation time for religious holidays and force them to stay home on OUR holidays! Gosh, it's just such an imposition!"

But I think we found that really, it's no imposition at all to just allow people to work the stat and take another day off in lieu if they have religious reasons for doing so. It's only an imposition if you're one of the white, Christian majority looking for something to whine about.

---

I think that works great for many work places. For example, hospital rotations for docs where a limited number of docs are on call--those docs wishing to take those shifts on Xian holidays can do so in exchange for taking a different day off for their own observances. In my company, if there are, say, chemists who want to work on Xmas so that they could take another day off, they can.

But, in other instances, say, a manufacturing plant that needs 1,000 people working to make it run, it may not be practical.

So, I think it works in some situations and not in others. And, where it works, have at it. But, given that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are culturally or religiously Christian, it's not practical to mandate that all government agencies and companies treat Xmas "just like any other day".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I think you pulled the one-third figure out of the thin air (just like I did with my 5%!!). Of course, that won’t do, will it?!

---

Actually, I said 25%, with maybe up to 1/3rd. And I did it the long way, actually. I went to Stats Can and looked under employment sectors and took the numbers that worked in each sector applicable divided by 365 days, then factored the % from the total combined Canadian work force of 17.5 approx to get that %. I ruled out: educators, government employees(unless I specified in my post), corporate employees/ managerial sector, land farmers, real estate, (though I am sure some work, as do car dealerships but numbers are mute) manufacturing sectors, construction workers and resource extraction employees and those associated. With the retail sector, I took 1/4 of the retail workers, this may be a bit high but would only affect totals by 1-2%.

Just so as you know you can't really compare England to Canada. It just takes a little thought to understand why not. But in case you can't get it, get back to me. Or reread the TUC site yet again, it contains clues. But if we were going to compare, I could include more occupations that work Xmas, ah sadly we cannot.

quote:

---

So, I did a little research.[/quote} Yes, it is quite apparent you did a "little" research. It took me like 3hrs of searching and figuring for a more accurate picture and I would have thought less myself at about 15%, which is still significant.

Just to do a bit of housekeeping from the 2003 study:

771,000 work for pay, while 35, 000 work with NO pay.[quote]My guess is that the percentage is roughly going to be the same in the USA and Canada.

---

quote:

---

Also, StanCan reports that 77% of Canadians (or about 22.85 million) self-identify as Christians (of one sect or another).

---

quote:

---

Given the very small percentage of workers...Christmas Day be treated as any other day of the week is impractical because the vast majority of the workers will elect to take that day off...

---

Really, we are only talking about government employees, educators and finacial institution employees working the Christmas stat day. In the private sector, it would be up to the company/business what they do on Christmas, or any holy stat day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
workopolis.com...survey of 14,000 Canadians in which 28% said that they would be willing to work on Xmas if they were paid time-and-a-half (presumably, 72% wouldn't want to work on Xmas even if they were paid time-and-a-half).

---

Now, didn't you misrepresent that link and those stats well.

Actual quote is this:

quote:

---

Many people still resist working on the holidays because they never have in the past, but that attitude is changing, according to Manon Dulude, principal of Life Coaching Services of Georgetown, Ont.

"We are living in a time when traditions are being rewritten. There are many people for whom the holidays don't have the same impact that they might have in years past." For instance, people who are single or divorced or from a culture that doesn't recognize Christmas as a holiday might not be at all distraught about working on Dec. 25.

In fact, 28 per cent of Canadian employees say they would volunteer to work on Christmas and Boxing Day for the extra holiday pay, according to an on-line poll of 14,000 Canadians

---

Then there was this:

quote:

---

The more current reality: In an increasingly busy, global and technology-connected economy, more and more people find the lines between time on and time off blurred.

And while there have always been jobs that required work over the holidays, these days, even offices that are all but locked down will see professionals in at work trying to catch up and prepare for the year ahead.

Moreover, career experts say that being on duty when others are not can pay handsome dividends.

Just 34 per cent of executives say they plan to stay out of the office for the full time between Christmas Eve and New Year's Day, according to an international survey by executive recruiting firm Korn/Ferry International of 2,000 executives.

Another 38 per cent said they plan between four and seven days off during the 10-day stretch, and the remaining 27 per cent will take three days or fewer.

The poll also found that 72 per cent of those polled expect to do office work during their time at home.

---

Now, I think there are two themes here: (1) and (2, that makes a mandate impractical.

No, again, and for the last time, it is not impractical, and in fact your link disproves your premise. Moreover, it is Christian centric and it cannot be approved. And with business driving the change it will happen, and soon me thinks.

Even the 74% who were resistent to working Christmas, actually wanted the whole week off work, so it is not really about Christmas, now is it?

[ 23 April 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No, again, and for the last time, it is not impractical

---

Then, I guess you should talk with your MP about proposing legislation that would mandate that all government agencies remain open on Xmas like any other day.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
workopolis.com cites a survey of 14,000 Canadians in which 28% said that they would be willing to work on Xmas if they were paid time-and-a-half (presumably, 72% wouldn't want to work on Xmas even if they were paid time-and-a-half).

Now, I think there are two themes here: (1) individual companies and governmnet agencies permitting individuals to work on Xmas if they want to take another day off and (2) a mandate that requires all government agencies to remain open and in full operation on Xmas. I think that it is in the best interests of both employers and employees to encourage (1). But, given the statistics I've seen (as opposed to the educated guesses of remind), the vast majority of people in Canada would, if given the choice, elect not to work on Xmas and that makes a mandate impractical.

---

I agree that requiring offices to remain open to the public is not necessary.

I think most businesses could fairly easily accommodate people who choose to work Christmas and Easter stats in exchange for others if it were legislated. Even service industries that are closed, factories requiring a full staff to operate, or offices that require the markets to be open can probably find some bookkeeping or general maintenance work that can be done for those people who come in.

If not, I suppose the company could elect to give them Christmas and Easter stats as paid days off in addition to the other floating holy day holidays, but then they would probably have to do that for all of their employees.

quote:

---

Sven:
the importance of Xmas in society will diminish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
As a very practical matter, I think that as less and less people identify with Christianity (I'm assuming that is the trend, anyhow), the importance of Xmas in society will diminish. I'm assuming that at some point, Xians will become a minority in Canada and Xmas will no longer be a formal state holiday.

---

Ask yourself if you were living or working in a culture that had holy days (or vacation days) that did not correspond to the Christian calender, would you feel at all offended, put upon, slighted, oppressed, hurt, disrespected or in "need of accommodation"? If the answer is even a muted "yes" then you are either a cultural chauvinist or closet Christian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Then, I guess you should talk with your MP about proposing legislation that would mandate that all government agencies remain open on Xmas like any other day.

Then we'll see out practical it really is.

---

BTW, I would not speak to my MP if he were the last person on earth. Well, actually I can see myself saying to him; "what the fuck happened to everyone else" but that is about it.

But more than having 12-14 self chosen stats, a year, for employees, I would like to see government offices, schools and finacial institutions open at least 16 hrs a day.

As an employer, it is hard accommodating 8:30 - 4:30 Mon-Friday staff, when they need to go do something official. And having staff, who require day care work evenings is even worse.
Moreover, when they take the time off to do something official that can only be done 9-4, they do not get paid by most employers.

They should not be penalized because the system is flawed and based upon a biased structure that has no business being there.

Take a look at the fiasco right now with passports and getting them, if passport offices were open 16 hrs a day there would not be this mess. Or with the huge waits and lags with seniors and fixing problems their pensions, or EI, or in fact any given government program. It is not the employee's fault they are swamped.

Seriously, it is OUR government, we pay and we need to take ownership of it, and make it work for us, to accommodate us. And by us, I mean ALL citizens of Canadian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I would like to see government offices, schools and finacial institutions open at least 16 hrs a day.

---

In an ideal world, I'd agree. Although, you would likely get some push-back from public employee unions and, definitely, from taxpayers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
In an ideal world, I'd agree. Although, you would likely get some push-back from public employee unions and, definitely, from taxpayers.

---

It really annoys me when people say the "tax payers" wouldn't like this or that. Excuse me, but who the fuck are the taxpayers? They are us, the people of Canada, not some mysterious "other" entity. They are government employees, they are business people, they are workers, who are all inconvienced by having 7 hrs 5days a week to access government services.

Why would the union object? It really is not pertinent to them until the peopl are hired and then they get a larger membership with more dues.

quote:

---

Personally, I'd settle for keeping government offices open as they are during the week but also be open on Saturday

---

quote:

---

Having offices open from, say, 7am to 11pm seems like a little overkill, particularly as a taxpayer.

---

Moreover, with the amount of budget surpluses we are having, perhaps some of it should come back to us as services, and refreshed infrastructure, as opposed to buying 150k shells to blow apart Afgan grape drying buildings, and innocent people.

There are so many pratical pluses besides those mentioned, like having courts open 16hrs a day. That alone would do more to keep criminals off the street than hiring more cops would. The offenders are re-offending when they are released, instead of being held for trial, as trial is a year to 2 away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
However, seeing you falsified the stated findings of a study, to support your point, I doubt if you think beyond yourself anyway.

---

By the way, what, specifically, did I "falsify" about that study? If anything on this thread was "falsified" it was you claim that up to 1/3rd of the workers work on Xmas.

[ 24 April 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
Oh, instead of Saturday, make it Sunday, for all I care. But, make it at least one weekend day.

---

Uh, what is so speacial about the week end, meaning Sat Sunday? The week end is actually the end of any particular person's work week, it could be Weds Thursday.

That is my exact pointy, there should be No "week-end" other than the one that happens for any given individual.

Schools and government agencies, especially the judicial system court system, should be 7 days a week. That way parents working odd shifts can have actual days off with their children. The children could be on the same work week and time frame as the parents. The anti-daycare people should jump right on this bandwagon if they actually cared about family, and not just the money from the government to keep their children at home.