This Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist discusses the Muslim Accommodations Task Force:

[snip]

The task force's eventual objectives on American campuses include the following, according to the website: permanent Muslim prayer spaces, ritual washing facilities, separate food and housing for Muslim students, separate hours at athletic facilities for Muslim women, paid imams or religious counselors, and campus observance of Muslim holidays.

[snip]

At Georgetown University, Muslim women can live apart in housing that enables them to "sleep in an Islamic setting," as the website puts it. According to a student at the time the policy was adopted, the university housing office initially opposed the idea, on grounds that all freshman should have the experience of "living in dorms and dealing with different kinds of people." That might sound appealing, Muslim students told a reporter in an article featured on the website. But in their view, the reporter wrote, "learning to live with 'different kinds of people' " actually "causes more harm than good" for Muslims, because it requires them to live in an environment that "distracts them from their desire to become better Muslims, and even draw[s] weaker Muslims away from Islam."

quote:

---

How far should the state go in accomodating or facilitating religious practices?

---

No farther than it goes in accommodating any other fantasy or fairytale.

quote:

---

No farther than it goes in accommodating any other fantasy or fairytale.

As for facilitating, the state should have no part in religion but should be strictly secular.

---

The US and Canadian states are explicitly monotheistic, Judeo-Christian states.

What you call "strictly secular" actually means uninterrogated dominant Christian values.

quote:

---

The US and Canadian states are explicitly monotheistic, Judeo-Christian states.

---

This always slays me. The U.S. was founded by diests and athiests-- or at least the framers of their constitution were. Canada was founded by Anglicans and Roman Catholics who until very, very very recently, couldn't even stand Jews, let alone give them credit for founding principles.

I guess this latent credit to Judaism has something to do with the Old Testament. But wait, doesn't the Old Testament play a big part in Islam?

So, why isn't the phrase "Islamo-Judeo-Christian" when we want to miss-identify the founding principles of the U.S. and Canada?

quote:

---

Le T.:

What you call "strictly secular" actually means uninterrogated dominant Christian values.

---

BS. You don't know that, nor can you tell from what I said if it means that or not.

quote:

---

Can you explain to me how the state can have no part in religion.

---

For one it can have in its constitution (which must not reference a higher being) that religious arguments may not be used in formulating policies and laws, not may they have any weight in objections to policies or laws. The state can also bar any religious references in such things as official slogans, mottos, anthems and etc.

Of course the state will have a part in religion in a way when religious nut bars challenge the state on religious grounds, but that need only go as far as denying the challenge as invalid because it is made on religious grounds.

In fact, I think I'd stand hard and fast against that.

But what we can do... what we must do if our species is to survive in the long term, is insist as much as posible that public policy is formulated on rational thinking, on the examination of evidence, on making the best decisions posible with the facts we have at hand.

quote:

---

TP:
We can't deny religious ideas being put forward in the public forum, or religious people from lobbying thier politicians.

---

quote:

---

Yea, but if you read past Exodus, you find out that there appears to be a few exceptions to the "Thou Shall Not Kill" thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
But whatever, it's not like it was written in stone or anything.

---

quote:

---

"distracts them from their desire to become better Muslims, and even draw[s] weaker Muslims away from Islam."

---

It's not the university's purpose to shield the student's religious faith. In fact, I believe universities should expect students to *gasp* question their faith!!! I hear stories from educators of students (christian students actually) who walk out of classrooms if a teacher discusses evolution. I think anybody that does that should be given a failing grade. That's so unbelievably disrespectful and contemptuous of the teacher, the fellow students and the school.

quote:

---

permanent Muslim prayer spaces, ritual washing facilities, separate food and housing for Muslim students, separate hours at athletic facilities for Muslim women, paid imams or religious counselors, and campus observance of Muslim holidays.

---

And if we do the same for scientology, mormons, jews, hindis, sikhs, catholics, orthodox christians, zoroastrians, and native americans universities just might have enough money left over to build a new lab.

I think space for these things could be freed up by forcing professors to share offices.

[ 17 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

I'm an Orthodox Jew (though what we would call "Modern Orthodox") and the talk about accomodations of Muslims in universities reminds me of a big issue in the Orthodox community several years ago. If you google "THe Yale 5" you'll probably find some interesting stuff. The story was basically five Orthodox Jews suing Yale University because they claimed that the school discriminated against them. Among their complaints were that freshmen had to live on campus and the residence life was not conducive to their religious values because they were co-ed and you could buy condoms and whatnot and they could not be expected to live there. The school had already made a lot of extra accomodations for them such as giving them old-fashioned room keys instead of electronic keys that cannot be used on the Sabbath, specifically hiring a female singing coach for one woman who was a music major, since she's not allowed to sing in front of a man. There were, of course, already a kosher cafetria on campus and a Jewish centre with daily services.

The problem is that there has developed a very fluid line between "promoting religion" and "not interfering with it". Add to that the duty to accommodate religious belief to the point of "undue hardship" and you have a recipe for more and more accommodations which can make religious adherence the focus over educational goals.

quote:

---

“A general ‘failure to accommodate’ was the most frequently identified problem by Muslim students in many facets of campus life,” said Ausma Malik, Task Force member and student at the University of Toronto. “From a lack of appropriate foods on campus and inadequate prayer space to inflexible academic policies that are often at odds with religious obligations, Ontario’s Muslim students often face a fundamentally different learning environment than other students.”

---

This quote from the CFS sums it up nicely. What all of you are ignoring is that universities are designed around the Christian student (or the student that is atheist but follows Christian customs, like most Western atheists)

This is what I meant by uninterrogated dominant Christian values.
Link to article

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

quote:

---

Catchfire:
Yes, but what Le Téléspectateur is saying is that there is also a distinction between Christian secular, Muslim secular, Jewish secular, etc.

---

Oxymorons all, which isn't to say that society is not influenced by the religions within it, but something cannot be religious and secular at the same time unless you count the points where the same values overlap.

quote:

---

So, North American atheists, for the most part, are fooling themselves when they talk about constructing a "secular" state when they ignore religious discourse. Because they are just filling their constitution up with Christ but not mentioning his name.

---

That would require explanation with examples to make sense. The fact that secularists (not necessarily atheists) wish to construct a secular state and the separate fact that the constitution may include Christian values are separate issues unless you can show where a stated secular move is being justified by Christian theology.

quote:

---

Le T:

This quote from the CFS sums it up nicely. What all of you are ignoring is that universities are designed around the Christian student (or the student that is atheist but follows Christian customs, like most Western atheists)

---

And what would those customs be?

quote:

---

This is what I meant by uninterrogated dominant Christian values.

---

ETA: Or, a much easier way to look at it is which countries celebrate which holidays. This is more of a practical difference than ethical difference, but the case is plain.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Catchfire:
ETA: Or, a much easier way to look at it is which countries celebrate which holidays. This is more of a practical difference than ethical difference, but the case is plain.

---

No, it is not. It tells us that religion influences the governance of a country, which is widely the case. It does not tell us that those who are trying to construct a secular state are doing so by basing it on religious values.

quote:

---

But go right ahead and imagine your atheist utopia while calling religious beliefs "fantasies and fairy tales"....

---

Who wants an atheist utopia other than atheists? Not me, and I certainly am not an atheist, but then I'm not a deist either. I do believe in a separation of church and state, freedom of and from religion, and state structures built without regard to religion.

As far as religious beliefs go, it can fairly be said that their basis is myth and superstition, fantasy if you like, not reason supported by scientific evidence.

quote:

---

As far as religious beliefs go, it can fairly be said that their basis is myth and superstition, fantasy if you like, not reason supported by scientific evidence.

This does not deny the spiritual, but does put it in a more rational perspective. Our lives and world would be a lesser place without it.

---

Oh wow. Here we go again. This is where we have to go through that whole Eurocentric thing again.

Do you really feel so assured that "our lives and world would be a lesser place without" what you believe to be the best guess at making sense of the universe?

quote:

---

it can fairly be said that their basis is myth and superstition, fantasy if you like, not reason supported by scientific evidence.

---

Even though religion isn't scientific, the state should accomodate it where the accomodation doesn't interfere with core values, such as those protected in the Charter of Rights.

If there is no reason to say that people can't wear a hijjab, or a ceremonial knife, and no core value is affected by allowing them, then no argument exists for prohibition. In fact, respect for diversity and self-determination of each individual would argue in favour of requiring such accomodation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Yea, but if you read past Exodus, you find out that there appears to be a few exceptions to the "Thou Shall Not Kill" thing.

But whatever, it's not like it was written in stone or anything.

---

quote:

---

Le T:
This is where we have to go through that whole Eurocentric thing again.

---

What, exactly, do you mean by that? Or do you know? Maybe you are arguing that science and reason are Eurocentric while fantasies are not?

quote:

---

Do you really feel so assured that "our lives and world would be a lesser place without" what you believe to be the best guess at making sense of the universe?

---

Say what? Where did I say anything about what I "believe to be the best guess at making sense of the universe?" That must be your best guess at what I think about something I haven't mentioned.

As for our lives being lesser without the spiritual dimension, yes, I believe that. Don't you? But, I do not necessarily connect the spiritual with making rational sense of anything.

quote:

---

You are making a huge statement about a lot of things that you know very little about.

---

As is the case with anybody that comments on this topic. When we venture into the realm of myth and superstition, as much of religion is, we have little solid, scientifically verifiable facts to work with that support its claims. Lacking proof those who believe must rely on faith.

Maybe two thousand years from now we will have a faith centered on Santa Claus and it will be blasphemy to not believe that he is real. All of the historical documents that challenge that belief will have been excluded from the holy book.

quote:

---

Jeff House:
Even though religion isn't scientific, the state should accommodate it where the accommodation doesn't interfere with core values, such as those protected in the Charter of Rights.

If there is no reason to say that people can't wear a hijjab, or a ceremonial knife, and no core value is affected by allowing them, then no argument exists for prohibition. In fact, respect for diversity and self-determination of each individual would argue in favour of requiring such accomodation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Well, obviously religion is the opposite of science. And even more obviously, pretending that reason is Eurocentric is just another way of claiming third world peoples are irrational and backward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
No person should be allowed a right or privilege by the state that all others are not also entitles to.

---

What I dislike is when people try to REPLACE science with religion. Because they're very different and serve different purposes.

But religion DOES serve a purpose. And it does comes from the same root that science does - the desire to explain why things are the way they are, or to describe how things are. Way different epistemologies, of course. Which is why it's stupid to consider Genesis a biology text. But oh well.

You won't get an argument from me that religion is generally about argument from authority as opposed to empirical evidence. Of course, most of us believe Einstein's mathematical theories not because we can understand them but because he is a mathematical authority. And then, there are a lot of religious people who are religious because they have had religious experiences (e.g. "felt" the presence of -whatever- in their lives). This could be considered sensory evidence.

quote:

---

No need for all that grad school flimflam.

---

They key strength of science is the ability to understand that what is true today can be made untrue by new information tomorrow.

Religions operate in quite the opposite manner. New information is a threat to orthodoxy, and a threat to the very foundations of the belief.

In short, while it can be said that both attempt to explain things, and are similar on this account, they are opposites because science works while religion doesn't.

quote:

---

So, should colleges have, for example, separate living quarters for Muslim women?

---

Certainly not, at least not based on the reasoning originally presented.

quote:

---

But in their view, the reporter wrote, "learning to live with 'different kinds of people' " actually "causes more harm than good" for Muslims, because it requires them to live in an environment that "distracts them from their desire to become better Muslims, and even draw[s] weaker Muslims away from Islam."

---

quote:

---

Catchfire:
So I suppose you're in favour of wearing halloween masks to election day, since we can't allow devout muslim women the "special privilege" of wearing niquabs?

---

Depends on how the law is written. If it only specifies face coverings, then yes. If it specifies niquabs then everybody should be able to wear one. If it limits it to niquabs on women its sexist and worth challenging. If it is limited to devout muslim women then it is both sexist and panders to religious custom. And who is to decide which ones are devout? And who is to decide which religions are valid an which are not. And who is to decide whether someone speaks directly to a god or whatever or not?

quote:

---

Tommy_P:
Religions operate in quite the opposite manner. New information is a threat to orthodoxy, and a threat to the very foundations of the belief.

---

edited for a confusing bad edit.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

The reason the request has not been made, most likely, is because it is likely considered an absurd request. When Hillels fundraise across North America to get kosher cafterias set up privately, to rent space off campus for a place to pray; don't you think they would rather get it for free? But of course they don't. And likely the reason for that is it was assumed non-sensical. Also, if you read the thread again, you'll remember someone posted an example of five jewish students at Yale.

***

I just went through passover. If I got hungry during the midafternoon and I was out of food, my only choice was to go buy overpriced fruits at the downtown provigo. It didn't occur to me that McGill had a responsibility to provide me with matzoh. That's absurd. The school is hopelessly underfunded, I don't think my personal religious prefferences are a higher priority than say, hiring more janitorial staff.

[ 18 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
So what should be done about the many Catholic seminaries at Canadian universities? Or the Catholic universities like St. F.X. or King's? And Master's of Divinity programs?

Think of how many janitors that is.

---

I think there's a difference between funding or subsidizing an academic program versus someone's private religious observance. So I don't see helping someone get the education they need to become a priest or a minister or rabbi or imam is all that different from helping someone get the education they need to become a doctor or an engineer or a banker or an auto mechanic.

quote:

---

But the report makes clear that systems like this will not eradicate Islamophobia from Canadian campuses. To remove stereotypes, faculty, staff, students and administrators must all learn "the tenets of Islam," it said. "Education modules" for professors should incorporate a focus on "Islam and Islamophobia," while student activities could range from more courses on themes of the Qur'an and the Islamic world today to "socials, programs and other initiatives" to teach about Islam. Everyone on campus should learn to recognize his or her "collective responsibility to identify and stop Islamophobia."

---

It's very condescending that the Canadian Federation of Students should argue that some courses should be universal at the university level. Absolutely not. Everyone has a different background and different abilities, and it is up to the individual student to decide what he or she needs. I'm sure Islamic studies courses are available nearly everywhere.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

Live chickens and other small animals should be available for students of certain Caribbean persuasions to perform ritual sacrifices between classes when necessary.

quote:

---

It's very condescending that the Canadian Federation of Students should argue that some courses should be universal at the university level. Absolutely not. Everyone has a different background and different abilities, and it is up to the individual student to decide what he or she needs. I'm sure Islamic studies courses are available nearly everywhere.

---

You're sure that Islamic Studies courses are available nearly everywhere? Are you serious? Is this just a gut feeling that you have?

You do realize that the CFS task force spent months holding public hearings at universities? And that these suggestion have come from students. I don't really understand how it is condescending for students to identify a significant gap in their university curricula and make suggestions as to how to mend this gap.

Just to be clear. Islam is one of the biggest religions in the world. Non-Muslims from the West (myself and most of the people at babble included) know nothing about the religion. Our government readily exploits our ignorance to, let me see, invade countries to "save Muslim women". And we are allied with the US, who has declared war on Islam.

quote:

---

Catchfire:
It really is refreshing to log onto a progressive bulletin board and see such patronizing reductions of the real, visceral desires of people of faith.

---

Glad you are refreshed.

People of faith are certainly entitled to their visceral desires. The government, however, should not pander to them.

quote:

---

The only "point" such hyperbolic idiocies make is that the proponents of them are close-minded bigots.

---

You must have a different definition of bigot than the standard dictionaries, eh?

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

quote:

---

Le T:
It is essential that Canadians learn about Islam....

---

I agree with you. The more courses offered on Islam (or any other topic) the better.

quote:

---

taught by Indigenous professors

---

Among others. There should be a full range of viewpoints available, including those of non-indigenous scholars.

And, it should be recognized that even among indigenous scholars there will be conflicting views and no doubt unhappiness among some factions that other factions get a say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
The more courses offered on Islam (or any other topic) the better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Salman Rushdie would be an indigenous Muslim, no?

---

quote:

---

Catchfire:
What dictionary do you use that prohibits you from seeing the difference between a headscarf and the golden calf of Baal?

---

Headscarfs vs golden calves is not the issue here. Nice dodge. Who should care that a women wear a head scarf or go naked, either is fine and should be allowed.

What is at issue is the state pandering to special interest groups. In fairness the state must treat all groups the same, and if concessions are made for one, then the demands of others, if made, must also be met.

I refer you to a passage from the story on the CFS that was linked in a response earlier:

quote:

---

The report calls not just for Muslim-only prayer space but for "multiple prayer spaces" with "easy access" from all over campus. All new building plans should include prayer space and ritual washing facilities if necessary, it adds.

---

There is no difference in calling for this than in calling for golden calves or other areas of special interest significance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

You're sure that Islamic Studies courses are available nearly everywhere? Are you serious? Is this just a gut feeling that you have?

You do realize that the CFS task force spent months holding public hearings at universities? And that these suggestion have come from students. I don't really understand how it is condescending for students to identify a significant gap in their university curricula and make suggestions as to how to mend this gap.

It is essential that Canadians learn about Islam so that they can hold their colonial government accountable as it goes out on the prowl for new colonies using new lies. Imagine what a different place Canada would be today if Native Studies, taught by Indigenous professors, was a part of school curricula a few hundred years ago.

---

I want to know how serious you are.

1) The Canadian Federation of Students representative? It's the experience of people I know at most universities that student government is very much *unrepresentative.* They have very low turnout rates, and are dominated by a certain type of student, those with more time for this sort of thing. The type of student who goes to university to study hard and plan his future, which as a bare minimum includes a disproportionate number of students in engineering, medicine, dentistry, music performance, engineering and the applied sciences; is less likely to run for office. Add to this the fact that they represent only a fraction of canadian universities - and multiply that by the percentage of average voter turnout, and you get ~10% representation.

I am sure that some smaller universities might not be able to teach subjects as Islamic studies. Many universities also don't have faculties of medicine. However, students from across Canada who really want to study medicine often can - at a level of competitiveness far higher than studying Islam.

There is no serious lack of curriculum for studying Islam. Many universities have it, and among those that don't pick up a book. While not any university student anywhere can study Islam in a university setting, certainly any serious university student anywhere should have the skills to explore the subject himself. If a university student really feels that he is dependent on the university to learn a subject - then his education has been a failure.

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

1) The Canadian Federation of Students representative? It's the experience of people I know at most universities that student government is very much *unrepresentative.* They have very low turnout rates, and are dominated by a certain type of student, those with more time for this sort of thing. The type of student who goes to university to study hard and plan his future, which as a bare minimum includes a disproportionate number of students in engineering, medicine, dentistry, music performance, engineering and the applied sciences; is less likely to run for office. Add to this the fact that they represent only a fraction of canadian universities - and multiply that by the percentage of average voter turnout, and you get ~10% representation.

---

This isn't just the CFS issuing an edict on what should be done. As I said before this was a huge study with many public hearings at many universities.

quote:

---

Le T:
You seem to be supporting the same line of reasoning that has been used against women, Indigenous people, people of colour and poor people to keep their voices out of the academic canon:....

---

Situations of economic situation, race and gender are completely different from situations of religious or social preferences. By comparing the two as similar you cheapen the struggles for racial and gender equality and economic justice.

There's everything admirable about learning about different cultures and religions, on a voluntary basis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

You seem to be supporting the same line of reasoning that has been used against women, Indigenous people, people of colour and poor people to keep their voices out of the academic canon: "If you don't like what we are teaching, it is your responsibility to find sources yourself that reflect non-white, non-male, non-bourgeois views, inform the professor and the rest of the class and then defend your position against relentless, ignorant attacks." That seems like a lot to ask of a student who just wants to see their story represented in the course literature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
What about the rights of those that want to live a life free from religion?

There's everything admirable about learning about different cultures and religions, on a voluntary basis.

Anything else is indoctrination, and is a serious violation of civil liberties.

---

A-fucking-men. Having to learn the tenets of Islam? No thank you.

quote:

---

I would be pretty damn leery of incorporating Islamic perspectives into a law class. Talk about sticking your hand in the fire!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

You might want to explain what you mean by this because it reads as being quite Islamophobic.

---

How so? I mean no more than what I said - I think it would be highly unwise for instructors/profs without expertise in Islam, or experience in the Muslim religion, to lecture about it. And I am unpersuaded that it is at all a simple thing for a non-adherent/scholar to incorporate Islamic perspectives into a class or lecture. By "sticking your hand in the fire" I meant that one would be taking a (serious in my opinion) risk of offending adherents or misconstruing religious tenets.

Frankly, I just don't see that as part of my job/skill set, and I would have to resist any attempt to make it so.

If the real issue behind those particular recommendations in the report is to hire more Islamic scholars (which is mentioned somewhere I think), then fine: fight for that. Don't try and expand everyone else's areas in that direction.

ETA: Just to provide a more specific example, I don't just teach "facts"; I think it is essential to the learning process to interrogate assumptions, pose challenges, stir up debate. I would not be comfortable doing that with respect to aspects of a religion's beliefs or practices. At the same time, I would not be comfortable with presenting facts about Islam as though they were beyond debate. It would be a tough dilemma and one that I don't want to take on. I should stress that I DON'T see this dilemma occurring in the same way when I integrate anti-racism, anti-sexism analysis into class components. I suppose it's the idea that there is some sort of static body of knowledge relating to Islam, that profs who are not from that location need to be able to understand well enough to incorporate, that is bothering me.

And, I think Tommy Paine's point bears repeating - once we start talking about requiring people to learn about PARTICULAR religions, as part of the academic process, I think we are crossing the line.
[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

[ 19 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

Should a law school, for example, be obligated to teach that suppression of women is no better and no worse (i.e., it's just a different "perspective" of equal validity) than a culture that celebrates (at least aspirationally--and, in many meaningful ways, as a practical reality) equality between genders?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
What about the rights of those that want to live a life free from religion?

---

Exactly my point, which is why all financial, education and governmental agencies must be 24/7 365 days of the year.

Let's think about the near opposite where some students choose to buy into the hard partying, hard drinking frat culture and live with their frat brothers and sorority sisters. That is also a lifestyle choice with far more social influence, despite its bad reputation.

I don't think it is within the mandate of the university to force a type of assimilation, into an obviously flawed social situation that many, not only Muslims see as repugnant. Respecting this choice is a matter of consideration for the coexistence of various cultures.

One can also think of the holiday schedule that accommodates Christian and, in an increasing number of cases, Jewish Holidays, but no other. Those wishing to lay low for Ramadan or Id, Diwali or Holi, or any myriad number of holidays are out of luck. So we do have in practice religious accommodation.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: ceti ]

quote:

---

ceti:
Why are Muslim women getting singled out for wanting to live in religiously appropriate quarters?

---

They are not, at least by the topic of this discussion. The issue isn't what people want, it is what the state should provide.

quote:

---

One can also think of the holiday schedule that accommodates Christian and, in an increasing number of cases, Jewish Holidays, but no other.

---

That is a good point. The solution is for the state not to recognize any religious holidays. What the state could do is recognize that everyone has a certain number of holidays per year on days of their choosing which employers must treat as they do stat holidays now.

Some could choose Christmas, others Passover or the solstices or the day that images of the Prophet and the Virgin Mary appeared on pepperoni at Pizza Hut.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
the day that images of the Prophet and the Virgin Mary appeared on pepperoni at Pizza Hut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
The solution is for the state not to recognize any religious holidays. What the state could do is recognize that everyone has a certain number of holidays per year on days of their choosing which employers must treat as they do stat holidays now.

Some could choose Christmas, others Passover or the solstices or the day that images of the Prophet and the Virgin Mary appeared on pepperoni at Pizza Hut.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
The comedic rim-shot one liners at the expense of people of faith act is getting a little old JW - time for a fresh new gig.

---

How about this: The Church of the FSM?

Bidding war for 'Virgin Mary sandwich'

Get a coffee mug of the image of the VM

Image of Virgin Mary holding baby Jesus on a Boston hospital window

Image of Virgin Mary said to appear in Elian's Miami home

And the list goes on. Maybe everyone can submit their favourite site?

The older tradition rests on the idea that truth is ascertainable, and thus non-truth can be prohibited, or at least, discouraged. The Soviet Union specialized in marginalizing relgious belief, for example.

The repressive nature of such a policy can be glimpsed when we reflect on the religious idea that Moses went to the mountaintop, and there received from God the rules by which his people should live.

I have no doubt that this never occurred. Yet I would be unwilling nonetheless to arrest Martin Luther King for his "I have been to the mountaintop...I have seen the promised land" speech.

At the same time, I think religion is a valid target for criticism and, in many instances, ridicule and I oppose the state promotion of religion (like the Stone Age chief justice from Alabama with his Ten Commandments monument).

What irritates me about some of the posts on this thread is that if a person criticizes state accomodation for Islam, that criticism is labeled as "Islamophobic" and other such nonsense.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

quote:

---

Jeff House:
It is simply obvious that religious imagery, however "false" and "irrational" can make a huge contribution towards political decency and progress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
That's a great post by Jeff. I agree with that in so many ways. As a non-believer in any religion, I do understand the need many people have for it and I would oppose any attempted state supression of religion, ala the Soviet Union.

At the same time, I think religion is a valid target for criticism and, in many instances, ridicule and I oppose the state promotion of religion (like the Stone Age chief justice from Alabama with his Ten Commandments monument).

What irritates me about some of the posts on this thread is that if a person criticizes state accomodation for Islam, that criticism is labeled as "Islamophobic" and other such nonsense.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:

Indeed. It would also seem that not having a particular interest in learning about Islam (or any religion) may be viewed as Islamophobic (or anti-religion).

---

To be honest I don't really have a burning desire to learn about the major religions. On the one hand, yes, I am somewhat interested. But on the other hand, there are so many other things I would rather learn. A new language (I'm thinking chinese), reading some science fiction, sports, more numerical methods, cosmology...

Which is precisely the number one reason I found the CFS' report condescending.

[ 20 April 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

mayakovsky:
It has holidays that are from the Christian tradition true but that is about it.

---

The biggest universities in Canada like McGill, UToronto, UCalgary and UBC want to pride themselves on their multiculturalism and diversity, but what they think that means is just being able to snap pictures of a disproportionate amount of POCs and throw them on the cover of their promotional literature. That is, they don't want to truly integrate different cultures into their campus; they only want to retain the WASPish aristocratic heritage of the North American university. If you truly want to be multicultural and reap the natural benefits diversity offers, you have to be able to accommodate the lifestyle choices of these cultures, like the culture that comes with Islam.

Devout Muslims are a special case because they have to pray five times a day, and making available a small prayer space on campus is easily accommodated. When all these other religions that scaremongers like 500_Apples and Mr. West start requesting the same space for the same reasons, we can look at their requests and see if it is feasible and desirable to accommodate it. The inaccessibility of Muslim prayer space has been demonstrated to be a serious impediment to the education and development of young Muslims, and there is no legitimate reason it can not be granted.

As for the Muslim women who request all-female, all-Muslim living quarters, why can a small wing of a dormitory not be flagged for this? Why is this such an unacceptable request? It seems the valiant atheists in this thread (by the way, I'm not a person of faith by any stretch), are more interested in getting their rocks off mocking people of faith for being so stupid rather than actually weighing the question seriously. There is no reason why people cannot follow their faith devoutly and still participate in the multivalent exposure that is part and parcel of university life. Being religious does not in any way foreclose that possibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:

Finally, I can't believe the resistance to including Islamic thought and culture in the law faculty, or in any humanities. I wouldn't ask that such exposure be levelled to Science students, because they need so much help understanding culture in the first place, that making a contingent of their degree on Oriental culture would be like punching granite. But why isn't there a more multicultural approach to all the social sciences and humanities? It should be taught in high school, in elementary school. Then maybe we can replace our ignorant, white-bred progressive journalists with those who have a clearer, more nuanced understanding of culture, religion and spirituality.

---

I've never known a science student take an arts elective as an elective and not do really well. Your condescension seems to demonstrate a rather small set of personal experiences. Personally, I got mid to high 80s in CEGEP (english and philo, nine courses compared to the requirement of (6)?), and an A and a B+ in university (ethics, and sociology of gender).

I've taken a lot of humanities. We did have some christian thinkers like Augustine, in the philosophy courses, especially the one discussing human nature. There's a case to be made for islamic thought to be included in that one, and hindu thought as well for that matter. There is simply no case to be made that there be a universal obligatory class on islamic studies, or an obligatory core. University students are adults and can make their own decisions.

For example, I think the world would be better off if all arts students took some statistics courses. There'd be even more benefit if they took a science minor, be it in environmental science or biology; as science is now a leading driver of social change, but most of the people in positions of influence don't understand it at all. However, I would *never* dream, of saying that a mass of adults should be forced to learn something they simply don't want to learn.

I admit though that I'm kind of biased. In the humanities courses I took, approaches seemed very multicultural. There were perspectives and case studies from all over the world, and I preffered it that way. Maybe I got really lucky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
As for the Muslim women who request all-female, all-Muslim living quarters, why can a small wing of a dormitory not be flagged for this? Why is this such an unacceptable request?

---

And, then, let’s add a “small wing” to a dormitory for Xian fundamentalists who are offended by all of the drinking, sex, and other “sin” occurring in the integrated dorms.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Devout Muslims are a special case because they have to pray five times a day, and making available a small prayer space on campus is easily accommodated. When all these other religions that scaremongers like 500_Apples and Mr. West start requesting the same space for the same reasons, we can look at their requests and see if it is feasible and desirable to accommodate it. The inaccessibility of Muslim prayer space has been demonstrated to be a serious impediment to the education and development of young Muslims, and there is no legitimate reason it can not be granted.

---

So, devout Muslims are a “special case”? And when others seek similar accommodations, we can then see if it’s “feasible and desirable”? Measured against what standard?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
The biggest universities in Canada...don't want to truly integrate different cultures into their campus....If you truly want to be multicultural and reap the natural benefits diversity offers, you have to be able to accommodate the lifestyle choices of these cultures, like the culture that comes with Islam.

---

Oh, I get it now. It’s only “diverse” cultures that will get the religious accommodations. They are the “special cases” and, ultimately, the only ones that will be deemed to be “feasible and desirable”.

This is really at the root of the argument of those who are defending government accommodation of religion. It’s not religion generally—because clearly if Xians were the ones asking for similar accommodations those same people would be screaming, along with me, “Keep religion and government separate”. It’s only “diverse” religions that need apply.

So, essentially, the argument is that the good of promoting diversity trumps the good of keeping government out of the business of accommodating (and fostering) any religion.

I am not saying that any course should be mandatory at University. Most universities have a diverse first-year program where students should of course choose their own education. But, when they take legal theory, non-Western thought should be integrated in the course. As for your bizarre suggestion that statistics, of all science courses, should be taken by all Arts students, well that's just weird.

As for Sven's poor attempt at humour and sarcasm, I don't see why the University shouldn't provide teetotaling accommodations for students who don't want to buy in to the binge-drinking, sexually charged atmosphere fostered by most universities. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with Xian fundies, though.

quote:

---

But in their view, the reporter wrote, "learning to live with 'different kinds of people' " actually "causes more harm than good" for Muslims, because it requires them to live in an environment that "distracts them from their desire to become better Muslims, and even draw[s] weaker Muslims away from Islam."

---

I agree with Sven 100 percent on this. If the need to become a better muslim means insulation from others and the world at large than a school setting is not the place for this. It has nothing to do with anti-religion and everything to do with isolationism and an us versus them situation that will backfire entirely. Sven is right as well when he says that if this were Xian fundies requiring a 'safe space from the wider society' then the response would be an absolute NO (see Bob Hobkins Univesrity)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
500_Apples, you do a great deal of boasting how well you did in humanities classes and a very small deal of showing how these classes have improved your critical thinking. This may come as a surprise to you, but I am not particularly interested in seeing your report card.

I am not saying that any course should be mandatory at University. Most universities have a diverse first-year program where students should of course choose their own education. But, when they take legal theory, non-Western thought should be integrated in the course. As for your bizarre suggestion that statistics, of all science courses, should be taken by all Arts students, well that's just weird.

---

Thank you for the snide condescension.

Quoting from the article:

quote:

---

To remove stereotypes, faculty, staff, students and administrators must all learn "the tenets of Islam," it said. "Education modules" for professors should incorporate a focus on "Islam and Islamophobia," while student activities could range from more courses on themes of the Qur'an and the Islamic world today to "socials, programs and other initiatives" to teach about Islam.

---

quote:

---

I think it's easy to throw out demands that university curricula accommodate different cultures. It's harder to see how those demands would be met in practice.

---

You've never heard of critical pedagogy, feminist pedagogy, anti-racist pedagogy?

People have been "meeting those demands" for a while and reflecting and writing on the process of doing so. You seem to be behind on your reading Professor Pookie.

quote:

---

Do people really think that there is a need to integrate Islamic law/perspectives into Canadian law? Why? And, is it now impossible to argue against this without being branded as an Islamophobe or narrow-minded?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

You don't even have the slightest idea what Islamic law/perspectives are, which you yourself have already stated. And now you are arguing that it should not be a part of "Canadian law"? I'm not going to "brand you an Islamaphobe", but you should be aware of that fact that your statement is Islamaphobic.

---

Well, Telepsectateur, I do know that Canadian LAW does not, currently, incorporate Islamic persepctives. I feel confident saying that, even though I am not Muslim.

Thank you for proving my point, btw.

Oh, and I absolutely reject the idea that anti-racist, anti-sexist, heck, even a theoretically MULTICULTURAL approach, are at all similar to incorporating PARTICULAR cultural/religious views into scholarship or pedagogy.

ETA: Nor did I ever say I knew "nothing" about Islam. I do not know enough about it to incorporate it into my teaching, a practice which generally presumes, oh I dunno, let's say "expertise", for lack of a better term, eh? There's a difference, you know.

[ 21 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Catchfire:
It's really unfortunate that the level of discourse here has become reduced to adolescent boys who just earned their first taste of atheism after reading Brave New World or something.

---

Talk about reducing the level of discourse.

quote:

---

The hyperbolic reductions of the desires of people of faith to what a few desperate people thought they say in their waffle syrup is classless, infantile and thoroughly unfunny.

---

Classless? What might make an interesting thesis is the study of the response of people to apparitions based on their class.

Unfunny? Some have no sense of humour. Besides what is the difference between Moses talking to God, or Mohammed, or Abraham or Joeseph Smith, etc. and Jane Doe seeing Jesus in a cookie? Who is to say that one persons religious experience is any less valid than another's? Is one person's faith reinforced by an image in a cheese sandwich any less than someone else's in a burning bush?

quote:

---

If you truly want to be multicultural and reap the natural benefits diversity offers, you have to be able to accommodate the lifestyle choices of these cultures, like the culture that comes with Islam.

---

The question is to what degree, and what about cultural traits that counter our accepted practices of human rights? Perhaps you are challenging the notion that people are equal with equal rights?

quote:

---

Devout Muslims are a special case because they have to pray five times a day, and making available a small prayer space on campus is easily accommodated.

---

Which special cases are valid and which are not? And there is nothing wrong with voluntarily making spaces available, particularly in situations where the government is not involved. What is a problem is legally mandating such spaces for selected groups, or making accommodations for some but not for others that request it.

quote:

---

When all these other religions that scaremongers like 500_Apples and Mr. West start requesting the same space for the same reasons, we can look at their requests and see if it is feasible and desirable to accommodate it.

---

Why should any one group be given special treatment? We either believe in equality or we do not.

quote:

---

The inaccessibility of Muslim prayer space has been demonstrated to be a serious impediment to the education and development of young Muslims, and there is no legitimate reason it can not be granted.

---

Maybe sexism?

The inaccessibility of cross burning space has been demonstrated to be a serious impediment to the education and development of young KKK members, and there is no legitimate reason it can not be granted.

Maybe racism?

quote:

---

As for the Muslim women who request all-female, all-Muslim living quarters, why can a small wing of a dormitory not be flagged for this?

---

Why not indeed. But it shouldn't be a legal requirement and if granted to one group other groups with similar needs must also be accommodated if they so desire. Or, instead of practicing segregation we could favour integration and equality.

Using you argument above why shouldn't pick a group, whites, Asians, Baptists, etc. have separate facilities flagged for them like dining rooms, bus seats, drinking fountains and so on?

quote:

---

It seems the valiant atheists in this thread ....

---

Really, who are those atheists? Are you assuming that just because someone disagrees with you on this that they are an atheist? That would be sloppy scholarship.

quote:

---

....are more interested in getting their rocks off mocking people of faith for being so stupid rather than actually weighing the question seriously.

---

Being stupid is your spin, and whether people are stupid or not is beside the point. Weighing the question seriously we must ask what is the best course to remove the state from religion and to treat people of all faiths or lack thereof in the most equal manner.

Ideally in an egalitarian society we are all entitled to the same treatment.

quote:

---

There is no reason why people cannot follow their faith devoutly and still participate in the multivalent exposure that is part and parcel of university life.

---

Ha! There is if the practice of faith conflicts with the rights of others, requires others to participate (such as using tax dollars or other communal resources) or contravenes the law.

quote:

---

It should be taught in high school, in elementary school.

---

Right along with Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, paganism, hedonism and other ways of thinking. Would you make these classes mandatory or could parents be able to exclude their children from them?

quote:

---

Then maybe we can replace our ignorant, white-bred progressive journalists with those who have a clearer, more nuanced understanding of culture, religion and spirituality.

---

A truly ignorant statement that says far more about the intolerance and lack of understanding of the author than about those that are being addressed.

quote:

---

This has nothing to do with putting religion into government, it has to do with government accommodating religion. Why should government be out of that business?

---

Because government in a secular state (which for some of us is the ideal) has no business involving itself either in favour of or in opposition to religion. The only place that government and religion should connect is in those areas where religious practices are also against the law, or where religious groups are treated like any civic or other kind of group in times of emergency to aid relief efforts.

quote:

---

Does accommodation mean endorsement?

---

quote:

---

The question is to what degree, and what about cultural traits that counter our accepted practices of human rights? Perhaps you are challenging the notion that people are equal with equal rights?

---

The fact that you think you can simply transplant the KKK for "Muslim women" not only proves your ignorance, Islamophobia, and disdain for persons of faith, it also reveals an in ability to conceive of the cultural nuance that makes up a society. The fact is culture is not made up of equal parts. It is made up of unequal parts of various value that form a tenuous bind. I know this is harder to wrap your head around, so if you want to keep repeating your "equality" prayer, by all means, go ahead.

quote:

---

Catchfire:
You have a very utopian conception of equality where if we just say everyone is equal, that's the way it is.

---

You make presumptions about other people with way too little evidence to back them up. Not surprising then that they are often incorrect.

quote:

---

But if you have any ability for social criticism whatsoever, you know that every society has built in inequality. Based on class, sex, race, religion and anything else. As Le Téléspectateur points out, Canadian society is structured around Christian values, whether we want it that way or not. So, Christian views are naturally accommodated in this society--this is why Sunday instead of Saturday is the traditional day off.

---

That is a no brainer, like the sun comes up in the east. Why even bother to bring it up except to satisfy an affinity for lecturing?

quote:

---

So, if we truly want an equal society with equal rights, we need to enact certain legislations to guide the process. Hence affirmative action and the like.

---

Not necessarily. And reverse discrimination is still discrimination, regardless of its purpose or necessity.

quote:

---

The fact that you think you can simply transplant the KKK for "Muslim women" not only proves your ignorance, Islamophobia, and disdain for persons of faith, it also reveals an in ability to conceive of the cultural nuance that makes up a society.

---

Why does it prove that? Can you substantiate that wild accusation? You are far too ignorant of my history to say such a thing with any credibility. If you weren't you probably wouldn't say it, but even if you did, then we would have some interesting points of interpretation to debate.

What may be indicated here is how you wish to perceive those that disagree with you despite whatever their background and understanding might really be. And, the issue is not merely about Muslims. The argument would be the same should we drop reference to them completely and substitute some other example.

quote:

---

The fact is culture is not made up of equal parts. It is made up of unequal parts of various value that form a tenuous bind.

---

Another obvious no brainer, next will you inform us that day follows night?

quote:

---

I know this is harder to wrap your head around, so if you want to keep repeating your "equality" prayer, by all means, go ahead.

---

We could raise discussion to a more mature level by leaving out childish and gratuitous personal attacks.

quote:

---

Accommodating the Muslim women wouldn't cost any tax dollars (what a bizarre assertion)....

---

Not if it is free or paid for by those using it. Any institution that receives any public money in any form is using tax dollars to some extent. Money (or resources or space) diverted to make special accommodations for anyone, like money used for anything else, is at least partially coming from taxes.

quote:

---

....and we certianly should teach Buddhism, and even some Paganism in schools.

---

And Confucianism, and Shintoism, and hedonism, and everything else that we can. The question is how much can be taught, and what criteria we then use to trim what should be taught down to what we can actually teach, and how.

quote:

---

....it is not "segregation" to create certain [meaning separate] living arrangements.

---

Separating people apart is not segregating them? Interesting use of the English language, that.

quote:

---

Are non-co-ed dorms "segregationist"?

---

Yes, they segregate women from men. You might even say that they are sexist.

Having said that one can make a much better case for segregation based on sex in some instances, than one can for segregation based on race or religion.

quote:

---

If one were to say that there should be separate quarters for women or men only for those who wish, that would be much different and far more acceptable than saying that there should be separate quarters for Muslim women (or Christian women, or whatever, the issue isn't about Muslims).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
I don't see why the University shouldn't provide teetotaling accommodations for students who don't want to buy in to the binge-drinking, sexually charged atmosphere fostered by most universities. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with Xian fundies, though.

---

Teetotaling has nothing, per se, to do with Xians. But, if Xians wanted a "small wing" to avoid the "sinful ways" of "the binge-drinking, sexually charged atmosphere fostered by most universities", then how could you deny them one if you give Muslim women a "small wing" to avoid the same damned thing?!

But, as I said, I suspect it's not religious accomodation, generally, that you are interested in. No, it's "diverse" religion only. Therefore, Xians need not apply. And, so, like I said, your desire for diversity, in effect, trumps the long-standing principle of separation of church and state. That is what is at the heart of your argument.

And I find the attempt to paint this particular request (separate living quarters) as nothing more than a logical progression from recognizing the needs/situation of women, to be extremely problematic.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

Just when I wanted to add some points that would be wholly disregarded by the excellent anti-racist/pro-multi-culti advocates: Sven, Jerry, pookie and 500! Aw!

Catchfire, it's incredible that you hung in so long. My advice for next time is don't bother, but hopefully someone (besides me!) appreciates your efforts, even in retrospect.

Ahem. Muslim women can (and will) fucking well speak for themselves about what they need, and can negotiate for themselves if accomodation is possible in this context.

Seriously, when I was living in residence I would have loved the option of living in a wing or house with less of a tolerance for drunkeness and promiscuity. If there were only three options for me: Co-ed, female only (which were both status quo in terms of debauchery) and Muslim female, could I live in the female wing?

Catchfire, who would determine whether I was Muslim or not if I said I was? Who will be employed by university housing departments to determine the authenticity of Muslim identity? Remember that Irshad Manji is often called a non-Muslim due to being a lesbian and a very outspoken
feminist. Would an Islamic studies lesson in university teach that homosexuals can be Muslim? Would a lesbian Muslim be allowed to live in the Muslim wing if she openly stated her sexuality? Who would decide this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Aw, this intelligent and wonderfully progressive thread is almost at 100 posts!

Just when I wanted to add some points that would be wholly disregarded by the excellent anti-racist/pro-multi-culti advocates: Sven, Jerry, pookie and 500! Aw!

Catchfire, it's incredible that you hung in so long. My advice for next time is don't bother, but hopefully someone (besides me!) appreciates your efforts, even in retrospect.

Ahem. Muslim women can (and will) fucking well speak for themselves about what they need, and can negotiate for themselves if accomodation is possible in this context.

Way to go guys! Excellent alternative analysis!

---

Nice.

ETA: I don't think anyone - on either side - was trying to speak "for" Muslim women.

[ 22 April 2007: Message edited by: pookie ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Aw, this intelligent and wonderfully progressive thread is almost at 100 posts!

Just when I wanted to add some points that would be wholly disregarded by the excellent anti-racist/pro-multi-culti advocates: Sven, Jerry, pookie and 500! Aw!

Catchfire, it's incredible that you hung in so long. My advice for next time is don't bother, but hopefully someone (besides me!) appreciates your efforts, even in retrospect.

Ahem. Muslim women can (and will) fucking well speak for themselves about what they need, and can negotiate for themselves if accomodation is possible in this context.

Way to go guys! Excellent alternative analysis!

---

And Xian, Hindu, Jewish, Morman women and men of all races will speak for themselves as well about what they need and will negotiate if the precedent is set.

I also agree with Stargazer that segregation is not helpful to multiculturalism.To me,multiculturalism means acceptance of all cultures,not acceptance of all cultures except one.

quote:

---

As for the Muslim women who request all-female, all-Muslim living quarters, why can a small wing of a dormitory not be flagged for this? Why is this such an unacceptable request? It seems the valiant atheists in this thread (by the way, I'm not a person of faith by any stretch), are more interested in getting their rocks off mocking people of faith for being so stupid rather than actually weighing the question seriously

---

Muslim students confront Musharrif

From my perspective,if female muslim students wish to live a segregated life,can they not have a sorority house style accomodation? Can the muslim community not provide a house that the students can use?

In the case of the madrassa students in Pakistan,they threaten insurrection and advocate violence. While I do not suggest that Canadian students would become extremist by living in segregated accomodation, I also do not believe segregation is a multicultural ideal.

quote:

---

Le T:
Ha! oh that's hilarious. You make no sense at all.

---

Sorry that you are unable to tell the difference between making allowances for people base on gender and between people based on religion or some other acquired difference.

I will admit that after posting the statement that confused you I wish that I would have made a change in the wording to:

If one were to say that there should be separate quarters exclusively for women or exclusively for men for those who wished to be separate, that would be much different and far more acceptable than saying that there should be separate quarters exclusively for Muslim women (or Christian women, or whatever, the issue isn't about Muslims).

Also sorry that you find it necessary to use hateful remarks instead of logical reasons to defend your position. I guess that you have redefined the term bigot to mean anyone who does not agree with you. You certainly cannot support that charge in its dictionary meaning.

quote:

---

EmmaG:
Who should be tasked with determining if accomadation is possible? The university president? the Supreme Court?

---

The issue is whether the state should accommodate religion.

If the answer is yes then the next questions are:

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?

quote:

---

Jester:
From my perspective,if female muslim students wish to live a segregated life,can they not have a sorority house style accomodation? Can the muslim community not provide a house that the students can use?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
Ahem. Muslim women can (and will) fucking well speak for themselves about what they need, and can negotiate for themselves if accomodation is possible in this context.

Way to go guys! Excellent alternative analysis!

---

However, it is the principle of accomodation, and the extent to which it is necessary or unnecessary, which is the topic here.

It is a dangerous idea that only Jews may speak about Israel, or that only blacks should speak about apartheid, or that only Muslim women may speak about matters which directly concern them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I myself have an interest in insuring that everyone who lives in Canada has the opportunity to live a full life, including Muslim women, and I intend to defend that principle, no matter who wishes to silence me.

---

Then the next step is to claim only those who have a specific "experience" may speak about something.

While this idea does have progressive roots in the theory of anti-imperialism, it might also lead to the idea that only Germans may have an opinion about Hitler, or only (real) Canadians may have an opinion about Canada.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mayakovsky:
...I really wish people would stop referring to the west as a Christian society, it is not. It has holidays that are from the Christian tradition true but that is about it. Heck, I think if you tried to cancel the Christmas holiday the retail industry would fight you harder than the Christians.

---

Actually, it is more than just Christian holidays, it the entrenched ideology that keeps those holidays in place here in Canada.

Governments,schools and financial institutions should be operating 24/7, 365 days of the year. This is the only way governments can stay out of supporting any particular religion and move towards a true egalitarian state.

People who want Muslim special days off, book them, people who want Hindu special days off, book them, people who want pagan days off, book them, and exatly the same would be said for Christian holidays, or any other religious belief system.

It would be on a first apply, first off basis of course, just as it is for other professions that require employees to work "Christian" stat holidays, like health care, public transit/ transportation, restaurants etc.

No need to cancel Christmas, just get government out of it. In actual fact, business and retailers w/could start commercializing other religion's special occasions, the same way they did to Christmas and Easter. They know they would make a ton more money.

As another poster said, there would be paid Stat holidays a year, and it would be up to the individual where to apply them. So, if a person has 12-14 stat days in a year, they then can take their own special occasions off, or not and just get paid out for them.

IMV, running schools, governments and finacial institutions 24/7,or at least 16/7(at first) 365 days, has many pluses besides taking religion out of government.

1. Allows parents/families to build their operations model on a best fit for their situation. I.e. kids could go to evening school if parents work evenings, or do shift school if their parents do shift work.

3. Gives people who work days, better accessability to government and finacial services.

4. Creates more job positions, a lot more!

5. Canada would be open for business to other countries around the world in different time zones. I.e. business that require business to government contacts, Foreign Embassy to government contacts are facilitated

6. Governmental affairs for Canadians would conducted in a timely manner. I.e. passports, permits, licensing, EI, pensions, environmental assessments and actions, etc.

7. Better utilization of energy, instead of wasting electricity/heating/air conditioning of spaces that are not being used 16+ hours of the day.

And certainly there are many more benefits, if I thought further about it, with no downsides.

Truthfully, whether people choose to realize it, or not, our government and our system in Canada, accommodates mainstream "Christian" Protestants and Catholics, but not not others like Seventh Day Adventists, or Jehovah Witness. And it is high time for this to change.