'Charter Of Values' bans religious symbols | INFJ Forum

'Charter Of Values' bans religious symbols

While the intent of the proposed change (to create a sense of neutrality and impartiality in government workers) is admirable, I have trouble believing that this is not just a product of xenophobia and, more specifically, islamophobia.

After having seen other countries introduce bits and pieces of legislation which directly target the behaviors of Muslims, I wouldn't be especially surprised if it was the case here.
 
SealHammer said:
While the intent of the proposed change (to create a sense of neutrality and impartiality in government workers) is admirable, I have trouble believing that this is not just a product of xenophobia and, more specifically, islamophobia.

After having seen other countries introduce bits and pieces of legislation which directly target the behaviors of Muslims, I wouldn't be especially surprised if it was the case here.
Click to expand...

Ironically though, the turban thing effects Sikhs more than Muslims. Also interestingly the picture they show looks like a dastar, which is the Sikh turban.

This is significant because for many Muslims, wearing the head covering is optional - for a Sikh though it is not optional. If a Sikh cannot wear the dastar, they will simply not take the job. There are many cases where a Sikh would rather go to jail or even be killed than not wear the dastar.
 
Freedom of religion is similar to freedom of expression. Without these outlets people are not being themselves but rather being the people society is attempting to force them to be. Say what you want about religion, squashing it is likely a demoralizing idea.
 
Colt said:
Freedom of religion is similar to freedom of expression. Without these outlets people are not being themselves but rather being the people society is attempting to force them to be. Say what you want about religion, squashing it is likely a demoralizing idea.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Squashing religion is an old idea without any real merit. We here in the states deal with that 'separation of church and state' thing and all it does is stir people up. As a social services employee I see people impose their religious beliefs upon their work and judgments anyway. So as far as I can tell it only backfires...

I think the world would be better off if we just embraced all religions as interpretative styles of the human need to connect with Spirit. If we could do this - then we'd be well on our way to accepting and embracing diversity of all kinds - instead of promoting divisiveness and alienation.
 
Is atheism in a distinct category of its own?

Religion seems to be a pretty global thing - with much variety and personal choice.

When one chooses a particular religion for him/herself, it is basically a withdrawal from all other religions to varying degrees. Atheism is also a withdrawl from religions - to no religion. (If religion is understood to be fundamentally theistic). Even humanism, nationalism and other things seem to be quasi-religious.

Is it possible, if religion includes non-theistic beliefs/values (such as of nationalism, humanism, libertarianism, satanism?, etc.), for significant numbers of people to function without any subtle expression of their belief system? And more importantly, is it realistic/practical?

To ask someone to supress their religious ideology/values/expression is basically to ask them to adopt other ideologies/values/expressions in their life. Is it the place of the state to do this?


I don't think there is an easy "solution" or practice which effectively allows state/religion separation, without the state basically encroaching into religious areas.

On the one hand you might have a situation where a state arbitrarily chooses one religion as its single public profile; on the other hand, you have a situation where a state chooses to suppress all religion from its public profile. Both processes are virtually identical in their method and result: the state intrudes into areas which are personal and in which it has no competence to direct prescriptively.

The third option is one in which the state allows freedom of religious expression among all its citizens in all their activities - and this mostly happens around the world. I think this attitude is preferable to the others at present, so I disagree with the Canadian/Quebec decision.
 
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]

Well what this is actually referring to is public service employees not wearing this stuff while at work, not citizens at large.

Still don't agree with it though.
 
sprinkles said:
@Flavus Aquila

Well what this is actually referring to is public service employees not wearing this stuff while at work, not citizens at large.

Still don't agree with it though.
Click to expand...

A public service position should be exemplary in its employment of citizen's rights.

Doesn't it seem contradictory that citizens are treated uniformly by the state, with the exception of those who directly work for the state?



State employees are still citizens and as such should be free - or especially free to express their individuality - otherwise there is a fundamental separation of state and citizen.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
A public service position should be exemplary in its employment of citizen's rights.

Doesn't it seem contradictory that citizens are treated uniformly by the state, with the exception of those who directly work for the state?



State employees are still citizens and as such should be free - or especially free to express their individuality - otherwise there is a fundamental separation of state and citizen.
Click to expand...

Well what they're actually trying to do is quell discrimination and division by making everyone be equal, so that you don't end up with clients that either want to identify with the person who has a turban, or be offended by them.

It's still incredibly misguided.
 
I'll take the minority stance on this one.

If a politician thinks Coca-Cola is the greatest thing ever, they should feel free to consume it to their hearts content at home. They can wear Coca-Cola t-shirts on the weekend. They can go to Coca-Cola conventions on vacation. They can collect Coke bottles after hours. By all means, enjoy Coca-Cola.

But I don't want to see a paid politician using his celebrity status, screen time, and office to promote this commercial product. I can say this without even liking Pepsi. I shouldn't have to be advertised to by someone who is occupying a position funded by tax dollars from everyone, including Pepsi employees and their fans.

Maybe I like Dr. Pepper or 7-Up and don't understand why Coke and Pepsi are fighting for the limelight. Or maybe I think all sodas are bad, are unhealthy, and shouldn't be promoted. As someone promoting either of these minority views, I am at an extreme disadvantage when the more popular soft drinks have state backing.

Sometimes my city may be building something with tax dollars, like the Dr. Pepper Ballpark in Frisco or what was originally the Coca-Cola Starplex in downtown Dallas. If I were a big public promoter of a particular soft drink, would you not question whether I had the ability to make unbiased decisions about to whom to award these sponsorships?

Advertising works. Companies pay for product placement because it helps them move more product. This is not the job of a paid public servant.

If you prefer, replace the beverages in this post with your favorite flavors of religion. Or, replace it with anything else.
 
sprinkles said:
Well what they're actually trying to do is quell discrimination and division by making everyone be equal, so that you don't end up with clients that either want to identify with the person who has a turban, or be offended by them.

It's still incredibly misguided.
Click to expand...

I think the best way to promote tolerance among citizens - including in clients of public services - is to tolerate diversity.

You are not going to make a society more liberal by suppressing the turban, yamaka, pentagram, and crucifix. Intolerance of variety in the state workplace can only promote intolerance in the society.


If you have an employee wearing a turban, who looks down on Christian clients (or vice-versa) - the removal of the turban will not address the behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sprinkles
Flavus Aquila said:
I think the best way to promote tolerance among citizens - including in clients of public services - is to tolerate diversity.

You are not going to make a society more liberal by suppressing the turban, yamaka, pentagram, and crucifix. Intolerance of variety in the state workplace can only promote intolerance in the society.


If you have an employee wearing a turban, who looks down on Christian clients (or vice-versa) - the removal of the turban will not address the behavior.
Click to expand...

Irony again because this is the Sikh view. They'd actually be hurting one of the most tolerant religions in the world because Sikhs are all about diversity and tolerance, and resisting oppression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flavus Aquila
Sikhs, sikhs, sikhs... there's the problem. :)
 
Seems like state imposed orthodoxy to me. If they're preaching or otherwise trying to convert a bunch of people, that's a different story.
 
sprinkles said:
Ironically though, the turban thing effects Sikhs more than Muslims. Also interestingly the picture they show looks like a dastar, which is the Sikh turban.

This is significant because for many Muslims, wearing the head covering is optional - for a Sikh though it is not optional. If a Sikh cannot wear the dastar, they will simply not take the job. There are many cases where a Sikh would rather go to jail or even be killed than not wear the dastar.
Click to expand...

Excuse me if I think that such religious zealots should not be holding office as civil servants, then.
 
SealHammer said:
Excuse me if I think that such religious zealots should not be holding office as civil servants, then.
Click to expand...

In my gut I agree - I don't like non-western religiosity.

But if we have agreed to become multicultural I think we have to be consistent and live with it peaceably.
 
If their money is good enough to tax, then their ass is good enough to serve.

i feel that this is a case of the government overstepping their boundaries. I believe people should be free to express their beliefs freely and openly to a certain extent. I do not desire homogeneity to be achieved in this way.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION]

This isn't a Canadian decision at all... the rest of Canada is extremely opposed to the idea. Quebec society has always seen itself as distinct and part of the reason they feel the need to define themselves differently.

It's not about their being atheist-- they're not officially saying that there is no God. Really, it's about their need to be French... which is a LOT stronger than the rest of Canada's need to be English.
Part of the controversy is that they're still allowing a crucifix to hang in parliament because it's 'part of their heritage'...
 
Flavus Aquila said:
In my gut I agree - I don't like non-western religiosity.

But if we have agreed to become multicultural I think we have to be consistent and live with it peaceably.
Click to expand...

Zealotry is zealotry - it's not about where the religion comes from. It handicaps someone in a way such that they cannot be trusted to consistently, impartially and unselfishly uphold the public good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back