Is it possible to define the public good without an ideology or a moral framework?
'Charter Of Values' bans religious symbols
- Thread starter Gul Dukat
- Start date
Is it possible to define the public good without an ideology or a moral framework?
I agree. But wearing something religious does not imply zealotry. Civil, respectful, words, behaviour and demeanour ate not incompatible with whatever garb a person might choose. (Offensive slogans on clothes excepted).
Read the first post of mine to which you responded. In the example sprinkles described, a hypothetical Sikh man would desire death before relinquishing the privilege of wearing his hat.
That is zealotry.
Are they going to ban Catholics from smearing ash on their foreheads as well? As a manager, would you really want to enforce this?
It just seems like it is something aimed at Muslims. "Large crosses" were never the problem, and I don't think Quebec is experiencing enough Muslim immigration to have trouble with violence surrounding religion (although I could be wrong).
Banning turbans will effectively ban Sikhs from public service. That is the worst part of it.
It just seems like it is something aimed at Muslims. "Large crosses" were never the problem, and I don't think Quebec is experiencing enough Muslim immigration to have trouble with violence surrounding religion (although I could be wrong).
Banning turbans will effectively ban Sikhs from public service. That is the worst part of it.
They're no more zealots than strict vegetarians are zealots.
The Sikhs have a very good track record for being fair and just people.
Edit:
Or put it this way. Sikhs do not preach to non Sikhs. Sikhs do not convert anyone. They won't tell you what to do outside of good reason.
Last edited:
Was Patrick Henry a zealot when he said "Give me liberty, or give me death!"
It's not the hat that is important. The hat itself is nothing spiritual, it isn't like some religions where you literally have to cover your head from god. Wearing the turban is a symbol of their honor and integrity, but if it is seen as not so important then why in the world should they not wear it?
Maybe it's a good thing that they care about their hat so much because a government that would stop them from wearing a mere hat where they want to is probably more zealous about the hat than they are.
I mean if they are dying for the hat, somebody is killing them for it. Who is worse?
It also promotes division.
Being impartial means being fair to all sides. This is not accomplished by removing or equalizing the sides to some ideal - that is called homogenizing, a totally different thing which can often be partisan in itself, as we can see here.
Would Quebec allow Jesus to publicly serve?......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
What is ironic is that I feel like this is the Canadian's media's form of propaganda that will always cast light on the most outrageous crap from Quebec, framing Quebec as crazy in order to solidify the rest of Canada's identity to make them feel better...
Although i would like to live in a lennon 'imagine' utopia, i dont believe that this policy would ever achieve that end. This isnt really about equality, its more anti difference and anti freedom. Repressing cultural expression will only make cultural dissent stronger and distrustfully latent.
But there are certain situations where i can understand facial coverings being an issue- in court, teaching young children etc
But there are certain situations where i can understand facial coverings being an issue- in court, teaching young children etc
I know this isn't "church out of state" discussion(or is it), but there will clearly be a person one day entering a leadership role that will have his religion he holds dearly. He will have great answers to many problems, but will people let him do his job?
This isn't separation of Church and State as there isn't necessarily any inherent relationship. Wearing these items has nothing to do with anything because a non-religious person could just as easily wear this stuff.
It's kind of silly and not practical, and they may as well go so far as to enforce a uniform and be done with it. If people can be influenced by the wearing of a hat then they can be just as easily influenced by the choice to wear anything else, and if they're more concerned about wearing their own clothes than working for the state, then maybe their judgment can't be trusted.
Separation of Fashion and State. Am I right?
You can just as easily argue that no actual Christian exists because they don't meet a strict delineation between religious and non-religious. Participation in a religious denomination is self-ascribed and isn't easily defined.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
Separation of Church and State is not a delineation between religious and non religious. It is a separation of relationship.
e.g. a Christian can be a state official but if they do not let religion influence their state policy, then separation is not violated. If they wear priestly robes and still don't let religion influence their policy, separation is still not violated.
That statement about them not being trustworthy if they want to wear their own clothes was meant to point out the absurdity of the issue.
It was not an endorsement from me. It was the opposite.