# Muslim girls allowed private swim test



## aluc (11 May 2006)

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147297812988&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Muslim girls allowed private swim test
Religion makes ripples in pool
Montreal-area school focus for debate
May 11, 2006. 05:45 AM
SEAN GORDON
QUEBEC BUREAU CHIEF

MONTREAL—The decision to close a high school pool to give three Muslim girls a private swimming class is stoking debate over the place of faith in Quebec's public institutions.

At issue is the practice known as "reasonable accommodation" for religious views, one that's increasingly common in a city that's home to most of Quebec's immigrants.

Parents say the decision by Commission Scolaire Marie-Victorin, with more that 40,000 students in 80 schools, risks encouraging "segregation in the name of religion."

The board argues it is simply respecting provisions of a recent Supreme Court judgment on wearing Sikh kirpans (ceremonial daggers) in classrooms that set limits on restricting religious rights.

The most recent chapter in the argument centres on a request from three Muslim students at Antoine-Brossard high school in the South Shore suburb of Brossard, who asked to be excused from swimming class because their religion rejects sharing a pool with men.

The board demurred, saying children couldn't beg off the requirements, which are part of a physical education curriculum, but could take the swimming test needed to pass the course under special circumstances.

So last Friday morning, the pool was closed to all other students and tables were placed in front of the windows so the three girls would be shielded from view. A female teacher administered the test, aided by another female school employee.

The problem with all that, says the parental representative on Antoine-Brossard's "conseil d'établissement" (parent-teacher council) is that, when the question was brought to the council, it unanimously decided to demand the board shelve that decision.

Fouad Cheddadi, a Muslim whose children attend the school, told reporters this week, "This is a decision that makes a lot of parents uncomfortable. The main goal of school is to provide secular instruction to children. It's a place where all cultures meet."

School board officials referred all questions to its executive director François Houde, who could not be reached for comment.

Houde told La Presse, "This issue is closed," noting the board is constrained by the Constitution and by high court rulings that spell out "an obligation to find a reasonable accommodation."

The board notes many other public pools in Montreal, especially in areas with large Jewish, Muslim and Sikh populations, have time set aside specifically for women.

Last week's swim test is just the latest incident illustrating Quebec's recent struggles to reconcile constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms — especially those exercised by minorities — with the increasing secularization of public institutions.

"There's a nervousness about allowing too much," said Annick Germain, a professor of urban sociology at Université du Québec's l'Institut national de recherche scientifique.

Germain has studied the whole question of reasonable accommodation in public pools.

It's a relatively rare phenomenon, she said, but the current debate is as much a proxy for a larger debate on immigration as it is about specific details of the case.

Several Toronto public school pools offer weekly all-girl swim periods for Muslim girls whose religion prohibits them from wearing bathing suits in front of boys.

The University of Toronto provides a 90-minute all-female swim time each Monday, Wednesday and Friday in a pool in the main athletic building, and a one-hour women's swim period Sundays.

During these times, blinds are drawn in the viewing gallery to prohibit observation, and only female lifeguards are on duty.



What happened to the separation of state and religion? Does accommodating peoples' religious beliefs help intergrate them into our society? What kind of precedence is being established here. I know it's not probable, but couldn't this decision lead to further segregation? Hypothetically, what if a particular public school has a large population of any one religious group that forbids males and females from attending class together. If they complain loud and long enough, will the school have to respect their wishes and segregate the classroom, so not to impede on a particular group's religious freedoms? Any thoughts out there?


----------



## Zertz (11 May 2006)

This seems perfectly reasonable to me, I've actually got to go to school right about now actually but I think the article is making a mountain out of a molehill.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (11 May 2006)

Does this sound reasonable?


HUTTERITES ALLOWED PIC−FREE LICENCES
(The Calgary Sun, 2006.05.10, page: 10 )
Legislation requiring Hutterites to have photographs on their driver's licences has been deemed a
violation of their religious freedom after the province failed to prove it is justified to override the
charter right.
In a 10−page decision released Monday, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the
regulation requiring all drivers to have the new−style licences, featuring a digital photo, goes against
the rights of the Hutterite Brethren of Wilson Colony.
"In the present case, the amended regulation is inconsistent with the charter to the extent that it
renders a digital photograph mandatory for individuals who claim a valid religious objection," the
ruling states, adding because of that inconsistency, "it is of no force or effect."
Greg Senda, lawyer for the colony, 200 km southeast of Calgary, said his clients are pleased with
the result because had they been forced to comply, the number of drivers would have been reduced
to zero, essentially destroying their way of life.
"Obviously, they're pleased because we achieved what we set out do to," Senda said.
"But they're also pleased because it renews their faith in the Canadian justice system."
Hutterites believe the Second Commandment in the Bible prohibits them from willingly having their
picture taken and were exempt from having photos on licences until new versions started being
issued in 2003.
Cathy Housdorff, a spokeswoman for Alberta Government Services, said the province is in the
process of reviewing the decision, and is also considering whether to appeal.
1/1


----------



## GAP (11 May 2006)

Strange.... 

I work for the colonies in Manitoba and they all have pictures on the licenses


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (11 May 2006)

I suppose if the young'ns wanted to hit the bar scene, they just need to swipe dads liscence. Wonder how you explain that one to the border guards when entering the US?


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 May 2006)

Interesting precedent.  Kinda makes it hard for the gov to enforce the passport requirements on the Huts as well.  I think it's crap anyway, there are pictures of the brethren semi regularly in the local paper here, and no fuss.


----------



## Wookilar (11 May 2006)

They won't get into the States, simple. With the "new" rules, unless you have a valid photo id, and soon a passport, there will be no entry. And somehow, I do not think the US border guards will care much about anyones religious freedoms. Unanticipated consequences. Guess the lawyers should have thought this one out a bit more before taking the brethern's money.

As for the original article, I do not really see it as a major issue. Nor do I see it as a conflict between state/school and religion. I have worked with a number of people, over the years, with strict dietary issues due to religious beliefs. No one ever complained about that. If giving these young girls a little bit of privacy works and really does not impact everyone else (outside of a scheduling conflict), I do not see a problem with it.


----------



## Brat56 (11 May 2006)

I don't see a problem with it as long as others don't have to due without so the pool can be closed for them! I would however be on a band wagon for sure if all of a sudden if local kids to that pool had to miss a swim meet practice. I'm not a very tolerant person when it comes to "bowing" all the time.


----------



## Trinity (11 May 2006)

Brat56 said:
			
		

> I don't see a problem with it as long as others don't have to due without so the pool can be closed for them! I would however be on a band wagon for sure if all of a sudden if local kids to that pool had to miss a swim meet practice. I'm not a very tolerant person when it comes to "bowing" all the time.



I don't see a problem with it.


As for being tolerant to bowing.  Nothing in Christianity says "take advantage of me".  We may accept others
for their beliefs and make reasonable accommodations, but, nothing says we need to sacrifice our own beliefs
in order to accommodate others.

So rest assured Brat, I do not think we'll be experiencing much difficulty with this. (on my side of the fence)

Then again, I have no idea how non Christians or non religious people would re-act to any special accommodations.

If its not hurting anyone, I don't see a problem.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (11 May 2006)

Unless they pee in the pool, then I say no way


----------



## Trinity (11 May 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Unless they pee in the pool, then I say no way



Are you implying only muslim girls pee in the pool?


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (11 May 2006)

Alright, we all agree that muslims can't pee in the pool, but we can fight for their right to pee in the pool.

(Name that movie)


----------



## Strike (11 May 2006)

Of course, this didn't stop a Canadian Hutterite colony from being promonently featured on Dr Phil the past couple of weeks.


----------



## steep (11 May 2006)

I think allowing the girls to take a seperate test is acceptable and this should be applicable to all people if they don't feel comfortable with displaying themselves in a swim suit in front of classmates and others in general. However I don't think this should be presented as just a religeous allowance but something that should be offered to students in general if someone is overly self concious about being seen in a swim suit.  When it comes to the idea of religeous allowance though we have to be careful as to the limits of our acceptance since no matter what your religeon is everyone must be able to compromise their beleifs to a certain degree with general codes of conduct for the greater good of our common human society.


----------



## 1feral1 (11 May 2006)

Zertz said:
			
		

> This seems perfectly reasonable to me, I've actually got to go to school right about now actually but I think the article is making a mountain out of a molehill.



In Sydney a while back, a local indoor pool was closed to female muslims only at lunch periods, and many non-muslims who had been swimming there during lunch time for years had to go else where.

I say, if its a public pool, keep it that way. Local residents all pay council rates, and its everyone's pool. Christian, Jew, Muslim or anyone else. Taxes hold no privilage to the public. 

Its not okay, and given a power base this will be a regular occurance. I see it as just widening the gap between us and them, and if anything we should be narrowing the gap, and reverse discrimination and politically correctiveness are not the way to win over this problem.

I lived in Sydney for over 10 yrs, and I have seen other things, like the attempted closing of beaches so muslim women could swim. This area was closed off by a large group of rather angry young islamic men, and verbally attacked and threatened any non muslim who cam into the area.

Think about it, we invited them to our country, they did not invite us. Assimilate or go home.

Wes


----------



## steep (11 May 2006)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Think about it, we invited them to our country, they did not invite us. Assimilate go go home.



Agreed.


----------



## darmil (11 May 2006)

I agree totally Wesley this is the west not the middle east.I think religion has gone to far.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 May 2006)

>Interesting precedent.

It's a very interesting precedent, particularly in light of ongoing disputes over whether religious private schools (mostly of a Christian nature, in my reading experience) which receive public funding may be permitted to impose rules reflecting their beliefs.

If we're going to apply secular rules wherever public funds are involved, then by all means let's apply the secular rules universally and vigorously.


----------



## George Wallace (11 May 2006)

MikeH said:
			
		

> I agree totally Wesley this is the west not the middle east.I think religion has gone to far.



This is not religion going too far.  It is our Liberal Left who so often give in to any vocal minority and don't want to 'cause any bad feelings' in a visible minority group, that are to blame.  It is the "Feel Good" attitude of these people who are skilfully avoiding and therefore compounding  serious problems in our Society.  By not taking care of the little problems and nipping them in the bud, but allowing them to fester into large problems that will eventually tear our society and beliefs apart; that is the problem here, not religion.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (11 May 2006)

If you recall a while back, there were women in Toronto (I believe) that were fighting for their right to wear the Burka in their liscence photos. Now that the hutterites have won a victory, why should these women be excluded. If you open up the can of worms..... and then when we start having security issues down the road with these "no picture" drivers liscences, does anyone think the courts will backtrack?


----------



## Brat56 (11 May 2006)

Trinity: Exactly, "If it's not hurting anyone" Just let the same induldgence be show to the overweight student, burn victim or any other person who needs the privacy for whatever reason. 
As for bowing, I feel as a Canadian "born & bred, that yes I have had to bow and change things to accomodate "new people to Canada".
When my kids were young and in school Ontario Public Board System, they were told at a very early age that they could no longer have a Christmas Progra, due to the fact there were so many other cultures in the system that no one was to be offended. They were also told NOT to say Merry Christmas instead Happy Holidays was the greeting most appropriate, AGAIN don't want anyone to be offended.
Unless, you are in the Catholic School Board System, the Lords Prayer is banned...just not right IMO.
Thats what I meant/mean by "bowing.

I grew up living on various bases and attending schools on those bases. The Lords Prayer was said EVERY day...if there was someone from a different belief (Jewish would have been the only one) they simply got up and left the class for that few moments or just sayed and bowed their head as we did.

I just have such a hard time with all the things we have had to change and you know when we go to a Muslim country, we have to conform to the way of their culture. 

Had my rant...p.s as long as they only pee once in the pool! 8)


----------



## The_Falcon (11 May 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> If you recall a while back, there were women in Toronto (I believe) that were fighting for their right to wear the Burka in their liscence photos. Now that the hutterites have won a victory, why should these women be excluded. If you open up the can of worms..... and then when we start having security issues down the road with these "no picture" drivers liscences, does anyone think the courts will backtrack?



this was brought up, when I did ID training for my security job at the casino I work at.  The consultant who ran the training, made mention of the fact that muslim women have to show their face for their passport picture even in countries like Saudia Arabia. If they can show their face for a passport in their home country, they can certainly show their face on i.d. here.


----------



## aluc (11 May 2006)

I certainly agree with George Wallace . Our former Liberal government had put too much emphasis on appeasing almost any lobby/special interest group that has come along,  looking to take advantage of a government that would help anyone in order to garner votes and maintain power - IMO. Yet, I voted for them in the last two elections! :-[  Please forgive me...I have sinned!


----------



## Hot Lips (11 May 2006)

Wes,

I am in total agreement with you.  
We used to say the Lord's Prayer in school and sing Oh Canada and God Save the Queen...do we now?
Have we given up our values to be accommodating?  
Where does it all stop and how will everyone be happy?

HL


----------



## 1feral1 (11 May 2006)

Hey Margaret,

If ya lived local, I'd buy ya a XXXX Gold and a vegemite sanger!

I know exactly where you are coming from.


Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## paracowboy (12 May 2006)

I will state here, openly, for the record, that I am a prejudiced person. I realize now, that I’ve always been prejudiced. 

I am prejudiced against asshats. 

Asshats come in all shapes, sizes, races, genders, sexual orientations, colours and religious backgrounds. Bottom line? If they’re an asshat, I don’t like 'em. I am anti-asshat. Fervently so.

Now, you can’t say all Arabs, or Muslims, are asshats. Why? Because not all Arabs are asshats. Not all Muslims are terrorists, just as not all Canadians are asshats. Were the people that destroyed the World Trade Centres Arabs? Yes. Were they asshats? Yes. Is the Arab guy across town that owns the dry cleaners (and gives me a discount on all my Army stuff) an asshat? No. There are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims just like there are good Baptists and bad Baptists, good Buddhists and bad Buddhists. 

Canada is more of a melting pot (oooooohhhh, he said “melting pot” instead of “cultural mosaic!”) today than ever before. People from many different countries have come here. They have chose to live here. Chose to become Canadian citizens. I consider that an honour. I am proud to have a country that people choose to come to and live in. I stand behind always knowing where you came from and what your heritage is. If your family came from Russia, Sweden, Africa, China, wherever, you should always be proud of that. You should know your personal history. You can’t know where you’re going, unless you know where you came from. Something I’m not keen about is the isolation factor of the ‘hyphenated Canadian.’ To me that is a dividing wedge that shouldn’t be hammered into a country that needs to unite not divide. It borders on the same vein as racism.

And that is where things like this are leading. Either everybody is equal, or nobody is. And we are fast approaching the point where everybody with some sort of hyphen in front of "Canadian" demands some sort of privilige, and calling it a Right. There is a distinct difference. Liberty is not License.

We are on a slippery slope that could soon cause more problems than the original one was, in the first place.


----------



## Zertz (12 May 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Wes,
> 
> I am in total agreement with you.
> We used to say the Lord's Prayer in school and sing Oh Canada and God Save the Queen...do we now?
> ...



There's got to me some happy medium, I remember elementary school and singing of O Canada, it is sorely missed by me and a few of my more politically active friends. I've always been a fan of the 'opt out' option to things like the Lord's Prayer and God Save the Queen.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (26 May 2006)

I see no problem in making reasonable accommodations for people of different faiths.  Besides, is it only Muslim Girls allowed to swim at that time or are all girls allowed to swim?  I though that was how things were done anyways. Believe it or not I grew up in Red Deer Alberta and when I was a kid there was boy’s swim time and girls swim time, during the girls swim time the blinds were drawn. That was when I was in grade 5.  It struck me as odd at the time so I asked why we were separated out,  we could have 2 hours together instead on one hour each.  I was told “Some of the girls feel more comfortable if boys don’t watch them in their swimsuits”. I understood.  Funny how respect is something that can easily be explained to a child.  Diversity can be a strength.  I live downtown Toronto now and I'm getting lots of help learning Dari from my friends. Now if I ever get to go over there, I'll be allot more usefull than if I just picked up a phrasebook.


----------



## Hot Lips (26 May 2006)

I disagree Zell_Dietrich...and I have the right too...the problem is in this country, that we make allowances for everyone else's faith but the faith of Canadian Christians who were here for decades...

Roman Catholics are supposed to rest on Sunday...do you see any employer in this country making sure that happens, not...do you see RCs in public schools reciting the Lord's Prayer daily...not...because it offends others...

The point is...if you are going to make allowances for one faith then you best be prepared to make them for all faiths

HL


----------



## couchcommander (26 May 2006)

It is a very slippery slope. Would they have done the same if it was a group of boys that did not want to swim with girls, or if it was a disfigured person? What will they now do if, and I'm not saying that this has happened, just that it might, a pupil decided that his or her religion prevented him or her from associating with another individual at all?

Will they segregate the classroom? Probably not, but then why are these girls more entitled to their beliefs than others?

Overall I am a firm believer that public institutions should not differentiate between people due to ethnicity, faith, belief, sex, or sexual orientation (except for the most obvious cases, ie male and female washroom's - but in the end I wouldn't have a problem with one washroom as long as each person's privacy was ensured). The standards should be set compassionately and humanely considering needs and feelings of those involved - but should be universal and unwavering for those categories. 

Anyone who is unwilling to accept them would be graciously permitted to find a nonpublic institution that suits their particular biases. 

re: these girls - why didn't they just use a full body wetsuit or put on a t-shirt and shorts overtop of their bathing suit?

Hrm... I think my religion demands that the government pay for everything, including vacations to Mexico twice a year.

(*edit* you know guys, if we get enough people on board, we could actually register it and sue....)

re: the photo's... *shakes head*  Whoever said it was right, how is the person at a liquor depot supposed to tell who's who? He could just refuse to serve them, but then would most likely face a lawsuit for religious discrimination. 

re: the Lord's Prayer - come on guys, public institutions can't endorse one religion over another. I know you're thinking "well, you could just opt out", but lets say you lived santanville where everybody said a prayer to the devil in morning - wouldn't feel so great being the only kid sitting there twiddling your thumbs would you? Might even say the prayer so not be different from all of your friends? 

IMO if people want to be given time for personal observances when school starts, that's fine, but each should be allowed their own personal observance of whatever they choose (be it Christ, Buddha, or Spong Bob Square Pants) without feeling pressure, real or imagined, from persons of authority, ie teachers.

My .02.


----------



## Trinity (26 May 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Roman Catholics are supposed to rest on Sunday...do you see any employer in this country making sure that happens,



That's funny, because I don't see any RC's complaining about working on the sabbath. Its not that people are walking over the Christian faith, its simply
that Christians don't take their faith to the same degree as Muslims.

You might say that's a broad paint brush.. well, take the Mormons.  They will not work on the Sunday with the exceptions of police, fire etc...
I know a lot of Mormons and the ones I know will not take a job if it requires them to work on Sunday.  I'm sure many employers would be happy to accommodate
out people's religious faiths.

I've met more than enough "Christians" in name only.  Its hard to be offended when very few people take their own religion that seriously.


----------



## 043 (26 May 2006)

The only thing I have to say is.........no comment!!!!!!!!


----------



## Northern Touch (26 May 2006)

I disagree.  What makes those 3 Muslim girls any different from the other hundred girls in the school, other then religion, which is supposed to be kept OUT of the school system?  If they can close the school pool to give private lessons to students, then ALL students should have the chance to recieve private lessons in the school, regardless of race, gender, religion.  Its simple segregation because of religious beliefs, not integration.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is a swim test requirement, the people who have problems with it (because of any reason) should be the ones to change in order to accomodate the school requirement, not the school accomodating them.  In this country, we have no problem what so ever with boys and girls swimming in the same water, or seeing someone of the other sex wearing a bathing suit, if anyobdy of any religion can't accept this, it should not be this country or its policy or its school accomadations that should be changing, it is the person with the problem that should be trying to adapt and integrate into society.

When my family lived in Saudi Arabia, my mom had to go out in public covered from head to toe, as was common practice in their society.  Think they cared that she was a Roman Catholic?  NOPE.  She changed for the society, the society didn't change for her.


----------



## Trinity (26 May 2006)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, if there is a swim test requirement, the people who have problems with it (because of any reason) should be the ones to change in order to accommodate the school requirement, not the school accommodating them.



The requirement is to swim.  The requirement isn't to swim with a mixed gender of people.  There is no change in the
requirement, just a request to do it separately.



> When my family lived in Saudi Arabia, my mom had to go out in public covered from head to toe, as was common practice in their society.  Think they cared that she was a Roman Catholic?  NOPE.  She changed for the society, the society didn't change for her.



I would take it that this would be the difference between a country which is run on religious beliefs
vs ours, run on secular beliefs with religion having no play in our countries laws  (for the most part these days)


What bothers me is many people are saying assimilate or go home.  These people were born here, some many generations
back.  They are home.  

We make huge exceptions for the catholics i.e. "the catholic school boards" getting separately funded from the public
school system.  You can't tell me that's not a big deal, provinces funding religious based schools?


----------



## Northern Touch (26 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> The requirement is to swim.  The requirement isn't to swim with a mixed gender of people.  There is no change in the
> requirement, just a request to do it separately.



In that case, the school should give EVERY child the opporitunity to take the test alone, not just those specific students that can claim conflicting religious beliefs.  I would be curious to know if (as an example) an obese child requested to swim alone because they felt uncomfortable infront of other students, would be allowed?



> What bothers me is many people are saying assimilate or go home.  These people were born here, some many generations
> back.  They are home.



 I agree that assimilate or go home is not an appropriate attitude, but I think it tends to stem from frustration.  We seem (Canadian government on a whole) to have a tendency to try and bend policy for the little guy (a minority group) while assuming that the majority doesn't care or won't be offended.  My disagreement is not solely that 3 Muslim girls got to swim seperatly because of their religion, it's the fact that not EVERY student in the school was given that chance.  If you had a daughter at that school, would you not want them to have the same opporitunity, and is not giving her that opporitunity because she wasn't Muslim fair?  

I will be the first to admit that a school swim test is a very small example to get up in arms about, but each case sets a precendent for cases to follow.  How will we as a society be able to draw the line between a real religious claim and using and abusing the claim of religion?



> We make huge exceptions for the catholics i.e. "the catholic school boards" getting separately funded from the public
> school system.  You can't tell me that's not a big deal, provinces funding religious based schools?



The provinces have always been funding Catholic schools because when schools were being built, (many many years ago) the great majority of people were Catholic and went to Catholic school.  If the majority of students attended a school why wouldn't they fund it?  It wasn't as if the provinces woke up one day and said "maybe we should fund only Catholic schools today."  Also, I could be corrected but I don't think its all the provinces that fund Catholic schools.


----------



## Trinity (26 May 2006)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> The provinces have always been funding Catholic schools because when schools were being built, (many many years ago) the great majority of people were Catholic and went to Catholic school.  If the majority of students attended a school why wouldn't they fund it?  It wasn't as if the provinces woke up one day and said "maybe we should fund only Catholic schools today."  Also, I could be corrected but I don't think its all the provinces that fund Catholic schools.



No, quite true...

but it seems like its a "what have you done for me lately" kind of thing.

Catholics have been more than catered to over the years and as their population dwindles and other groups emerge 
it must be frustrating to see others get attention/benefits and they don't.  But, they must remember, they're still
getting or have gotten a lot in the past.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (27 May 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> I disagree Zell_Dietrich...and I have the right too...the problem is in this country, that we make allowances for everyone else's faith but the faith of Canadian Christians who were here for decades...
> 
> Roman Catholics are supposed to rest on Sunday...do you see any employer in this country making sure that happens, not...do you see RCs in public schools reciting the Lord's Prayer daily...not...because it offends others...
> 
> ...


Did I imply otherwise?     I think I understand where you are coming from.  And I'm sure one could find situations where Christians felt uncomfortable because of a public institution.  You're right,  if we make reasonable allowances for one group, lets make reasonable accommodations for all groups... oh wait that would spin out of controll,  just imagine it... a country where people feel respected and free to be themselves.  A country where we treat eachother with respect and understand that when we show others respect we don't diminish ourselves.  What a crazy idea (  )

These people that we're talking about,  they're not some strange foreign thing that has come here and we 'tolerate' for some reason.  They are people, Canadians - our people,  who have allot to offer this country. Who work hard and make our lives better through their efforts.  If they want to have a little privacy when they swim because they feel it is indecent or if they need to take 30 minutes Friday afternoon to pray I say whatever,  I take two weeks off for Christmas and all I do is shop and eat.

At my school there are three separate inter faith prayer areas,  students go to them as their faith requires, or as they want.  I know this because I was in one of them practicing my Arabic when a fellow student asked me if I knew which way was north. (until then I just thought they were comfy rooms, like student lounges, but it explained why my Syrian friend was waiting in it.)  If Christan's want to have the ability to go someplace quiet and pray during school,  I thought they were allowed to do so.  

I know this is a charged topic,  but really,  if we look at it through a cold logical "Cost vs Benefit" stance we can see "what does it cost us" against "how much better do they feel,  how much does the community as a whole improve"

Personally I only really pray when a streetcar is about to hit me - I should change that.... or stop J-walking. I think my mom would be happy if I did both.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 May 2006)

Hmm.

I think there is too much "accomadating" going on in Canada...to the point where we are loosing our identity and having to change OUR way of life.  

One standard.  I don't think they should be given a special timing.  What if I ask for one for myself only?  Do I get it?  Nope.

One standard.  

I wonder, let's go to a country that is predominatly Muslim and see how "accomodating" they will be a Canadian Christians and OUR freedom to live the way WE want to.

I agree with Wes's comments, and +1 on the "assimilate or leave" stuff.

They have taken away singing of O Canada, the Lord's prayer, jesus we are supposed to call it a Holiday Tree not a Christmas Tree.

You want your own beach for Muslim women to swim in, or your own pool?  Good.  Go buy one.  I think there are some for sale, not not around me.  These ones are for ALL Canadians, all the time.

Don't like it?  Leave.


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Hmm.
> 
> I think there is too much "accomadating" going on in Canada...to the point where we are loosing our identity and having to change OUR way of life.




How does letting these 3 girls swim on their own affect YOUR way of life?  It doesn't.



> One standard.  I don't think they should be given a special timing.  What if I ask for one for myself only?  Do I get it?  Nope.



Of course not.  You have no belief or reason to ask.  If you were horribly mutated or had scars or something and didn't want to
swim with other, I bet they WOULD give you a separate test.



> I wonder, let's go to a country that is predominatly Muslim and see how "accomodating" they will be a Canadian Christians and OUR freedom to live the way WE want to.
> I agree with Wes's comments, and +1 on the "assimilate or leave" stuff.



http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html

  2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    a) freedom of conscience and religion;




> They have taken away singing of O Canada, the Lord's prayer, jesus we are supposed to call it a Holiday Tree not a Christmas Tree.



WHO ARE THEY??  The Muslims took away singing of O Canada,  the Lords prayer, forced us to call it a Holiday Tree?




> These ones are for ALL Canadians, all the time.
> 
> Don't like it?  Leave.



They are Canadian.  You... *sound more* like a racist.



What you are upset with is the politically correct BS that is being thrown at us.  But this country
is geared to the white protestant and catholics.  Now that others want to exercise their beliefs
as GRANTED to them by the charter of rights and freedoms you want to squash them?  Right.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 May 2006)

Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.  Just as I am.

My opinion is different, so you feel the need to attack it?

Right.  I get it.  If my opinion isn't politically correct, then you are entitled to call me a racist.

Good for you!


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Right.  I get it.  If my opinion isn't politically correct, then you are entitled to call me a racist.
> 
> Good for you!



Read my post.

I said you SOUND like a racist.  I never said you WERE.



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> They are Canadian.  You... *sound more* like a racist.



I then stated it was the BS of political correctness that was bothering you.



> What you are upset with is the politically correct BS that is being thrown at us.



Thus, you aren't a racist despite SOUNDING LIKE ONE, but you are upset of the political BS.


Now.. how did you put it in your last post...??



			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Good for you!



right..  Learn to read...  Good for you!  


EDIT...  incidentally... you failed to answer my questions about how YOU were affected and forced
to change and WHO "THEY" are that forced us to change.  It's easier to deflect the questions by attacking
me than to actually put thought behind your opinion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2006)

I have to agree with MRM. It looked like a cheap shot by playing with words. A cheap shot none the less.


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I have to agree with MRM. It looked like a cheap shot by playing with words. A cheap shot none the less.



One can sound like a racist without being one.  

If I ever came off sounding racist, I would want to know because I'm not.  
He sounded racist to me.  I call it like I see it.  But, I also explained afterwards
what I thought was the problem.  If I wanted to bait him, I wouldn't have done
the second part, and I would have done it much better


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> One can sound like a racist without being one.



One can also sound like a sanctimonious prig..........without being one


----------



## HItorMiss (27 May 2006)

Although some points are valid, Trinity makes a good point on that fact that Society in Canada is geared for White Christians. We made and continue to make the rules in fact allot of the concern is stuff we have now done to ourselves, In fact lobby away all you like unless your getting the majority of "white male" MP's on your side your not going to pass your standard of living or what have you to make it rule.

Now the real question is, is why are you so adverse to equal treatment for equal reasons?


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> One can also sound like a sanctimonious prig..........without being one



sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous Pronunciation (sngkt-mn-s)
adj.
Feigning piety or righteousness: "a solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg that looked like he was waiting for a vacancy in the* Trinity*" Mark Twain.

The irony... is my name is in the definition... 

Hey, I work hard at being sanctimonious until now when I had to look it up!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 May 2006)

I tend to think of my way of life as a Canadian way of life.  I think I represent a certain percentage of the Canadian population.  I think all of these "little minor" things aren't minor when you add them all up.  Allow me to use some examples.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060302/scc_sikh_dagger_060302/20060302/

1.  The recent ruling where Sikh's are allowed to carry their ceremonial daggers to schools.  Granted it their religion.  However, I am sure if had a 16 year old son who went to school with a 9 inch belt knife on his hip...right.  So, we allow the weapon in for this group, but not for that group.  You can honestly justify to me that this is somehow "equal treatment'?  If I belonged to some far-fetched religious group that carried "ceremonial 12 guage shotguns" and I moved into your community, and our "religion" smoked "ceremonial happy-grass" before we were allowed to carry our "ceremonial shotguns", I am sure everyone would just say "its ok, its their religion".   Yes this is a ludicris example, however, I think the point I am trying to make is that the rules don't apply equally to all Canadians, and I think that is wrong.  

Yes, you are very correct is saying that I am tired of the politically correct BS.  It is things like in the link above that make me stop and say "what are we letting happen to our great country?".

Do I think people should expect to abide by our laws, traditions, and way of life when they come here?  I sure do.  

Is this "little" incident going to change Canada?  No.  It is a "1".  The Sikh ceremonial dagger is a "1" as well.  Like many other "1"s, on their own they are relatively insignificant...however...1+1+1+1....eventually is a big number. 

I do also believe that there are many many many more people out there who "honestly" think along the same lines I do.  Why don't they speak out honestly?  

Because people will label them with some word like racist, or KKK, or something similar.  They have gotten to the point where they are afraid to speak out.  Because it is politically incorrect to do so.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 May 2006)

From a PM earlier today...



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> If you stand behind what you pm'd me
> 
> PUT IT IN THE THREAD....
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  Here is my PM.  I certainly hope this, in fact, earns the respect you speak of.   



			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> "They" to me are any group that has forced some Canadians to stop doing things, such as singing O Canada, or having to call it a Holiday Tree, etc etc.  If I thought it was Muslims that were solely responsible for this, I would have said Muslims.  I said "they" as a generic term meaning "anyone that is a part of this".
> 
> If by saying, I think we over-accomadate in this country, and that I am not happy with how much accomadating we do, or by saying go find your own beach that no one is allowed on if there is Muslim women there, or pool, that does not make me a racist.  Quite an accusation to say I sound like on, because I have an opinion, voiced it, and you disagreed.  It would be equally tasteless, IMHO, for me to call you anti-Canadian for your opinion.  Would it not?
> 
> ...


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

MRM

I totally agree with many points you are saying.




			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I think the point I am trying to make is that the rules don't apply equally to all Canadians, and I think that is wrong.



100% correct.   Some people twist laws to get their ways.  Sometimes laws can also be innappropriately applied
or overused also.  I think the Black Community feels overly targeted and abused by the law because of a few bad
apples and stereotypes.



> Why don't they speak out honestly?
> 
> Because people will label them with some word like racist, or KKK, or something similar.  They have gotten to the point where they are afraid to speak out.  Because it is politically incorrect to do so.



I hate politics. I hate these threads.   Why?  It's because of my first post that set this off.  Everything must be read and analyzed
and properly stated.  I HATE POLITICAL BS.  If you don't state something just right, you can be taken off track.  Then, at that point
its easier to attack the credibility of the other person than address the issues (facts) at hand to win your case, which isn't arguing
or solving anything.

That's why people are afraid to speak out!

I spoke out because to me "assimilate or leave" to me...  really does sound racist to me and some people were saying that. 
These people have been here many generations some of them, thus, they are just as Canadian as the rest of us.  Now we're turning
on our people.  

So then I speak out.  And for my troubles I become Sanctimonious.  But, I can live with that if it means stating my views honestly
and openly. I've even been called politically correct before too.  I can live with that too.  I have to be true to myself even if I get
labeled.


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Here is my PM.  I certainly hope this, in fact, earns the respect you speak of.



Sgt, you doth have my respect.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 May 2006)

Trinity,

Best part of Canada and being Canadians?  We can disagree...and move on.  Right?

"agree to disagree" (and not feel we are then bound to try to kill each other).

 ;D


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Trinity,
> 
> Best part of Canada and being Canadians?  We can disagree...and move on.  Right?



I thought the best part of being Canadian was the mutual hatred towards the Ottawa Senators?

I think we've agreed to agree on many points more than we agree to disagree.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (27 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I thought the best part of being Canadian was the mutual hatred towards the Ottawa Senators?



 :rofl:

I guess the question that comes out of all this to me is...when is it "too much" and how will we, as a country, react at that time?


----------



## Trinity (27 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I guess the question that comes out of all this to me is...when is it "too much" and how will we, as a country, react at that time?



Well...  the current situation in Caledonia Ontario I think would be a good example on a smaller scale.

Eventually, sides get pitted, stupid things are done on both sides and people generally act out of their
anger.  The question would be, can we let cooler heads prevail or continue to act out of anger and 
what would be the consequence? (which essentially is what you just asked!)


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2006)

Freedom of political speech can take place in the public forum, you private wishes are only relevant in your own home, and insofar as your activities STAY at home. As a guest in your house, I must respect your wishes (it is your house, after all), and you respect my wishes in my house. In public, we agree not to copme to blows over the issues.

There are two correct ways of dealing with this as far as I am concerned: either these people make their own arrangements (get their own swimming pool etc.) or make a request the owner of the pool voluntarily accommodate them. If the owner chooses to do so, fine, but there should be no mechanism to *force* the owner to inconvenience his other customers. Smart people will make the most flexible arrangements, stupid people will discriminate and find their customer base evaporates.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.  Just as I am.
> 
> My opinion is different, so you feel the need to attack it?
> 
> ...



If your opinion is devoid is logic, I think we all have the freedom to point it out, and you have the responsibility of defending what you originally posted...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 May 2006)

Devoid of logic?  Please explain.  I think I was quite clear in the later posts as to why I take the stance I do.

What is it you, personally, would like to know from me, so that the void of logic you speak of can be satisified?  Or, are you just here to criticize.

Oddly, you don't indicate your opinion or stance on the issue.

I believe I laid my cards out on the table, however, apparantly not to a suitable standard for you?   :


----------



## Trinity (28 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Devoid of logic?  Please explain.  I think I was quite clear in the later posts as to why I take the stance I do.
> 
> What is it you, personally, would like to know from me, so that the void of logic you speak of can be satisified?  Or, are you just here to criticize.



Yeah.. you did state your stance.  That post he's referring to is on the previous page.  The post explaining
everything is on the next.  Maybe he's responding to a previous post without seeing the rest of the thread.


----------



## Armymedic (28 May 2006)

Sorry to dive in a little late into the debate:

I do not feel the school making accommodation for these 3 girls to successfully complete the requirements of their course an unreasonable course of action for the school. Preteen and early teen girls are already somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies. And that to the culturally induced feeling that showing any skin in front of males is Wrong, and you will have a group of girls who must conflict themselves by exposing themselves against the wishes of their parents vs. passing a school class.

We want our children to grow up being respectful and honourable citizens. By society forcing a group of new citizens to go against everything their parents teach them (even teaching which may be wrong in our eyes) we are not allowing them to see our practices and morals as another proper course of action, and their assimilation into our country's society as something that they will want to be when they become adults.

On the flip side...

Cases of special accommodation, as was mentioned above, in many eyes, is a case of one group getting something, another group getting something, and another group, etc, etc. This case of 1+1+1+1 = minorities getting more then the rest of our society. While it may or may not be the case, the media and our collective memories make it seem so.

How exactly does a Sihk RCMP officer wearing a turban, a group of high school students getting a separate class, or a store closing for a Religious holiday affect us personally, as long as we are still guaranteed our rights as citizens of Canada?


----------



## couchcommander (28 May 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> How exactly does a Sihk RCMP officer wearing a turban, a group of high school students getting a separate class, or a store closing for a Religious holiday affect us personally, as long as we are still guaranteed our rights as citizens of Canada?



Because if I decided to join the RCMP but refused to wear anything but a kevlar helmet all the time, because my belief system says it's bad to get shot in the head, they'd probably tell me to go stuff it. 

IMO it makes his belief system MORE "equal" than mine, and that's not what this society is supposed, at least in my opinion, to be about.

If an organization wants to have a "recommened head dress" regulation to be inclusive, the fine, let there be a recommended head dress regulation, which allows you to choose something else if you want or your beliefs are against it. If an organization has a "head dress requirement" that doesn't overtly promote one religion over another (ie having crosses or crescents or stars, etc.) then it is a head dress requirement, period. If your religion prevents you from following it, then I'm sorry choose a different profession. 

I mean it'd be like a devout Buddhist trying to join the infantry. "Sorry, I can't actually kill or even harm anyone, but if you prevent me from joining you are trampling my religious freedom." If your beliefs conflict with what you want to do, then maybe you should choose to do something else. 

*edit* with the school, if they wanted to be inclusive of these beliefs, they should have just made swimming an optional component that had a suitable alternative that ANYONE could take if FOR WHATEVER REASON they decided they didn't want to go swimming.


----------



## Trinity (28 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Because if I decided to join the RCMP but refused to wear anything but a kevlar helmet all the time, because my belief system says it's bad to get shot in the head, they'd probably tell me to go stuff it.



I've read sad and pathetic arguments before, (and I do appreciate your other posts) but this one is very high on the 
WTF list.

You're answer is the worst fabrication I've ever read.  The question is how does it affect YOU.  Answer is, it doesn't, but you come
up with a fictional situations beyond reality and try to pass it off as a fact. 



> I mean it'd be like a devout Buddhist trying to join the infantry. "Sorry, I can't actually kill or even harm anyone, but if you prevent me from joining you are trampling my religious freedom." If your beliefs conflict with what you want to do, then maybe you should choose to do something else.



Another great really bizarre example.  AND off topic.

A SIHK wearing an turban can still perform *all the functions* of an RCMP officer.
A Buddist who wants to join the infantry but refuses to kill is unable to take on the functions.

The job of an RCMP officer is not to wear a hat but to police and they can do that just fine.

You're mixing up arguments.  But best of all, you still haven't proven how it tramples on your rights.
The best you can do is make hypothetical situations and try to pass them off as fact.


----------



## couchcommander (28 May 2006)

Sorry for not being more concise and less expositionary...

It affects me greatly.

By allowing certain individuals exceptions to the rules due to their belief structure, while denying others the same treatment because their beliefs are of a different nature, is to me, inherently hypocritical. 

Yes, there have been situations in the past where this has been an issue which affected me personally, but I'm not about go whining about them, just let it be known that they happen.


----------



## couchcommander (28 May 2006)

Actually, i think I'm just not conveying my point.

Let me start from the beginning again and hopefully my "WTF" hypothetical situations make more sense.

Our society has, recently, been making a lot of concessions for the _religious_ beliefs of people in society. Whether it be Jewish holidays, Sikh turbans, etc. I've italicized religious for a reason, which I will get to later. 

In the end, I am not opposed to granting persons the leeway required so that they can follow their own belief structure. Indeed, the charter of rights and freedoms guarantees their freedom of religion.

If the courts of Canada and society as a whole have chosen to express this freedom of religion through making these special observances, then I suppose that's fine, but to me (as I had hoped to be demonstrated through my hypothetical extensions of this) if followed to their natural conclusions, they have some fairly strange and undesirable results. 

This was supposed to be an example of Reductio Ad Absurdum, sorry if it didn't work. (See post below for how it was supposed to come across, sorry)

But I digress. 

While granting freedom of religion, the charter also grants the same freedoms to belief, and not only that, but expression of belief:



> Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> d) freedom of association.



HOWEVER, and this is the crux, society is MUCH LESS accepting of allowances for "beliefs" if they are not qualified with "religious" in front of them.

To me, this is wrong for two reasons:

a) No distinction in the importance between the two is made in the charter

b) "religious beliefs" are in fact just that, beliefs like any other. There really is no *fundamental logical difference* between my belief that I shouldn't be required to work on Tuesday and someone Else's belief, albeit most likely for different reasons, that they shouldn't work sunday. 

Thus, when applied to this particular situation, you find my original example:

If these Muslim girls are allowed to have their own private swim class because of their _beliefs_, then others should be granted whatever allowances they want due to their _beliefs_ regardless of what they are. 

To me, this leads to chaos, and a much better way of dealing with it would have been to have an equivalent alternative that people can choose to do instead, for whatever reason. 

*edited for spelling and making senseness*


----------



## couchcommander (28 May 2006)

Now let me see if I can connect the dots on my arguments and show how they apply. 

Muslim girl decides to attend public school, part of public schooling is swimming, special allowance granted re: swimming because girl is Muslim

If we follow that same logic:

Buddhist man decides to join infantry, part of infantry is killing people, special allowance must granted, if we are to follow precedent, re: killing because man is Buddhist.

Re: the turban

Man joins RCMP, part of mans belief dictates that he must wear a turban, RCMP makes allowance for him to wear turban

and then...

Man joins RCMP, part of mans belief says that he must wear Kevlar helmet (or i don't know, make a beanie or a hat with a happy face on it, whatever), RCMP, given precedent, must make allowance for man to wear Kevlar helmet (or beanie). 

For this last example, remember, the charter grants the SAME freedom to both religious and non religious belief.

To me, at least, the results of these two processes of reasoning, as demonstrated by the second examples, are absurd, thus reductio ad absurdum. To me at least.

How do they affect me? I prefer to live is a slightly less chaotic civilization than that. 

In the end though, if you still don't like these examples, then discount them as invalid and argue my main post (the middle one).


----------



## Trinity (28 May 2006)

I wont lie..

I'm not liking you examples... I still want to argue the ability to do ones job.



However, I do appreciate the statement of beliefs are beliefs. That religious beliefs are taken
more seriously or more valued than beliefs that aren't religious.  I would agree with that. 


The only reason I can think of why is that religious people are easily identifiable, with a
set standards of beliefs outlined by religion. 

For example if I am Roman Catholic, you can already ball park many of my beliefs.  Put together
100,000 people who say their RC, and you have a formidable force.

If you, a non secular person, believes in XYZ, you stand alone, even if there are 100,000 other
people who share your belief, because you don't have an organization/structure which represents you.

There has to be other examples of this but non secular as you stated its religious.  I think minorities
(secular or not) can do the same.  Indians are a similar case in point, gays and lesbians are also
another case in point.  I don't think it comes down to just religious values, but groups that are
recognizeable.  


Now, not all changes are negative on a Christian society. 

I LOVE Sunday shopping.  
For those who think I should rest on the sabbath, well, who's going to give the sermon?


----------



## couchcommander (28 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> However, I do appreciate the statement of beliefs are beliefs. That religious beliefs are taken
> more seriously or more valued than beliefs that aren't religious.  I would agree with that.
> 
> The only reason I can think of why is that religious people are easily identifiable, with a
> ...



Indeed you do have a formidable force! To me though it would be tyranny of the masses to grant these beliefs predicent because they are simply more widely held.

Even though this is a common occurance in our society, it doesn't make it right IMO. 

For the record, I do have a religion... but I'll keep it quiet what it is, maybe at some point you can PM me with a guess...


----------



## FredDaHead (28 May 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Preteen and early teen girls are already somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies.



And that was relevant, how?

I'm sure there are an equally great number of preteen and early teen boys who are "somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies." ...Should they get free private swimming classes, too?


----------



## Trinity (28 May 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> For the record, I do have a religion... but I'll keep it quiet what it is, maybe at some point you can PM me with a guess...



Heathen?   


Does is make it right!?!?!

The squeaky wheel always get the grease right?

If there is no dissenting opinion or opposition that seems credible ... by law yes, it is right.
But who ever said law was reality.  I would agree many people are left out voiceless because
either they don't voice it or don't belong or start a group to voice it.



EDIT 


> Quote from: Armymedic on Today at 09:37:02
> Preteen and early teen girls are already somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies.



Then stop staring at them.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 May 2006)

HA HA HA HA

*Edit - WRT to the "stop staring at them" comment.   ;D


----------



## Hot Lips (28 May 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> *And that was relevant, how?*
> 
> I'm sure there are an equally great number of preteen and early teen boys who are "somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies." ...Should they get free private swimming classes, too?


  Makes a great point...that would encompass growth and development issues more so than anything religious...I was made to do whatever was on tap at school as a pre-teen, whether that made me uncomfortable or not (I was an early bloomer) I did it and sucked it up as part of growing up.  Another issue that this topic brings forth is that not everything in life is going to be how you want it and you are going to have to live with what the MAJORITY in this country have decided is acceptable.

HL


----------



## FredDaHead (28 May 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> Makes a great point...that would encompass growth and development issues more so than anything religious...I was made to do whatever was on tap at school as a pre-teen, whether that made me uncomfortable or not (I was an early bloomer) I did it and sucked it up as part of growing up.  Another issue that this topic brings forth is that not everything in life is going to be how you want it and you are going to have to live with what the MAJORITY in this country have decided is acceptable.
> 
> HL



I'm not sure I understand what you mean.. Care to clarify which side you stand on?

(And yes, I'm aware that I'm dense. Sue me.)


----------



## Hot Lips (28 May 2006)

I wouldn't say I am on a side...I am more realistic about the issue...
The reason, as I understand it, that these girls are not going to take their swimming test is partly because they are uncomfortable doing so in front of boys and others and partly because of religious beliefs.
My point is that being uncomfortable in this country is going to occur to everyone at some point in time in their lives...agreed?
All of the laws and cultures and values in this country aren't going to appeal to everyone everyday...so in essence there are times when individuals needs are not going to be met, regardless of race, religion, stature, sexual orientation and the lot...

So I guess one must decide if they can live with what is facing them or move on to something that they can accept...make sense?

HL


----------



## Booked_Spice (28 May 2006)

I have read all the above posts and would like to add my own opinion on this topic.

I believe this is our problem in today's society. We as a country try to accommodate everyone. We do this why? I believe that we are loosing our own identity in this process. I believe that everyone has the right to practice their own religion. However they need to practice this in their churches etc. Not in our public school system.

If I were to go live in Afghanistan would I not be obligated to follow the countries ways( sorry lack of a better word). I do not think I could walk around in a scant Bikini. It was my choice to move to this country and I should follow the customs that represent that country.

Now if I wanted a private swim test because I did not like my body type, Would I be allowed the same courtesy as shown here. Probably not. If we start making exceptions for one, then we need to make exceptions for everyone.

Just to add a little side comment. My nieces went to a school and there was a significant amount of Mangerine attending the school. My nieces had to learn Oh Canada in mangerine. This was not a choice but they had to do this. They also celebrated Chinese new year. However the school did not have a Christmas concert because it would offend some people. Why was it this way? If we have to accommodate everyone beliefs, then why are our own beliefs and traditions are frowned upon in schools?


----------



## HItorMiss (28 May 2006)

Hot Lips said:
			
		

> My point is that being uncomfortable in this country is going to occur to everyone at some point in time in their lives...agreed?



But there in lies the issue HL, why be uncomfortable when the situation can be changed.

Trinity is right squeaky wheel, right or wrong that is how western society works in the modern age, if your voice is loud enough and can cause enough attention then your going to get your way. Right or Wrong that's how it happens. Gone are the days where we just did what we were told regardless of how "uncomfortable" it made us feel. Now you can just refuse to do something based on law X or Z and if your willing to fight hard enough you'll also win.


----------



## Hot Lips (28 May 2006)

Agreed Booked_Spice...

When are the accommodations so great for others that we stop doing, believing and acting like we have for decades?

HL


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (28 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> How does letting these 3 girls swim on their own affect YOUR way of life?


If I want to swim at that time I can't.


			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> You have no belief or reason to ask.
> 
> Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms : freedom of conscience and religion.


Exactly, so there are no recognized/non-recognized religion and no official/non-official religion. So if your religion is very "popular" or if your religion is almost unknown (i-e you are the only one following this religion) DOES NOT MATTER. It is just to easy to says "my religion wants it" ! What would it be if everyone starts to do this ? 

One girl at my private school recently started to wear the veil. The school has always been VERY strict, non bandannas, no bracelets no NOTHING. Seem like they made an exception for her, but the rest of the 850 students must continue to take off their caps when they are on the school terrain (yeah, no hats even if outside the school building). What if I arrive at school tomorrow morning and say to the principal " My religion obliges me to wear sunglasses so I don't make eye contact with girls. " He _should_ let me, Canada is a respectfull and tolerant country after all.

Bottom line : you can not ask for everything in the name of tolerance.

In France they had so many trouble with veils in school that they made it simple : no religious symbols = no little Jesus cross around the neck. Heck, how many Canadian soldiers fought and died so we could keep such basic freedoms ? I know than that is in France... but it is coming in North America. Hopefully we will not make the same mistake than Europe, hopefully.


			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> The Muslims took away singing of O Canada, the Lords prayer, forced us to call it a Holiday Tree?


Well, in France they want Maryanne to have a veil, they are getting pork out of the cafeterias, they sack the boutiques that have a Christmas crib... no actually they sack everything. Not in Canada ? Like I said, it is coming.


			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> They are Canadian.


Funny, but when the teacher asked every immigrant in my class last week if they considered themselves Canadian or not, ALL the answers were "Lebanese", "Algerian", "Libyan", etc.

And when you think about it, these girls, if they are don't want to swim with boys, it is not because they are scared to be laughed at, it is only because their religion brainwashed them since they were 3-years-old (Allah will punish you if you show your skin... ).


----------



## geo (28 May 2006)

When I grew up and went to HS (and joined the reserves) gym locker rooms & showers were communal and just a big "effing" room where everyone used the facilities.

Then they put in shower stalls, private changing stalls, etc, etc.........

Is there any wonder that people have chosen to ask for "more"


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 May 2006)

Its becoming obvious that this issue is representative of many things in our society that, IMHO, a silent but unhappy portion of our society has been tolerating, albeit not happily.

So.  We've identified a potential problem.  What about potential solutions?  If this has gone too far one way...what do we do to steer it back to a happy medium where, as I think it shoud be, where most people are happy with the issue most of the time?

I think what most people are trying to express is...an unhappiness with the appearance that, IMO, we are accomodating "them" (them can be whoever you think it is or applies to your own situation) but...they are not accomodating us.  Examples?  The Lord's prayer is offensive to non-Christians, can't do that, the Holiday Tree....singing O Canada in a language OTHER than the 2 current "official" languages already recognized in our great country.

Canada is ALWAYS accomodating these 'special groups' yet...to a certain percentage of born and bread Canadians, we see these groups, whoever they may be...NOT accomodating Canada.  And that folks, IMHO, is the problem and the sore spot for those posting here...

So.  Again, are there solutions, ones that work for ALL Canadians and meet all the PC BS that they must pass in Canada 'at this time'.  (Because I think the times they are a-changing...slowly but still changing...)

My solution for this one ref the swimming?  "This is the way the public school system works.  You do have the choice to not partake in it, or to opt out of the swim test, however, if we make exceptions for you, we will have to do that for everyone, and this would be unmanageable."  Now, they have a choice.  Same as they have a choice to not go to the Christmas Concert if they are so against it. 

But don't stop me, or "non special group of any kind" Canadians from swimming at lunch, or enjoying a Christmas Concert.

Thoughts?


----------



## Trinity (28 May 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> In France they had so many trouble with veils in school that they made it simple : no religious symbols = no little Jesus cross around the neck. Heck, how many Canadian soldiers fought and died so we could keep such basic freedoms ? I know than that is in France... but it is coming in North America. Hopefully we will not make the same mistake than Europe, hopefully.Well, in France they want Maryanne to have a veil, they are getting pork out of the cafeterias, they sack the boutiques that have a Christmas crib... no actually they sack everything. Not in Canada ? Like I said, it is coming.Funny, but when the teacher asked every immigrant in my class last week if they considered themselves Canadian or not, ALL the answers were "Lebanese", "Algerian", "Libyan", etc.




1)  this isn't France.  Comparing us to France is an insult.  That is like trying to say Quebec is like France because they both speak french.
Countries are different at the core and foundation.

2)  Your example in class.  So?  I have Scottish in me, I also say I'm Scottish.  



Am I to take your example as FACT for the whole country? I don't think so.  How do I know it even happened?

If Muslims started sacking Canada, trust me, I think we wouldn't stand for it.



> If I want to swim at that time I can't.



As for  what if you want to swim during the same time the girls are.  Simple, make the swim test when the
pool is normally closed for public use.  Book the pool at a time when it's not in use.  TA DAH.  That was hard!


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 May 2006)

> And when you think about it, these girls, if they are don't want to swim with boys, it is not because they are scared to be laughed at, it is only because their religion brainwashed them since they were 3-years-old (Allah will punish you if you show your skin... ).




Let's cool the jets a wee bit.

That is a right of the mark comment, with the "they were brain washed....because of Allah" comment

Take the time to go wash your brain and your views.  Otherwise you will feel the rath of 'MOD" not GOD..

dileas

tess


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (28 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> this isn't France. Countries are different at the core and foundation.


I don't see any big difference on this matter (islamisation of the west).



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> Am I to take your example as FACT for the whole country? I don't think so.


Me neither... I got away from my main point : They are Canadian (as you say) ? Do like Canadians.



			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> As for what if you want to swim during the same time the girls are.  Simple, make the swim test when the
> pool is normally closed for public use.  Book the pool at a time when it's not in use. That was hard!


Hard ? No, not for now... until they ask more and more and you have to do more and more. 

Not only that, but if we book the pool when it is not in use just for them, we will have to do the same thing for everyone ! Why only do it for them ? Because they are the only ones who ask ? Others will soon do the same thing if it is that easy ! 

My big sister is in this extreme branch of Christianism (ex : not even a single little kiss before wedding, no Christmas because it is not written in the Bible). She knows the rest of the society is not like them, so her stuff STAYS IN HER HOUSE. She has 6 daughters, all of them swim at the public pool, all of them adapt themselves to the society. They don't book the pool when is not in use.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (28 May 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> That is a right of the mark comment, with the "they were brain washed....because of Allah" comment
> 
> Take the time to go wash your brain and your views.


Allright, I will take the time not to make of the mark comments, but my brain and my views will stay the same.


----------



## Armymedic (28 May 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> And that was relevant, how?
> 
> I'm sure there are an equally great number of preteen and early teen boys who are "somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies." ...Should they get free private swimming classes, too?



I apologize for my poor punctuation, but if you read the entire edited sentences I believe you will understand my point...



> Preteen and early teen girls are already somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies. Add to that the culturally induced feeling that showing any skin in front of males is Wrong, and you will have a group of girls who must conflict themselves by exposing themselves against the wishes of their parents and religion vs. passing a school class.



And into response to couchcommander:
Its about the job they do, as Trinity states as well. Before the Sihk case, the RCMP only had the hat policy on the books. By changing the policy, did it make the RCMP a less effective force? I don't think so. Let us use a bit of common sense in deciding whats right.


----------



## the 48th regulator (28 May 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Allright, I will take the time not to make of the mark comments, but my brain and my views will stay the same.



Excellent, as long as your brain and your views do not overtake the controll of your comments, in the way as it did in that post.

dileas

tess


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 May 2006)

I am still looking for comments/thoughts on what we do to make this "acceptable" for all, for Canada and Canadian society.

But maybe I am fishing with no bait... ;D

Oh well, I will just take a spin in my cool bus


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I am still looking for comments/thoughts on what we do to make this "acceptable" for all, for Canada and Canadian society.
> 
> But maybe I am fishing with no bait... ;D
> 
> Oh well, I will just take a spin in my cool bus



Just like we used to in school. All boys swim together and all girls swim together. No need for any other rule. Don't want to participate as part of the whole? Bow out and fail the class. Fail the class? Fail the grade and you don't progress. Everyone is the same in the eyes of the law. No special class, religion or otherwise. Get rid of secular schools. Religion is for church, not schools. Don't like it? Support your own, get out of my pocket.

Get over it. No one is more special, priviledged nor entitled, more than any one else.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 May 2006)

See now that's what I am talking about.  RecceGuy has his solution laid out...anyone else?

PS - If anyone wants to ride in my bus, there is lots of room...just me and Timmy in here right now... :blotto:

TIMMEAH!


----------



## Trinity (28 May 2006)

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> No, not for now... until they ask more and more and you have to do more and more.



That's you're whole argument isn't it.

It's called a "slippery slope:.  The presumption that we give someone an allowance and 
they'll keep asking for them over and over again.  A baseless argument founded on
"what if" principles.  All hypothetical with no facts, argument or solution.  At best its used
as a scare tactic and at worst its propaganda. 

I disagree with Mud Recce Man and CouchCommando, who both take the same stance with you, but at least
they put a coherent argument on the table.

Your response is..  no, Canada is like France and this slippery slope crap.


----------



## Booked_Spice (28 May 2006)

Well for solutions..

Let's start just using our 2 national languages. French and English. If they want to add a class on another language make it an option. Also. OH Canada must be played in our school system, It is OUR COUNTRY. If you want to live in our country at least know our National anthem.

Also if we are not allowed to celebrate Christmas, then we should not be allowed to celebrate any other holiday regardless of religion and nationality. We should go back to the basics. Also, I found when I went through the education system. My classes were more on American History. Well we don't live in the States. I would like to see more Canadian History in our school system( maybe it has changed now I am not too sure)

There is my 2 cents but I will think about it and post more when I am not so hmm under the weather.

Thanks


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (28 May 2006)

Booked_Spice said:
			
		

> There is my 2 cents but I will think about it and post more when I am not so hmm under the weather.
> Thanks



no lawns to mow tonight??      ;D


----------



## Booked_Spice (29 May 2006)

HA HA HA.. funny..LOL...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

Ok so some of us are voicing what we don't like, or what we would like to see added back such as the National Anthem in the school system.

Now maybe I have been on my lil ol bus too long, but aren't these things we need to talk to...our MLAs about?  Our MP, where ever you are from?  Hmm, maybe at the next meeting of your children's school Unit School Board/Comission etc etc?

And would it not be best to do this with a spin on the positive outcome of these proposed changes?

And to point out there IS 2 official languages in Canada?  There IS a National Anthem...and if you came here to enjoy the freedom in this country, that you should appreciate the words in said Anthem?

See where I am going?

Pi**ing and moaning here will not change things.  Other than get Trinity worked up   ;D

We are fortunate to live in this country...are its citizens not, by default, charged with its well-being??

MPs and MLAs....local radio hosts...School boards, etc etc...just my 2 cents...

Vroom vroom, bus is leavin'!


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2006)

Or how about this for a solution?

How come these girls can't wear the same full-body covering swimsuits that I've seen worn before? Think 'sharkskin suits' from the last Olympics, but with arms. 

Seems to me that these were a perfectly acceptable religious standard for all the Muslim girls and women who wore them while swimming with Muslim men and many other denominational non-Muslim men and women together at Wild Wadi Water Park in Dubaii. I also witnessed the wearing of these suits by Muslim women in Latakia, Syria on mixed male/female open to all religions beaches.

There are indeed solutions without segregation. If they can do it in Dubaii and Syria...I think we can manage in Canada... but only if all parties are willing of course.


----------



## Trinity (29 May 2006)

Ok,  I want to reflect what I'm hearing from the other side of the argument.
By summarizing what I hear, you can see how I am receiving your argument
and if I'm hearing it right of if there is something i am missing.  


We shouldn't accommodate for others who move here or have different 
religious beliefs or secular beliefs because they affect the status quo.

Some people are going as far as saying "leave" if they don't like it.  


My response
1) they're not all immigrants... Many have lived here longer than some of our lineage. Some could be 
converts to Islam for all we know.  We keep making assumption they're immigrants and not Canadians.

2) I could just as easily say, if you don't like this free and democratic country where people can 
lobby and change laws to accommodate (as set forth by the charter) then "leave" to the USA.  They're Canadian,
you're Canadian.  Maybe you're the one out of place.    Yes that example will get people in knots, but it proves
how sorry it sounds to say "just leave" to fellow Canadians in a "free country"

3)  The 1+1+1 argument is pretty slippery slope.  No one has yet to prove that making exceptions for religion will
lead to massive wide scale erosion of ANYONE's rights

Finally..  and this is the best part.

ITS NOT ABOUT RELIGION.  I think I was RIGHT on the nose with the help of Couchcommando.  Its about 
group association.   My example was the Indians, gay and lesbian groups, abortions activists, etc.....

It's about groups speaking out.  Its about groups using the legal system to get what they want.  It's not
about a religious group or denomination. The problem here is we are trying to pin it to ONE religion and
one situation.

Then we use 1000 different examples that don't apply to the swimming situation, but they sure do apply
to Minority groups speaking out.  

Thats what we are arguing.. or at least arguing around in circles.

Please, love of GOD.... someone agree that this is not one small issue, but a complex issue we've
been trying to pin in a small box.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> And that was relevant, how?
> 
> I'm sure there are an equally great number of preteen and early teen boys who are "somewhat uncomfortable with their bodies." ...Should they get free private swimming classes, too?



I will admit it...I am uncomfortable with MY body.   :'(

sniffle





 ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2006)

I come back from a 2 day hiatus and THIS is the drivel that festered in my absence??

Good thing I'm in the basement right now cause maybe I can get lucky and catch a rat's ass to give......did anybody actually notice that these kids would fail their year if they didn't take this test?

The pool got used by a different group for a few minutes...whoopdy-do.....anybody ever go to the YMCA when it was an "adult only" or "teen" swim?      Sounds discriminatory to me.  Get a life, folks.
 :


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Please, love of GOD.... someone agree that this is not one small issue, but a complex issue we've
> been trying to pin in a small box.



I agree with that 100%.  As I think I said before...this is becoming representative...hence, the appearance of some (myself included) of pouncing on it???

I think people's resentment and frustration stem from loosing some of the more "Canadian" ways and traditions to accomodate what aren't necessarily viewed as "traditional" Canadian traditions...say, the example of Booked_spice's nieces who had were made to learn to sing Oh Canada in neither of our 2 official languages.  Were the other children of Mangerine "heritage" (right word?) also made to then learn it in English or French?

Therein is the problem, which I believe may be referred to as a "double-standard"?

Stupid example, but to make the point...

You are at work, with a peer.  Boss comes up, says to your peer, "Jimmy, you can go home, and I will pay you for the whole day, because you are "a member of Group X".

You however, are not a member of Group X...and...

have to work until 5, only harder because Jimmy is not there to cover his work...so you would feel??

Yes a stupid example, yet an example of 2 people not being treated equally that will/does result in resentment and ill-feelings to the members of "Group X'...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I come back from a 2 day hiatus and THIS is the drivel that festered in my absence??
> 
> Good thing I'm in the basement right now cause maybe I can get lucky and catch a rat's *** to give......did anybody actually notice that these kids would fail their year if they didn't take this test?
> 
> ...



A difference of opinions does not qualify as discrimination, unfortunately...

_~Religious Discrimination~
Religious Discrimination is the act of not associating with a group of people belonging to a particular faith or *giving them special treatment*. This is different from racial discrimination which is based on racial categories._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

But...perhaps I misread/misunderstood.   ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2006)

Yep, you did, I was refering to my previous line here....
 "_adult only" or "teen" swim?_

According to some posters maybe we send them all "back to where they came from too"?


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 May 2006)

Since Wikipedia has been invoked:



> *Tolerance*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Tolerance is a social, cultural and religious term applied to the collective and individual practice of not persecuting those who may believe, behave or act in ways of which one may not approve.* It is closely related to the political concept of toleration. Authoritarian systems practice intolerance, the opposite of tolerance. Tolerance is seen as a more widely acceptable term than "acceptance" and particularly "respect," where the application to controversial parties is concerned. Respect has two quite distinct meanings which are often confused to the detriment of commonsense: see respect. Tolerance implies both the ability to punish and the conscious decision not to. It is usually applied to non-violent, consensual behavior, often involving religion, sex, or politics. It rarely permits violent behavior.
> ...



Is "tolerance" one of those "Canadian ways and traditions" we'd like to see promoted and protected?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

I think its the fact that this issue is "representative" to many people, given the amount of posts on this one (wow eh!), and I would suggest that it is the "principal" that is being debated, vice the "swimming pool got used for X amount of time"...

And, both "sides" for lack of a better term (we are all on the same side, after all) seem to be debating thru their views rather well IMHO.  

I do strongly think the principal of the issue is the true topic of debate.  It could easily have been "3 muslim girls want special Ketchup at McDonalds because..." and the reaction would be the same, which suggests to me its the principal..."someone wants something special again."


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Since Wikipedia has been invoked:
> 
> Is "tolerance" one of those "Canadian ways and traditions" we'd like to see promoted and protected?



Yes it is.  

But...it should be a two-way street.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Yes it is.
> 
> But...it should be a two-way street.



And this is your two-way street?



			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I tend to think of my way of life as a Canadian way of life.
> ...
> 
> Do I think people should expect to abide by our laws, traditions, and way of life when they come here?  I sure do.
> ...


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Since Wikipedia has been invoked:
> 
> Is "tolerance" one of those "Canadian ways and traditions" we'd like to see promoted and protected?


Absolutely, but it must come from both sides, just as much as "compromise" must. 

As in my previous post, I'd point out again that the 'sharkskin bodyswimsuit' is tolerated for wear as a compromise on mixed religious beaches frequented by men/women in one of those "authoritarian countries" (Syria) mentionned in the Wikpedia article, and is very widely worn by Muslim women throughout the mideast these days for swimming in mixed gender/religious settings. 

Could it be perhaps, that the girls/families in this instance are unaware of it's existance as an accepted Muslim bathing/swimming standard?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (29 May 2006)

Booked_Spice said:
			
		

> Just to add a little side comment. My nieces went to a school and there was a significant amount of Mangerine attending the school. My nieces had to learn Oh Canada in mangerine. This was not a choice but they had to do this. They also celebrated Chinese new year. *However the school did not have a Christmas concert because it would offend some people.* Why was it this way? If we have to accommodate everyone beliefs, then why are our own beliefs and traditions are frowned upon in schools?



I guess this is an example of the 2-way street I was referring to.  The effort was made to accomodate the Chinese traditions, but unfortunately, the Christmas Concert did not make the cut.


----------



## old medic (29 May 2006)

This Thread is Locked for 24 hours.




Edit:   Unlocked now.  Keep it civil and coherent. 
This one is on the brink of oblivion.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (30 May 2006)

Hasema à la rèscousse...
The top company producing Islamic bathing suits, Hasema, sold 25 000 bathing suits last year. The company exports to Egypt, North America, England, and Australia : http://www.hasema.com/ 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/47209573.html

Ali Baba is a Canadian company offering its version of the Islamic swimsuit : http://www.alibaba.com/catalog/11111833/Islamic_Swimsuit.html

A third company, Jelbab, sells swimming suits that fulfils Islamic clothing requirements, their products can be ordered from the web : http://www.jelbab.com/SwimSuit.asp

Isn't it fantastic ?


----------



## winchable (30 May 2006)

I don't see the problem with that,
I see the issue many have with Muslim girls being given their own private swim test to protect their modesty, but what you have here is a company looking to bridge the gap by providing Muslim girls the ability to intermingle with non-muslim populations.
Now if these companies were advocating that all women, Muslim and non-Muslim, wear the their swimsuits then I would see your issue.

Of course, if you believe that a compromise of the melting pot is that Muslim women should wear a two-piece in North America then we shall have to agree to disagree.


----------



## paracowboy (30 May 2006)

Che said:
			
		

> Of course, if you believe that a compromise of the melting pot is that Muslim women should wear a two-piece in North America then we shall have to agree to disagree.


I think they should be nekkid in thongs, personally. But, then, I refuse to discriminate, and say that all wiminfolks should be.


----------



## Trinity (30 May 2006)

old medic said:
			
		

> This Thread is Locked for 24 hours.
> 
> Edit:   Unlocked now.  Keep it civil and coherent.
> This one is on the brink of oblivion.





			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> I think they should be nekkid in thongs, personally. But, then, I refuse to discriminate, and say that all wiminfolks should be.




Coherent...   too late.


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I see no problem in making reasonable accommodations for people of different faiths.  Besides, is it only Muslim Girls allowed to swim at that time or are all girls allowed to swim?  I though that was how things were done anyways. Believe it or not I grew up in Red Deer Alberta and when I was a kid there was boy’s swim time and girls swim time, during the girls swim time the blinds were drawn. That was when I was in grade 5.  It struck me as odd at the time so I asked why we were separated out,  we could have 2 hours together instead on one hour each.  I was told “Some of the girls feel more comfortable if boys don’t watch them in their swimsuits”. I understood.  Funny how respect is something that can easily be explained to a child.  Diversity can be a strength.  I live downtown Toronto now and I'm getting lots of help learning Dari from my friends. Now if I ever get to go over there, I'll be allot more usefull than if I just picked up a phrasebook.




And your point is ?


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> That's funny, because I don't see any RC's complaining about working on the sabbath. Its not that people are walking over the Christian faith, its simply
> that Christians don't take their faith to the same degree as Muslims.
> 
> You might say that's a broad paint brush.. well, take the Mormons.  They will not work on the Sunday with the exceptions of police, fire etc...
> ...




Maybe they would, if there wasn't so much BullSh?t and Trappings attached to it.

Sometimes it hard not to consider that long distant phrase "Religion is an Opiate for/of the Masses".

Is there really a difference or any less between a Christian who lives and follows the commandments than one who does or is commanded to fall down on his knees every Sunday.

And if we did protest and demand, (like bringing God back into the classroom, pledging allegiance to the flag and singing the original O'Canada) who the hell would listen. The sad thing is our whole society is being eroded away from us and we are just standing by and watching it.


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> What bothers me is many people are saying assimilate or go home.  These people were born here, some many generations
> back.  They are home.
> 
> We make huge exceptions for the catholics i.e. "the catholic school boards" getting separately funded from the public
> school system.  You can't tell me that's not a big deal, provinces funding religious based schools?




Yes you've hit the nail right on the Head, and that's where the problem started first of all, bring your customs or faiths with you, practice in your places of worship and in your home, but they are not to interfere with our way of life, society or laws. And if our ways offend or prohibit you from living in our Country then I am quite sure you would be more comfortable back at your point of origin.

As far as the RC Church, that was one of our origins and a part of our Heritage and society.


----------



## aluc (2 Jun 2006)

Religion is an Opiate for/of the Masses......you've nailed it right on the head. Too bad most of the world is high on organised religion, that they can't see the forrest for the trees.  Imagine ....no religion....what did John Lennon say again?


----------



## paracowboy (2 Jun 2006)

Octavianus said:
			
		

> what did John Lennon say again?


"Hey, Paul, let's sit down and write another song extolling the virtues of communism so we can sell enough records to buy another swimming pool. Don't bogart that j."


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> No, quite true...
> 
> but it seems like its a "what have you done for me lately" kind of thing.
> 
> ...




And so they should, they've been here since day one, before there was even a Canada in case you've forgotten. Even before our Puritan Forefathers.

And in case you think I am bias because I'm RC, forget it I'm Anglican


----------



## aluc (2 Jun 2006)

> Hey, Paul, let's sit down and write another song extolling the virtues of communism so we can sell enough records to buy another swimming pool. Don't bogart that j.




Ahhh....the irony of it all! Speaking about opiates -  Money....it's a hell of a drug


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2006)

Anglican?  Church of England?  My God man!  Don't you know, with all that "Stand up, Sit down, Kneel, Stand up, Sit down, ......." stuff in church, that you are more Catholic than the Catholics (Roman Catholic I mean); as being Anglican myself, I learned in my Catechism that I was Catholic, as I believed in one God.   ;D


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just like we used to in school. All boys swim together and all girls swim together. No need for any other rule. Don't want to participate as part of the whole? Bow out and fail the class. Fail the class? Fail the grade and you don't progress. Everyone is the same in the eyes of the law. No special class, religion or otherwise. Get rid of secular schools. Religion is for church, not schools. Don't like it? Support your own, get out of my pocket.
> 
> Get over it. No one is more special, priviledged nor entitled, more than any one else.




Whereas the reference and substance of the multitude of comments have centered on the passing of grades or tests. My question is therefore relative. WTF does swimming have to due with Academic Studies anyway in the Curriculum of Education. But to be a required mark for grade advancement.  Our Eduction Boards should be  contrating more on the "3 R's".


----------



## TMM (2 Jun 2006)

It's part of the phys ed curriculum. I think every single kid should have swimming and skating.

We can't complain about lazy or fat kids if we don't keep them moving at school.


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Anglican?  Church of England?  My God man!  Don't you know, with all that "Stand up, Sit down, Kneel, Stand up, Sit down, ......." stuff in church, that you are more Catholic than the Catholics (Roman Catholic I mean); as being Anglican myself, I learned in my Catechism that I was Catholic, as I believed in one God.   ;D




Yes George, your absolutely right and as I previously quoted to 'Trinity", all that Bullsh?t does not a good Christian make.

So, about the time I was just out of knee pants, I started to separate Christianity and the Dogma of the Church. So that was the last the Church ever saw of me. So in your books does that make me any less of a Christian or care less as "Trinity" concluded.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2006)

Your church is in your soul. You don't need a building or pontificating putz to tell you what you believe. Christian, Muslim, Buddist, whatever, you're no less a religious person just because you don't associate and fill the plate, and anybody that says otherwise is already a lesser person.


----------



## FastEddy (2 Jun 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your church is in your soul. You don't need a building or pontificating putz to tell you what you believe. Christian, Muslim, Buddist, whatever, you're no less a religious person just because you don't associate and fill the plate, and anybody that says otherwise is already a lesser person.




Nicely put "recceguy" my sentiments exactly.

But I find it very difficult to be charitable to those of a Faith who advocated my Death and Extinction.

Cheers.


----------



## Hunter (2 Jun 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Anglican?  Church of England?  My God man!  Don't you know, with all that "Stand up, Sit down, Kneel, Stand up, Sit down, ......." stuff in church, that you are more Catholic than the Catholics (Roman Catholic I mean); as being Anglican myself, I learned in my Catechism that I was Catholic, as I believed in one God.   ;D



George being Anglican is an accident of birth - I'm sure nobody holds it against you.    Actually as Anglicans I think we (yeah I was born one too) are pretty lucky - what other major religion in the world can say the founder of their chuch was a deranged sex maniac?  It almost gives us 'cult' status!


----------



## paracowboy (2 Jun 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your church is in your soul. You don't need a building or pontificating putz to tell you what you believe. Christian, Muslim, Buddist, whatever, you're no less a religious person just because you don't associate and fill the plate, and anybody that says otherwise is already a lesser person.


's why I differentiate between Religion (someone else telling me what God wants, usually a lot of money for their particular organization), and Spirituality (me trying to figure out what God is tellin' me he wants. Usually to help someone else in the best way I can.).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jun 2006)

Yep, your right para. Spirituality is the word that fits there better.


----------



## Trinity (2 Jun 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> So, about the time I was just out of knee pants, I started to separate Christianity and the Dogma of the Church. So that was the last the Church ever saw of me. So in your books does that make me any less of a Christian or care less as "Trinity" concluded.



I never said that...  if i did.. please show me where so I can be corrected because that's not what I believe, which 
I will show in my next quote in this post. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Your church is in your soul. You don't need a building or pontificating putz to tell you what you believe. Christian, Muslim, Buddist, whatever, you're no less a religious person just because you don't associate and fill the plate, and anybody that says otherwise is already a lesser person.




Everyone is Spiritual.  We all choose to express our spirituality in different ways.

Some of us express our spirituality through religion (religiosity), some of us don't. 
How ever one expresses their spirituality is OK (providing it doesn't drastically hurt others).

Not everyone can fit the cookie cutter of religion or its denominations.  In fact, those who are in religion
don't agree with every rule or belief of their church, however, their religion sums up their own spirituality
for the most part as well as being part of a community of others with the same beliefs.

That, FastEddy, is my belief.  If you choose to express your spirituality through whatever means, or
Christianity through whatever means, that's OK.  You're not any less a Christian or spiritual as long as you
continue to be honest to yourself and your beliefs.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2006)

Well, seeing as everyone wants to Quote Recceguy:



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Your church is in your soul. You don't need a building or pontificating putz to tell you what you believe.



The 'World' is my church.  I will commune with it whenever and wherever I so desire.   ;D


----------



## Trinity (2 Jun 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I've met more than enough "Christians" in name only.  Its hard to be offended when very few people take their own religion that seriously.



This is what you are referring to?

I discriminate against lesser Christians because of this??

1) read my above post for my theology of Spirituality

2) when I say in Name only, these people are saying, yeah, we're Christian, but don't believe 
in Christ, don't follow any commandments, they don't care about anyone except themselves,
they don't carry any beliefs of Christianity, and yes.. have never stepped in a church since their
baptism.

I think we all know a few.  I don't consider these people Christian.  Worse, these are the same people
who claim their religious rights are violated when someone else wants to practice something new
or different in their neighbourhood.  




			
				Trinity said:
			
		

> That, FastEddy, is my belief.  If you choose to express your spirituality through whatever means, or
> Christianity through whatever means, that's OK.  You're not any less a Christian or spiritual as long as you
> continue to be honest to yourself and your beliefs.



Like I said, as long as you are honest to your beliefs and values.  If you say you belong to Christianity,
and then are not honest to christian beliefs and values...  I think its safe to say you're not Christian.


----------



## orange.paint (2 Jun 2006)

Really is a few young Muslim women swimming in private really a problem for anyone?So they ask for special rights,big deal.I would think ANY young girl in this country with a valid reason would be allotted the same amount of leeway in completing the test.

They are not trying to "scam out"of doing it or make headlines,just following their religion their way.At least they are following their religion to the best of their abilities in a western country,following the Koran in this country must be a hard task due to the culture.

Don't bother me.Have Jewish dive night,Christian syncro..
Who cares.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jun 2006)

Wow, rcac_011 and I actually agree on something........anyone who really cares about this needs an extra large helping of life.


----------



## Trinity (2 Jun 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wow, rcac_011 and I actually agree on something........anyone who really cares about this needs an extra large helping of life.



Oh man.. another sign of the Apocalypse....


All that's left is HoM to get promoted.. and the last sign is complete.


----------



## TMM (2 Jun 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Oh man.. another sign of the Apocalypse....
> 
> 
> All that's left is HoM to get promoted.. and the last sign is complete.



And don't forget that 6.6.6 will arrive in four days.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (2 Jun 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> just following their religion their way.At least they are following their religion to the best of their abilities in a western country,following the Koran in this country must be a hard task due to the culture.


   
So you are saying it is a good thing that Muslims are trying to fallow their religion to the best of their abilities ?

Are you also saying that we should help them do this ?

Before you answer "yes", I suggest that you inform yourself a little bit about this religion.



			
				rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Don't bother me.Have Jewish dive night,Christian syncro..
> Who cares.


Who cares ? People that normally swim 3 hours a week and that will only be able to swim 3 minutes a week because of there religion-based schedule. They would also care because their swimming period would probably be at a time when they can't swim. 

Take all the different religions/associations in Canada, add them up, do a schedule with one separate time for every-one of them, you will see how much time each group will have to swim. All that because a few individuals (minority) wants to impose there way of doing things on all the rest of the society (majority). To remember you, imposing the minority on the majority is anti-democratic.

Or they could simply buy one of those Islamic-respecting swim suits and not bather any-one.


----------



## probum non poenitet (2 Jun 2006)

> All that because a few individuals (minority) wants to impose there way of doing things on all the rest of the society (majority). To remember you, imposing the minority on the majority is anti-democratic.



In a democracy, the majority rules, but the minority must be afforded respect. That is a cornerstone of legitimate democracy.

As a Quebecer, and I presume francophone, you should appreciate that more than most.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jun 2006)

This one has survived longer than the original story and its time the book was closed.

As per normal if someone has something relevent to add, then PM a Mod with the tale.


----------

