49
50

Dear ICBC: Where is my license? (youtube.com)

pfakDowntown Vancouver が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]VeryGoodUsername -15 ポイント-14 ポイント

If this guy feels wearing a spaghetti colander on your head for your government issued ID is religious freedom, that's his business. But leave this ridiculous campaign out of taxpayer dollars and law enforcement duties for identification.

The FSM (flying spaghetti monster) is a satire on religious views, we get that. But everyone who is apart of the FSM "church" isn't actually a "pasta farian"; they're atheists. And for atheists to be claiming religious freedoms under false religious pretense is absurd and asinine. That is not what atheism is about, and atheists don't go around wearing noodle colanders to represent their lack of belief in a god(s). Only a moron would do this and claim legitimacy out of it.

[–]mariesoleil 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Ever been to a UU church? It's a religion full of atheists. They actually use the words "faith" and "religion" during service, yet don't talk about God very much, if at all.

How is that different than a parody religion? For that matter, how is it different from those who are atheists, but part of a more standard religion because of family and/or community.

[–]VeryGoodUsername -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Simple question: do you think letting this guy wear a spaghetti colander on his head promotes religious freedom?

I seriously hope your answer is "no".

[–]mariesoleil 5 ポイント6 ポイント

Hmm, I gave it some serious thought at my mindless job, and I'd say that my answer is between yes and no.

What I like about these court battles is that they raise an interesting point. What is the difference between someone who belongs to a brand new religion and knows it's bullshit, someone who belongs to an older religion and knows it's bullshit, and someone who belongs to an old religion and believes it 100%? I don't have an answer. But I don't see that it's anyone's right to determine how much someone believes or doesn't believe in what they claim is their religion. Another head covering religious freedom debate that comes up frequently is Sikh turbans. I don't think I get to decide that Sikhs who tie turbans shouldn't be excepted from helmet laws, even though I know that plenty of Sikhs have short hair and shave their faces. It's not up to me to judge their religion.

My perspective is that of an atheist, formerly Christian, who considers freedom of religion to be a very Canadian value, one that's worth keeping.

[–]secretagentastronaut 2 ポイント3 ポイント

But I don't see that it's anyone's right to determine how much someone believes or doesn't believe in what they claim is their religion. Another head covering religious freedom debate that comes up frequently is Sikh turbans. I don't think I get to decide that Sikhs who tie turbans shouldn't be excepted from helmet laws, even though I know that plenty of Sikhs have short hair and shave their faces. It's not up to me to judge their religion.

I take two issues with this viewpoint, founded on the belief that religion is a bunch of made up nonsense. And that has nothing to do with belief in god, I am agnostic and think atheism is turning into a religion.

  • 1) Safety. Like your quoted Sikh turbans, I take issue with it in the scope of things like motorcycling, working on hardhat requiring job sites. Carrying a religious knife where they are prohibited. People that wear face covering garments and the need for accurate photo ID. If you can't concede to this sort of thing then don't participate. I could care less what you wear on your own time and will fight to protect that so you will never be persecuted. However when we as a society place reasonable policies and restrictions on things we do it for a reason, and a fairy tale should not be a reason to disregard it.
  • 2) Equal rights. Equal rights to me means equal rights. If my workplace has a uniform that requires headgear and somebody gets an exemption, then everybody should get an exemption. If somebody gets 8 prayer breaks per day, everybody else should get 8 additional breaks per day. We shouldn't be divided into a bunch of categories and given rights based on them. The more extreme the religious accommodation gets the more extreme the anti-religious accommodation viewpoint gets, and we need only look to Europe for a barometer as to where Western attitudes are going on this. 500,000+ people voted for the fringe BNP, and the BNP is very much extremist and not representative of the more moderate viewpoints along the same scope. We have national leaders renouncing multiculturalism, national polls showing a majority wanting to reform/end immigration.

I would like to protect multiculturalism and religious freedoms, and I think the ever growing scope of religious accommodations are a threat to both of them.

[–]Could_Care_Corrector 1 ポイント2 ポイント

"couldn't care less"

[–]mytooscents 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Our courts actually do decide whether or not a belief is a genuinely held religious belief. They look to the evidence of the individual, as well as other practitioners. Then there is a balancing of sorts against the accomodations being sought. Have a quick read about this case, funny enough, it's even about the freedom of religion and driver license photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_v._Hutterian_Brethren_of_Wilson_Colony

[–]autowikibot 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony:

Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony is a freedom of religion decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. The court addressed whether a requirement that all licensed drivers be photographed unconstitutionally violated the Hutterites' right to freedom of religion.

Image i

Interesting: Hutterite | Freedom of religion in Canada | List of Supreme Court of Canada cases (McLachlin Court) | 2009 reasons of the Supreme Court of Canada

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]morttheunbearable 9 ポイント10 ポイント

Any more than someone wearing anything symbolic of any religion? Satire or not, the church of the FSM is legitimate in the eyes of the state, and should be respected as much.

[–]mytooscents 4 ポイント5 ポイント

A key aspect of the freedom of religion in Canada is that it is a genuinely held religious belief.

A satirical religion is not equivalent to a genuinely held religious belief. A public entity has no obligation to accomodate beliefs that are not genuinely held.

[–]biskelionNorth Shore is Best Shore 9 ポイント10 ポイント

It should not be up to the institution, or public in general, to quantify other people's religious beliefs.

What if we had a Catholic majority who were pretty sure that Protestant beliefs were not genuine because they considered them wrong?

A satirical religion is just as genuine as a "real" one. You are not in a position to judge others people's beliefs. Respect them all, or respect none. Half and half is a biased, untenable position.

[–]mytooscents 0 ポイント1 ポイント

A catholic majority does not get to decide what is genuine a genuine belief in our society, the courts do.

Like the effect or not, a belief that someone claims to hold is not the same as a belief that someone genuinely holds. Courts will be quite lenient in accepting that a person genuinely believes something for religious reasons. However, where it is clear the person doesn't - the law does not apply to them.

I don't like it either, but that's the law. You'd have to amend the constitution to change it.

[–]Dbone_3 1 ポイント2 ポイント

So the individual doesn't get to decide what they belive in? I have to go to court and let them decide what genuine beliefs I have?

[–]mytooscents 1 ポイント2 ポイント

If an individual wants to force a public entity to change their rules to accomodate that individual's particular beliefs, is it really so much to ask that the individual actually hold those beliefs?

I'd be curious if this guy would under oath say his beliefs were genuinely held. If not, sorry - no accomodation for you.

Even if the default position for our public entities is to assume beliefs are genuinely held. In this particular case it is obvious on its face his beliefs are not genuinely held.

If public entities didn't assess individuals' beliefs, anyone could walk in and say "I believe in BLAH BLAH BLAH, you have to accomodate me." They must have the ability to say no at a certain point. That is what happened here.

[–]JeromeVancouver 1 ポイント2 ポイント

I think everyone realizes how ridiculous it is. However practising a religion doesn't mean you have to have genuinely held religious belief.

[–]mytooscents 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Sure, but under the law, in order for someone to violate your freedom of religion under the Charter by preventing you from doing that thing, the belief that you must do that thing be a genuinely held religious belief.

[–]JeromeVancouver 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I guess I just have a problem with the Genuine Belief aspect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV7m6IIN_tI - Relevant Seinfeld Clip

[–]mytooscents 1 ポイント2 ポイント

You have to draw the line somewhere. It makes sense that if you are going to have a law about accomodating a person's beliefs - that the person should actually hold those beliefs!

[–]secretagentastronaut 3 ポイント4 ポイント

But everyone who is apart of the FSM "church" isn't actually a "pasta farian"; they're atheists.

Anti-religion != atheism.

Pastafarianism doesn't touch faith in god or lack there of, it's exclusive domain is making fun of religion.

[–]randomalphanumerics 2 ポイント3 ポイント

are you saying that the idea that god is a flying speghatti monster is more ridiculous than god being a burning bush on fire? cause i know i lot of people who believe the latter, so i am more than open to believe that there are those that truly believe the former