Birdy

Thanks!

Yep, May.

Brave New World!

A lot of the time (i think) it's primarily the policy existing in the first place that outlines the rules that lead people into those sticky situations when outcries of discrimination flourish. If it were to not really be covered specifically, but more like a blanket policy that states something along the lines of 'this company supports recognized religious affiliations' or something along those lines, and in that, allowed the Muslim to walk away from the hose to say his peace a couple of times a day (or within reason), that has more of a potential to work... possibly. And dealing with it in a case by case issue, where you'd pull such a coworker into your office and ask him what's going on, and have him tell you that he's saying the Salat and identify himself as one of those recognized religions, it could work. Because realistically those *few* who would be tempted to argue this, probably don't identify with religion anyway and are just looking to steal an extra break. And if it becomes an issue, by all means let them go and pray to Allah. We're not talking an extra lunch break here... that's important to make clear too. Or even just provide a clean and quiet place for Muslims to pray while they are on their breaks or lunch hour. In the case of McGill and the Muslim students, they weren't asking for an adjustment of the time table, they were simply asking for a place to go and pray. Like i said earlier, Islam is lenient in their prayers and when they need to get done, as long as they get them done at some point... the students just wanted some place to do it.

Nothing would be accomplished? What do you mean? Muslim's prayer schedule is pretty generous... of course, there's specified times to pray but in reality, there exists within the religion a certain grace for extenuating circumstances. The salat doesn't take up an hour out of a work schedule. It can be done by allowing an employee to walk away from the hose for a few minutes and providing them with a clean and quiet place - like religious reflection rooms. Obviously this would apply to large institutions or companies; other than that, just acknowledging that your employee does have a certain faith and acting 'within reason' to accomodate that would definitely be the kind of good i'd hope for. Assuming that 'nothing would get accomplished' because we allow employees or students to pray is kind of part of the problem, and (at least i think) kind of assumptive and not necessarily true.

Solid question.

Kev, I think it's far more realistic that we would try to accommodate the daily ritual of a religious person than to assume that everyone will undoubtedly know when it's Yom Kippur, or Sikh holy day, or Greek Orthodox Christmas, or Bahai' 'we love everybody' day.

Please! The world doesn't stop for the Jewish calendar!! Obviously, this wasn't my response, but c'mon.... 'offensive'?? grrr. This is less than thoughtful, considering your pontifications. How so? No, it's not. If anything hopefully we'd progress to a state where having an event on Yom Kippur wouldn't cause angry Jewish people to send nasty emails insinuating unthoughtfulness because they'd realize that you know, calendars fill up. Did you read the part about secularism radicalizing the religious?

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

I didn't see that... thanks D! Here's what struck home for me, and probably, (actually, hopefully) for most: I fear secularism gets twisted and mis-interpreted by too many (i'm guilty of it myself) to ever lead way to the real heart of the matter - we all want something that's good for us all. Those blog titles I posted above are kind of a case in point. What's found on the intraweb, well I agree with TB, shouldn't mean governments should be religious, but they should very well serve as an indication to how we have publically approached the issue and how we have publically reacted to the issue. I'm not saying governments should be religious, I'm saying governments should recognize religion, not on a document, but in their daily operation and should do their very best to be inclusive of all, if they are to ever promote the societal will to be inclusive of all.

Ok. If I think in terms of how far secularism has taken us, that being that i don't think we'd ever go back to a society in which public institutions can be held at the mercy of one religion, would it be okay to think that we can do without it? Or are we still living in an age where such a thing would be a threat? I don't think we are, but it'd be interesting to hear what others have to say.

Election's over. Palin's back in Alaska. Who knows where John McCain is.

OK, i'll go with secularism being less successful at what it's trying to accomplish at this given point in time. I'd rather see a world where Muslims didn't have to get a court case to decide whether they are permitted to follow their pillars and pray five times a day at work or school. Maybe i don't get it, and need some sort of explanation. How does secularism provide for an inclusive society when it denies the right of any religions of any kind/shape/form in any public institution? That's EXclusive, not inclusive. Kev, i'm totally with you, it DOES come down to how to satisfy everyone's differences, and for the most part, it seems secularism only satisfies the atheists and/or agnostics. I'd much prefer a Canada that recognizes 75% of it's citizens as religious and tries to incorporate that into it's government. If we tried to do such a thing in a way like this religious representative did in Ottawa, I think we'd promote a much greater understanding of all religions and quite possibly a greater acceptance of them as well.

holy christ, i know i'm fueling this thread right now, but it's been a shitty day here in Chatham and i've spent a few hours surfing around the internet reading up on secularism. And as you can probably tell from the previous three posts, i'm taking sides. Secularists seem to argue secularism as important in order to provide for a more inclusive society. Or so it seems. But just surfing around on the internet, i've found the following little titles for secularist blogs: God is for Suckers Kill the Afterlife Angels Depart Daily Bible versus 2007 Kingdom of Heathen Religion is Immoral Your Religion Sucks HOW do such titles lead to a more inclusive society? Is secularism one big hypocritical joke? I'm starting to think secularism is a failed ideology/philosophy for what's its trying to accomplish.

Some fight for representative governments, and then argue religion should have no part in our public institutions?

this special gem below was found on buses over in the UK, after much money was raised by a lot of people to advertise their message (Richard Dawkins included): Which kinda really pisses me off, as if I were to imagine a Christian message being sprouted up along side of a public bus, the outcry would be fucking horrendous. Yet somehow, this crap is acceptable? Both sides are beliefs. One in a god, one not. Seems sooo hypocritical to me.

Check out the photo I posted above - McGill University, amongst countless others. Muslims believe they must pray five times a day as one of the five pillars of Islam, and by denying prayer in public spaces, we're denying students and government employees the right to follow the pillars of their faith. And then it furthers into privatized jobs, where unions dictate when breaktimes are, when lunch is, etc. and how that conflicts with their prayers. Some non-unionized jobs aren't granted breaktime at all, where I believe it's only after 8 hours in Ontario that you're granted a 1/2 hour lunch break and two fifteen minute breaks. And then to further that, as D_jango brought up, where are they to pray? In the cafeteria surrounded by everyone else? Or do they seek out little private spots in their workplace to go and do what they feel is their duty? It's sad. And a huge issue. Not 'necessarily in a public institutional space' is the problem if people hold jobs, go to school. And increasingly a problem when the structure of privatized institutions models itself off of the public, and what our 'constitutional' laws and freedoms are, and really unfortunately, aren't.

It's sad to think that people have to fight for the right to pray.

Yup.

Sorry, i was over-shooting the drama. All of the previously unquoted text about burying Detroit and pall-bearers caused it. After all, Washington was the aider and abetor with all of this bad stuff. Cellulosic ethanol is another biofuel that's derived from plants and wood. I *think* along the same lines as corn-based ethanol. Which, with the way we operate now, I totally agree is unsustainable. But really, if we're going to continue along these lines of producing and relying on biofuels (which i think we need to), then we need a complete shift on how our governments think... we need greenhouses and huge support for agriculture. And full-blown research and innovation in alternative energy resources. Right now biofuels are causing world food prices to increase drastically, eating up farmland left, right and centre and threatening us with starvation. But if governments invested in technology that would make production efficient and sustainable, what a better place we'd be. That and we need to research alternative biofuels. Why use corn, when you can use a poplar tree too? Imagine the size of a greenhouse growing poplar trees to convert as biofuel? holy. I kind of envision a smorgasboard of alternatives... electric cars, biofuels, carpools and bicycles. And for the most part think the sooner we stop looking for ONE answer as THE answer, the better. This situation is fucked and I'm afraid that all current government administrations don't have it in their powers as legislators (or don't think they have it in their power as legislators) to make the right and hard choices to get the job done right, save a little face, and do it today.