Contested Symbols

[d_rawk]

Why government funds people locked in their own delimited fantasy worlds (and I'm not trying to be facetious with that) is beyond me, aside from trying to keep the status quo as best it can. Yes, they serve useful functions (and governments are typically functionalistically oriented), but so too are all sorts of other social groupings, and you're right, there would be way too many of those for funding them to ever be practical.

Which funding do you mean? (I'm assuming you aren't referring to religious schooling)

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe a practical middle ground would be government restricting funding to religious groups committed to ecumenical or interfaith directions.

That does sound rather nice initially, but I'd think it difficult to defend at the actual policy level. It seems that any direct funding that took into account the type of organization and allocated funds accordingly, rather than based on a per-project, per-proposal level in any way would be subject to all sorts of criticism. (officially, I mean ... it obviously does happen unofficially)

Hence my curiousity as to what sort of programs you were referring to in your second paragraph. I'm sure that I'm just overlooking something obvious, and probably need a nap.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

My bad - "funding" was a perfectly inappropriate word. "Support" would be marginally better, and conveniently vague. Let's start with tax-exemptions, and let my point peter out from there.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Nice piece from Charles Haynes, at the First Amendment Center in the US.

The Real "War on Christians"

The real ‘war on Christians’

Inside the First Amendment

By Charles C. Haynes

First Amendment Center

12.24.06

Culture warriors loudly proclaim that Christianity is under siege in the United States: Christmas wars, Bible wars, school wars — all part of a great “war on Christians.â€

For a little perspective, try explaining this “war†to people like Father Douglas Yousef Al-Bazy, a Chaldean Catholic parish priest in Baghdad.

Last month, Al-Bazy was kidnapped for nine days before being released (probably for ransom). Earlier this year, his parish was hit by bomb attacks, and a month later he was shot at while pulling a pregnant woman to safety.

Despite all this, Father Al-Bazy refuses to leave his congregation. “It needs me more than ever,†he said in a recent interview. “My life is in the hand of God.â€

But soon he may not have a flock left to serve. Iraqi Christians (who make up less than 3% of the population) are streaming out of the country, fleeing what many believe are targeted attacks against churches and Christian-owned businesses.

Meanwhile back in the USA, we are busy fighting a manufactured “war†over whether to say “Merry Christmas†or “happy holidays.†One woman was so incensed by the absence of the crèche in a school display that she has taken her grievance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. (We’re still waiting to see if the justices take the case).

This was the year that the “war on Christmas†was ratcheted up to become the “war on Christians†— most notably at a conference in March organized by some evangelical groups. Speaker after speaker expressed outrage at the widespread “persecution†of Christians in America.

Among the recent examples of anti-Christian attacks: A military chaplain said he was punished for offering sectarian prayers. An artist claimed he was barred from an art show because his paintings had religious themes.

It’s easy to imagine Father Al-Bazy’s reaction to these stories of “persecutionâ€: If this is all you suffer, count yourselves very blessed indeed.

Religious life in America has never been more robust, visible and free than it is today. It’s true that religious values now compete with secular trends, especially in popular culture. That makes our public square an increasingly crowded and often hostile arena where religion is sometimes unfairly excluded. But none of this adds up to religious persecution.

If you want to see what a real war on Christians looks like, just look around the globe.

Last month, to cite just one of countless examples, Chinese officials in Xinjiang province released four “unofficial†Christians from prison (in China, only Christians who are registered with the government may practice their faith). According to human rights groups, they were tortured for 32 days.

Of course, it’s not just Christians who suffer. According to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Chinese government is “responsible for pervasive and severe violations of religious freedom … . Every religious community in China is subject to serious restrictions, state control, and repression.â€

Move around the world, and the story is much the same: Baha’is are brutally harassed and punished in Iran. Protestant, Buddhist and other groups are discriminated against and often detained in Vietnam. Muslims and Christians are censored and attacked in Burma. And the list goes on and on in a world where religious freedom is in short supply.

By contrast, Christians in America never had it so good. Where else on Earth do Christians have more freedom to evangelize, organize, publish and worship – all without government interference?

What really bothers some American evangelicals is not the lack of freedom — it’s the loss of monopoly. Many of the conflicts in the so-called “war on Christians†appear to be about restoring the “good old days†when Protestant Christianity was semi-established as the national religion.

But pushing for a Christian Nation will not advance Christianity — it will kill it. From China to Turkey to Europe, state involvement in religion is the root of persecution, dissension and division.

Father Al-Bazy’s problems won’t end with the establishment of a Shiite nation or a Sunni nation — or even a Christian nation — in Iraq. The war on Christians in that country and throughout the world will end only when governments commit to stay out of religion and guarantee freedom and safety for people of all faiths and none.

How ironic. At a time when some Christian leaders in America are decrying “separation of church and state,†millions of Christians around the world are praying for it.

[d_rawk]

Thanks for that article. Far too often, loss of privilege is confused with persecution.

But pushing for a Christian Nation will not advance Christianity — it will kill it. From China to Turkey to Europe, state involvement in religion is the root of persecution, dissension and division.

Bears repeating.

How ironic. At a time when some Christian leaders in America are decrying “separation of church and state,†millions of Christians around the world are praying for it.

And this too.

The following may not fit the discussion, exactly, but it's a cute anecdote. And it probably fits well enough.

Andrew Carnegie: Well you know Mark, whether you like it or not, America is a Christian country.

Mark Twain: I know that Andrew. But so is hell.

(lifted from the opening of this talk by Gary Wills)

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Andrew Carnegie: Well you know Mark, whether you like it or not, America is a Christian country.

Mark Twain: I know that Andrew. But so is hell.

Awesome .

[meggo]

recent related article in the G&M!

this part gets me:

"Mr. Ayman said the rights of minorities should be accommodated “as long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of the majority.â€"

eeeek!!

Quebec wrestles with multicultural identity

link

DENE MOORE

Canadian Press

MONTREAL — Men banned from pre-natal classes at a Montreal community health centre so as not to offend Muslim, Sikh or Hindu women.

The windows at a community gym obscured so that boys at the Orthodox synagogue across the street couldn't see the Spandex-clad women inside.

Most recently, a suggestion that it's time to remove a large wooden crucifix from the Quebec national assembly.

Is it political correctness run amok or the natural growing pains of an increasingly multicultural society?

That's the debate in Quebec, where politicians, minority advocates and everyday residents are weighing in on what is “reasonable†accommodation of racial, ethnic and religious minorities in what is an increasingly diverse society.

Mario Dumont, leader of the Action démocratique du Québec, said Quebec should quit bending over backwards to accommodate minorities and, instead, set out in law reasonable compromises to be granted to religious and ethnic groups.

“We must make gestures which reinforce our national identity and protect those values which are so invaluable to us,†Mr. Dumont wrote in a letter to be sent to Quebeckers.

Unpopular with his political opponents, Mr. Dumont's position seemed to strike a chord with some Quebeckers.

“We're tired of empty political shells who have no firm position,†one man wrote to Montreal La Presse newspaper. “For us, Mario Dumont is a breath of fresh air.â€

Then, Parti Québécois Leader Andre Boisclair entered the fray by suggesting it may be time to remove the crucifix that has adorned the Quebec national assembly since 1936.

In a diverse society, “religious symbols have no place in public space,†Mr. Boisclair said.

It was just the latest clash:

— A Montreal elementary school had to hire guards last April after a Filipino mother alleged that her son was chided by a lunch hall monitor for the way he ate.

The school said the reprimand had nothing to do with the traditional Filipino manner of eating, but bad manners. The mother said it did and made a complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission. The school received threats and the incident prompted a small demonstration outside the Canadian embassy in Manila.

— A few months ago, an internal Montreal police magazine suggested female officers step aside to let male colleagues deal with Hasidic Jews.

The police union was furious while a Hasidic Jewish leader wondered why the article was written at all. He said there had never been any complaint about dealing with female officers.

— Last fall, some members of a Montreal YMCA were upset that windows in their exercise room were frosted at the request of the Orthodox synagogue across the street.

And it's not just Quebec.

Last month, an Ontario judge caused an uproar when she ordered a Christmas tree removed from the lobby of a Toronto court house so as not to offend non-Christians.

“These are growing pains that are not limited to Quebec,†said Al-Yassini Ayman, executive director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

Mr. Ayman said the rights of minorities should be accommodated “as long as that doesn't infringe on the rights of the majority.â€

Randall Hansen, Canada Research Chair in Immigration and Governance at the University of Toronto, said people have the right to religious freedom but not to force their religious precepts on others.

“What people (in some of these cases) are expecting is that others alter their behaviour,†Mr. Hansen said.

“When it involves denying individual rights for other people, that's where the limits need to be drawn.â€

Fo Niemi, executive director of the Montreal-based Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations, said considering the number of minorities living in Montreal alone, the problems are being “blown way out of proportion.â€

It reflects intolerance and “a certain cultural insecurity on the part of many francophones,†Mr. Niemi said.

He worries these incidents overshadow real problems.

Last week, 20 windows were smashed out of a private Muslim school in Montreal and two Orthodox Jewish schools have been firebombed in the past couple of years.

The Quebec government has ordered a series of public hearings into racism and the integration of cultural communities into the province.

A report is expected this year.

[Birdy]

Thanks for posting this meggo. There's lots of court-clogging examples of how we have failed as a society to figure out how to make multi-culturalism work. It's kind of sad really how we Canadians have prided ourselves on being multi-cultural, but now can think of no alternative to get along but to hide our cultural differences. Really with some of the thoughts in this thread one would be left to think that the Americans were really on to something in the first place with the whole melting pot idea. It really would be the same endpoint, except they wouldn't have wasted countless tax payer dollars in legal fees determining exactly what the charter of rights and freedoms means and allows.

instead of banning prayer from schools, wouldn't it be nice if there were say... a devoted time slot each morning to prayers of all sorts? or instead of banning a cross from hanging on a wall, if that wall was devoted to all kinds of religious symbols and students were encouraged to express themselves and show off their religions? be it whatever? i think these ideas would promote a certain level of awareness and tolerance that we all seek, much more than hiding who you are and what you believe and having your government deny you individual rights would.

i think this subject really needs to be approached more seriously by all. What kind of lesson are we teaching our future generations when we tell them it's not ok to be who you are?!

oh wait, sorry. It is ok to be who you are, but just don't let anyone else know about it.

grr!

[Kanada Kev]

instead of banning prayer from schools, wouldn't it be nice if there were say... a devoted time slot each morning to prayers of all sorts? or instead of banning a cross from hanging on a wall, if that wall was devoted to all kinds of religious symbols and students were encouraged to express themselves and show off their religions? be it whatever? i think these ideas would promote a certain level of awareness and tolerance that we all seek, much more than hiding who you are and what you believe and having your government deny you individual rights would.

Birdy, I agree with you that that would be a nice idea. We can learn from the lessons that all religions may teach us. The kids would most likely not have a problem with it. However, it is the parents, and other older people in the community that as a whole would not tolerate this. Unless you can truly be inclusive of all (and not just those that are represented in the classroom) it becomes a very sticky and difficult situation to include these sorts of things in the PUBLIC school classroom.

On an even simpler (is that a word?) situation, have they been able to have ALL religious texts available in courtrooms so that witness can "swear" on their own scriptures that they will tell the truth? What about me? If I had to testify there's no way that I'd promise to tell the truth under the threat of the holy bible. It would be hypocritical of me. Just as there was no way that I was going to get married in a church, or make my wedding vows to any god. My vows are between me and my wife ... no supernatural entity (unless it might be the allmighty FLying Spaghetti Monster ).

Speaking of god ... i just got around to watching a very interesting documentary last night called "Without God". It was on CBC last week on The Lens. Keep an eye out for it if it's in reruns later:

http://www.cbc.ca/thelens/program_090107.html

Peace,

Kanada Kev =8)

[StoneMtn]

Judge's removal of holiday icon termed 'unfortunate'

December 15, 2006

Isabel Teotonio

Staff Reporters

Laurie Monsebraaten

Is the Grinch of political correctness back to steal Christmas?

A Toronto judge this week banished a Christmas tree from a courthouse lobby, reigniting a controversy over public displays many thought ended in 2002, when public outrage overturned a decision to call the Nathan Phillips Square tree a "holiday tree."

The judge's administrative move was "unfortunate" and "represents a misunderstanding of what we are working so hard to build here," Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday, noting Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other faiths' celebrations are marked at Queen's Park.

"We enjoy the wonderful privilege of building a pluralistic, multicultural society," he said, adding no one should be "asked to abandon their traditions."

"It doesn't offend anyone when we celebrate Diwali at Queen's Park or celebrate Hannukah ... That's part and parcel of who we are."

Provincial Conservative Leader John Tory didn't mince words, calling it "political correctness gone crazy."

"It seems to be only well-meaning public officials who get onto these things and decide they're going to make a crusade of it when no one else is raising any concern," said Tory.

Their comments came on the heels of a decision by Justice Marion Cohen, who oversees administration for the Ontario Court of Justice at 311 Jarvis St., to move a small artificial Christmas tree from the main foyer to an administrative corridor Monday. In a letter to staff, Cohen explained it was a Christian symbol that might alienate people of other creeds and cultures.

But religious displays are lighting up many government institutions and courthouses, including a towering Christmas tree at city hall, and a tree and menorah outside Queen's Park.

"We should ban political correctness, not the Christmas tree," said Farzana Hassan, president of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

"This is stupidity and takes political correctness to new heights."

Living in a pluralistic society means tolerating and celebrating our differences, said Faisal Kutty, vice-chair of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada. "I don't believe most Muslims would feel alienated or offended by the sight of a Christmas tree in a courthouse," he said.

"But if they were on the stand and the only option available to them (for swearing in) was the Bible, then people would have a problem."

Their comments were echoed by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan of Thornhill's Chabad@Flamingo Jewish community centre, who called the removal a "terrible thing."

"Our society guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," he said, adding it's ironic that the government funds Catholic schools, yet a court official opposed a Christmas tree.

Cohen declined to comment yesterday, but a spokesperson for the ministry of the attorney general said there is no overall policy and such decisions are up to courthouse administrators.

[color:red]James Morton, president of the Ontario Bar Association, in a letter yesterday to Attorney General Michael Bryant, called for a policy that would specifically allow displays such as Christmas trees in courthouses.

"Inclusiveness and understanding are core values of Canadian society and our justice system, which are only enhanced by the sharing of religious symbols between members of ethnically and religiously diverse communities."

Robert Murray, chair of the philosophy department at Ryerson University, understands the view of some that church and state should be separated, but said he doesn't see the problem with displaying a tree so long as other religious symbols aren't excluded.

"This is part of the challenge of living in a pluralistic society — being able to accept that other people have quite different beliefs and cultures and their right to display them," said Murray, who teaches philosophy of religion.

Celebrating religious diversity in Canada adds to the richness of this country, said Gurmeet Singh of the Nanaksar Satsang Sabha of Ontario, a non-profit Sikh charity. "I don't think Christmas trees are offensive — at my home we have a Christmas tree and lights," said Singh. "This is a multicultural society, and at school my kids celebrate Diwali, Eid, Hanukkah and Christmas."

A recent Workopolis survey found that 83 per cent of Canadians say holiday celebrations have a positive effect on work life.

In 2002, Toronto bureaucrats were caught red-faced when they dubbed the giant tree in Nathan Phillips Square a "holiday tree." Then-mayor Mel Lastman, who is Jewish, ordered staff to restore the Christmas tree moniker and introduced a bylaw that prohibits the tree from being given any other name.

"It is — and forever will be — a Christmas tree," city spokesman Brad Ross said yesterday.

With files from Peter Small, Robert Benzie, Jim Byers and Jim Wilkes

I work with "James Morton". He finds if very funny that this is the comment of his that is making its way around the globe as news. (From Israel to the New York Times.) He has also received calls from a 'very senior' member of the Canadian federal government, who is very pleased at James' support for Christmas trees.

This is just funny, because James has written about 20 books on law, and a million articles. He also teaches, etc. Somehow, though, this is what makes news.

Weird world.

[meggo]

Thanks for posting this meggo. There's lots of court-clogging examples of how we have failed as a society to figure out how to make multi-culturalism work. It's kind of sad really how we Canadians have prided ourselves on being multi-cultural, but now can think of no alternative to get along but to hide our cultural differences.

you know, despite all that, i actually think we are making it work. the article mentions the 'growing pains' of a multicultural society, and i think that's all this is. [look out! lots of italics in this one ]

Instead of banning prayer from schools, wouldn't it be nice if there were say... a devoted time slot each morning to prayers of all sorts? or instead of banning a cross from hanging on a wall, if that wall was devoted to all kinds of religious symbols and students were encouraged to express themselves and show off their religions? be it whatever? i think these ideas would promote a certain level of awareness and tolerance that we all seek, much more than hiding who you are and what you believe and having your government deny you individual rights would.

actually... it might not be as bad as you think!

i'll use the school where i teach as an example, in the east part of ottawa, because we have students from pretty much every corner of the earth.

at our school, it is true that there is no lord's prayer at the beginning of the day. we have 'O Canada', and then we have a 'moment of reflection.' i think it is this 'moment' that is meant to serve, as you say, as the time slot for everyone to say a prayer for them self, should they choose to. i don't think there would be time in the day to have prayers for every religion, every morning, but i don't think that's what you were suggesting we do.

also, prayer itself isn't altogether banned in schools, it's the forcing of everyone to listen to prayer from one religion that's gone, and i think that's good.

however, students are permitted to pray on their own time. 'friday prayer' is an important part of islam, from what i understand, and every friday at lunch a large group of muslim students use one of the bigger classrooms to hold their friday prayers in. admittedly there was some controversy around this a few years ago, but that's not b/c it was prayer, it's because it was islam. that seems to have faded, thankfully.

as for having all the symbols up instead of just the cross; i don't necessarily see anything wrong with that, except if it is a government building then i don't see the need to involve religion there anyway.

multiculturalism is a tricky business, for sure, and from time to time there are going to be seemingly nit-picky things to worry about. but in the end, i think it will work [i think it is working] and personally, i am happier with that than the 'melting pot' plan across the way.

[Birdy]

Birdy, I agree with you that that would be a nice idea. We can learn from the lessons that all religions may teach us. The kids would most likely not have a problem with it. However, it is the parents, and other older people in the community that as a whole would not tolerate this. Unless you can truly be inclusive of all (and not just those that are represented in the classroom) it becomes a very sticky and difficult situation to include these sorts of things in the PUBLIC school classroom.

I think parents will have a hard time with or without Kev. Banning or including just pisses off a different set of them, respectively.

On an even simpler (is that a word?) situation, have they been able to have ALL religious texts available in courtrooms so that witness can "swear" on their own scriptures that they will tell the truth? What about me? If I had to testify there's no way that I'd promise to tell the truth under the threat of the holy bible. It would be hypocritical of me. Just as there was no way that I was going to get married in a church, or make my wedding vows to any god. My vows are between me and my wife ... no supernatural entity (unless it might be the allmighty FLying Spaghetti Monster ).

But don't you like that choice? That's the real matter of it all to me, at least. Is that there is a choice! Is it fair that in order to entertain your views and beliefs, we disregard those who don't share the same? Is that how we're making multiculturalism work? It's like punishing all the kids for the rude behaviour of one. "If you can't play nice, NOONE PLAYS!"

Meggo, I admit that it's great that your school is taking initiative in being inclusionary, but I also think there is a place for the same amongst all public institutions-- including government. They're supposed to represent the values of the 'public', so why are we stopping at the school door? A lot of lefties look at organized religion as thwarting, but rather I think the lack of understanding and awareness and eventually acceptance of religion is thwarting. How can we understand that which we don't know!? It will be a far easier task for us to teach little ones acceptance than their elders, but we need to try. And pretending it doesn't exist, or not recognizing it's existence, is definitely not the answer.

[Kanada Kev]

I think parents will have a hard time with or without Kev. Banning or including just pisses off a different set of them, respectively.

Agreed. That's what I'm trying to get at. Those that are at the complete opposite ends should come to some sort of understanding. If you enroll a child in the PUBLIC school system (funded by ALL taxpayers) than, IMHO, it should be inclusionary. As a parent, I should be made aware of the fact that my child may/will learn about a number of religions. If I have a problem with that, then I can find private education elsewhere in which a specific code is mandated. If, as a parent, i am pissed that there is no religious teachings at a public school that follow my religious beliefs, then I should enroll the child in a religious based school.

Like you said, there will be people getting mad either way. My wonderful wife is a teacher in the public school system and she encourages her kids' parents to come in and help the kids learn about their special customs and traditions. Even if there isn't a child representing a certain culture, she goes out of her way to do a little something (e.g. Chinese New Year) Kids love learning about it all. It's the parents that freak out.

Meggo, I admit that it's great that your school is taking initiative in being inclusionary, but I also think there is a place for the same amongst all public institutions-- including government. They're supposed to represent the values of the 'public', so why are we stopping at the school door? A lot of lefties look at organized religion as thwarting, but rather I think the lack of understanding and awareness and eventually acceptance of religion is thwarting. How can we understand that which we don't know!? It will be a far easier task for us to teach little ones acceptance than their elders, but we need to try. And pretending it doesn't exist, or not recognizing it's existence, is definitely not the answer.

Great points. I'm with you on most of it. I do think that government is a little different than the public school system though. It's the whole church/state separation issue. There was a great quote in Without God where it was explained why the two must be kept separate in a democratic governmental system. By not including it, it allows for dissent. And from that voice of dissent, changes can occur through democratic processes. Religion creates a majority population where their supernatural beliefs, that have a specific code of absolute rights and wrongs with NO ability for change (look at the Vatican) then it alters the pureness of the democracy.

I'm not sure if that all came out as intelligently as I had wanted it, but I hope it makes some sort of sense.

I know that Bush's 2004 state of the union address was posted here recently by accident. But the ending of that one is particularly interesting. As for anyone who is not a believer in the Christian faith, how would this finale make you feel about being a truly equal member of such a great nation?

My fellow citizens, we now move forward, with confidence and faith. Our nation is strong and steadfast. The cause we serve is right, because it is the cause of all mankind. The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable -- and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.

May God continue to bless America.

[d_rawk]

A lot of lefties look at organized religion as thwarting, but rather I think the lack of understanding and awareness and eventually acceptance of religion is thwarting. How can we understand that which we don't know!? It will be a far easier task for us to teach little ones acceptance than their elders, but we need to try. And pretending it doesn't exist, or not recognizing it's existence, is definitely not the answer.

I think that's absolutely true. It seems to me though that we need to start with a clean slate because of the very real experiences most people have had of having one particular kind of faith pushed at them or the perception of having it shoved down their throats.

A clean break for a generation or so just seems necessary before most people are going to be able to address this issue without jaundiced eyes and without bringing a whole lot of baggage to the table. Otherwise I fear we'll keep going around these same circles, and get the next lot caught up in all the same old kinds of debates with all the same old kinds of pre-assumptions informing them ...

[edit to address Kanada Kev's thoughts]

That was a great post, Kev.

There was a great quote in Without God where it was explained why the two must be kept separate in a democratic governmental system. By not including it, it allows for dissent. And from that voice of dissent, changes can occur through democratic processes. Religion creates a majority population where their supernatural beliefs, that have a specific code of absolute rights and wrongs with NO ability for change (look at the Vatican) then it alters the pureness of the democracy.

One thing that is important for me is to draw a distinction between a state sanctioned and endorsed religion, which is absolutely dangerous, and allowing enough room for independent faith to interact with official institutions without being squeezed out due to the fear of the former. IMO, that runs the risk of insulating government from criticism and dissent from without.

We're in a precarious spot right now where it is really difficult to tell where one stops and the other begins, because we do have this long history of the latter creeping into the former. But the most powerful and changing dissent usually does originate in traditions of faith (think underground railroad, or the freeing of one's own slaves long before there was any legal obligation to do so, or who were the first people performing same sex marriages in defiance of the state, or conscientious objection, or the civil rights movement under Martin Luther King Jr., or agitation on behalf of the impoverished, or all the way back to imperial Rome -- and that's just within one tradition).

It's crucial not to lose all of that powerful dissent that speaks truth to authority, but crucial also to not allow it be taken over by that authority itself.

Again, I'm not sure that we, collectively, are in a position to navigate all of that because our reactions to these things tend to be more emotional than reasoned owing to all sorts of factors. Just felt the need to express it

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I wish I had the rest of the day to spend on this thread - awesome discussion!

Wouldn't it be great to have, as people like Habermas argue, some consensus on procedure, so that people coming into mixed social scenarios had groundrules for what were permissible and impermissible kinds of argument, and where people could see, without undue duress, where they themselves were out of bounds and step back. But what do you do with insecurity expressed as sheer, dogged determination?

I just lost a bit of time right now trying to track down a news piece I heard on the radio the other day about some students in Montreal (iirc) whose "fundamentalist" (I hate the word out of proper context, but that was the language in the story) sought an exemption for them for music classes, as they believed that music was "un-Qur'anic". The opposing voice was provided by a mainstream Muslim who pointed out that these people were marginal, and, to paraphrase, totally whacked. It occurred to me that if the complainants were to take the time to listen to anybody, it would sooner be to someone peripherally within their own fold, rather than the damned secular authorities, just because they had the means to speak from within the logics of that tradition.

I wonder if that's not among the better of the ways to deal with these kinds of dissent - to make them, where possible, in-house debates; what that might entail is that responsibility for dealing with normative problems like all these is for people (however nominally) related to different traditions to engage the aggrieved from within those languages - to use, e.g., scripture against those who wield scripture as a weapon.

But then we're back to the problem of how little education there is out there about these traditions (how many nominal Christians, e.g., really know that much about their tradition?), which means the only people left with authority in and for those traditions are the (sorry again for the term) "fundamentalists".

But you don't get very far trying to advance those sorts of concerns to governments - at least, that was certainly what I saw when a group I was working with a few years back got into discussions with the Ontario Min. of Ed.

[meggo]

and in the same vein... the quebec saga continues:

Retract xenophobic 'standards,' Quebec town asked

JILL MAHONEY

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Organizations representing minorities are outraged by a Quebec town's “standards†for newcomers, calling them insulting and xenophobic.

The town council of Hérouxville issued a set of wide-ranging rules for immigrants considering moving there, including bans on beating or burning women alive, veiling one's face and children carrying symbolic weapons to school.

“It is totally distasteful to see someone using this kind of writing and putting it in a public domain, and this is not just an ordinary someone, these are people in authority,†said Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal.

Critics urged Quebec Premier Jean Charest — who called the standards an “isolated case†earlier this week — to strongly denounce the town officials. They also want the mayor and councillors to apologize and retract the document.

The standards, which the town sent to provincial and federal governments last week and wants immigrants to read before deciding to settle in Hérouxville, come during pitched debates in Quebec over the integration of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities.

“It tries to make a mockery of this whole debate about reasonable accommodation, and it tries to say that these are our rules and if you don't like them, don't come here,†said Steven Slimovitch, national legal counsel for B'nai Brith Canada. “The whole tone of the document, and it says so quite clearly, is that this is the law of the strong.â€

Hérouxville is a town of 1,300, including just one immigrant family, in central Quebec, about 165 kilometres northeast of Montreal. Officials, who say they want to attract more immigrants, say the document is intended to help newcomers “integrate socially.â€

“We would especially like to inform the new arrivals that the lifestyle that they left behind in their birth country cannot be brought here with them and they would have to adapt to their new social identity,†it says.

Hérouxville's initiative is spreading, with the town council in a nearby village, Saint-Roch-de-Mékinac, set to debate a similar resolution Friday night. Mayor Claude Dumont said the resolution is “saying out loud what some people are thinking quietly but don't have the balls to say.â€

Mr. Dumont added that three other communities outside of his village, population 311, are thinking of passing their own resolutions.

Hérouxville officials have said the standards are in response to recent culture clashes, including at a Montreal gym where windows were obscured to block the view of exercising women from a nearby Hasidic Jewish synagogue and school.

The Hérouxville document says women can drive, dance, vote, sign cheques and speak for themselves. Boys and girls swim together in the same pools, men and women ski on the same slopes and play hockey on the same rinks. “Don't be surprised, this is normal for us,†it says.

The only time residents can veil their faces, it says, is during Halloween. It also dismisses Muslim and Jewish dietary laws, saying: “If our children eat meat, for example, they don't need to know where it came from or who killed it. Our people eat to nourish the body, not the soul.â€

While the standards largely target Muslims, they also refer to practices of Sikhs, who carry kirpans, or ceremonial religious daggers; Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions; and Orthodox Jews, who obey strict dietary laws. However, several of the town's standards, such as not killing women, are already illegal under the Criminal Code and others, such as the right to carry a kirpan or wear a head covering, are protected by court rulings or human-rights legislation.

“It really seems like statements that are very far out there. It's something that I feel that has already been covered and I feel almost as if we're going back to a debate of 30 years ago,†said Sameer Zuberi, human-rights co-ordinator at the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Mark Ruge, spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada, took issue with the standard that says health-care professionals “do not have to ask permission to perform blood transfusions or any task needed to save a life.â€

“It kind of goes against anything we've ever heard as far as laws protecting people's rights. So some town in Quebec is coming up with something very unusual here.†With a report from Tu Thanh Ha

[ollie]

The town council of Hérouxville issued a set of wide-ranging rules for immigrants considering moving there, including bans on beating or burning women alive...

This seems to imply that beating or burning women alive is not banned in other towns.

Don't we have assault laws to cover this stuff?

[meggo]

yep, that is definitely one of the points that the article touches on. it seems as though these towns don't see themselves as falling under any jurisdiction but their own:

"While the standards largely target Muslims, they also refer to practices of Sikhs, who carry kirpans, or ceremonial religious daggers; Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions; and Orthodox Jews, who obey strict dietary laws. However, several of the town's standards, such as not killing women, are already illegal under the Criminal Code and others, such as the right to carry a kirpan or wear a head covering, are protected by court rulings or human-rights legislation."

tsk tsk!

[Davey Boy 2.0]

nauseating and frightening

I'm all for disliking other people but do it for the individual's sake not their race's

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Hérouxville is a town of 1,300, including just one immigrant family

I wonder what stories they have to tell.

[bouche]

yep, that is definitely one of the points that the article touches on. it seems as though these towns don't see themselves as falling under any jurisdiction but their own:

"While the standards largely target Muslims, they also refer to practices of Sikhs, who carry kirpans, or ceremonial religious daggers; Jehovah's Witnesses, who refuse blood transfusions; and Orthodox Jews, who obey strict dietary laws. However, several of the town's standards, such as not killing women, are already illegal under the Criminal Code and others, such as the right to carry a kirpan or wear a head covering, are protected by court rulings or human-rights legislation."

tsk tsk!

This seems to have stemmed from this bit in montreal:

Men were banned from prenatal classes at one Montreal community centre to accommodate Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women and a city police publication came under fire for suggesting female officers should defer to male colleagues when dealing with men from certain religions.

[meggo]

i'm looking for suggestions.

every week, i have my students write a response to something of my choosing. last week i had them respond to a proposed banning of cell phones in the toronto district school board. this week i'd like to do something with this article [or the follow-up article from today].

i'm wondering what kind of question i could ask them, how to word it, etc.., keeping in mind that they are grade 10 students [15 years old].

thoughts?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

How about something like, "What reasons, if any, should there be for asking that new immigrants to Canada stop exercising, or to privatise, particular cultural practices?" That seems to be what the kerfuffle in Quebec was about, and could open up a discussion of private/public religion that might be useful.

[meggo]

thanks dave! that helped. we had a nice little discussion.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Mon plaisir. Any good insights from the little folks?

[meggo]

hmmm...

well, they did bring up the idea of "what is Canadian culture anyway if not a big mix of ideas brought from various waves of immigrants over time?", which i was impressed with!

they also believed that accommodation is a two-way street, with give and take on both sides, which i thought was good.

and they thought that the town of herouxville sounds like a bunch of idiots, which i also thought was good.